Smt Shoukath Jahan Siddiqui

1

THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT NARSAPUR:: DISTRICT MEDAK

PRESENT:

SMT. SHOUKATH JAHAN SIDDIQUI

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARSAPUR

MONDAY, 27th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017

O.S.NO. 131 OF 2013

Between:

1. Smt. Dumpala @ Pam Budemma W/o Durgaiah, Aged 50 years, Occ: Agriculture.

2. Dumpala @ Pam Durgaiah S/o. Narayana, Aged 50 years, Occ: Agriculture.

Both are R/o. Mohammadnagar village, Kowdipally Mandal, Medak District

...PLAINTIFFS

A N D

1. Azmir Pulya S/o. Lalya, Age 50 years, Occ: Agril

2. Azmir Laxman S/o. Pulya, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agril

3. Azmir Amiriya S/o. Pulya, Age 28 yrs, Occ: Agril

4. Azmir Ramesh S/o. Pulya, Age 25 yrs, Occ: Agril

All are R/o. Mohammadnagar gate thanda, Mohammadnagar village, Kowdipally mandal, Medak District

5. Sunkari Raju S/o. Anjaneyulu, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mohammadnagar village, Kowdipally mandal, Medak District. Presently residing at Shambipur village, H/o. Bowrampet (V) Quthbullapur Mandal, R.R District.

...DEFENDANTS

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of A.Anji

Reddy and K.Sathyanarayana, Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Sri Mohd Iqbal Ali

Zafar counsel for Defendant.No.5, while the defendant No.1 to 4 were set ex-parte upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood-over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is suit is filed for perpetual injunction in with respect to suit sched- ule property i.e., agriculture land bearing Sy.No.284/124 , adm.0-21 guntas and

Sy.No.284/125, adm.0.20 guntas, situated at Mohammadnagar village, Kowdi- pally Mandal, Medak District under the following common boundaries:- 2

East:- Land of Durgaiah

West:- Pakala Kunta

North:- Paanadi (Road)

South:- Kunta.

2.It is submitted that plaintiff No.1 and 2 are jointly cultivating the schedule lands, there is no dispute among them and the cause of action is one and the same.

3.It is submitted that originally the suit schedule property was Government land, considering the long possession and financial status of Husband of Plaintiff

No.1 and father of Plaintiff No.2 the government assigned patta in their names i.e., Durgaiah S/o. Bal Lingaiah, Narayana S/o. Bal Lingaiah respectively. Thus they became the absolute owners and possessors over the suit schedule prop- erty. After the death of the said Durgaiah and Narayana the same was mutated in the name of Plaintiff No.1 and 2 respectively and the revenue authorities also issued pass book and title deed in favour of plaintiff. Since then plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

4.It is submitted that, plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. Defendants who are not having any right, title or in- terest over the suit schedule property, came over the suit schedule property and tried to interfere in to the peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The defendants came to the suit schedule property along with some un-social elements on 08-12-2013 and tried to interfere in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, but plaintiff resisted the illegal attempts of defendants with the help of well wishers and send them back. While leaving the suit schedule property defendants threatened plaintiff stating that they would dispossess plaintiff at any time with a greater force. That plaintiff are having no other go except to approach this Hon'ble Court for redressal by way of filing suit for perpetual injunction. As such humble approach to this Hon'ble court for perpetual injunction restraining defendants and their men for interfer- ing with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

3

5.D5 filed written statement in this case and D1 to D4 were set ex-parte and remained ex-parte.

Brief facts of the written statement are that, the suit of the plaintiff is not main- tainable at law, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The allegations made in the plaint which is not specifically admitted by them deemed to be denied and plaintiff should prove strictly.

6.He submitted that, the contentions in the plaint are false and cooked up for the purpose of the suit. Both the plaintiffs have to file separate suit for their respective shares as per the plaint. In the above suit two cause of actions can not be joined together.

7.He submitted that, plaintiff is owner and possessor of the land in

Sy.No.284/124, adm.0-21 guntas and 284/125, adm.0-20 guntas under the common boundaries is false and cooked up to grab his patta land, which was sit- uated in Sy.NO.284/121, adm.1-20 guntas, situated at Mohammaged Nagar. The boundaries of Sy.No.284/121, adm.1.20 gunta are East:- P.Durgaiah land i.e., defendant No.2, West:- Kunta Shikam, North:- Bata, South:- Kunta Shikam. The same boundaries shown by plaintiff for the suit Sy.No. Whereas the suit is for 1- 01 guntas and the boundaries shown by plaintiff covering 1-20 guntas of land which is part and parcel of Sy.No.284/121.

8.He submitted that, originally one Talari Narayana and Golla Venkaiah was the absolute owners and possessor of Sy.No.284/121, adm.1-20 guntas and

Sy.No.284/132, adm.1-03 guntas, both situated at Mohammednagar village,

Kowdipally Mandal. The said land was purchased by them through registered sale deed on 07-05-2006 for a sale consideration of Rs.36,100/-, vide

Doc.No.2424/2006. After purchase, they are in physical possession of the

Sy.No.284/121, adm.1-20 guntas, bounded by East: Pam Durgaiah land, i.e., plaintiff No.2, West: Kunta Shikam, North: Bata, South: Kunta Shikam and land in Sy.No.284/132, adm.1.03 guntas bounded by East: Golla Shivaiah, West:

Golla Mallesham land, North: Golla Lingam land, South: Bata both the Sy.Nos are purchased by him under regular registered sale deed and since the date of 4 purchase he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. He purchased total land adm.2-23 guntas in the above Sy.Nos and plaintiff by showing the boundaries of the patta land of Sy.No.284/121 filed the present suit. Hence the suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Actually plaintiff No.2 land is existing towards Easter side of 128/121.

9.He further submitted that, after purchase, he filed a petition before the

Tahsildar, Kowdipally for transfer of patta, The Tahsildar, Kowdipally transfered the patta in his name and issued patta pass book and title book in his favour and his name is recorded in all reveneu records from 2007 onwards till today.

Plaintiff only to knock out his land shown the boundaries of his patta land in

Sy.No.284/121, adm.1-20 guntas. Plaintiff is not in possession of the land claimed under the suit boundaries and falsely mentioned the same only to grab the land in Sy.No.284/121. Plaintiff taking advantage of his absence filed the suit against him and also filed a suit against defendant No.1 to 4 who are re- mained ex-parte who are no way concerned with the suit land, the land which is claimed by plaintiff under the suit boundaries is part and parcel of the land in

Sy.No.284/121. Plaintiff is not in possession of the land claimed in suit bound- aries. The land shown under suit boundaries are not the part and parcel of

Sy.No.284/124, 284/125, adm.0-21 guntas and 0.20 guntas respectively. Hence the suit of plaintiff is liable to be rejected.

