Sri Shaik Meerakhasim Saheb

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II-METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR

RAILWAYS, VIJAYAWADA.

Present:- Sri Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb, B.A., LL.M.,

II-Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada.

Wednesday, this the 13th day of May, 2015

C.C.No.770 of 2010

Between:

Sri Venkata Durga Steel Enterprises, Rep. by its Managing Partner K.Krishna S/o. Kotaiah, Hindu, aged 50 years, Plot No.232 Iron Complex, Bhavanipuram,

Vijayawada. ...Complainant.

Vs.

Sri Boyapati Srinivasa Rao @ Raja, S/o. Rama Mohana Rao, Aged: 40 years, Viswanatha Iyyar Works at Tata Steel Co., Opp: Water Tank, B.B. Gudem, Near Gannavaram, Krishna District. … Accused.

This case coming before me on 7-05-2014 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Akula Bhaskara Rao, Sri Sultan Ahmed, Counsel for the Complainant and of Sri B. Jawaharlal David, Advocate for the Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

The accusation levelled against the accused is that he issued three cheques bearing Nos.883440, dt.14.5.2008 for Rs.1,68,910/-; cheque No.

116767, dt.9.6.2008 for Rs.2,00,000/- and Cheque No.116768, dt.18.6.2008 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd., M.G. Road,

Vijayawada Branch and the said cheques were returned unpaid due to ‘funds insufficient’ and the said three cheques were dishonoured and thereby the accused committed offence punishable U/s. 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act.

2

2. The necessary facts for disposal of the case in nutshell are stated as follows:-

The complainant is a registered firm and doing iron and steel business and that the accused purchased iron from the complainant on credit from time to time and making part payments acknowledging his debt and liability and all the transactions are duly entered in the accounts books maintained by the complainant and the accused has lastly paid

Rs.12,000/- on 12.01.2006, under receipt No.53 acknowledging his debt and liability. Later, the accused failed to pay the balance amount due along with interest at the rate of 24 % p.a., as per the trade custom and usage. Further, as per the instructions of accused, account is opened in the name of “Viswanadha Iyyar Works at Tata Steel Co.”, Gannavaram,

3. On repeated demands made by the complainant to pay the balance amount due under the above said Khata along with interest the accused issued cheques bearing Nos.883440, dt.14.5.2008 for Rs.1,68,910/-; cheque No.116767, dt.9.6.2008 for Rs.2,00,000/- and Cheque No.116768, dt.18.6.2008 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd., M.G. Road,

Vijayawada Branch, towards the part payment of amount due under the above said Khata. The complainant has presented the said three cheques for collection through its banker, Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd.,

Vijayawada-1, but the said cheques were returned along with accused bankers memo dt.26.8.2008 with a specific endorsement “Funds

Insufficient.”Later, the complainant got issued a legal notice dt.1.09.2008 through registered post and certificate of post, accused received the same, but the accused did not give any reply nor paid the cheque amount to the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to punish the accused.

4. This case was originally filed on the file of I-Metropolitan

Magistrate at Vijayawada and assigned C.C.No.170/2009.

3

5. During the pendency of this case, it was transferred from I-

Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada to this court as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in

Dis.No.4474, dt.1.11.2010 and this court renumbered the same as

C.C.No.770/2010.

6. On appearance of the accused, copies of case record furnished to the accused as per section 207 Cr.P.C., and the accused is examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C., by explaining the substance of the accusation constituting an offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the matter was posted for trial.

7. In support of its claim, the Managing Partner of Sri Venkata Durga

Steel Enterprises i.e., Sri K.Krishna, S/o. Kotaiah got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.18. After closer of the complainant side evidence, the accused was examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C., enabling him to explain the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against him for which he denied the said evidence as false and adduced his evidence and himself examined as D.W.1 and no documents were marked.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the points that arise for consideration are –

1) Whether the complainant has proved the business transactions in between the complainant/firm and the accused in his individual capacity or on behalf of Viswanadha Iyyar Works at Tata Steel Co, Gannavaram? If so, whether the accused has to pay the debt covered under Ex.P.15 Account Copy?

2) Whether Exs.P.1 to P.3 cheques were issued by the accused to the complainant towards the existing or legally enforceable debt covered under Ex.P.15 Account copy?

3) Whether the complainant has proved the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and whether the accused is liable for punishment of the same?

4

10. POINTS 1 & 2:-

To prove the above case, the complainant/firm got examined one K.

Krishna as P.W.1 and got marked EXs.P.1 to P.18. Exs.P1 to P3 are the cheques dt.14.5.2006, 9.6.2008 and 18.6.2008 for Rs.1,68,910/-,

Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-, Exs.P.4 to P.6 are the return memos issued by the accused banker dt.26.8.2008, Ex.P.7 to P.9 are the debit advises issued by the complainant banker, Ex.P.10 is the office copy of the legal notice, Ex.P.11 is the C.O.P., receipt, Ex.P.12 is the certified copy of form ‘C’, Ex.P.13 is the certified copy of form ‘A’. Ex.P14 is the authorization, Ex.P.15 is the account copy, Ex.P.16 is the registered post receipt No.884, Ex.P.17 is the letter addressed to the Sub Post Master,

Civil Court Compound, Vijayawada, Ex.P.18 is the reply to the Ex.P.17 letter by the post master.

11. It is well settled proposition of law that the initial burden lies on the drawee i.e., complainant to prove that the cheque in question was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability due to the complainant.

Once the complainant discharges from his initial burden, the onus of proof shifts on to the accused to rebut the presumption U/s 139 of N.I. Act that such cheque was not issued for legally enforceable debt or liability.

At this juncture, it is to be evaluated that whether the complainant could be discharged from his initial burden to prove that Exs.P.1 to P.3 cheques were issued for legally enforceable debt or liability.

12. To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant got examined its Managing Partner Sri K. Krishna as PW.1 and filed his chief affidavit, he reiterated the averments of the complaint filed by him.

According to his evidence the accused purchased iron from the complainant/firm on credit from time to time and making part payments acknowledging his debt and liability and all the transactions are duly entered in the account books maintained by the complainant and the accused has lastly paid Rs.12,000/- on 12.01.2006, under receipt No.53, acknowledging his debt and liability. Later on the accused failed to pay 5 the balance amount due, The accused is liable to pay the balance amount along with interest @ 24 % p.a., a per the trade custom and usage and further as per the instructions of accused, account is opened on the name of “Viswanadha Iyyar Works at Tata Steel Co.,” Gannavaram. On repeated demands made by the complainant to pay the balance amount the accused had issued Exs.P.1 to P.3 cheques drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd.,

M.G. Road, Vijayawada Branch, towards the part payment of amount due under Ex.P.15 Account copy. The complainant has presented the said three cheques for collection through its banker, Tamilnadu Mercantile

Bank Ltd., Vijayawada-1, and the said cheques were dishonoured vide

Ex.P.4 to P.6 memos dt.26.08.2008 with a specific endorsement as “Funds

Insufficient.”Later, the complainant got issued Ex.P.10 legal notice dt.1.09.2008 to the accused and he received the same and failed to pay the cheque amount. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint against the accused to punish him as per law.

13. To rebut the evidence adduced by the P.W.1, the accused has examined himself as D.W.1 and to substantiate his defence D.W.1 filed his chief affidavit, deposed in his evidence that he is not liable to pay any amount due to the complainant/firm and Viswanadha Iyyar Works at Tata

Steel Co, Gannavaram was not mentioned as a party in the complaint and further contended that there is no enforceable debt due to the complainant/firm and the complaint is barred by time and further submitted that he issued blank cheques to one M.M. Kishore as guarantor at the time of loan taken from the complainant by M.M. Kishore and

Ex.P.16 relates to Viswanadha Iyyar Works at Tata Steel Company, but not him and there is no legally enforceable debt due to the complainant/firm and he never issued cheques to the complainant. The complainant/firm filed the complaint to cause wrongful loss to him and he is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant/firm and Ex.P.15 account copy is no way concerned to him and requested the court to dismiss the complaint.

6

14. As can be seen from the evidence of PW.1 and D.W.1, the admitted facts are that D.W.1 admitted that PW.1 is the Managing Partner of Sri

Venkata Durga Steel Enterprises.

15. The contention of the PW.1 is that the accused purchased iron material from the complainant/firm on credit basis and making part payments acknowledging the debt and liability and lastly he paid

Rs.12,000/- on 12.1.2006 under receipt No.53 acknowledging his debt and liability. Further, the contention of the PW.1 is that Ex.P.15 account was opened as per the instructions of the accused in the name of “Viswanadha Iyyar Works at Tata Steel Co.,” Gannavaram and the accused issued Exs.P.1 to P.3 cheques towards part payment of the debt covered under Ex.P.15 account copy and the said three cheques were dishonoured.

16. On the other hand, the contention of the defence is that D.W.1 not issued Exs.P.1 to P.3 towards discharge of debt covered under Ex.P.15 account copy, but Exs.P.1 to P.3 blank cheques were given to one M.M.

Kishore for security purpose for the debt incurred from the complainant/firm and the accused is no way concerned to the complainant/firm and he is never purchased the iron material and the complainant/firm did not file any single voucher or original ledger book

before this Court. Hence, he request the court to acquit him.

17. No doubt, there is a presumption U/s. 139 of Negotiable

Instruments Act that the cheques were issued by the accused to the complainant/firm for discharge of debt amount, the said presumption is a rebuttal one. The accused has to rebut it by placing evidence on record.

Since it is a criminal case, we cannot expect enter the accused into witness box to give his evidence in token to rebut his presumption. Even then, the accused examined as D.W.1 and adduced his evidence. The 7 accused could elicit favourble evidence during the cross-examination of the PW.1, to rebut the presumption or accused can adduce independent witness to rebut it as to consider whether the accused has rebutted the said presumption or not.

18. In this case, as stated supra the complaint/firm examined its one of the Managing Partner K. Krishna as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.18 and none other examined.

19. On behalf of the accused he examined as D.W.1. The evidence of

PW.1 and D.W.1 is available to the Court to scrutiny the points on hand, to come to a conclusion how far the accused is rebutted the said presumption. As per the contents of complaint and the evidence of PW.1, the accused himself purchased iron material from the complainant on credit basis and made part payments and the last payment of Rs.12,000/- was paid by the accused on 12.1.2006 and failed to pay the balance amount and the complainant opened the account in the name of “Viswanadha

Iyyar Works at Tata Steel Co.,” Gannavaram, as per the request made by the accused and that the accused had given cheques Exs.P.1 to P.3 to the complainant/firm towards discharge of said debt, the same is denied by the accused.

20. The complainant/firm/P.W.1 did not place any evidence that the accused was opened the account on the name of “Viswanadha Iyyar

Works at Tata Steel Co.,” Gannavaram as per the request made by the accused. The accused denied the transactions entered by him. The complainant/firm filed account copy i.e., loose sheets filed in the court and it was marked as Ex.P.15 by the PW.1 and Ex.P.15 did not contain the name of the accused or his signature acknowledging his debt or transactions. In fact, the complainant/firm is a registered firm and admittedly the maintaining of account books/ledgers/account sheets, day book ledger and receipt books. P.W.1 stated that Ex.P.15 account copy is 8 a loose sheet. So, Ex.P.15 is not a original or ledger or day book. PW.1 did not produce the original account of complainant/firm before the court, for verification with the account of the accused covered by Ex.P.15. No opportunity is given to the accused to cross-examine the PW.1 regarding entries mentioned in original account book of the complainant firm. So, it is fatal to the case of the complainant/firm.

21. This Court already pointed out above that Ex.P.15 copy of account relied on by P.W.1 do not contain the details of the accused, such as name or his signature to connect him with the entries or due mentioned under

Ex.P.15. It is not the case of the complainant firm that the accused issued Exs.P.1 to P.3 cheques on behalf of Viswanadha Iyyar Works at

Tata Steel Co, Gannavaram towards discharge of the debt covered under

Ex.P.15 account copy. A perusal of Exs.P.1 to P.3 cheques the three cheques were issued by the accused in his individual capacity but not represented by Viswanadha Iyyar Works at Tata Steel Co, Gannavaram.

22. It is not the case of the complainant/firm or evidence of PW.1 that the accused in his individual capacity due some amount to the complainant/firm. Moreover, no record of the firm is filed in this case showing that the accused in his individual capacity entered into transactions of purchase of iron material on credit basis and made some part payments and fell due some amount and as seen from Ex.P.15 account copy, there is no signature of the accused on it and as stated by PW.1 in his complaint that the accused made part payments acknowledging his debt liability and lastly he paid Rs.12,000/- on 12.1.2006 and acknowledged his debt and liability. A perusal of Ex.P.15 there is no endorsement of the accused or signature of the accused acknowledging the debt as stated by the PW.1 in his complaint or in his chief affidavit.

23. Here, it is a case where the accused made out his defence from the evidence of PW.1 and documents marked on their behalf and got 9 elicited favourable evidence, thereby the accused discharged the above presumption to prove that the accused is not fell due any amount in his individual capacity to the complainant/firm to consider that Exs.P.1 to P.3 cheques were issued to the accused to the complainant/firm towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. Besides that the accused himself entered into the witness box as D.W.1 and gave opportunity to the complainant/firm for cross-examination. Accordingly, D.W.1 was cross- examined by the PW.1, PW.1 did not elicit any favorable evidence during the cross-examination of D.W.1 to show that the accused in his individual capacity fell due some amount to the complainant firm and issued Exs.P.1 to P.3 cheques towards discharge of the said debt. The complainant/firm did not place any evidence except the self serving testimony of PW.1 i.e., chief affidavit of PW.1 in what way the accused is connected to

Viswanadha Iyyar Works at Tata Steel Co, Gannavaram.

24. If really, the accused purchased iron material from the complainant/firm on credit basis in the individual capacity or on behalf of

Viswanadha Iyyar Works at Tata Steel Co, Gannavaram, there should be record available with the complainant/firm, such as receipts or day book, payment vouchers, but no such record is placed by the complainant/firm for the reasons best known to the complainant/firm.

25. In this regard, the learned defense counsel relied on a decision in the case of:

M S NARAYANA MENON @ MANI V/S STATE OF KERALA

Reported in: 2006 Law Suit (SC) 504

I have gone through the above cited decision, wherein the Hon’ble

Apex Court elaborately discussed the presumptions U/s. 139 and 118

(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act and further at para No.44 drawn adverse inferences against the 2nd respondent in the above said decision and wherein he deliberately has not produced his books of 10 accounts and he had not been maintained the statutory books of accounts and other registers. In the instant case also the complainant has not produced books of accounts and the said decision is squarely applicable to the instant case and this Court also taken adverse inference against the complainant/firm, as he failed to produce original books of accounts.

26. PW.1 stated in his evidence that his accounts were audited, but no audit account copy is produced before this court. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 remains oral version without supported by any record much less account books, vouchers, thereby, it carry no importance for consideration.

27. Even Ex.P.15 account copy is concerned, it is a criminal case, which is not based on recovery of amount and at best Ex.P.15 discloses that

Viswanadha Iyyar Works at Tata Steel Co, Gannavaram fell due to the complainant/firm but not by the accused in his individual capacity.

28. It is not the case of the complainant/firm that the accused in his individual capacity issued Exs.P.1 to P.3 cheques towards discharge of debt of Viswanadha Iyyar Works at Tata Steel Co, Gannavaram. On the other hand, the accused by himself came as witness examined as D.W.1 and placed his evidence that he issued blank cheques as a guarantor/security for the debt entered by one M.M.Kishore. It I not the case of the complainant/firm that the accused gave cheques not to discharge the debt of M.M. Kishore, in any angle mentioned so far supra the accused rebutted the presumption. Therefore, the complainant failed to produce admissible evidence to show that the accused gave Exs.P.1 to

P.3 cheques towards legally enforceable debt. On this point alone the case of the complainant is failed.

11

29. P.W.1 also admitted in his cross-examination that he is getting the records audited every year and he used to mention the account of each party in a loose sheet and the defence counsel relied upon a decision reported in the case of: Central Bureau of Investigation, Appellant Vs.

V.C. Shukla and others, Respondents reported in A.I.R. 1998 Supreme

Court 1406, wherein it was held at para No.18 that “18. ‘Book’ ordinarily means a collection of sheets of paper or other

material, blank, written, or printed, fastened or bound together so

as to form a material whole. Loose sheets or scraps of paper

cannot be termed as ‘book’ for they can be easily detached and

replaced. The unbound sheets of paper in whatever quantity, though

filled up with one continuous account, are not a book of account

within the purview of Section 34.”

And further held that –

“The two spiral note books (MR 68/91 and MR 70/91) are ‘books’

within the meaning of Section 34, but notd the loose sheets of

papers contained in the two files (MR 72/91 and 73/91).”

So, in the instant case, P.W.1 filed an account copy and as admitted by

P.W.1 himself, it is a loose sheet, so it will not comes under section 34 of

Evidence Act.

30. The defence counsel also relied on another decision in the case of:

Laxminivas Agarwal, Vs. Andhra Semi Conductors Pvt., Ltd.,

Hyderabad and others, reported in 2006(1) A.L.D. (Crl.) 300 (A.P.),

Wherein the Hon’ble High Court held in para No.17 that

“17. In the instant case also this Court found on question

of fact that three cheques Exs.P-1 to P-3 were taken

only as security for prompt repayment and those cheques

were not issued by the accused towards the discharge of

any debt or other liability and further held that the

Legislature intends to punish only those who knowing fully

well that they have no amount in the bank and yet issued

any cheque in discharge of debt or liability already

borrowed/incurred which amounts to cheating and not to

punish those who could not discharge the debts borrowed

or the liability incurred on account of financial

stringency. If Section 138 of the Act can be made

12

applicable to all the debts borrowed or the liability

incurred by furnishing blank cheques as security, every

borrower under a Negotiable Instrument who fails to

repay the same can be prosecuted. Merely because the

signatures in the cheques are admitted, it cannot be said

in all cases that the drawer of the said cheque is liable

for punishment under section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act in the event of dishonor of those

cheques.”

31. The above decision is squarely applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand, as the Exs.P.1 to P.3 blank cheque were issued by D.W.1 to P.W.1 as a security for the loan amount of M.M.

Kishore.

32. POINT No.3:

In view of my above foregoing discussion on point Nos.1 and 2 and considering the above legal decisions, P.W.1 failed to establish that

Exs.P.1 to P.3 cheques were issued by the accused on behalf of

Viswanadha Iyyar Works at Tata Steel Co, Gannavaram towards discharge of legally enforceable debt or other liability covered under

Ex.P.15 account copy and on the other hand, Accused/D.W.1 adduced acceptable evidence and the said defence has been accepted as probable than the evidence adduced by the P.W.1/Complainant, thereby the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

33. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he is acquitted u/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence, the bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb,

II-Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways. Vijayawada.

13

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Complainant: For Defence:

PW.1: K. Krishna. DW.1: B. Srinivasa Rao.

Exhibits Marked for Complainant

Ex.P.1 14.05.2008 Ch.No.883440 for Rs.1,68,910/-. Ex.P.2 09.06.2008 Ch.No.116767 for Rs.2,00,000/-. Ex.P.3 18.06.2008 Ch.No.116768 for Rs.2,00,000/-. Ex.P.4 26.08.2008 Return Memo of ING Vysya Bank. Ex.P.5 26.08.2008 Return Memo of ING Vysya Bank. Ex.P.6 26.08.2008 Return Memo of ING Vysya Bank. Ex.P.7 26.08.2008 Debit advise. Ex.P.8 26.08.2008 Debit advise Ex.P.9 26.08.2008 Debit advise. Ex.P.10 01.09.2008 Office copy of legal notice. Ex.P.11 01.09.2008 Certificate of Posting Receipt. Ex.P.12 15.05.1997 Certified copy of Form C. Ex.P.13 15.05.1997 Certified copy of Form A. Ex.P.14 01.07.2007 Authorization. Ex.P.15 Account copy. Ex.P.16 01.09.2008 Registered post receipt No.884. Ex.P.17 Letter addressed to Sub Post Master Civil Court Compound, Vijayawada. Ex.P.18 Reply to Ex.P.17 letter by Post master.

Exhibits Marked for Defence

-N I L –

Sd/- S.M.K.S.

II M.M (Rlys.) VJA

// True Copy //

II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways,

Vijayawada.

14

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR

RAILWAYS, VIJAYAWADA

C.C. 770 / 2010

Date of:

Offence : 14.05.08, 9.6.08, 18.6.08

Complaint : 20-10-2008

Apprehension of the accused : -

Commencement of Trial : 07-04-2010

Closure of Trial : 05-05-2015

Judgment : 13-05-2015

Complainant: Sri Venkata Durga Steel Enterprises, Rep. by its Managing Partner K.Krishna S/o. Kotaiah, Hindu, aged 50 years, Plot No.232 Iron Complex, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

Accused: Sri Boyapati Srinivasa Rao @ Raja, S/o. Rama Mohana Rao, Aged: 40 years, Viswanatha Iyyar Works at Tata Steel Co., Opp: Water Tank, B.B. Gudem, Near Gannavaram, Krishna District.

Provision of Law: U/S.138 N.I. Act.

Finding: Found not guilty

Result: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he is acquitted u/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence, the bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Explanation for delay:- This case was originally taken on the file by the

I-Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and numbered as C.C.No.170/2009 and subsequently this case was transferred to this court as per the proceedings of Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and the same was renumbered as present C.C.770/2010. On 17.03.2010 case 15 copies were furnished to the accused U/s.207 Cr.P.C. On 22-4-2010 the accused was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C. The trial was commenced on 7-04- 2010 and during the course of trial, PW.1 is examined and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.17 and complainant’s side evidence is closed on 05-5-2015. On 3-2-2012 the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C, On 7-05-2015 heard the arguments on both sides. On 13.05.2015 Judgment was pronounced.

Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb,

II-METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FOR RAILWAYS, VIJAYAWADA

Copy submitted to –

The Honourable Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Vijayawada.

// True Copy //

II-Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways,

Vijayawada.

1

THE COURT OF II-METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR RAILWAYS,

VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb, B.A., LL.M., II-Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 12th day of May, 2015.

C.C. No. 45 / 2015

Between:

The State, Rep. by The Sub-Inspector, R.P.F., Vijayawada. …Complainant.

A N D:

B. Chandra Sekhar, A/20 years, S/o. Narasimhulu, R/Korlagunta Village, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, C/Besta, Occupation: Cook. … Accused.

This case is coming on 7-05-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T. Murali, Public Prosecutor for the complainant; and of Sri T.R.K. Srinivas, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused; and on hearing both sides and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by the Sub-Inspector, R.P.F., Post,

Vijayawada laid the complaint against the accused in Cr.No.06/2015 for the offence U/s. 3(a) of R.P. (U.P.) Act, 1966.

2. The brief case of the prosecution as unfolded in the complaint is as follows:-

On 09.03.2015 at about 8.15 hours L.W.1 – Sri N. Ramaiah,

SIPF/BZA Post along staff while making rounds in Vijayawada Railway Yard for crime and criminals, noticed one outsider at K.M.No.427/3, near East side of Railway track, near Krishna river, Vijayawada, while he was carrying one polythene bag on his left shoulder and proceeding from South to north side, on suspicion he was detained at K.M.No.427/3, on east side of

Railway track near river Krishna, Vijayawada, summoned two nearby mediators and in their presence the polythene bag was examined and found to contain 02 nos., of fish plates in it. On enquiry, he revealed his identity particulars as accused, he further stated that on that day he 2 entered into railway area, Vijayawada and committed theft of 02 nos., of fish plates, which were lying by the side of Railway track at K.M. No.427/3 on east side of railway track, Vijayawada and concealed them in a polythene bag and proceeding to dispose the same to any one for money.

Meanwhile he was caught by RPF. On enquiry he did not have any valid voucher/receipt for the lawful possession of the said property. The accused along with seized property were brought to RPF Post, Vijayawada and registered a case in Crime No.06/2015 U/s.3(a) of R.P.(U.P.) Act. On the same day i.e., on 09.03.2015 the accused along with seized property produced before the Court for Judicial custody. After completion of enquiries the complainant laid charge sheet against the accused.

3. This case was taken cognizance for the offence U/s.3(a) of

R.P.(U.P.) Act, 1966.

4. On production of the accused, copies of complaint was furnished to him as per section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. During the course of preliminary enquiry, the Public Prosecutor filed a pre-charge memo to dispense with the enquiry before the charges and the accused not stated any objection and the said memo is recorded and the accused is examined U/s. 246(2) Cr.P.C., and a charge U/s.3(a) of

R.P.(U.P) Act against the accused has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. Accused submitted that he has no means to engage an Advocate.

Hence, Sri T.R.K. Srinivas, Legal Aid Counsel is appointed to defend the case of the accused.

7. To prove its case, the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7, besides M.O.1. L.Ws.4 to 7 (Sri Dhoda Suresh

Babu, Sri P. Anil Babu, Sri R.Janaki Rama Rao and Sri P.Krishna) were given up by learned Sri Public Prosecutor.

8. After, the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was explained the incriminating material available on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses U/s.313 Cr.P.C., for which the accused denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

3

9. Heard the learned Sri Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal Aid

Counsel for the accused.

10. Now the point that arises for determination is – “Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt

against the accused for the offence U/s.3(a) of R.P.(U.P) Act or not?”

11. P O I N T:

I have scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution carefully. To prove its case, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.7 besides

M.O.1. PWs.1 and 3 are the investigation officers and they are RPF Officers.

PW.2 is one of the mediators in whose presence arrest of the accused and seizure of the property was made. Ex.P.1 is the theft report; Ex.P.2 is the case property certificate; Ex.P.3 is the statement of L.W.3 – Sri Thalukuri

Srinivas; Ex.P.4 is the statement of L.W.4 – Sri Dhodda Suresh Babu;

Ex.P.5 is the Panchanama; Ex.P.6 is the seizure list; Ex.P.7 is the statement of accused. M.O.1 is the 2 nos., of fish plates.

12. PW.1 – Sri B. Suresh Goud, S.I./RPF/Vijayawada deposed that on 10.03.2015 he took up the enquiries in this case, on 12.3.2015 he received a theft report from LW.5. On 12.3.2015 at about 5.00 p.m., he produced the seized property before LW.5 for certification of the said property and the LW.5 issued case property certificate stating that the seized property are the railway property. On 4.4.2015 he examined and recorded the statements of LWs.3 and 4. After completion of his enquiries, he laid complaint against the accused.

13. PW.2 – Sri Talukuri Srinivas, mediator deposed that on 9.03.2015 at about 8.15 a.m., on the request of LW.1 he attended near Krishna River on east side of Railway track at K.M.No.427/3, by that time one person and

RPF staff was present, that in his presence and another mediator L.W.4,

LW.1 enquired the accused and the accused revealed his identity particulars and the accused further stated that he committed theft of Railway property at the above spot and on verification of said polythene bag they found 2 nos., of fish plates, the accused failed to produce documents for possession of the said property, then P.W.1 arrested the accused and seized the said property under the cover of mediator report in his presence and in the presence of L.W.4 – Sri Dhoda Suresh Babu.

4

14. P.W.3 – Sri N.Ramaiah, SI/RPF Post, Vijayawada deposed that on 9.3.2015 at 8.15 a.m., himself L.Ws.6, 7 and other staff members, while making confidential watch at Railway Yard, Vijayawada they noticed the accused carrying a polythene bag on his left shoulder and proceeding South side to north side at K.M.No.427 and on suspicion they detained the accused at the above spot and summoned two mediators and in their presence the said person was examined and on interrogation the accused revealed his identity particulars as accused and further stated that he committed theft of Railway property by the side of the railway track and on verification of said polythene bag they found 2 nos., of fish plates in the bag. The accused failed to produce any valid voucher/receipt for possession of said property. Then, he explained the reason for the offence, arrested the accused and seized 2 nos. of fish plates under the cover of

Panchanama in the presence of mediators. Later he brought the accused and seized material to the RPF Post/Vijayawada registered a case in Crime

No.06/2015, U/s. 3(a) of R.P.(U.P.) Act and took up enquiries and sent him to the Court for Remand. After completion of enquiry he laid complaint against the accused.

15. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that

P.W.3 did not seize any property from the possession of the accused under the cover of Ex.P.5 Panchanama and the enquiries made by PWs.1 and 3 are table made and the evidence of PW.2 i.e., mediator cannot be looked into as he is a stock mediator to the railway police and interested in the prosecution case.

16. The learned Public Prosecutor would maintain that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is supported with necessary documentary proof showing that the property, in question, belongs to the Indian Railways and apart from the said evidence, the confessional statement of the accused recorded under Ex.P.3 is self explanatory about the manner, how he got possession over the property in question and as such, the accused is liable for appropriate punishment.

17. The defence counsel cross-examined the witnesses PWs.1 to 3 and no material points were elicited from the mouth of the witnesses to suit his defence, except giving formal suggestions to the PWs.1 to 3.

18. The contents of Ex.P.7 confessional statement of accused made

before PW.3, in the presence of PW.2 would go to show that he has

5 committed theft of the property in question from Vijayawada Railway Yard with an intention to dispose the property to somebody to meet his expenses. The contents of Ex.P.7 confessional statement of the accused is corroborating with the evidence of PW.1 & PW.2/independent mediator.

The statement of the accused recorded under Ex.P.7 would indicate that he has voluntarily admitted the offence of committing theft of the said property in the presence of PW.2 and another mediator.

19. PW.2 has categorically deposed about the arrest of the accused and seizure of the property under the cover of Ex.P.5 Panchanama and his evidence coupled with his Ex.P.7 statement recorded by PW.3. The fact remains is that the accused failed to produce any valid record accounting for the property found in his possession. As stated supra, nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 3 by the accused to suspect the theory of the prosecution. The seizure of the property from the accused is evident from Ex.P.1 Panchanama. The evidence placed on record namely PWs.1 to 3 sufficiently indicates that the accused was apprehended on 09-03-2015 at about 8.15 a.m., at K.M.No.427/3 on east side of Railway track, near river Krishna, Vijayawada, having found him in possession of the property covered under M.O.1 and basing on the confession made by the accused about committing theft of property in question.

20. PW.1 seized the said property under Ex.P.5 Panchanama supplied

Ex.P.6 seizure list to the accused and recorded his Ex.P.7 statement.

Accused failed to offer any explanation accounting for the property seized from him and his evidence is coupled with the contents of Ex.P.2 case property certificate, which discloses that the M.O.1 property is exclusively belongs to Indian Railways. There is no contra evidence let in improbablising the case of the prosecution showing that the property will be available in open market. It can be safely concluded that the property in question is of Railway Property and its possession with the accused is quite un-lawful and as such, he is certainly liable for appropriate punishment.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 12th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb,

II-Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada.

6

21.Heard about the quantum of sentence for which, the accused represented that he is doing coolie works and he is having parents and they are depending on his earnings and he further represented he is languishing in jail for more than two months and he will never commit any similar offence in future and hence requested the court to take a lenient view.

22. Having taken into consideration of the representation made by the accused and in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case on hand, and the property involved in this case is worth of Rs.800/- as per record, this court taken a lenient view and to meet the ends of justice and convicted the accused U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C. I do not feel that it is fit case to extend the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act.

23. Sec. 3(a) of the Act itself states that if special and adequate reasons even a lesser sentence can be given. The circumstances that the accused was found in the possession of 2 nos, of fish plates and its total worth is

Rs.800/- was itself circumstance, which deserved to be taken into consideration for determining the sentence to be awarded in this case and more over there is nothing on the record to show that accused was previous convict.

24. In the result, I find that the accused is guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 3(a) of R.P.(U.P) Act and is convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C.

Accordingly the accused is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of Two (2) months. The remand period of the accused i.e., from 09.03.2015 to 12.05.2015 shall be set off U/s.428 Cr.P.C.

The Superintendent of Jail authorities is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases. M.O.1 – 2 Nos., of fish plates shall be returned to the Railway Authorities after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 12th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb,

II-Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada.

7

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1: Sri B. Suresh Goud. - None- P.W.2: Sri Talukuri Srinivas. P.W.3: Sri N. Ramaiah.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P.1-Theft report . -- Nil -- Ex.P.2- Case property certificate. Ex.P.3- Statement of L.W.3 – Sri Thalukuri Srinivas. Ex.P.4- Statement of L.W.4 – Sri Dhodda Suresh Babu. Ex.P.5- Panchanama. Ex.P.6- Seizure list. Ex.P.7- Statement of accused.

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1 –2 nos., of fish plates.

Sd/- S.M.K.S.

II-M.M.,(Rly.) VJA. // True Copy //

II-Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF II-METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR

RAILWAYS, VIJAYAWADA

C.C. 45 / 2015

Date of:

Offence : 09-03-2015

Complaint : 12-03-2015

Apprehension of the accused : 09-03-2015

Released on bail : --

Commencement of Trial : 04-05-2015

Closure of Trial : 06-05-2015

Judgment : 12-05-2015

Complainant: The Sub-Inspector, R.P.F., Vijayawada. Accused: B. Chandra Sekhar, A/20 years, S/o. Narasimhulu, R/Korlagunta Village, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, C/Besta, Occupation: Cook. Provision of Law: U/S. 3(a) of R.P. (U.P.) Act. Finding: Accused is found guilty. Sentence: In the result, I find that the accused is guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 3(a) of R.P.(U.P) Act and is convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C. Accordingly the accused is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of Two (2) months. The remand period of the accused i.e., from 09.03.2015 to 12.05.2015 shall be set off U/s.428 Cr.P.C. The Superintendent of Jail authorities is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases. M.O.1 – 2 Nos., of fish plates shall be returned to the Railway Authorities after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for delay:- This case was taken on file on 27-04-2015 and on 28-04-2015 case copies were furnished to the accused U/s.207 Cr.P.C. On 30-04-2015 the accused was examined U/s.246(2) Cr.P.C. The trial was commenced on 04-05-2015 and during the course of trial, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7, besides M.O.1 and the prosecution side evidence is closed on 06-05-2015. On 7-05-2015 accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., and heard the arguments on the same day. On 12-05-2015 Judgment was Pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb,

II-METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FOR RAILWAYS, VIJAYAWADA

Copy submitted to – The Honourable Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

// True Copy //

II-Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF II-METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR

RAILWAYS, VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb, B.A., LL.M., II-Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 19th day of May, 2015

C.C. No. 81 / 2014

Between:

The State, Rep. by The Asst. Sub-Inspector/RPF, BZA Post. …Complainant. A N D:

1)Kota Ravi Sekhar, Aged 51 years, S/o. Jayaram, Caste: Brahmin, R/o. House No.8-1, Pandithnagar, Guntupalli, Krishna District.

2)Sugandam Raju, Aged: 32 years, S/o. Saibaba, Caste: Viswa Brahmin, R/o. H.No.23-11-1-6/B, Origanalavari veedhi, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada.

3)Sunkuvat Anil Kumar, Age 20 years, S/o. Chathru, caste: Lambadi, R/o. Dhatunagar Colony, Hyderabad.

4)Ramavth Kishan, Age 19 years, S/o. Rakyka, caste: Lambadi,

R/o. Dhatunagar Colony, Hyderabad. ...Accused.

This case is coming on 12-5-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.Murali, Public Prosecutor for the complainant; and of Sri J. Suresh, Advocate for the Accused and on hearing both sides and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Asst. Sub-Inspector, R.P.F Post, Vijayawada has laid the complaint against the accused in Cr.No.87/2013 for the offence U/sec.143 of Railways Act, alleging that on 24-01-2013 at about 11-00 hours the complainant/L.W.1 – Sri J. Yesupadam ASIPF/BZA post along with staff while on rounds about the tout activities, kept a watch at main reservation complex, Vijayawada and noticed A.1 to A.4 while they were in possession of Railway reservation tickets and moving in a suspicious 2 manner and they were detained and summoned two nearby mediators and in their presence A.1 to A.4 revealed their identity particulars. On enquiry A.1 revealed that he is running Sri Vaishnavi Yatra Darshini

Private Limited situated at G-42, Annapurna Complex, Chaitantyapuri,

Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad-60 and with the assistance of A.2 to A.4, he procuring railway reservation cum journey tickets and supplying to needy passengers on commission basis at Rs.200/- per head and on that day also they came to railway reservation complex, Vijayawada and got railway reservation tickets and they were caught by RPF party, on verification they found each 1 no., of railway reservation tickets, on enquiry A.1 to A.4 did not produce any license/authority for procuring supplying railway reservation tickets. Then the complainant arrested A.1 to A.4 and seized the 4 nos., railway reservation tickets and cash of

Rs.3,000/- from A.1 to A.4, brought to RPF Post, Vijayawada and registered a case in Crime No.87/2013, U/s. 143 of Railways Act. On the same day, A.1 to A.4 along with seized property produced before the

Court and they were remanded. After completion of his enquiries the complainant laid the complaint against the accused.

2. This case has taken cognizance for the offence U/s.143 of

Railways Act.

3. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents have been supplied to them as required U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

4. During the course of preliminary enquiry, the Public Prosecutor filed a pre-charge memo to dispense the enquiry before the charges and the accused not stated any objection and the said memo is recorded and the accused are examined U/s. 246(2) Cr.P.C., and a charge U/s.143(a) of

Railways Act has been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to establish the case against the accused, during the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 & 2 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.28.

6. After, the prosecution closed its evidence, the accused were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. For which, the 3 accused denied the evidence of prosecution as false and they did not choose to examine any one on their behalf and mark no documents.

7. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

8. Now the point that arises for determination is – “Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilty of the accused/A.1 to A.4 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/s.143(1)(a) of the Railways Act?”

9. P O I N T:

The allegations made against the accused is that they are doing business of procuring railway reservation tickets unuthorizedly and selling them to the needy passengers on commission basis, without any license or authority from the railway administration and it is in violation of the provisions of Section 143 of the Railways Act.

10. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.28.

11. Ex.P.1 is the mediator report; Exs.P.2 to P.5 are railway reservation tickets, Exs.P.6 to P.9 are the statements of A.1 to A.4;

Ex.P.10 to P.13 are the seizure lists of A.1 to A.4; Exs.P.14 to P.17 are original requisition forms to Exs.P.2 to P.5; Ex.P.18 is the statement of

L.W.2 – Sri Sk. Azeem; Ex.P.19 is the statement of L.W.3 –

Sankarabathina Ramana; Ex.P.20 is the statement of L.W.9 – Smt. Nasaka

Bhulakshmi; Ex.P.21 is the statement of L.W.5 – S.V.Subba Ramaiah;

Ex.P.22 is the statement of L.W.6 – Sri K. Narasaiah; Ex.P.23 is the statement of L.W.7 – Sri V.Prabhakara Rao; Ex.P.24 is the statement of

L.W.8 – Sri P.Vijaya Krishna; Ex.P.25 is the statement of L.W.10 – Smt.

Atchuntaneni venkayamma; Ex.P.26 is the certificate from LW.12 (ownership particulars); Ex.P.27 is certificate from L.W.12 (ownership particulars); Ex.P.28 is certificate from L.W.12 (ownership particulars).

M.O.1 is cash of Rs.3,000/- (FDR).

12. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 3. Out of them

P.W.1 is the investigating officer in this case and he is RPF Officer; P.W.2 is the mediator for the arrest of the accused and seizure of the material.

4

13. P.W.1 – Sri J. Yesupadam, the then ASI/RPF/Vijayawada deposed that on 24.1.2013 at about 11.00 a.m., himself along with other staff members, while making rounds about tout activities at main reservation complex, Vijayawada Railway Reservation counter they detained A.1 to A.4 at the above spot while they were in possession of

Railway Reservation tickets, summoned two mediators and caused enquiries in their presence, that A.1 to A.4 revealed their identity particulars, on verification they found each 1 no., of Railway Reservation tickets in total 4 in numbers, on enquiry, A.1 confessed that he is running

Sri Vaishanavi Yatra Darsini Private Ltd., situated at Chaitanyapuri,

Hyderabad with the assistance of A.2 to A.4 and procured the said reservation tickets unauthorizedly and supply to the needy passengers on commission of Rs.200/- each per head, then he questioned for any authority from the Railway administration for procuring the tickets, the accused failed to produce the authority, then he explained the reasons and arrested A.1 to A.4 and seized tickets, cash of Rs.3,000/- under the cover of mediator report in the presence of mediators, brought the accused to the RPF Post, Vijayawada registered a case in Crime

No.87/2013 U/s.143 of Railways Act and sent the accused to the court for remand and after completion of enquiries he laid charge sheet against A.1 to A.4.

14. P.W.2 – Sri Sankarabathina Ramana, mediator deposed that on 24.1.2013 at about 11.00 a.m., at the request of RPF Police he attended the main reservation complex, Vijayawada by the time four persons and

RPF staff were present that in his presence and another mediator LW.2,

PW.1 caused enquiries then, A.1 to A.4 revealed their identity particulars, on verification they found 1 no., of Railway Reservation ticket each in total 4 nos., of tickets on enquiry A.1 confessed that he is running Sri

Vaishanavi Yatra Darsini Private Ltd., situated at Chaitanyapuri,

Hyderabad with the assistance of A.2 to A.4 and procured the said reservation tickets unauthorizedly and supplying to the needy passengers on commission of Rs.200/- each per head, the P.W.1 questioned for any authority from the Railway administration for procuring the tickets, the accused failed to produce the authority, then P.W.1 explained the reasons and arrested A.1 to A.4 and seized tickets, cash of Rs.3,000/- under the cover of mediator report in the presence of mediators.

5

15. As per the version of the prosecution, PW.1 detained A.1 to A.4 at Main Reservation Complex at Vijayawada, while they were in possession Railway reservation tickets and they confessed that they are procuring the said reservation tickets unauthorizedly and supplying to the needy passengers on commission basis.

16. The contention of the defence is that by the time of detention the accused are not selling/supplying the tickets to other passengers. The confessional statements of the accused were obtained by PW.1 by force and threat from the accused and A.1 and A.4 are no way concerned to the railway reservation tickets and the PW.2 and other mediator are hawkers in Railway Station and they are stock mediators, PW.1 filed this case against the accused for statistical purpose. Hence, request the court to acquit the accused.

17. The defence counsel cross-examined PWs.1 and 2 and no material points were elicited from the mouth of the witnesses to rebut their evidence.

18. The contention of the prosecution is that the A.1 to A.4 were detained by PW.1 when they were found in possession of Railway

Reservation tickets and the same were seized under the cover of mediator report and therefore, necessary inference can be drawn against the accused that with an intention to get monitory benefit, A.1 to A.4 are procuring railway reservation tickets from booking counter and in turn to resale the said reservation tickets to the needy passengers on commission.

19. A.1 to A.4 failed to offer proper explanation or account for the

Railway Reservation tickets seized from them. It is also not specifically denied by the accused the possession of railway reservation tickets.

20. So, in view of my above foregoing discussion, the prosecution successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence

U/s.143(1)(a) of Railways Act that the accused are procuring railway reservation tickets without any authorization from the railway administration and thereby the accused are convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C.

6

Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 19th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb,

II-METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FOR RAILWAYS, VIJAYAWADA

21.Heard about the quantum of sentence for which, A.1 to a.4 represented that they are doing coolie works and further A.1, A.3 and A.4 represented that they are having aged parents, A.2 represented that he is having wife and two children and their family members are depending on them for eking out their livelihood. A.1 to A.4 further represented that if they are sent to Jail, their family members will put to starvation and requested the court to take a lenient view instead of sending them to Jail and A.1 to A.4 further represented that they would not commit any offence in future and pardoned the court as a first mistake.

22. Sec.143 of the Railways Act, 1989 itself states that if special and adequate reasons even a lesser sentence can be given. The circumstances that the accused was found in possession of Railway Reservation tickets, and keeping in view the family back-ground and economic status of the accused, which deserved to be taken into consideration for determining the sentence to be awarded in the case and more over, there is nothing on the record to show that the accused are previous convicts.

23. In the result, the A.1 to A.4 are found guilty and they are convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C., for the offence U/s.143(1)(a) of the

Railways Act and they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Three (3) months each.

The M.O.1 cash of Rs.3,000/- (FDR), shall be returned to Railways after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 19th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb,

II-METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FOR RAILWAYS, VIJAYAWADA

7

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1: Sri J. Yesupadam. - None- P.W.2: Sri Sankarabathina Ramana.

Exhibits marked

For prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P.1- Mediator report. -- Nil – Exs.P.2 to P.5 – 4 nos., of Railway reservation tickets. Exs.P.6 to P.9 - Statements of A.1 to A.4. Exs.P.10 to P.13 - Seizure lists of A.1 to A.4. Exs.P.14 to P.17 - Original requisition forms to Exs.P.2 to P.5. Ex.P.18 - Statement of L.W.2 – Sri Sk. Azeem. Ex.P.19 - Statement of L.W.3 – Sankarabathina Ramana. Ex.P.20 - Statement of L.W.9 – Smt. Nasaka Bhulakshmi; Ex.P.21 - Statement of L.W.5 – S.V.Subba Ramaiah. Ex.P.22 - Statement of L.W.6 – Sri K. Narasaiah. Ex.P.23 - Statement of L.W.7 – Sri V.Prabhakara Rao. Ex.P.24 - Statement of L.W.8 – Sri P.Vijaya Krishna. Ex.P.25 - Statement of L.W.10 – Smt. Atchuntaneni venkayamma. Ex.P.26 - Certificate from LW.12 (ownership particulars). Ex.P.27 - Certificate from L.W.12 (ownership particulars). Ex.P.28 - Certificate from L.W.12 (ownership particulars).

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1 – Cash of Rs.3,000/- (FDR).

Sd/ ‐ S.M.K.S.

II ‐ M.M.(R)/VJA.

// True Copy //

II-Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF II-METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR

RAILWAYS, VIJAYAWADA

C.C. 81 / 2014

Date of:

Offence : 24-01-2013

Complaint : 24-01-2013

Apprehension of the accused : 24-01-2013

Released on bail : 28-01-2013

Commencement of Trial : 07-05-2015

Closure of Trial : 07-05-2015

Judgment : 19-05-2015

Complainant: The Asst. Sub-Inspector, R.P.F., BZA Post. Accused: (1)Kota Ravi Sekhar, Aged 51 years, S/o. Jayaram, Caste: Brahmin, R/o. House No.8-1, Pandithnagar, Guntupalli, Krishna District.

(2)Sugandam Raju, Aged: 32 years, S/o. Saibaba, Caste: Viswa Brahmin, R/o. H.No.23-11-1-6/B, Origanalavari veedhi, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada.

(3)Sunkuvat Anil Kumar, Age 20 years, S/o. Chathru, caste: Lambadi, R/o. Dhatunagar Colony, Hyderabad.

(4)Ramavth Kishan, Age 19 years, S/o. Rakyka, caste: Lambadi, R/o. Dhatunagar Colony, Hyderabad.

Provision of Law: U/S.143(1)(a) of the Railways Act. Finding: Found guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the A.1 to A.4 are found guilty and they are convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C., for the offence U/s.143(1)(a) of the Railways Act and they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Three (3) months. The M.O.1 cash of Rs.3,000/- (FDR), shall be returned to Railways after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for delay:- This case is taken on file on 26.04.2014. On 4- 8-2014 case copies were furnished to the accused U/s.207 Cr.P.C., On 6-5- 2015 accused were examined U/s.246(2) Cr.P.C. The trial was commenced 9 on 07-05-2015 and during the course of trial, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.28 and the prosecution side evidence is closed on 7-05-2015. On 12-05-2015 accused were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C, and heard the arguments on the same day. On 19-05-2015 Judgment was pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb,

II-METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

FOR RAILWAYS, VIJAYAWADA.

Copy submitted to –

The Honourable Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

// True Copy //

II-Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada.

1

THE COURT OF II-METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR RAILWAYS,

VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb, B.A., LL.M., II-Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 12th day of May, 2015.

C.C. No. 44 / 2014

Between:

The State, Rep. by The Asst. Sub-Inspector, R.P.F., BZA Post. …Complainant.

A N D:

Kolakalkuri Venkata Ratnam. A/39 years, S/o. Radha Krishna, R/o. D.No.5-324, Muggu Road, Tadepalli, Guntur District. Caste: Madiga, Occupation: Coolie. … Accused.

This case is coming on 7-5-2015 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri T. Murali, Public Prosecutor for the complainant; and of Sri D.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the accused; and on hearing both sides and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by the Asst. Sub-Inspector, R.P.F.,

Vijayawada laid the complaint against the accused in Cr.No.28/2013 of

RPF Post/BZA for the offence U/s. 3(a) of R.P. (U.P.) Act, 1966.

2. The brief case of the prosecution as unfolded in the complaint is as follows:-

That on 22.12.2013 at about 7.45 a.m., the complainant/L.W.1 – Sri G.S.S.V. Prasad, ASIPF/BZA Post along with staff, while moving in

Vijayawada Railway Station and yard area noticed one outsider, while he was carrying a polythene bag on his right shoulder on north side of

Krishna bridge and south side of Vijayawada Railway station and on suspicion he was detained at K.M.No.427/5, near Railway track of

Vijayawada Railway Station and summoned two mediators, in their presence the polythene bag was examined and found to contain 3 nos., of fish plates in it. On enquiry the accused revealed his identity particulars and that on that day he entered into railway yard, Vijayawada and 2 committed theft of 3 nos. of fish plates, which were lying by the side of the railway track at K.M.No.427/5, situated near Krishna bridge,

Vijayawada and concealed them in a polythene bag and proceedings to dispose the same to any one for money. Meanwhile he was caught by

RPF. On enquiry he did not have any voucher/receipt for the possession of the said property. Then the complainant drafted mediator report, seized the property, arrested the accused, brought to the RPF Post,

Vijayawada, registered a case in Crime No.28/2013, U/s. 3(a) of R.P.(U.P.)

Act, 1966 of RPF Post, Vijayawada and took up enquiries. During the course of enquiries he obtained a theft report on 23.12.2013 and also obtained case property certificate from the concerned and after completion of enquiries the complainant laid charge sheet against the accused.

3. This case was taken cognizance for the offence U/s.3(a) of

R.P.(U.P.) Act, 1966.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of complaint were furnished to him as per section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. During the course of preliminary enquiry, the Public Prosecutor filed a pre-charge memo to dispense with the enquiry before the charges and the accused not stated any objection and the said memo is recorded and the accused is examined U/s.246(2) Cr.P.C., and a charge U/s.3(a) of

R.P.(U.P) Act against the accused has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution got examined PWs.1 & 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7, besides M.O.1. The prosecution has given up

L.Ws.3 to 5 (Sri Vasupalli Anik Kumar, Sri B.Suresh Kumar, Sri B.Srinivasa

Rao).

7. After, the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was explained the incriminating material available on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses U/s.313 Cr.P.C., for which the accused denied and reported no defense evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the accused.

3

9. Now the point that arises for determination is – “Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt

against the accused for the offence U/s.3(a) of R.P.(U.P) Act or not?”

10. P O I N T:

I have scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution carefully. To prove its case, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.7 besides

M.O.1. PW.1 is the investigation officer and he is RPF Officer. PW.2 is one of the mediator in whose presence the arrest of the accused and seizure of the property was made. Ex.P.1 is the Mediator report; Ex.P.2 is the seizure list, Ex.P.3 is the statement of accused, Ex.P.4 is the theft report, Ex.P.5 is the case property certificate; Ex.P.6 is the statement of

L.W.2 – Sri Seelam Venkateswara Rao, Ex.P.7 is the statement of L.W.3 –

Sri Vasupalli Anil Kumar. M.O.1 is the 3 nos., of fish plates.

11. PW.1 – Sri G.S.V.V. Prasad, ASI/RPF/Vijayawada deposed that on 22.12.2013 at about 7.45 a.m., himself and other staff members, while moving in the yard, they noticed the accused carrying a polythene bag on his right shoulder and on suspicion they detained him on the north side of Krishna bridge and south side of Vijayawada Railway Station and summoned two mediators and in their presence the said person was examined and on interrogation the accused revealed his identity particulars as accused and further stated that he committed theft of

Railway property by the side of the railway track at the above spot and on verification of said polythene bag they found 3 nos., of fish plates in the bag. The accused failed to produce any valid voucher/receipt for possession of said property. Then, he explained the reasons for the offence, arrested the accused and seized 3 nos. of fish plates under the cover of mediator report in the presence of mediators. Later he brought the accused and seized material to the RPF Post/Vijayawada registered a case in Crime No.28/2013, U/s. 3(a) of R.P.(U.P.) Act and took up enquiries and sent the accused to the Court for Remand. After completion of enquiry he laid complaint against the accused.

12. P.W.2 – Sri Seelam Venkateswara Rao, mediator deposed that on 22.12.2013 at about 7.45 a.m., on the request of PW.1 he attended north side of Krishna bridge and south side of Vijayawada Railway Station, 4 by that time one person and RPF staff was present, that in his presence and another mediator PW.1 enquired the accused and the accused revealed his identity particulars and further stated that he committed theft of Railway property at the above spot and on verification of said polythene bag they found 3 nos., of fish plates, the accused failed to produce documents for possession of the said property, then P.W.1 arrested the accused and seized the said property under the cover of mediator report in his presence and in the presence of L.W.3 – Sri Vasupalli Anil Kumar.

13. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that

P.W.1 did not seize the property from the possession of the accused under the cover of Ex.P.1 mediator report and the mediators are the hawkers in Railway Station and they are stock mediators to the Railway

Police hence, the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be looked into as he is a stock mediator and P.W.1 filed formal charge sheet against the accused.

14. The learned Public Prosecutor would maintain that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is supported with necessary documentary proof showing that the property, in question, belongs to the Indian Railways. The confessional statement of the accused recorded under Ex.P.3 is self explanatory about the manner, how the accused got possession over the property in question and as such, the accused is liable for appropriate punishment.

15. The defence counsel cross-examined the witnesses PWs.1 and 2 and no material points were elicited from the mouth of the witness to suit his defence except giving formal suggestions to the PWs.1 and 2.

16. The contents of Ex.P.3 confessional statement of accused made

before PW.1, in the presence of PW.2 would go to show that he has

committed theft of the property in question from railway yard by the side of the railway track with an intention to dispose the same to any one for money. The contents of Ex.P.3 confessional statement of the accused is corroborating with the evidence of PW.1 & PW.2/independent mediator.

The statement of the accused recorded under Ex.P.3 would indicate that he has voluntarily admitted the offence of committing theft of the said property in the presence of PW.2 and another mediator.

17. PW.2 has categorically deposed about the arrest of the accused and seizure of the property under the cover of Ex.P.1 mediator report and 5 his evidence coupled with his Ex.P.3 statement recorded by PW.1. The fact remains is that the accused failed to produce any valid record accounting for the property found in his possession. As stated supra, nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 by the accused to suspect the theory of the prosecution. The seizure of the property from the accused is evident from Ex.P.2 seizure list. The evidence placed on record namely PWs.1 and 2 sufficiently indicates that the accused was apprehended on 22-12-2013 at about 7.45 a.m., on the north side of

Krishna bridge and south side of Vijayawada Railway Station, having found him in possession of the property covered under M.O.1 and basing on the confession made by the accused about committing of theft property in question he was arrested.

18. PW.1 seized the said property under Ex.P.1 mediator report, supplied Ex.P.2 seizure list to the accused and recorded his Ex.P.3 statement. Accused failed to offer any explanation accounting for the property seized from him and his evidence is coupled with the contents of

Ex.P.5 case property certificate, which discloses that M.O.1 property is exclusively belongs to Indian Railways. There is no contra evidence let in improbablising the case of the prosecution showing that the property will be available in open market. It can be safely concluded that the property in question is of Railway Property and its possession with the accused is quite un-lawful and as such, he is certainly liable for appropriate punishment.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 12th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb,

II-METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FOR RAILWAYS, VIJAYAWADA

19.Heard about the quantum of sentence for which, the accused represented that he is doing catering work and he is having aged mother, wife and three children and out of them one boy is an heart patient and they are depending on his earnings and he has to look after their welfare and he further represented that he will never commit any similar offence in future and hence requested the court to take a lenient view.

20. Sec.3(a) of the Act itself states that if special and adequate reasons even a lesser sentence can be given. The circumstance that the accused 6 was found in possession of 3 nos., fish plates was itself circumstance, which deserved to be taken into consideration for determining the sentence to be awarded in the case and more over there is nothing on the record to show that the accused is a previous convict.

21. Having taken into consideration of the representation made by the accused and in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case on hand, and the property involved in this case is worth only Rs.450/- as per record, this court taken a lenient view and to meet the ends of justice and convicted the accused U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C. I do not feel that it is fit case to extend the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act.

22. In the result, I find that the accused is guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 3(a) of R.P. (U.P) Act and is convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C., and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one

thousand only) in default Simple Imprisonment for three months.

M.O.1 – 3 nos., of fish plates shall be returned to the Railway Authorities after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 12th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb,

II-Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1: Sri G.S.V.V. Prasad. - None- P.W.2: Sri Seelam Venkateswara Rao.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P.1- Mediator report. -- Nil -- Ex.P.2- Seizure list. Ex.P.3- Statement of accused. Ex.P.4- Theft report. Ex.P.5- Case property certificate. Ex.P.6- Statement of L.W.2 – Sri Seelam Venkateswara Rao, Ex.P.7- Statement of L.W.3 – Sri Vasupalli Anil Kumar.

7

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1 –3 nos., of fish plates.

Sd/- S.M.K.S.

II-M.M.,(Rly.) VJA.

// True Copy //

II-Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF II-METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR

RAILWAYS, VIJAYAWADA

C.C. 44 / 2014

Date of:

Offence : 22-12-2015

Complaint : 23-12-2015

Apprehension of the accused : 22-12-2015

Released on bail : 24-12-2015

Commencement of Trial : 05-05-2015

Closure of Trial : 05-05-2015

Judgment : 12-05-2015

Complainant: The Asst. Sub-Inspector, RPF, BZA Post. Accused: Kolakalkuri Venkata Ratnam, A/39 years, S/o. Radha Krishna, R/o. D.No.5-324, Muggu Road, Tadepalli, Guntur District. Caste: Madiga, Occupation: Coolie. Section of Law: U/S. 3(a) of R.P. (U.P.) Act. Finding: Accused is found guilty. Sentence: In the result, I find that the accused is guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 3(a) of R.P. (U.P) Act and is convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C., and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default Simple Imprisonment for three months. M.O.1 – 3 nos., of fish plates shall be returned to the Railway Authorities after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for delay:- This case was taken on file on 26-04-2014 and on 12-06-2014 case copies were furnished to the accused U/s.207 Cr.P.C., on 18.03.2015 the accused was examined U/s.246(2) Cr.P.C. The trial was commenced on 05-05-2015 and during the course of trial, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7 besides M.O.1 and the prosecution side evidence is closed on 05-05-2015. On 7-5-2015 accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., and heard the arguments on the same day. On 12-5-2015 Judgment was Pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb,

II-METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FOR RAILWAYS, VIJAYAWADA

Copy submitted to – The Honourable Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

// True Copy //

II-Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada.

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF II-METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR

RAILWAYS, VIJAYAWADA

C.C. 51 / 2015

Date of:

Offence : 30.03.2015

Complaint : 31-03-2015

Apprehension of the accused : 20-03-2015

Released on bail : --

Commencement of Trial : --

Closure of Trial : --

Sentence or Order : 13-05-2015

Complainant: The Sub-Inspector, RPF, Vijayawada. Accused: Kavuri Rami Reddy, A/25 years, S/o. late Govind Reddy, R/o. Pasalapudi Village and Mandal. East Godavari District. Provision of Law: Under Section 3(a) of R.P.(U.P.) Act. Finding: Accused found guilty. Sentence: In the result,the accused is convicted U/Sec.246(3) Cr.P.C, for the offence punishable U/s.3(a) of RP(UP) Act, And accordingly accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One (1) month and 15 days. The remand period of the accused i.e., from 30-3- 2015 to 13-05-2015 shall be set off U/s.428 Cr.P.C. The Superintendent of Jail authorities is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases. The unmarked case property i.e., one polythene bag containing 10 nos., of pendrol clips shall be returned to the Railway authorities after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked cash of Rs.300/- shall be confiscated to the Railways after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for delay:- -Nil-

Sd/- Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb,

II-METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

FOR RAILWAYS, VIJAYAWADA.

Copy submitted to –

The Honourable Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

// True Copy //

II-Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada.

2

IN THE COURT OF II-METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR

RAILWAYS, VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb, B.A., LL.M.,

II-Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada.

Wednesday this the 13th day of May, 2015.

C.C.No.51 / 2015

Between:

The State, Rep. by The Sub-Inspector, R.P.F., Vijayawada. …Complainant. A N D

Kavuri Rami Reddy, A/25 years, S/o. late Govind Reddy, R/o. Pasalapudi Village and Mandal.

East Godavari District. ...Accused.

This case coming up before me today i.e., on 13-5-2015 in the presence of the learned Sri T. Murali, P.P., for the complainant and accused in person and upon perusing all the material papers on record, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, R.P.F., Vijayawada laid charge sheet against the accused alleging that on 25.03.2015, SSE/Electrical/A.C.

Coaches, Vijayawada reported for missing of copper pipe of two split AC units in two sizes of pipes about 12 meters valued at Rs.800/-. During the course of enquiries the complainant/LW.1 along with staff while making rounds in Railway yard, Vijayawada noticed one outsider at K.M.No.0/4 near

RRI Cabin, Vijayawada Railway yard while he was carrying one polythene bag on his right shoulder and proceeding towards town area by the side of railway track, on suspicion he was detained at the same spot, summoned two mediators and in their presence the polythene bag was examined and found to contain 10 nos., of pendrol clips in it. On enquiry the accused revealed his identity and further stated that on that day he entered into railway yard and committed theft of 10 nos., of railway pendrol clips which were lying by the side of track at K.M.No.0/4, near RRI Cabin, Vijayawada yard and concealed the in a polythene bag and proceeding to dispose the same to any one for money. On further enquiry about the previous offences he confessed that five days back he noticed stable AC coaches on the track near RRI Cabin, Vijayawada and committed theft of copper pipes about 10 3 meters length in 4 pieces and the same were sold to one cycle vendor for

Rs.400/-. Then, the complainant arrested the accused and seized property, registered a case in Crime No.10/2015 U/s. 3(a) of R.P. (U.P.) Act and sent the accused to the Court for remand and after completion of the enquiries, he laid the complaint against the Accused.

2. This case was taken on file for the offence Under Section 3(a) of

R.P. (U.P) Act against the accused.

3. Accused produced from District Jail, Vijayawada. The complainant filed a memo to dispense the enquiry before framing of charges, since the accused is admitted the guilty and filed petition. In view of the admission petition filed by the accused consider the memo filed by the complainant and dispensed the enquiry before framing of the charge. The accused is examined U/s.246(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/s.3(a) of

R.P.(UP) Act, for which he pleaded guilty voluntarily.

4. Heard. A charge U/Sec. 3(a) of R.P (U.P) Act against accused has been framed, read over and explained to him U/Sec. 246(2) Cr.P.C., for which he pleaded guilty and claims not to be tried. In view of voluntary admission of the guilty of the accused, he is convicted U/s.246(3) Cr.P.C.

for the offence U/s.3(a) of RP(UP) Act.

5. Heard about the quantum of sentence, for which the accused represented that he is doing masionery works, having grand mother and she is depending on his earnings and further represented that he is languishing in jail since more than 2 months and requested the court to take a lenient view.

6. In view of the voluntarily admission and considering the representation made by the accused this court taken a lenient view and the accused is convicted U/Sec.246(3) Cr.P.C, for the offence punishable

U/s.3(a) of RP(UP) Act, And accordingly accused is sentenced to undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of One (1) month and 15 days.

The remand period of the accused i.e., from 30-3-2015 to 13-05-2015 shall be set off U/s.428 Cr.P.C. The Superintendent of Jail authorities is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases. The unmarked case property i.e., one polythene bag containing 10 nos., of pendrol clips shall be returned to the Railway 4 authorities after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked cash of Rs.300/- shall be confiscated to the Railways after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb,

II-METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FOR RAILWAYS, VIJAYAWADA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

Sd/- S.M.K.S.

II-M.M.,(Rly.) VJA.

// True Copy //

II-Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada.