Smt. Shaik Rehana

1 CC.No. 153 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT CHINNOOR.

PRESENT: SMT SHAIK REHANA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chennur

TUESDAY THE 2 nd DAY OF MAY, 2017

C.C.No. 153 of 2015

Between:-

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S, Jaipur … Complainant

And

A1. Raghoba Novare, S/o.Nagarao Novare,Age.65 years, Caste.SC Occ.Driver of lorry bearing No. AP31TB7696, R/o.AJP Nathnagam Bajrang Colony,Near Maharaja Kiran stores,Nanded,Maharastra state. A2. Ananda Detve,S/o.Bhagaji Detve,Age.50 years, Caste.SC,Occ.Driver of lorrybearingNo.AP07tu1959, R/o.Fateburuju,Nanded,Maharastra state A3. Mohammad Musa, S/O.Mahammad Jafar, Age.49 years,Caste.Muslim,Occ.Business, R/o.Auto Nagar,NTPC,Godavarikhani of Kariminagar District A4. Bodduna Rajesh,S/o.Laxmaiah,Age.41 years, Caste Padmasali,Occ.Agriculture,R/o.Ramaraopet village of Jaipur mandal.

…. Accused/s

This case is coming on 1.5.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the State-complainant and of Sri K.Ravinder,Advocate for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Chennur police filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 62 of 2015 of PS Jaipur for the offence punishable

Under section 447, 379 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case as per charge sheet are as follows :- 2 CC.No. 153 of 2015

On 30.4.2015 at 1645 hours, the PW1 came to police station and lodged a report stating that in the year 2009 the management of Aryan

Coal Washer Plant was closed but the security is continuing as there are some more articles are remained in the plant. On 30.4.2015 at about 4.00

PM , he received phone call from Security guard Kannam Praveen Kumar that two persons trespassed in to the premises of Aryan Coal washer plant with two lorries bearing No.AP 31 TB7696 and AP07TU 1959 and committing theft of black soil by loading with the labours. On that he went there and found two lorries loaded with black soil. Further he stated that, they committing theft of black soil without any permission from management. He handed over said lorries and persons to their security guard Praveen Kumar, came to PS and lodging the report. The worth of stolen black soil is about 20,000/-. As per the contents of above report,PW9/CH.Ganganna has registered a case vide.Cr.No.62/2015

U/sec.447,379 of IPC .During course of investigation ,LW9 examined and recorded the detailed statement of PW1 .Later he viisited the scene of offence and he apprehended A1 and A2 they secure the presence of

PW3 and PW4 conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized 2 lorries in presence of them and also prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence. Later he secure the presence of

PW2,PW5,PW6,PW7,PW8 examined them and recorded their statements. Later he brought the A1 and A2 and 2 Lorreis to the police station and arrested the both accused persons send them for judicial remand. ON 29.5.2015 Pw10 served notice on A3 & A4 .Accordingly on 3 CC.No. 153 of 2015 19.6.2015 at 1430 hours the A3 and A4 came to polcie station and surrendered before him . Then he arrested them and released them on station bail.After completion of investigation he laid charge sheet beofe this court .

3. This case was taken on file for the offence under section 447, 379, of IPC against all the accused and summons were ordered to the all the accused.

4.On appearance of the all accused copies of case documents were furnished to him in accordance with Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The All accused are examined under Section 239 CrPC for the allegations in the charge sheet, to which he denied the same. Hence, charge under section 447, 379 of IPC has been framed against them , read over and explained to all accused in their vernacular language, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P 12 and MO1 & MO2 are marked.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, All accused are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in their evidence, to which they denied and reported no defence evidence. None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

4 CC.No. 153 of 2015

8. Heard the arguments and perused the material on record.

9. Now the Point for determination is : Whether the prosecution has proved this case against the accused for the offence under section 447, 379 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.

10. POINT:-The prosecution examined (10) witnesses . PW-1 is the complainant, PW2 is a security guard, PW3 and PW4 are punches for scene of offence panchanama.PW5 to PW8 are labours under A4.Pw9 and PW10 are investigation officers.

11.In this case PW1 is defacto complainant, he stated that on 30.4.2015 at 4.00 pm PW2 called him and informed that 2 lorries were present in Indaram site immediately he came to scene of offence but he did not found the lorries.PW2 gave the lorry numbers to him. He lodgede report in police station.PW2 he security guard in Aryan Energy Private Ltd .On 30.4.2015 he went for checking at 4.00 pm then he found 2 lorries at scene of offence immediately he informed the same to PW1 .When PW1 reached scene of offence the 2 lorries left to the scene of offence. PW3 and PW4 are punch witness for confession and seizure panchanama of

A1 and A2 but they did not support the prosecution version .PW5 to PW8 are labours who worked under A4 but they did not support the prosecution version with the request of Learned APP they declared hosile instead of cross examination nothing elicited to inspire the confidence of this court.PW9 and PW10 are investiagaion officers in this case .Their 5 CC.No. 153 of 2015 evidence is very formal in nature.PW9 registered the case examined all the witness conducted confession and seizure panchanama and seized

MO1 and MO2 from the scene of offence . After completion of investigation PW10 laid charge sheet before the court.

12. By going through the above evidence it is clear that with the information given by PW2 ,PW1 immediately rushed the scene of offence but he did not found any lorries at scene of offence . As per the prosecutio n version PW5 to PW8 are eye witness to the said incident but they did not support the prsosecution version.PW3 and PW4 who are punches for scene of offence and confession panchanamana and also did not support the prosecution version .Even though PW1 observed the A1 and A2 at scene of offence he did not identified them before this court more over investigation officer did not seize any documents which revels the ownere ship particulares of the said lorries.Hence what ever the oral and documentary evidence did not connect the A1 to A4 case in the hand.

13.Taking the totality of facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, the above evidence casts heavy doubt on the prosecution version and does not inspire any confidence by this court. Thus there is no evidence what so ever on record to establish the complicity of the accused in the offence. Solely relying on the evidence of investigating officer, it is not safe to base on conviction against the accused. In this regard this court relied on the following judgment.

6 CC.No. 153 of 2015

14.Kaliram Vs State of H.P 1974 Crl.L.(J) of Hon'ble Supreme Court AIR

1973 " The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of

justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the evidence

adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the

other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused

should be adopted.

15.In these circumstance, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of all the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, which is an essential requisite base a conviction against all the accused and as such they are entitled for an acquittal on benefit of doubt.

16.In the result, the A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 447, 379 of IPC and A1 to A4 are acquitted for the same under section 248(1) Cr.PC. The MO.1 &2 vide CP No.36/2015 which was already given to owners of the said vehicle shall be made absolute after appeal time.

Dictated to Typist and after correction pronounced by me in the open Court on

this the 2 nd day of May,2017.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

CHINNUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For the Prosecution for the Defence

PW-1: D.Sathish Kumar is the complaint of (LW-1)None

PW-2: Kannam Praveen Kumar is the eye witness of (LW-2)

PW-3: Korvi Sathish is panch witness of (LW-7)

PW-4: MD Tajuddin is panch witness of (LW-8)

PW-5: Chiguru Murali is circumstance witness of (LW-3) 7 CC.No. 153 of 2015

PW-6: Arigela Rajabapu goud is the circumstantial witness of (LW-4)

PW-7: Chiguru Sarojana is the circumstantial witnesses of (LW-5)

PW-8:Arigela Sandhya is the circumstantial witness of (LW-6)

PW-9: CH.Ganganna ASI of police,Jaipur is Investigation Officer of (LW-9)

PW-10:P.Surender,SI of Police,PTC Warangal is investigation officer(LW-10)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:for defence

Ex.P-1: Report lodged by PW-1. None Ex.P-2: Is signature of Punch witness . Ex.P-3: Is signature of punch witness. Ex.P-4: Is signature of punch witness. Ex.P-5: Is signatue of puch witness. Ex.P-6: 161 CrPC statement of PW-5. Ex.P-7: 161 CrPC statement of PW-6. Ex.P-8: 161 CrPC statement of PW-7. Ex.P-9: 161 CrPC statement of PW-8. Ex.P-10:161 CrPC statement of PW-9. Ex.P-11:FIR Ex.P-12:Rough sketch of the scene of offence

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO-1 is Lorry Bearing No.AP31TB7696 MO-2 is Lorry bearing No.AP07TU1959

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

CHINNUR.

8 CC.No. 153 of 2015

CALENDER AND JUDGEMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL MAGISTRATE OF 1st CLASS AT CHINNOOR.

CC No. 153 of 2015

1.Date of Offence30.4.2015

2.Date of Report/Complaint30.4.2015

3.Date of Apprehension of 19.6.2015 Accused

4.Date of Released on Bail19.6.2015

5.Date of Commencing of 16.3.2017 Trial

6.Date of Closure of Trial1.5.2017

7.Date of Sentence/Order2.5.2017

8.Explanation for Delay ---

9.Remarks ---

10.Name of the ComplainantThe State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Jaipur

11.Name of the AccusedA1. Raghoba Novare, S/o.Nagarao Novare,Age.65 years, Caste.SC Occ.Driver of lorry bearing No. AP31TB7696, R/o.AJP Nathnagam Bajrang Colony,Near Maharaja Kiran stores,Nanded,Maharastra state. A2. Ananda Detve,S/o.Bhagaji Detve,Age.50 years, Caste.SC,Occ.Driver of lorrybearingNo.AP07tu1959 R/o.Fateburuju,Nanded,Maharastra state A3. Mohammad Musa, S/O.Mahammad Jafar, Age.49years,Caste.Muslim, Occ.Business, R/o.Auto Nagar,NTPC,Godavarikhani of Kariminagar District A4. BoddunaRajesh,S/o.Laxmaiah, Age.41 years,CastePadmasali, Occ.Agriculture,R/o.Ramaraopet village of Jaipur mandal.

9 CC.No. 153 of 2015

12.Offence Under Section(s)447,379 of IPC

13.Finding of the CourtFound not Guilty

14.In the result, the A1 to A4 are found Sentence/Order not guilty for the offence punishable under section 447, 379 of IPC and A1 to A4 are acquitted for the same under section 248(1) Cr.PC. The MO.1 &2 vide CP No.36/2015 which was already given to owners of the To said vehicle shall be made absolute The Hon’ble I Addl.Sessions after appeal time.

Judge, Adilabad.

Lr.Dis.No. /2017 Dated -05-2017

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

CHENNUR.

1 CC 44OF 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

CHINNOOR.

PRESENT: SMT. SHAIK REHANA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chennur

THUSDAY THE 2 ND DAY OF MAY, 2017

CC.No. 44 of 2016

Between:-

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S,Jaipur … Complainant // AND //

Thota Sathyanarayana ,S/o.Rajaiah,Age.40 years,Caste.Munnur kapu,Occ.Agriculture,R/o.Kistapur village …. Accused

This case is coming on 1.5.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State-complainant and of Sri M.Karthik Kumar , Advocate for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Jaipur police filed charge sheet against the Accused in

Cr. No. 162/2015 of PS Jaipur for the offence punishable Under section 324,290 ,506 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case as per charge sheet are as follows :-

On 3.10.2015 at 1430 hours the PW1 came to police station and lodged a telugu written petition stating that, she and her brother in law have lands side by sid her brother in law wants to sold his land to accused person and he took Rs.1,00000/- consideration and advance on 5.8.2015 at 4.00 pm when she went to her field at that time accused leveling the land with tractor on that she asked why he purchased theland of her brother in law without her permission then , accused used most filthly 2 CC 44OF 2016 language against her and beat her with hands and stick on her head she sustained bleeding injury on her head and also thretened her with dire consequences to kill her on the same day she went to government hospital mancherial on 8.8.2015 she discharged from hospital approached the elders to request to hold panchayath on 3.10.2015 at about 1.00 pm accused was throwing bushes from his land to her land she questioned him then also accused threatened her.Basingon the above report PW8 registered a case in Cr.nO.168/2015 Under section 324,290 ,506 of IPC. Later he took up investigation examined pw1 and recorded her statement.Later he visited the scene of offence and secure the presence of LW5 and PW3 conducted scene of offence panchanama in presence of them later he prepared the roughsketch of the scene offence .Later he secure the presence of PW2 ,pw4,LW4/C/Papirreddy examined them and recorded their statemetns.On 2.12.2015 at 1530 horus accused came to police station and surrendered before PW8. Then he arrested the accused person and released him on station bail. On receipt of wound certificate aftere completion of investigation he laid charge sheet before this court.

3. This case was taken on file for the offenceUnder section 324,290 ,506 of IPC against the accused and summons were issued to the Accused .

4.On appearance of the Accused ,copies of case documents were furnished to them in accordance with section 207 of Cr.PC.

5.The Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.PC for the allegations in the charge sheet, to which he denied the same. Hence, charge Under section 324,290 ,506 of IPC has been framed against the accused , read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 CC 44OF 2016

6.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6.

6.During course of the trial, prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-5 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6 are marked.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused are examined under section 313 of Cr.PC. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence, to which he denied and reported no defense evidence. None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused person.

8. Heard the arguments and perused the material on record.

Now the Point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishableUnder section 324,290 ,506 of IPC. ?

10. POINT:- The prosecution examined (5) witnesses as PW1 is complainant ,PW2 is a son of PW1,PW3 is a punch witness for scene offence panchanama ,PW4 is eye witness to the said incident,PW5 is a investigation officer.

11.In this case PW1 is complainant she stated that on 5.8.2015 at 4.00 she went to her filds and accused person ploughing the land of her brother in law which is adjacent to her fields she asked him why he Ploughing the land for which he used most filthly language her and dragedher by pulling her hair and beat with stick on her head she sustained bleeding injjury on her head.She went to her house at 5.00 pm her son came to her house she informed the same to her son they both went to police station and lodged a report.But police did not register case they referred her to 4 CC 44OF 2016 government hospital mancherial she took treatment for a period of 4 days .Later she came back to her village to conducte panchayath in this regard but accused person did not attend the panchayhath after 2 months of said incident she went to her fields accused person ploughing all plants in his fields and dumped in her fields when she asked why he dumped in her fields he thretened her with dire consequences then she went to police station and lodged a report. PW2 is her son his evidence corabaratedthe evidence of pw1. PW3 is a punch for scene ofoffence panchanama he stated that 1 ½ year back at 6.00 pm Jaipur police called himand conducted scene of offence panchanama when his presence. PW4 is eye witness to the said incident but his evidence did not support the prosecution version with the request of learned

APP he declared hostile instead of cross examination by learned APP nothing elicited to inspire the confidence of this court. PW5 is a investigation officer in this case.His evidence very formal in nature.

12.By going through the above evidence it is clear that PW1 is a injured person in this case,PW2 is a son of PW1. PW1 in her cross examination admitted that the adjacent land which is belongs to her brother in law sold away to the accused person and she further admitted that one civil suit was filed against her by the accused person . As per the version of PW1 two incidents were occurred one incident was occurred prior to 2 months of this case, there is 2months delay of FIR as per the evidence of PW1 , the prosecution failed to establish genuine reasons for delay of FIR which is fatal to prosecution case . More over the investigation officer did not seize any weapon from the scene of offence which is essentioal requisite to prove the offence Under section 324 of IPC ,hence what ever the oral evidence and documentary evidence clumsy in nature and not supported the prosecution version.

13.Taking the totality of facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, the above evidence casts heavy doubt on the prosecution version and does not inspire 5 CC 44OF 2016 any confidence of this court. Thus there is no evidence what so ever on record to establish the complicity of the accused in the offence. In this regard this court relied on the following judgment.

In Air 2014 UMAKANT AND Anr Vs state of Chhattisgarh 2943, Hon’ble

Suprem court held that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt and it is also rule of justice in criminal law that if

two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the

guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the view which is

favourable to the accused should be adopted.

14.In these circumstance, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, which is an essential requisite base a conviction against the accused and as such he is entitled for an acquittal on benefit of doubt.

15. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

Under section 324,290 ,506 of IPC and as such he is acquittal for the same under section 248(1) Cr.PC. Bail bonds of the accused shall stands canceled. Since no property produced before this court, no order passed with regard to property.

Dictated to the Typist on my laptap after correction, pronounced by me in the

open Court on this the 2 nd day of May ,2017.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

CHINNUR.

6 CC 44OF 2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For the Prosecution for the Defence

PW-1: Thota Shantha is a complainant and injured person to the said incident of LW1 --NIL--

PW-2: Thota Kiran son of LW1 by LW2

PW-3: Jimmidi Shankaraiah is a puch witnes of scene of offence by LW6

PW-4: Kothapally Ramesh is a eye witness to the said incident by LW3.

PW-5: P.Surender, SI of police,Jaipur is investigating officer of LW8

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For defence

Ex.P-1: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1 --NIL--

Ex.P-2: 161 Cr.PC statement by PW-3

Ex.P-3: 161 Cr.PC statement by PW-4

Ex.P-4: is FIR by PW-5

Ex.P-5: is the rough sketch of the scne of offence by PW5.

Ex.P-6: Wound certificate issued by PW5

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--NIL--

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

CHINNUR.

7 CC 44OF 2016

CALENDER AND JUDGEMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL MAGISTRATE OF 1st CLASS AT CHINNOOR.

CC. No. 44 of 2016

1.Date of Offence5.8.2015

2.Date of Report/Complaint3.10.2015

3.Date of Apprehension of 2.12.2015 Accused

4.Date of Released on Bail2.12.2015

5.Date of Commencing of Trial25.1.2017

6.Date of Closure of Trial1.5.2017

7.Date of Sentence/Order2.5.2017

8.Explanation for Delay ---

9.Remarks ---

10.Name of the ComplainantThe State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Jaipur.

11.Name of the AccusedThota Sathyanarayana, S/o.Rajaiah,Age.40 years,Caste.Munnur Kapu,Occ.Agriculture,R/o.Kistapur

12.Offence Under Section(s)324,290,506 of IPC

13.Finding of the CourtNot guilty

14.In the result, the accused is found not Sentence/Order guilty for the offence punishable Under section 324,290 ,506 of IPC and as such he is acquittal for the same under section 248(1) Cr.PC. Bail bonds of the accused shall stands canceled. Since no To property produced before this court, no The Hon’ble I Addl.Sessions order passed with regard to property.

Judge, Adilabad.

Lr.Dis.No. /2017 Dated -05-2017

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

CHENNUR.

8 CC 44OF 2016

1 CC 82OF 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT CHENNUR.

PRESENT: SMT. SHAIK REHANA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chennur

THUSDAY THE 2 ND DAY OF MAY, 2017

CC.No. 82 of 2015

Between:-

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S,Jaipur … Complainant // AND //

A-1 Jannampelli Rayapocham,S/o.Rayamallu,Age.50 years, Caste.Madiga,Occ.Retired SCC worker,R/o.Elakanti Village of Jaipur mandal A-2 Janampelli Janardhan, S/o.Rayapocham,Age.25 years, Caste.Madiga,Occ.Security guard,R/o.Elakanti village of Jaipur mandal A-3 Janampalli Raghuvardan,S/o.Rayapocham Age.22 years Caste.Madiga,Occ.Karobar,R/o.Elakanti Village of Jaipur mandal …. Accused/s

This case is coming on 1.5.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State-complainant and of Sri M.Karthik Kumar , Advocate for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Jaipur police filed charge sheet against the Accused

No.1 to 3 in Cr. No. 22/2015 of PS Jaipur for the offence punishable Under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case as per charge sheet are as follows :-

On 9.2.2015 At 1950 hours, the PW1 came to police station and lodged a telugu written petition stating that, On 8.2.2015 at about 6.00 am while he along with his wife were at their house his elder brother Janepally Rayaposham started abusing them alleging that they are practicing sourcery on them.When he questioned him 2 CC 82OF 2015 about the abusing he along with his son Janepally Janardhan and Raguvardhan beat with sticks and caused injuries to him on Jaws and also beat him his wife .Basing on the above report PW8 registered a case in Cr.no. 22/2015 U/sec.324 r/w 34 IPC send copies to concern during the investiagaiton he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and PW2 and referred them to government hospital mancherial for treatment and report. Later he visited the scene of offence secured the presence of

PW5 and PW7 conducted scene of offence panchanama and also prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence.Later he secure the presence of PW3 and PW4 examined them and recorded their statements.On 22.2.2015 at 1700 hours the accused persson appeared before him then he arrested them and released them on station bail. On receipt of wound certificate aftere completion of investigation he laid charge sheet before this court.

3. This case was taken on file for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC against the A1 to A3 and summons were issued to the Accused No.1 to 3.

4.On appearance of the A1 to A3 ,copies of case documents were furnished to them in accordance with section 207 of Cr.PC.

5.The A1 to A3 was examined under section 239 of Cr.PC for the allegations in the charge sheet, to which they denied the same. Hence, charge under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC has been framed against the A1 to A3, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW8 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7.

6.During course of the trial, prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-5 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8 are marked.

3 CC 82OF 2015

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused are examined under section 313 of Cr.PC. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence, to which they denied and reported no defense evidence. None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused persons.

8. Heard the arguments and perused the material on record.

Now the Point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC ?.

10. POINT:- The prosecution examined (8) witnesses as PW1 is complainant ,PW2 is wife of complainant,PW3 and PW4 are eye witnesses to the said incident.PW5 and

PW7 are punches for scene of offence panchanama PW6 is Doctor,PW8 is investigation officer in this case and filed charge sheet in this case.

11.In this case PW1 is complainant and injured he stated that 1.8.2015 at 6.00 am while he was present in his house his brother scolded him that he performed socurcery on that he asked him why he scolded him for that A1 to A3 beat him with a stick on in left jaw and on his right ribs. Meanwhile his wife came to rescue him then they also beat his wife also she sustained injuries on her face. PW2 wife of PW1 she stated that on 8.2.2015 at 6.00 am while her self and her husband present in their house A1 started scolding him for that her husband asked why he scolded him on that

A1 to A3 came to them and A1 beat her husband with a stick on his left jaw and on his right ribs meanwhile her self went to rescue him them .They also beat her on her face.

They both sustained injuries .They both went to police station .Police referred them to government hospital mancherial. PW3 and PW4 are eye witness to the said incident but they do not supported the version of prosecution ,with the request learned APP 4 CC 82OF 2015 they declared hostile but instead of cross examination by learned APP nothing elicited to inspire the confidence of this court. PW5 and PW7 are punches for scene of offence panchanama they also did not support the prosecution version .PW6 is doctor who issued wound certificates to PW1 and PW2 .PW8 is investigation officer whose evidence is very formal in nature.

12.By going through the above evidence as per the PW1 and PW2 the incident was took place on 8.2.2015 at 6.00 am and they went to the police station on evening hours of same day.As per the evidence of PW6 who is doctore the age of the injury is 3 to 6 hours prior to his examination. In contra PW 1 and PW2 stated in evening hours they went to police station the doctore reffered them to hospital if there is so the age of the injury might 12 hours not 3 to 6 hours ,hence the medical evidence did not corrabared the evidence of PW1 and PW2 more over the invistigation officer did not seize any crime weapon from the scene of offence which is essential requisit for the offence U/sec.324 IPC which is fatal to prosecution case.

13.Taking the totality of facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, the above evidence casts heavy doubt on the prosecution version and does not inspire any confidence of this court. Thus there is no evidence what so ever on record to establish the complicity of the accused in the offence. In this regard this court relied on the following judgment.

In Air 2014 UMAKANT AND Anr Vs state of Chhattisgarh 2943, Hon’ble

Suprem court held that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt and it is also rule of justice in criminal law that if

two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the

guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the view which is

favourable to the accused should be adopted.

5 CC 82OF 2015

13.In these circumstance, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the all accused beyond all reasonable doubt, which is an essential requisite base a conviction against the accused and as such they are entitled for an acquittal on benefit of doubt.

14. In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and as such they are acquittal for the same under section 248(1) Cr.PC. Bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

Since no property produced before this court, no order passed with regard to property.

Dictated to the Typist on my laptap after correction, pronounced by me in the

open Court on this the 2 nd day of May ,2017.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

CHINNUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For the Prosecution for the Defence

PW-1: Jalampally Rayanarsu complainant/Injured person of LW1 --NIL-- PW-2: Jalampally Jaya(Wife of PW1 and injured person) of LW2 PW-3: Janampally Laxmi eye witness to the incident of LW4 PW-4: Kamera Buchanna is the eye witness to the incident of LW3 PW-5: Jalampally Venkanna is the punch witness to the scene of offence under CDF of LW5 PW-6: Dr.B.Rajashekar, CAS is the doctor of LW7 PW-7: Thungapindi Mahender is a punch witness of the scene of offence under the CDF of LW6. PW-8: P.Surender ,SI of Police,PTC,Warangal is a Investigation officer in this case of LW8.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For defence

Ex.P-1: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1 --NIL-- Ex.P-2: 161 Cr.PC statement by PW-2 Ex.P-3: 161 Cr.PC statement by PW-3 Ex.P-4: scene of offence panchanama by PW-5 Ex.P-5: is the wound certificate issued by PW-6 Ex.P-6: is the wound certificate is issued by PW-6 Ex.P-7: 161 CrPC statement by PW7 Ex.P-8: is the FIR issued by SI of Police,Jaipur by PW-8

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--NIL--

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

CHINNUR.

6 CC 82OF 2015

CALENDER AND JUDGEMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL MAGISTRATE OF 1st CLASS AT CHINNOOR.

CC. No. 82of 2015

1.Date of Offence8.2.2015

2.Date of Report/Complaint8.2.2015

3.Date of Apprehension of Accused24.2.2015

4.Date of Released on Bail8.2.2015 7 CC 82OF 2015

5.Date of Commencing of Trial20.12.2016

6.Date of Closure of Trial1.5.2017

7.Date of Sentence/Order2.5.2017

8.Explanation for Delay ---

9.Remarks --- .Name of the ComplainantThe State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Jaipur.

11.Name of the AccusedA-1: Jannampally Rayapocham A-2: Janampally Janadhan, A-3: Janampally Raguvardhan

12.Offence Under Section(s)324 r/w 34 of IPC

13.Finding of the CourtNot guilty

14.In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 Sentence/Order are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of To IPC and as such they are acquittal for The Hon’ble I Addl.Sessions

Judge, Adilabad.

the same under section 248(1) Cr.PC. Lr.Dis.No. /2017 Dated -03-2017 Bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. Since no property produced

before this court, no order passed with

regard to property.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

CHENNUR.

1 CC 275 OF 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT CHINNUR.

PRESENT: SMT. SHAIK REHANA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Chinnur. Monday 1 st day May , 2017.

CC.No. 275 of 2014

Between:-

The State through the Forest Section Officer Rebbana Section. … Complainant //AND// 1.A1.Seedam Bheemaiah(Absconded),S/o.Banaiah Age.44 years,Caste.ST,Occ.Labour,R/o.Mamidipally 2.A2. Made Posham, S/o.Potti,Age.43 years,Caste.ST,Occ.Labour,R/o.Mamidipally, 3.A3.Manepally Thirupathi S/o.Venkati,Age.24 years, Caste.ST,Occ.Labour,R/o.Suraram village , 4.A4. Shanigarapu Sathaiah,S/o.Bapu,Age.32 years, Caste.SC,OCC.Labour,R/O.Suraram, 5.A5.Eanuka Sudhakar, S/o.Bapu,Age.24 years,Caste.ST, Occ.Labour,R/o.Suraram, 6.A6.Gavidi Sathish S/o.Bheemaiah,Age.22 years,Caste.ST,Occ.Labour R/o.Suraram , 7.A7. Seedam Raju,S/o.Kannaiah,Age.20 years,Caste.ST, Occ.Labour,R/o.Suraram

... Accused/s

This case is coming before me on 28.4.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State complainant and of Sri Kamal Manohar Rao Advocate for the accused persons, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Forest Section officer, Rebbana filed charge sheet against the accused in

POR No. 478/20, dt: 12.11.2013 for the offence punishable Under section 20(i)(C)(iii)

(iv)(vii) of the AP Forest Act, 1967.

2 CC 275 OF 2014

2.The brief facts of the case as per charge sheet are as follows :-

PW3 forest section Officer Rebbana village on reliable information given by the informants he him self and forest Beat Officer,Khushnapally has proceeded to compartment no. 404 in the beat Kushnapally .They found seven persones at scene of offence,by seeing them they skulk away from that place .They observed they have been destroyed the forest by cleaning the bushes and encroached in area 2.885

Ha ,on chasing by staff 6 persons were apprehended by him ,then he secured the presence of Lw1 and Pw1 conducted punchanama in precence of them.Then he conducted panchanama in presence of punches and registered POR NO.478/20 dated.12.11.2013 U/sec.20(i)(C)(iii)(iv)(vii) of AP Forest Act 1967.After completiton of investigation he laid charge sheet before this court.

3. This case was taken on file for the offence under section U/sec.20(i)(C)(iii)(iv)

(vii) of AP Forest Act 1967 against A1 to A7 persons.

4.On appearance of the all the Accused persons, copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as per Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The All accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. for which they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-3.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, A1 to A7 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the material evidence against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. But, All accused persons denied the same and stated no defence evidence on his behalf.

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. Now the Point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused No.1 to 7 are beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under section 3 CC 275 OF 2014

U/sec.20(i)(C)(iii)(iv)(vii) of AP Forest Act 1967.

8. POINT:-The prosecution examined (3) witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and

Ex.P1 and Ex.P3 are marked. PW-1 is the panch witness, PW-2 is Forest beet officer,

PW3 is Forest section Officer .

9.In this case PW-1 is panch witness, he stated that at aboout 3 years back at 12.00 noon all Forest Officials came to there village along with LW1/SK.Imam .They went to forest there they found 7 persons cleaning the forest one person ran away from that place .Remaining 6 persons reveled their names as Maniposham,

M.Thirupathi,S.Sathaiah,Sudhakar,Santhosh,Raju on that effect police scribed and concudted panchaname in presence of him. EXP1 is panchanama.PW2 is forest beet officer he stated that on 12.11.2013 he along with PW3 went to suraram village near

Campart No.404 which comes under Khusnapally range there found 7 persons cutting the bushes they apprehended 6 persons and conducted panchanama in presence of

PW1 and LW1 and he also regisrted POR NO.478/20 U/sec.20(i)(C)(iii)(iv)(vii) of AP

Forest Act 1967.PW3 is forest section officer whose evidence corrabarated the evidence of PW2 .After completiton of investigation he laid charge sheet before this

honble court.

10.By going through the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 it is clear that when they reached scene of offence they found 7 persons cleaning the bushes in the forest, one person ran away from scene of offence they apprehended 6 persons.Even though

PW1 supported the prosecution case he admitted in his cross examination that all the accused persons cutting the wood of Thegadari which is used for fire wood. He further admitted that all accused persons were alloted certificates by the government after they cleaned the forest and used the land for the agriculture purpose. It is an established principle of law that the person who is a complainant in a case should not be allowed as an Investigating Officer in such case the investigation certainly prejudice the accused and impartial investigation is doubtful. I found there is some 4 CC 275 OF 2014 force in the contention of the defence. For this aspect I feel it is profitable to rely on

Gurazala Ramesh and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2003 (2)

ALD (Crl.) 13 (A.P.,). In this case the it was held that“………..even according to prosecution as also material on record, same police officer who detected and found the offence gave FIR and also investigated. Hence, it is manifest illegality is committed by the same officer who detected the offence or crime also gave FIR and investigating in to the crime and filed charge sheet. Hence, impugned convictions and sentences as conformed by the Applet Court or unsustainable at law, Hence have to be set a side”.

In this case Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh referred the decision AIR 1976

Supreme Court 985 (Bhagavan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan in Para No. 5 that “it is postulated that infirmity arisen out of the investigation by the Head Constable who lodged the FIR as complainant will be an infirmity which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the case of the prosecution. In view of the authority it is clear that the complainant cannot be acted as Investigating Officer and it is not safe to rely upon the investigation done by the complainant as there is every possibility of prejudice to the accused and impartial investigation is doubtful. The above stated contents are relevant in the present case in hand.

11. In this circumstances this court is of the view the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, which is an essential requisite base a conviction against the accused and as such they are entitled for an acquittal on benefit of doubt.

12.In this regard, this court relied on Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2014

Supreme Court 3388 in Ramaiah @ Rama Vs State of Karnataka in para No. 30 it

is observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that, which is otherwise available to an

accused under the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that every

person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a court

of law. It is also trite that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in 5 CC 275 OF 2014

the case and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court it

should not be disturbed. The golden Rule of criminal Law is that when there are

two versions possible, the court shall consider the version which goes in favour

of the accused. In other words the benefit of doubt shall always in favour of

accused.

13. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of case law cited, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under sectionU/sec.20(i)(C)(iii)(iv)(vii) of AP Forest Act 1967 beyond reasonable doubt.

Hence, the benefit of doubt can be extended in favour of accused.

14. In the result the Accused NO.1 to 7 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section U/sec.20(i)(C)(iii)(iv)(vii) of AP Forest Act 1967, and they are acquitted for the same under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the A1 to A7 are shall stands cancelled. Since no property produced before this Court, no order passed with regard to property.

Typed to the Typist and after correction, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 1 st day of May, 2017.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

CHINNUR.

6 CC 275 OF 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For the Prosecution For the Defence

PW-1: Kudimetti Sammaiah(LW-2) None

PW-2: A.Suresh,Forest beat officer, Khushnapally (LW-3)

PW-3: Babu Patekar,Forest section officer,

Khushanapally Range(LW-4)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:for defence

Ex.P-1: Panchanama of PW1 Nil

Ex.P-2: POR of PW2

Ex.P-3: is Map showing the illegal encroachment in Compartment

No.404 of PW3.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-- NIL –

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

CHINNUR.

7 CC 275 OF 2014

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT CHENNUR.

CC.No. 275of 2014

1.Date of offence:12-11-2013

2.Date of Report/Complaint:12.11.2013

3.Date of Apprehension of Accused:

4.Date of Released on Bail : 13.11.2013

5.Date of Commencement of Trial :14.3.2017

6.Date of closer of trial:28-4-2017

7.Date of Sentence/Order:1.5.2017

8.Explanation for Delay: ---

9.Remarks: ---

10.Name of Complainant: The State through the FSO,Rebbana

11.Name of the accused : Seedam Bheemaiah& (6)Others

12. Offence Under Section(s): 20(i)(C)(iii)(iv)

(vii)of the AP Forest Act, 1967

13. Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

14. Sentence/order: In the result the Accused NO.1 to 7 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section U/sec.20(i)(C)(iii)(iv)(vii) of AP Forest Act 1967, and they are acquitted for the same under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the A1 to A7 are shall stands cancelled. Since no property produced before this Court, no order passed with regard to property.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

CHENNUR.

To The Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad. Lr. Dis.No. /2017, Dated: /05/2017.

8 CC 275 OF 2014

1 CC 147 OF 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT CHINNOOR.

PRESENT: Smt SHAIK REHANA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chinnor.

TUESDAY THE 2 ND DAY OF MAY, 2017

C.C.No. 147 of 2015

Between:-

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Jaipur. … Complainant

AND

Md.Nazeer Ahmad, S/o. Shaik Hussain, Age. 36 yrs, Caste: Muslim, Occ. Bus Driver, R/o. Gouthaminagar, Mancherial. …. Accused

This case is coming before me on 01-05-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State-complainant and of Sri Rambhao, Advocate for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The Sub-Inspector of Jaipur police filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.85/2015 of P.S. Jaipur for the offence punishable under section 338 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case as per charge sheet are as follows :-

On 09.06.2015 at 1530 hours, the PW2 came to police station and lodged a report stating that, on 07.06.2015 at 5 pm., while he was at his house, he came to know that on 07.06.2015 his brother-in-law Vemunuri

Thirupathi Reddy returning to Angarajapally from Bheemaram village on 2 CC 147 OF 2015 his motorcycle bearing No.AP01N7696 at about 4.30 pm., when he reached Joduvagulu, the driver of one RTC Bus drove his bus in high speed and hit his motorcycle, he fell down on the road and received injuries. Basing on that PW7 registered a case in Cr.No.85/2015 U/s.337

IPC, he tookup investigation. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of PW2. Later he visited the scene of offence, there he secured the presence of PW4 and PW5 and conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence, he secured the presence of PW1, LW3 and LW4 examined them and recorded their statements and referred PW1 to the hospital and also examined him and recorded his statement. Then he secured the presnce of PW3 examined and recorded her statement. On 20.06.2015 at 1730 hours the accused surrendered before him. Then he arrested him and released him on station bail. On receipt of wound certificate after completion of investigation he laid charge sheet before this court.

3. This case was taken on file for the offence under Section 338 IPC against the accused and summons were ordered to the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused copies of case documents were furnished to him in accordance with Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C, by explaining the substances of accusation for the offence under section 338 3 CC 147 OF 2015

IPC in Telugu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to tried.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-6.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence, to which he denied and reported no defence evidence. None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

8. Heard the arguments and perused the material on record.

9. Now the Point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 338 IPC ?

10. POINT:- The prosecution examined seven witnesses as PW1 to

PW7 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 are marked at the time of trial. PW-1 is injured, PW2 is complainant, PW3 is conductor of the crime vehicle, PW4 and 5 are panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama, PW6 is doctor, PW7 is investigation officer.

11. In this case PW2 is complainant and he stated on 06.06.2015 while he was present in his house at 4.30 pm., he received a phone call that 4 CC 147 OF 2015

PW1 met with an accident near Joduvagulu while PW1 was coming on his bike. Immediately he went to government hospital and found PW1 with injuries. PW1 is injured in this case, he stated that on 06.06.2015 at 5pm., while he was going to Chennur to Srirampur when he reached

Bheemaram village his wife called him and stated to return back then he returned to Chennur from Bheemaram village, when he reached

Joduvagulu one RTC Bus which is coming from Chennur gave dash to him on that he fell down and sustained injuries on his right hand and right leg. He identified the accused person before this court. PW3 is conductor. she stated that at 4.00 pm, they started their bus at Chennur, when they reached Joduvagulu she heard some sound then the bus was stopped. Later she found the bus gave dash to one motorcyclist, he sustained injuries on his legs. PW4 and 5 are panch witnesses to the scene of offence but they did not support the prosecution version PW6 is doctor who is issued wound certificate to PW1. PW7 is investigation office whose evidence is very formal in nature.

12. By going through above evidence is it clear that PW2 is complainant,

PW1 is injured person in this case, PW3 is only eye witness to the said accident. Eventhough PW1 supported the prosecution version he admitted in his cross examination there is turning at scene of offence.

PW3 stated in her chief examination that she did not observe the accident only after hearing the noise the bus was stopped then she came to know 5 CC 147 OF 2015 that one motorcyclist sustained injuries in his legs. Moreover the investigation office did not seiz any SR or any documents relating to the crime vehicle. As per the version of PW3 the bus was private bus.

Hence, whatever the oral evidence and documentary evidence did not inspire the confidence of this court for the foregoing reason this court has no other go, but to conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

13. In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 338 IPC, and he is acquitted for the same U/Sec.

255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. Since no property produced before this Court, no order passed with regard to property.

Typed to my dictation by Typist and after correction, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 2 nd day of May, 2017.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

CHINNUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For the Prosecution for the Defence

PW-1: Vemuniri Thirupathi( LW-2) --None--

PW-2: Aitha Srinivas Reddy (Complainant / LW-1)

PW-3: Smt.Busarapur Lavanya ( LW-5)

PW-4: Dasari Ramulu, (LW-6)

PW-5: Aniveni Narsaiah (LW7)

PW-6: Dr.Surender(LW-8) 6 CC 147 OF 2015

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:For defence

Ex.P-1: Report by PW-2Nil

Ex.P-2: Signature by PW4

Ex.P-3: Wound Certificate by PW6

Ex.P-4: FIR by PW7

Ex.P-5: Scene of offence panchanama by PW3

Ex.P-6: Rough sketch of scene of offence by PW7

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--Nil--

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

CHINNUR.

7 CC 147 OF 2015

CALENDER AND JUDGEMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL MAGISTRATE OF 1st CLASS AT CHINNOOR

CC. No. 147 of 2015

1.Date of Offence06-06-2015

2.Date of Report/Complaint09-06-2015

3.Date of Apprehension of Accused20-06-2015

4.Date of Released on Bail20-06-2015

5.Date of Commencing of Trial12-04-2016

6.Date of Closure of Trial01-05-2017

7.Date of Sentence/Order01-05-2017

8.Explanation for Delay ---

9.Remarks --

10.Name of the ComplainantThe State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Jaipur.

11.Name of the AccusedMd.Nazeer Ahmad, S/o. Shaik Hussain, Age. 36 yrs, Caste: Muslim, Occ. Bus Driver, R/o. Gouthaminagar, Mancherial.

12.Offence Under Section(s)338 IPC

13.Finding of the Court Not Guilty

In the result,the accused is found

14.Sentence/Order not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 338 IPC and he is acquitted for the same U/Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. Since no property produced before this Court, no order passed with regard to property. To The Hon’ble I Addl.Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

Lr.Dis.No. /2017 CHENNUR. Dated -05-2017 8 CC 147 OF 2015