10.He further submitted that, plaintiff is not having possession over the land shown under the boundaries. Further plaintiff taking advantage of his absence filed the suit to knock out the land by showing false cause of action. As a matter of fact there is no cause of action for the suit. Further there are two separate plaintiffs and the land also separate Sy.Nos. As such the suit is liable to be dis- missed. Plaintiffs did not approached the court with clean hand and suppressed the real facts by showing wrong boundaries. Plaintiff want to dispossess him by obtaining a decree from the Hon'ble Court. Therefore it is prayed that this

Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with cost in the circumstances

of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.

5

After having gone through the rival contentions of the both parties. Court framed following issues:-

ISSUES:-

1)Whether plaintiff is in lawful possession of suit property with specific ex- tent and boundaries as mentioned in suit schedule property as on suit date.

2)Whether there is cause of action in filing the suit.

3)To what Relief?

11.At time of trial plaintiff examined Plaintiff No.1 as Pw.1 and got marked

Ex,A1 to Ex.A9 which are, Ex.A1 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1996- 97, Ex.A2 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2001-02, Ex.A3 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-08, Ex.A4 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-10, Ex.A5 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-11, Ex.A6 is

Mee-Seva pahani, Fasly No.1422, dt: 06-12-2013, Ex.A7 is Mee-Seva pahani,

Fasly No.1423, dt: 06-12-2013, Ex.A8 is Mee-Seva pahani, Fasly No.1424, dt:

12-12-2013, Ex.A9 is certified copy of pattadar pahani of plaintiff No.1. However defendants did not adduce any evidence.

On conclusion of trial arguments of both side heard.

1 st Issue:- Whether plaintiff is in lawful possession of suit property with specific extent and boundaries as mentioned in suit schedule property as on suit date.

12.To prove this issue plaintiff No.1 himself examined as Pw.1. Pw.1 deposed that, originally the suit schedule property was Government land, considering the long possession and financial status of her Husband and father of Plaintiff

No.2 the government assigned patta in their names i.e., Durgaiah S/o. Bal

Lingaiah, Narayana S/o. Bal Lingaiah respectively. Thus they became the absolute owners and possessors over the suit schedule property. After the death of the said Durgaiah and Narayana the same was mutated in her and plaintiff’s

No.2 name respectively and the revenue authorities also issued pass book and title deed in their favour. Since then they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

6

13.She submitted that, they are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. Defendants who are not having any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, while she was doing agricultural operation, de- fendants tried to interfere in to her peaceful possession over the suit schedule property and defendants came to the suit schedule property along with some un-social elements on 08-12-2013 and tried to interfere in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, but they resisted the illegal at- tempts of defendants with the help of well wishers and send them back. While leaving the suit schedule property defendants threatened them stating that they would dispossess them at any time with a greater force. That they are having no other go except to approach this Hon'ble Court for redressal by way of filing suit for perpetual injunction. As such humble approach to this Hon'ble court for per- petual injunction restraining defendants and their men for interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

14.She further submitted that, the cause of action arose for the suit on 08-12-2013 when they were doing agriculture operation over the suit schedule property. The defendants along with their henchmen tried to interfere in to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property situated at

Mohammadnagar village, Kowdipally mandal, Medak District. Therefore it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to decree the suit with cost in the above said circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.

He got marked Ex.A1 to A9 which are Ex.A1 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1996-97, Ex.A2 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2001-02, Ex.A3 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-08, Ex.A4 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-10, Ex.A5 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-11,

Ex.A6 is Mee-Seva pahani, Fasly No.1422, dt: 06-12-2013, Ex.A7 is Mee-Seva pahani, Fasly No.1423, dt: 06-12-2013, Ex.A8 is Mee-Seva pahani, Fasly

No.1424, dt: 12-12-2013, Ex.A9 is certified copy of pattadar pahani of plaintiff

No.1. However defendants did not adduce any evidence.

15.However the defendants did not adduced any evidence and submitted to 7 decide on merits. Irrespective of fact whether the defendants adduced any evidence or not, the initial burden is always on the plaintiff to prove his case.

Only when the initial burden is discharged by the plaintiff the onus shifts on the defendants. Until then he has the choice to deny the evidence of plaintiff and need not take any pains to adduce any evidence from his side. Now the court has to see whether the plaintiff discharged the initial burden on him. Since this is the case of perpetual injunction the basic elements to be proved by the plaintiff are lawful possession as on the suit date and cause of action. The issues are also very clearly framed in this case stating whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of suit property with specific extent and boundaries as mentioned in plaint schedule as on the suit date. Therefore the issue is very specific and the plaintiff has to discharge his burden of proving this issue.

16.To prove this issue the plaintiff relied on his evidence as Pw.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A9 which are Ex.A1 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1996-97, Ex.A2 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2001-02, Ex.A3 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-08, Ex.A4 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-10, Ex.A5 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-11,

Ex.A6 is Mee-Seva pahani, Fasly No.1422, dt: 06-12-2013, Ex.A7 is Mee-Seva pahani, Fasly No.1423, dt: 06-12-2013, Ex.A8 is Mee-Seva pahani, Fasly

No.1424, dt: 12-12-2013, Ex.A9 is certified copy of pattadar pahani of plaintiff

No.1. If we see the evidence produced by the plaintiff there is no single document among Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 to show that the plaintiff's are in possession of suit property with specific extent and boundaries as mentioned by them in plaint schedule because none of the documents filed by them shows boundaries.

All the documents are pahanies which absolutely do not reflects boundaries. If we look at the written statement of the defendants filed on 23-09-2014 he very specifically raised the objection in his written statement at Para.No.5 stating that the plaintiff is not in possession of the land as mentioned by the plaintiff with boundaries in the suit property. The contesting defendants categorically stated in his written statement that the plaintiffs have shown wrong boundaries and that they are never in possession of suit boundaries as claimed by them. When 8 the defendants has raised specific objection stating that the plaintiffs are not in possession of boundaries as mentioned by them in the plaint, then it was the burned of the plaintiff to get the land surveyed and to file the survey report if not at the time of filling the plaint at least till the end of the trial. But the docket shows that there are no such steps taken by the plaintiff till the end of the trial and the plaintiff merely depended on the pahanies and patta pass book under

Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 which absolutely do not reflect the boundaries. In the absence of any evidence regarding the boundaries the court absolutely can not pass an order of injunction with the boundaries given by the plaintiff in the plaint.

17.This is the suit for perpetual injunction which is relief of equity. A relief of equity is also doing justice to the opposite side. When the witness is unfair in his conduct before this court he absolutely can not seek the relief of equity and not entitled for the same at any point. As per the plaint and chief-examination of

Pw.1, plaintiff claimed to be owner and possessor of 0.21 guntas in

Sy.No.284/124 and 0.20 guntas in Sy.No.284/125 with boundaries as East:-

Land of defendant No.5, West:- Pakala Kunta, North:- Paanadi (Road), South:-

Kunta. But if we see the cross-examination of Pw.1 he categorically stated that neither himself (Plaintiff No.1) nor plaintiff No.2 are in possession of 0.20 guntas of land in Sy.No.284/125. This admission of Pw.1 in the cross-examination holds him guilty of falsehood in his chief examination before this court. In

Para.No.2 of chief-examination which is deposed by him on behalf of both the plaintiffs, he stated that plaintiffs are owner and possessors of 0.21 guntas in

Sy.No.284/124 and 0.20 guntas in Sy.No.284/125. Whereas in his cross- examination he denied the possession of 284/125 which clearly goes to show that Pw.1 is a false witness and he do not deserve any relief of equity.

More over in this case very cleverly the plaintiffs have given single set of boundaries to both Sy.No.284/124 and 284/125 which is not possible in any manner. Every suit, every piece of land will have its own boundaries. It is different matter that the boundaries might be repetitive if there are more than one item of suit property. But every piece of land will have its own boundaries.

When plaintiff shown two different subnumbers in plaint schedule, the 9 boundaries necessarity has to be different for two items of suit property.

18.In the plaint schedule if we see the plaintiff have merged both the items of suit properties and shown single set of boundaries, which itself cuts the roots of plaintiff's case. Adding to it in the cross-examination Pw.1 admitted that he is not in possession of Sy.No.284/125. Having admitted this fact the boundaries of the suit property automatically changes because only one set of boundaries are mentioned in plaint schedule for two Sy.Nos i.e., Sy.No.284/124 and

Sy.No.284/125. In view of the above admission of Pw.1 in the cross-examination stating that he is not in possession of Sy.No.284/125 then obviously the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule will not remain the same and the boundaries of Sy.No.284/124 and Sy.No.284/125 changes. There is no oral evidence from the mouth of Pw.1 about the boundaries of Sy.No.284/124. In fact his chief-examination also did not contain the boundaries of 284/124 of which is allegedly in his possession. A suit can not stand on its feet only basing on Sy.No and extent with out mentioning the boundaries. Adding to that as already stated there is no single piece of documentary evidence to show that the alleged boundaries shown by the plaintiff are actual boundaries of

Sy.No.284/124 or 284/125.

19.If we see the plaint and chief-examination of Pw.1, the basics of claim of plaintiffs are that the government assigned the suit land to plaintiff's basing on poor financial status of husband of first plaintiff and father of second plaintiff.

But the plaintiffs very cleverly did not get any such documents before this court which could have supported their evidence that the suit land was assigned to them. That means the very basics of their claim is not proved by the plaintiff.

Besides the guilt of false hood before this court the plaintiffs have not proved their alleged possession over the suit property with extent and boundaries as on suit date. Hence we hold that plaintiff failed to prove the first issued.

Accordingly point for determination is answered.

20.2 nd issue:- Whether there is cause of action to file the suit:- Except the self serving testimony of Pw.1 that the defendants on 08-12-2013 tried to 10 interfere in his alleged possession, there is no proof filed by the plaintiff in the form of complaint to police or examination of third party to prove the cause of action in the case. Hence plaintiff failed to prove the cause of action.

3 rd issue:- To what relief:-

21.In the result the suit is dismissed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 27 th day of February, 2017.

Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:-

P.W.1:- Smt. Dumpala @ Pam Budemma

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1996-97

Ex.A2 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2001-02

Ex.A3 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-08

Ex.A4 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-10

Ex.A5 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-11

Ex.A6 is Mee-Seva pahani, Fasly No.1422, dt: 06-12-2013

Ex.A7 is Mee-Seva pahani, Fasly No.1423, dt: 06-12-2013

Ex.A8 is Mee-Seva pahani, Fasly No.1424, dt: 12-12-2013

Ex.A9 is certified copy of pattadar pahani of plaintiff No.1.

DEFENDANTS:

-NIL-

Junior Civil Judge,

Corrections Carried out:- Narsapur.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT NARSAPUR

PRESENT:

SMT. SHOUKATH JAHAN SIDDIQUI

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NARSAPUR.

TUESDAY, 21 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017

C.C.NO. 309 OF 2013

Between: State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. IDA Bollaram

...Complainant

A N D

A1) Viduru Ram Reddy S/o Gangi Reddy, Aged 37 years, Occ: Shift In-Charge, SYS Reality Investment Pvt Ltd, IDA Bollaram, R/o Flat.No.35/18, Rajeevgruhakalpa, Nizampet (V), Quthubullapur (M), R.R District. N/o. Ayyavarigedem (V), Irupalem(M), Kammam District.

A2) Amodha Kumar Mishra S/o Jwalaprasad Misrha, Aged 31 years, Caste: Brahmin, Occ: Security In-Charge, SYS Reality Investment Pvt Ltd, IDA Bollaram, R/o H.No.9-57, KBR Colony, Bollaram(V), Jinnaram (M), Medak District. N/o. MOke (V), Konch P.S, Gaya District, Bihar State. A3) Gajender Kumar S/o Sri Ravinder Singh, Aged 19 years, Caste: Kushuvha, Occ: Helper, SYS Reality Investment Pvt Ltd, IDA Bollaram, R/o. Karnakar Reddy Building, Opp: Panchavathi Company, Bollaram. N/o. Harpur Balla (V), Batana PS, Sithamadhi District, Bihar State.

A4) Munjala Rajesh S/o Krishna Rao, Aged 19 years, Caste: Kapu, Occ: Helper, SYS Reality Investment Pvt Ltd, IDA Bollaram, R/o. Old Bollaram N/o. Jaithpuram (V), Jarda, PS Ganjam District, Orissa State. …Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State and of Sri M.Shankar Reddy and P.Sudhakar Reddy learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, upon perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T::

1.This is a case filed by the Police, IDA Bollaram against the accused in Cr.No.77of 2013 for the offence U/s.380, 381 I.P.C.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 03-07-2013 at 18-00 hrs,

Lw.1 came to PS and lodged a complaint stating that, since last six 2 months, he is working as in-charge of SYS Reality Investment Pvt Ltd,

IDA Bollaram. Further he stated that, on 03-07-2013 while they are auditing the raw material of plastic Polymer Granules bags and found shortage of 55 bags of raw material of plastic Polymer Granules since last two months, wg about 25 Kgs worth of Rs.1,62,000/- from the storage point of the company. They are suspecting one V.Ram Reddy,

Shift in-charge and Amodh Mishra, Security in-charge might have committed theft of above material. Hence he requested to take action against the accused.

3.Basing on the above complaint, Lw-7 registered a case in

Cr.No.77/2013 U/s 381 IPC, issued FIR, dispatched them to all the concerned and took up the investigation and informed to Lw.8.

4.During the course of investigation, Lw-7 examined and recorded the statement of complainant Lw.1 which is corroborated with the

FIR. On receipt of the above information, Lw-8 rushed to scene of offence, which is in IDA Bollaram, took up the further investigation from Lw.7. He examined Lw.1 but his part-II statement was not recorded as he narrated the same version earlier before Lw-7. Later

Lw-8 along with force and Lw.1 visited the scene of offence situated at

SYS Reality Investment Pvt Ltd, IDA Bollaram. As it was night, Lw-8 could not conduct the scene of offence. However Lw-8 preserved the scene. Again on 04-07-2013 morning hours, Lw-8 visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of panchas Lws.3 and 4 and in their presence conducted scene of offence panchanama at 8.00 hrs and also drawn rough sketch. Later Lw-8 secured Lw.2 who is the owner of SYS Reality Investment Pvt Ltd, examined and recorded his statement.

3

5.While the investigation is under progress, on 09-07-2013, on receipt of credible information, Lw-8 along with his staff rushed to the company and apprehended the accused A1 and A2 and on interrogation they both confessed that they committed the offence along with A3 to A5. Immediately Lw-8 apprehended A3 and A4 at 9.15 hrs.

6.Later Lw-8 secured the presence of panchas Lws.5 and 6 and in their presence recorded the confession statements of A1 and A2. After confession of A1 and A2, Lw.8 along with A3 & A4 and pachas Lws.5 and 6 proceeded to the house of A1 and seized 16 bags of raw material of Poly sure Mark and 39 bags of Lyonde Base Mark under seizer report in the presence of same panchas. After seizure, all the accused

A1 to A4 were brought to PS at 14.00 hrs and affected their arrest by issuing arrest memo by following due procedure, arrested them and produced before the Hon’ble Court for judicial remand. Further Lw-8 collected the employee’s certificates of A1 to A4 from Lw.2. Further

Lw-8 deposited the case property in the Hon’ble Court. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet with a prayer to punish the accused.

7.That on 26-08-2013 this court took cognizance of the offence against the accused U/s. 380 I.P.C. and summons was issued to the accused. On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of the documents were furnished to them as required U/s 207 Cr.P.C and they were examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C. A Charge was framed U/s.

381 I.P.C., read over and explained to the accused, for which they 4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the matter was posted for trial and issued summons to the witnesses.

8.During the course of trial the prosecution examined (7) witnesses as Pw.1 to 7 and got marked as Ex.P.1 to P.12 which are

Ex.P.1 is original complaint, Ex.P.2 is signature on scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P.3 is signatures on rough sketch, Ex.P4 is scene of confession panchanama, Ex.P5 is rough sketch, Ex.P6 is signature on confession panchanama of A1, Ex.P7 is signature on confession panchanama of A2, Ex.P8 is signature on seizure panchanama, Ex.P9 is FIR, Ex.P10 is confession panchanama of A1, Ex.P11 is confession panchanama of A2, Ex.P12 is seizure panchanama.

9. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s 313(b) Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating evidence of prosecution in question form to the accused. The accused denied the prosecution evidence, however they reported no defence evidence. On conclusion of trial arguments of both sides heard.

10.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the charge U/S. 381 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. In this case prosecution examined Pw.1 to Pw.7 and got marked

Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 which are Ex.P.1 is original complaint, Ex.P.2 is signature on scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P.3 is signatures on rough sketch, Ex.P4 is scene of confession panchanama, Ex.P5 is rough sketch, Ex.P6 is signature on confession panchanama of A1,

Ex.P7 is signature on confession panchanama of A2, Ex.P8 is signature on seizure panchanama, Ex.P9 is FIR, Ex.P10 is confession 5 panchanama of A1, Ex.P11 is confession panchanama of A2, Ex.P12 is seizure panchanama.

12.Pw.1 deposed that, he was working as Plaint Manager, SYS

Reality Investment Pvt Ltd since 2012. They are in the business of supplying spare parts of fans to other companies on order. They used to store raw material of plastic polymer granules bags in their company premises. On checking they found 55 bags each weighing about 25 Kgs of 2 brands of granules worth around 1,62,000/- were missing from storage point of their company. On the date the check by them A1 and A2 who were in-charge of storage room and they were on the duty during the entire week in night shift. They suspected A1 and A2 and went to PS and gave report under Ex.P1. Later A1 and A2 were suspended. They informed Lw.2 regarding the incident. On his instructions he lodged the complaint. Ex.P1 is the complaint. Police recorded his statement. Today A1 and A2 are present in the court hall.

13.Pw.2 deposed that, he is the owner of SYS Reality Investment

Pvt, Ltd established in 2011. Pw.1 is their employee. They are in the business of supplying spare parts of fans to other companies on order.

They used to store raw material of plastic polymer granules bags in their company premises. Usually they verify physical stock every month end. In Jun-2013 on checking they found 55 bags each weighing about 25 Kgs of 2 brands of granules worth around 1,62,000/- were missing from storage point of their company. On the date of check by them A1 and A2 who were the then employees were in-charge of storage room and they were on the duty during the entire week in night shift. After internal inquiry with other employees they 6 came to know that theft was committed by A1 and A2. They suspected A1 and A2 and went to PS and gave report under. Later A1 and A2 were suspended. On his instructions Pw.1 lodged the complaint. Police recorded his statement. Today A1 and A2 are present in the court hall.

14.Pw.4 deposed that, he is working as employee in SYS reality investment Pvt Ltd. In the month of June-2013 theft was committed in their company. In that regard police came to their premises and conducted scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch and obtained signatures on it. Ex.P4 is scene of offence panchanama,

Ex.P5 is rough sketch.

15.Pw.6 deposed that, on 03-07-2013 at about 18.00 hrs, Pw.1 came to PS and lodged the complaint, basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.77/2013, U/s 381 IPC and dispatch the FIR to all concerned. He recorded the statements of Pw.1 at PS. Further investigation taken up by Lw.8. Ex.P9 is FIR.

16.Pw.7 deposed that, he received C.D file from Pw.6 and verified the investigation and found the proper lines. He recorded the statement of Lw.1. On 04-07-2013 he visited the scene of offence and secured the pancahs Pw.3 and Pw.4 and in their presence conducted scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch. He also recorded the statement of Pw.2. On 09-07-2013 on receiving the information about the presence of accused he rushed to SYS Reality Company at

Bollaram and apprehended A1 and A2. On interrogation they confessed the offence. Then he also apprehended A3 and A4. He secured the pancahs Pw.5 and Lw.7 and in their presence he recorded 7 individual confession of A1 and A2. A1 and A2 led them and panchas to the house of A1 at Nizamapet and seized 16 bags of Raw Granules of brand Poly Sure Mark and also 39 bags of Granules of brand

Lyonde Base Mark under the cover of panchanama in the presence of same panchas (i.e., Pw.5 and Lw.6) by following due procedure.

Thereafter they brought back the seized property. All the accused came to PS, effected their arrest and produced before the court for judicial remand. He collected employee certificate of A1 to A4. He deposited the case property in the court. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet. Ex.P10 is confession panchanama of A1, Ex.P11 is confession panchanama of A2 and

Ex.P12 is seizure panchanama.

17.Pw.1 and Pw.2 are employees of same company i.e., complainant company. As per the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 the accused were their employees. They also deposed that A1 and A2 were in-charge of store room in their company. That both Pw.1 and

Pw.2 in June-2013 physically verified the stock and on checking they found missing of 55 bags of granules of two different brands each weight of 25 Kgs and total worth of entire property is about 1,62,000/-. That they also came to know that theft was committed by

A1and A2 as in the alleged week of theft the accused A1 and A2 were in-charge of store room. As already stated a theft can be proved by prosecution in two ways, first way is by examining eye witness and second way is by examining the seizure panchas in the presence of whom the theft property was recovered. The accused should also give accountability of said theft property in his possession. If he failed to 8 give accountability of the same then it is very obvious that accused is theft in this case.

18.As per the evidence of Pw.7 investigation officer has seized 16 bags of raw granules in the presence of Pw.5 and Lw.6 by following procedure and deposited the same in the court. The prosecution did not take any pains to get mark the said alleged seizure property with

Pw.1and Pw.2. In fact the said property alleged to be deposited by

Pw.7 is not at all got marked by prosecution which gives inference that the alleged property deposited before this court is not theft property. When the property is not theft property then the question of commission of theft by the accused does not arises. At least the property was not confronted to Pw.1 or Pw.2 so as to get it identified that it is theft property. As such when the property itself is not got marked by the prosecution any volume of evidence given by Pw.1 and

Pw.2 is based on suspicion or alleged enmity of Pw.1 and Pw.2 with the accused as suggested by defence counsel.

19.Pw.3 and Pw.4 are scene panchas who absolutely do not have any role to play in the theft cases. Examining of scene panchas is merely as attempt of police to prove their investigation rather then proving the case. Now we have the evidence of Pw.5 who is seizure panchas. Pw.5 turned hostile and nothing was elicited in his cross- examination to show that he has won over by the accused.

20.The last witness is Pw.6 who lodged the FIR. Even if the evidence of Pw.6 is believed to be true it does not prove that the accused committed theft. It only proves that Pw.1 lodged the complaint and Pw.6 registered the case. There is no supporting 9 evidence to Pw.7 which proves the alleged property found in possession of accused or to prove the alleged seizure of case property by Pw.7 from possession of the accused. Neither the case property is got marked by the prosecution nor panch chits were confronted to the panchas. The sole confession pancha already turned hostile and another confession panchas was not examined by the prosecution.

Hence viewed from any angle prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly point for determination is answered.

21.In the result, accused A1 to A4 are FOUND NOT GUILTY for the offence U/S. 381 I.P.C and they are ACQUITTED U/S.248 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bond and bail bond of the accused stand cancelled and the sureties are hereby discharged. The case property shall be returned to proper claimant if not returned after expiry of appeal time and if it is already returned he shall retain after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Personal Asst., transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 21 st day of February,

2017.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Pw.1. M Govind Reddy Pw.2. Sunil Kumar Junjunwala Pw.3. B.Suresh Pw.4. C.Sudhakar Pw.5. B.Shiva Nayak Pw.6. Mohd. Sadath Miya (SIP) (IO) Pw.7. G.Srinivas (CIP) (IO)

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:

10

Ex.P.1 is original complaint Ex.P.2 is signature on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P.3 is signatures on rough sketch Ex.P.4 is scene of confession panchanama Ex.P.5 is rough sketch Ex.P.6 is signature on confession panchanama of A1 Ex.P.7 is signature on confession panchanama of A2 Ex.P.8 is signature on seizure panchanama Ex.P.9 is FIR Ex.P.10 is confession panchanama of A1 Ex.P.11 is confession panchanama of A2 Ex.P.12 is seizure panchanama.

DEFENCE: Nil.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Narsapur

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT NARSAPUR

PRESENT:

SMT. SHOUKATH JAHAN SIDDIQUI

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NARSAPUR.

TUESDAY, 21 st DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017

C.C.NO. 23 OF 2014

Between: State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Narsapur

...Complainant

A N D

Patel Bixapathi Goud S/o Yada Goud, Age: 24 years, Caste: Gouds, Occ: Labor, R/o. H.No.7-13, Doulthabad (V), Hathnoora (M), Medak District …Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State and of Sri A.Anji Reddy and K.Sathyanarayana learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, upon perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T::

1.This is a case filed by PS Narsapur against the accused in

Cr.No.145 of 2013 for the offence U/s.457, 380 I.P.C.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 09-12-2013 at 8.00 hrs,

Lw.1 came to PS and lodged a complaint stating that, on the night of 08-12-2013 some unknown offenders gained entry into their collage by broke open the locks and committed the theft of one CPU and one

Scanner and decamped with booty. The same matter was received from Kowdipally Venkatesham who is the computer operator. Then he went to the collage and found it correct and the total value of the stolen property is Rs.15,000/-. Hence he requested to take necessary action against the accused.

2

3.Basing on the complaint, Lw-6 registered a case in

Cr.No.145/2013, U/S. 457, 380 IPC and took up investigation.

4. During the course of investigation, Lw-6 issued FIR and disbursed to all concerned. Lw.6 examined and recorded the statement of Lw.1. Lw.6 proceeded and visited the scene of offence at

Geethanjali Junior Collage at Narsapur where secured the two mediators Lws.2 and 3 and observed the scene of offence minutely, conducted the panchanama and drafted the rough sketch.

5. Further Lw-7 has took up the investigation of this case from

Lw.6 and while the investigation was in progress on 11-12-2013 at 6.00 hrs while Lw-7 was performing patrolling duty near Narsapur X road, meantime on watching the police party one person tried to abscond from the place by leaving one monitor and one CPU which he is carrying. Immediately Lw.7 apprehended him and on interrogation he voluntarily admitted his guilty. He has shown his house at

Doulthabad village where he hide the stolen property. Lw.7 secured the two mediators Lws.4 and Lw.5 and recorded the confessional and recovery statement of accused in which he confessed his guilty and other crimes. Later he seized all the stolen property i.e., 20 CPU, 20 monitors, 01 scanner from the house of accused under the cover of panchanama before the two mediators and pasted the punch chits.

6.After completion of confessional and recovery panchanama of accused he was brought to PS at 13.30 hrs effected the arrest of accused and issued arrest memo and sent him to judicial remand.

The recovered case property is deposited before the Hon’ble Court vide

CPR.No.714/15/13. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet with a prayer to punish the accused.

3

7.That on 20-01-2014 this court took cognizance of the offence and summonses were issued to the accused. On producing of the accused before the Court, copies of the documents were furnished to them as required U/s 207 Cr.P.C and they were examined U/s 239

Cr.P.C. A Charge was framed U/s. 457, 380 IPC, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the matter was posted for trial and issued summons to the witnesses.

8.During the course of trial prosecution examined (3) witnesses

PW-1 to Pw.3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7 which are Ex.P-1 is signature on confession and seizure panchanama, Ex.P-2 is signature on confession and seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is confession and seizure panchanama, Ex.P4 is original complaint, Ex.P5 is FIR, Ex.P6 is scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P7 is rough sketch.

9.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/s 313(b) Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating evidence of prosecution in question form to the accused. The accused denied the prosecution evidence, however they reported no defence evidence. On conclusion of trial arguments of both sides heard.

10.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the charge U/S. 457, 380 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. In this case prosecution examined Pw.1 to Pw.3 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P7 which are Ex.P-1 is signature on confession and seizure panchanama, Ex.P-2 is signature on confession and seizure panchanama,

Ex.P3 is confession and seizure panchanama, Ex.P4 is original complaint,

Ex.P5 is FIR, Ex.P6 is scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P7 is rough sketch.

4

12.Pw.1 deposed that, on 11-01-2013 while they were patrolling at

Narsapur X roads one person tried to abscond by leaving one Monitor, one CPU which he was carrying. They apprehended him and on interrogation he confessed the offence. He led to the house of the accused at Doulthabad where he has hidden theft property. They collected Pw.1 and Pw.2 as mediators and recorded the confession of the accused and also recovered the theft property from the possession of the accused under the cover of panchanama. He also confessed the offence of theft which are related to other crimes of PS Shivampet. He also confessed about commission of theft in MPDO Office, Narsapur,

Geethanjali Junior Collage, Narsapur, Arora Collage, Gagillapur. They recovered all the stolen property i.e., about 20 CPUs, 20 Monitors, one

Scanner from the house of the accused when he confessed that he has hidden the theft property. Then they brought back the accused to PS, affected his arrest and produced him before the court for judicial remand. He deposited the case property in the court and also intimated the other PS about recovery of their property in their crimes.

After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet. Ex.P3 is confession and seizure panchanama. Lw.6 registered the case on the complaint given by Lw.1 in Cr.No.145 of 2013, U/s 457,380 IPC. He recorded the statements of Lw.1 at PS. He proceeded to the scene of offence i.e., Geethanjali Junior Collage and collected the panchas Lw.2 and Lw.3 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch. Ex.P4 is original complaint, Ex.P5 is FIR, Ex.P6 is scene of offence panchanama andEx.P7 is rough sketch.

13.If we see the evidence produced by the prosecution except the evidence of Pw.3 there is no evidence deposed against the accused which can be labeled as incriminating. Pw.3 is not an eye witness but 5 only an investigation officer. As per his evidence the accused confessed the offence in his presence and he seized 20 CPUs, 20 monitors and one scanner from the house of the accused and deposited in the court. The prosecution neither got marked the said property nor confronted the panch chits on it to the panchas. Leave aside confronting the panch chits to the panchas, the prosecution even failed to examine the complainant Lw.1. As such there is no evidence to show that theft was ever committed from the collage of

Lw.1.

14.It is seen from the evidence of Pw.3 that Lw.6 registered the case, but the prosecution failed to examine Lw.6. He got marked the complaint through Pw.3 who is not the author of Ex.P4 nor registered the Ex.P4. As such there is no proof that the complaint was ever lodged in this case and in pursuance of the same Pw.3 recovered the property from the accused. Hence viewed from any angle prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the point for determination is answered.

15.In the result, accused is FOUND NOT GUILTY for the offence

U/S. 457, 380 I.P.C and he is ACQUITTED U/S.248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bonds and bail bonds of the accused persons stand cancelled and the sureties are hereby discharged. Unmarked case property shall be returned to proper claimant after expiry of appeal time if not returned and if it is already returned it shall be retained by him.

Dictated to Personal Asst., transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 21 st day of February,

2017.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Narsapur 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Pw.1 Anjaiah -Nil-

Pw.2 Yadaiah

Pw.3 P. Veera Babu (SITS)(TranscoVigilance) (IO)

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1 is signature on confession and seizure panchanama

Ex.P-2 is signature on confession and seizure panchanama

Ex.P-3 is confession and seizure panchanama

Ex.P-4 is original complaint

Ex.P-5 is FIR

Ex.P-6 is scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P-7 is rough sketch.

DEFENCE: Nil.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Narsapur

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS AT NARSAPUR

SMT. SHOUKATH JAHAN SIDDIQUI

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NARSAPUR

C.C.NO. 356 OF 2013

MONDAY, THE 27 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017

Between:

State of Telangana represented by P.S Narsapur …. Complainant. A n d Shivannagari Sathayanarayana Goud S/o. Anja Goud, Age 35 Years, Caste: Goud, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Reddypally (V), Narsapur Mandal, Medak District. … Accused.

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of learned

A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State and of Sri.A.Anji Reddy and

K.Sathyanarayana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused and upon perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a case filed by the Proh & Excise Narsapur, against the accused in Cr.No.63/2013 for the offence U/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act- 1968.

2.The brief facts of the case are that, on 15-05-2013, at 19.00 hrs, while, Lw-6 was present in the PS received credible information about the selling of illicit liquor at Reddypally village in a Kirana Shop. Upon which, Lw-6 along with Lws.1 to 3 and his staff rushed to the Reddypalli village and raided on the Kirana shop of Shivannagari Sathyanarayana

Goud and found selling liquor to the consumers with out having any valid license for higher rates by keeping illegally in his Kirana shop.

Lw.6 secured two mediators and on searching they found 1) 11 Tuborg

Beer of 650 ml each. Lw.6 have conducted the scene cum seizure panchanama in their presence and seized all the contraband from the

Kirana shop. Lw.6 has brought the contraband to PS.

2

2.Basing on that, Lw.6 registered a sue-moto case in Cr.No.63/2013, against the accused and took up the investigation. Subsequently Lw.7 taken up the investigation of this case.

4.During the course of investigation Lw.6 examined Lws.1 to 3 and recorded their statements at PS, where in their statements corroborated with the facts of panchanama & FIR. Subsequently Lw-7 took up the investigation of this case and verified the investigation done and found in proper lines. On 12-06-2013, Lw-7 deposited the samples at Chemical

Examiner, Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Nizamabad. The Chemical

Examiner analyzed the sample and opined that the sample contains alcohol and sugar. Lw-7 deposited the remaining contraband before D.C of Proh & Excise, Medak at Sangareddy on 10-07-2013 and D.C of Proh & Excise, Medak at Sangareddy issued confiscation of deposited contraband.

5.While the investigation was in progress, the absconded accused came to PS and surrendered before Lw-7 on 18-05-2013. Lw.7 served a notice to the accused to produce any relevant evidence to prove his innocence. But with out taking any time he admitted his guilt that he was indulging in sale of illicit liquor since few months. On producing sufficient sureties he enlarged him on bail. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet with a prayer to punish the accused.

6.This court took cognizance on 30-09-2013 for the offence and after the appearance of the accused in court, he was furnished with copies of documents as required U/s 207 Cr.P.C and he was examined

U/s 239 Cr.P.C. A charge U/s 7 & 8 (b) (i) of A.P. Prohibition Act has been framed against the accused read over and explained to him in 3

Telugu and when questioned, he denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

7. At the time of trial the prosecution examined three witnesses

Pw.1 to Pw.3 and got marked Ex.P-1 which is Ex.P1 is scene and seizure panchanama.

8. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/s 313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating evidence of prosecution in question form to the accused. The accused denied the prosecution evidence. However he reported no defence evidence. Hence the matter was posted for arguments. On conclusion of trial arguments of both sides heard.

9. Now the point that arises for consideration in this case is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the charge

U/s 7 & 8 (b) (i) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

10.In this case prosecution examined three witnesses

Pw.1 to Pw.3 and got marked Ex.P.1 which is Ex.P1 is scene and seizure panchanama.

11.Pw.1 deposed that, on 15-05-2013 he along with Lw.2, Lw.3 accompanied Lw.7 to Reddypally village to the Kirana shop of the accused. On information about illegal sale of Liquor. After going to the said village they collected the panchas Lw.4 & 5 and raided the Kirana shop of the accused. However on seeing them the accused escaped.

They searched the shop of the accused and found 11 Tuborg beer bottles of 650 ml each. They seized the contraband as per procedure in the presence of panchas after drawing samples. Further investigation was taken up by Lw-7. His statement was recorded by Lw-7 at P.S.

4

12.Pw.2 deposed that, on 15-05-2013 he along with Pw.1 and Lw.2 assisted Lw.6 and proceeded to Kirana shop of the accused at Reddypally village. At the said village they secured the said panchas Lw.4 and Lw.5.

Then they proceeded to the Kirana shop of the accused. On seeing them the accused escaped. In the presence of mediators they searched the shop of the accused and they found 11 beer bottles, about 50 whisky bottles. They seized the entire contraband in the presence of panchas under the cover of panchanama and went back to PS along with the case papers and contraband. His statement was recorded by Lw.6 at PS.

13.Pw.3 deposed that, on 15-05-2013 when he was present at

Grapanchayath, Reddypally village, police came to him and requested him to act as pancha and he obliged. The Kirana shop which is scene of offence is opposite to Gramapanchayath office. At that time the accused was present in the Kirana shop. The Police searched the Kirana shop and found 11 beer bottles and seized them under the cover of panchanama and obtained his signatures on it. The police also obtained his signatures on the sample bottles which they seized from the contraband under the cover of panchanama. Ex.P1 is scene and seizure panchanama.

14.If we see the evidence produced by the prosecution it is only Pw.1,

Pw.2, Pw.3 who were examined by the prosecution. The remaining witnesses Lw.6 and Lw.7 who are investigation officers were never examined by the prosecution. As such there is no FIR got marked by the prosecution. There is no C.E report got marked by the prosecution.

There is no search memo got marked by the prosecution. In the absence of the same oral evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.3 does not stand. When there is no proof that the contraband seized by Lw.7 is deposited in the court as

Lw.7 is not examined there is no proof that the seized property is the contraband and deposited in the court. In fact the said property is not 5 got marked by the prosecution and the panch chits were never confronted. That apart C.E report is also not got marked by the prosecution. As such there is no proof that the alleged property seized by Lw-7 is contraband and that it is found in the shop of the accused.

15.Pw.1 and Pw.2 are as it is police officials. Pw.3 is scene and seizure pancha. Though this witness supported the prosecution case but since there is no FIR and C.E report got marked by the prosecution absolutely no case is made out against the accused to show that the accused ever committed any offence under Excise Act. Hence, we hold that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly point for determination is answered.

16.In the result, accused is FOUND NOT GUILTY for the offence charged or for any other offence and he is accordingly ACQUITTED under

Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bond and bail bond of the accused stand cancelled and the sureties are hereby discharged. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 27 th day of February, 2017.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTIONDEFENCE

P.W.1. K.Madhu None

P.W.2. J.Yadagiri

P.W.3. Srisilam

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTIONDEFENCE: NIL

Ex.P1 is Scene and Seizure panchanama.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: AT NARSAPUR

PRESENT: SMT. SHOUKATH JAHAN SIDDIQUI, B.Sc., LL.M.,

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, NARSAPUR.

C.C.NO. 449 OF 2013

MONDAY, 27 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017

Between:-

State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. IDA Bollaram.

...Complainant

A N D

Dharmana Dileshwar Rao S/o Vasudevara Rao, Age: 37 Years, caste: Velma, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.9-25/1, KBR Colony, Bollaram (V), N/o. Gangupet (V), Patapatnam (M), Srikakulam District. …. Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State and of Sri D.Sridhar Reddy and P.Sudhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, upon perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a case filed by P.S. IDA Bollaram against the accused for the alleged offences punishable U/S 324 I.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10-11-2013 at 12.00hrs,

Lw.1 came to PS and lodged a complaint stating that, on 08-11-2013 at about 19.30 hrs, when he is in front of Sanjeeva

Reddy building, Bollaram his friend Dilleshwar Rao beat him unnecessarily with an empty beer bottle on his head. Due to which he sustained bleeding injury on his head. Mean while one Adi

Narayana came and rescued him. He got treatment at Private

Hospital in Bollaram. Hence he requested to take necessary action against the accused.

2

3.Basing on the complaint Lw-7 registered a case in Crime No.

148/2013, U/s 324 I.P.C and took up investigation.

4.During the course of investigation Lw-7 examined and recorded the statement of Lw.1 and Lw.2 and sent the injured Lw.1 to Government Hospital, Narsapur for treatment. He visited scene of offence, secured the presence of panchas Lws.4 and 5 and in their presence drafted rough sketch of scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized one beer bottle from the scene which was used by the accused in the commission of offence. Mean while he examined and recorded the statement of

Lw.3. The medical officer Lw.6 who treated Lw.1 issued wound certificate opined that the injuries sustained by Lw.1 are simple in nature.

5.While the investigation was in progress, on 13-11-2013 at 13.00 hrs, the accused came to PS and on producing sufficient sureties he was enlarged on bail. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet with a prayer to punish the accused.

6.That on 30-11-2013 this court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused. On appearance of the accused they were furnished with copies of the documents as required U/s 207 Cr.P.C. They were examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C.

A Charge U/S 324 I.P.C were framed, read over and explained to the accused for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, hence the matter was posted for trial.

[ 3

7.At the time of trial the prosecution examined only one witness i.e., Pw.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5 which are, Ex.P.1 is original complaint, Ex.P.2 is FIR, Ex.P.3 is scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P.4 is rough sketch, Ex.P5 is medical certificate.

8. On conclusion of evidence of prosecution, the accused were examined U/s 313(b) Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating evidence of prosecution in question form to the accused, the accused denied the prosecution evidence, however they reported no defence evidence. Hence the matter was posted for arguments.

9.Arguments of both sides heard.

10.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the charge U/S 324 I.P.C.

11.In this case Prosecution has examined Pw.1 got marked

Exs.P-1 to P-5 which are, Ex.P.1 is original complaint, Ex.P.2 is

FIR, Ex.P.3 is scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P.4 is rough sketch, Ex.P5 is medical certificate.

12. The remaining witnesses Lw.1 to 3 were closed since the report filed by the police stating the where about were not known.

In view of the same the evidence of Lw.4 to 6 closed and Pw.1 was examined by this court.

13.Pw.1 deposed that, on 10-11-2013 at 12.00 hrs, Lw.1 came to

PS and lodged a complaint basing on which he registered a case in

Cr.No.148/2013, U/s 324 IPC and took up the investigation and dispatched FIR to all the concerned. He recorded the statement of 4

Lw.1 and Lw.2 at PS. He referred the injured Lw.1 to Government

Hospital, Narsapur for treatment. Later he visited scene of offence.

He collected the panchas Lw.4 and Lw.5 and in their presence conducted scene of offence and drawn rough sketch. He seized one beer bottle from the scene under the cover of panchanama and in the presence of same panchas and pasted panch chits on it. He recorded the statements of Lw.3. Lw.6 treated and injured and issued medical certificate. On 30-11-2013 the accused came to PS and surrendered and admitted his guilt. However on furnishing sureties he enlarged on bail. He collected the medical certificates of injured and after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet. He deposited the case property in the court. Ex.P1 original complaint, Ex.P2 is FIR, Ex.P3 is scene of offence panchanama,

Ex.P4 is rough sketch, Ex.P5 is medical certificate.

14. Neither the de-facto complainant, nor the injured examined by the prosecution. There is no oral or documentary evidence to show that Pw.1 sustained injuries in the hands of the accused on the alleged date. Except the investigation officer there is no other witnesses recorded in this case. The investigation officer Pw.1 is not an eye witness and only did his procedural work of investigation like registering the case, recording the statement of witnesses and filing of the charge sheet after collecting medical record.

15.But the evidence of Pw.1 will not help the prosecution in proving the guilt of the accused as he is not the complainant, nor injured nor eye witness. Pw.1 also stated that he seized one beer bottle under the cover of panchanama, pasted panch chits and also 5 deposited the case property and also deposited the case property in the court. But the prosecution neither got marked the case property nor confronted the panch chits to the panchas. Hence viewed from any angle prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly point for determination is answered.

16.In the result, accused is FOUND NOT GUILTY for the offence

U/s 324 IPC and he is ACQUITTED U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled and the sureties are hereby discharged. Unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over or after disposal of appeal if preferred.

Dictated to Personal Asst., transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 27 t day of February,

2017.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1: M.Praveen Reddy (SIP) (IO)

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: Nil.

Ex.P.1 is original complaint Ex.P.2 is FIR Ex.P.3 is scene of offence panchanama Ex.P.4 is rough sketch Ex.P.5 is medical certificate.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur.