Page 1 of 22 Judgment C.C.No.14 of 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, AT ALAIR
Present: Smt. Dr.Sura Sumalatha
Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alair
Monday Dated this the 7th day of October, 2024
CALENDAR CASE NO. 14 OF 2019.
BETWEEN: The State of Telangana represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Alair. …Prosecution AND
Dharma Umapathi Reddy, S/o: Late Chinna Narsi Reddy, Occ: Business, R/o: H. No.3-150/3, Buddha Nagar, Firzadiguda, Uppal,Bus depot, Hyderabad.
...Accused.
This case having come before this Court on this day for final hearing in the presence of Kum.Padma, the learned APPO on behalf of the prosecution and Sri.A.Narender Reddy, learned counsel for the Accused and upon perusing the entire material on record, upon hearing the arguments on either side and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivers the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Alair, has laid charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No.171/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 447 and 427 of Indian Penal Code (In short
I.P.C).
JCJ-CUM-JMFC, ALAIR.
Page 2 of 22 Judgment C.C.No.14 of 2019
2.The averments of the prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:
2.1Thaton 26.10.2018at16.00hoursthe defacto-Complainant/PW-1 lodged report by stating that she purchased land to an extent of Ac.4-24 gts in Sy. No.’s 818/EE, 852, 855/A, 856 at outskirts of their village from her mother Dharma
Vajramma in the year 2016, registered the same vide Doc.No.
13085/2016. From then they are in kabza of the land, cultivating castor crop. But on 26.10.2018 at about 9.00 hours when she came to her land she found that castor crop in her land was damaged.
Immediately, she enquired about this and came to know that 15 days ago PW1 brother Dharma Umapathi Reddy/Accused has criminally trespassed on to their land and damaged the castor crop with a tractor. Hence, PW-1/Defacto Complainant set the criminal law into motion.
2.2On the receipt of the report given by the PW1 the then SI of PS
Alair/PW5 basing on it he issued First information report (in short
FIR) in Cr. No.171/2018 for the offence punishable U/Sec.447 and 427 of Indian Penal Code. And took up the investigation and on the same day he recorded the statements of PW1 and PW2 at police station. And on the same day he went to the scene of offence and
JCJ-CUM-JMFC, ALAIR.
Page 3 of 22 Judgment C.C.No.14 of 2019 conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW4 and LW6/N.Bikshapathi along with rough sketch map.And also recorded the statements of PW3 and LW4/G.Mallaiah at scene of offence. And he also received Xerox copies of the land documents from PW1 and did further investigation. And on 20.12.2018 he issued 41-A CrPC notice to the accused. After completion of investigation he has filed charge sheet against accused person in this case.
3.This Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under
Sections 447 and 427 of Indian Penal Code against the Accused.
4.On appearance of the Accused, copies of the documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
5.The Accused was examined under Section 251 of The Code of
Criminal Procedure and the substance of accusation under Sections 447 and 427 of Indian Penal Code against the Accused was read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.On behalf of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined
PW-1 to PW-5 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. On behalf of the defence, no evidence is adduced and no documents are marked.
JCJ-CUM-JMFC, ALAIR.
Page 4 of 22 Judgment C.C.No.14 of 2019
7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused has been examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him through the evidence on record and pleaded false implication and on his behalf reported no defense evidence.
8.Heard both sides arguments and perused the material available on record.
9.The learned counsel for the accused filed written arguments along with citations i.e.,
(i).“Paramjeet Batra Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors” of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide citation AIR online 2012 SC 724.
(ii).“Naresh Kumar and ANR Vs. The State of Karnataka &
ANR” of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reportable 2024 IN SC 196.
9.During arguments the learned APPO has reported to decide the case on merits. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the
Accused have argued that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the present case is only filed due to civil disputes and no incident was occurred
JCJ-CUM-JMFC, ALAIR.
Page 5 of 22 Judgment C.C.No.14 of 2019 as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, pleads that the Accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
10.Now the point for consideration is:
“Whether the prosecution has proved the case
beyond all reasonable doubt against the Accused for
the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of
Indian Penal Code?”
11.POINT: PW-1 who is the defacto-complainant, PW-2 who is the circumstantial witness, PW-3 who is the eye witness, PW-4 who is the panch for scene of offence and rough sketch panchanama and
PW-5 who is the Investigating Officer.
12.On perusal of evidence of PW-1 who is the defacto- complainant has deposed that, PW2 is her husband. Accused is her own brother, Her mother Dharma Vajram and father Narsi Reddy. In the year 2016 she purchased land from her mother in Kolanupaka
Village in sy.no.818E, 852, 855A, 856 admg. Ac.04-24 gts and registered the same vide document No.13085/2016 since from the purchase she is possession of the land and cultivating castor crop after 15 days she went to the land on 26.10.2018 at about 09:00 AM she saw that the crop was damaged. On enquiry from the neighbor farmers i.e., PW3 and PW4, she came to know that Accused/her brother has damaged the said crop. Then he stated to her husband
JCJ-CUM-JMFC, ALAIR.
Page 6 of 22 Judgment C.C.No.14 of 2019 to draft the application and her husband read over of the contents same to her after knowing only she put her signature. And she went to police station and gave report to the police at about 04:00 PM on 26.10.2018.
13.During cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, she has stated that, to her parents they are total 5 siblings i.e., 4 females and 1 male. She is the last child of her parents. Her sisters names are Kamsoulya/75 years, Umapathi Reddy/Accused/73 years, Laxmi/69 years, Andalu/66 years and finally herself. The
Ac.04-24gts of land which she purchased from her mother is acquired from the earnings of the her mother and father by them.
She does not know when purchased the above land. There are no lands in the name of her father and her mother except Ac.04-24gts of land. She does not know how much of extent of land is there in each sy.no. which she mentioned in her chief examination. She admitted that, she has filed a suit for partition before this court. She does not remember the suit number and also filed in which year.
She admitted that, she has filed OS No.64/2019 for partition before this court. She admitted that, Accused was filed civil case against her at Bhongir Sub Court. She admitted that Accused filed suit OS
No.143/2016 against her for cancellation of registration deed on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Bhongir. She denied that, signature
JCJ-CUM-JMFC, ALAIR.
Page 7 of 22 Judgment C.C.No.14 of 2019 on the Ex.P1 was put by her husband. She denied that, she does not know the contents of the Ex.P1 as it was given by her husband. She only came from Gandamalla Mallaiah at about morning 06:00 to 7:00 AM with tractor damaged the her castor crop. She does not know on which date castor crop was damaged as she went to some other village and came after one week. She has stated in Ex.P1 that
PW3 and LW4/G.Mallaiah has saw when crop was damaged by the
Accused. PW3 and LW4 did not seen the tractor number. LW4 agriculture land toward eastern side of her land. PW3 agriculture land toward southern side of her land. Registration was done on 05.08.2016. After registration her mother stayed with her. Her mother was aged 91 years, recently she died. Her brother/Accused stays from since 20 years at Uppal. Her mother gave land she was not having land. She denied that, she did not gave any consideration amount to her mother and registered the sale deed in her favour without giving any amount. She does not know in what mode sale consideration amount given to her mother at the time of registration. She denied that, registration sale deed executed by her mother is fraudulently made by her and She never in possession of said land and She filed false case against the Accused. When she went to the land there was PW3, LW4, PW4 and LW6/N.Bikshapathi were present. She denied that, as the Accused has filed suit for
JCJ-CUM-JMFC, ALAIR.
Page 8 of 22 Judgment C.C.No.14 of 2019 cancellation against her after that she filed this present criminal case and also partition suit to harass the Accused. Prior to 2016 her mother was stayed alone. She denied that, her mother stayed with her brother/Accused prior to 2016. She denied all the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the Accused.
14.On perusal of evidence of PW-2 who is the circumstantial- witness to the incident, has deposed that, PW1 is his wife. Accused is his own brother in law. They have lands in sy.no.818E, 852, 855A, 856 admg. Ac.04-24 gts at Kolanupaka Village in the name of my wife. Same was purchased by his wife through his mother in law
Dharma Vajram and through registered document No.13085/2016.
In the said land they ploughed and pour castor seeds. After 15 days the Accused came and ploughed the land and damaged the same.
And on the next day early morning they went and saw the same.
And on enquiry they came to know the damage was done by
Accused from PW3 and LW4/Ch.Mallaiah. Then they went to police station and gave report.
15.During cross-examination by the learned counsel for the
Accused, he has stated that they have seen on 26.10.2018. He does not know when the crop was damaged on which date and what time. On the instructions of his wife/PW1 he wrote Ex.P1 and she put her signature. On the same day at about 12 ‘o’ clock police came to
JCJ-CUM-JMFC, ALAIR.
Page 9 of 22 Judgment C.C.No.14 of 2019 the scene of offence for enquiry. Police did not took the photos of the scene. Witness adds the he took the photos of the scene. She admitted that, with his knowledge only partition suit was filed by his wife. He admitted that, the Accused also civil case against his wife for cancellation of the registered sale deed. He does not know when
Accused filed the suit. He was not there at registration office when his mother in law executed registered sale deed in the favour of his wife. His wife and her mother only went to registration office as he saw duty on that day in Jain Mandhir. He did not asked nor the PW3 and LW4/G.Mallaiah told about the tractor number and also which date the Accused came and damaged the crop. He does not know any details of the tractor. When Police came to scene of offence at the time there was he along with his wife, SI, constable and PW3,
LW4 and PW4 were present. He denied that, police never came to scene of offence and they obtained signatures at police station. He can say the boundaries to the scene i.e., North: Land of Mamindla
Anjaiah, South: Land of Kamalamma, East:Land of Raghupathi
Reddy and West:Land of Kamalamma and Linga Reddy. He, himself do agriculture with the help of tractor belongs to one Ravi. Police did not took any material objects from the scene. He denied that as the
Accused has filed suit for cancellation against his wife after that she filed this present criminal case and also partition suit to h arras the
JCJ-CUM-JMFC, ALAIR.
Page 10 of 22 Judgment C.C.No.14 of 2019 Accused. He denied that, they never in possession of said land. He denied all the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused.
16.On perusal of evidence of PW-3 who is the eye witness to the incident, he has deposed that, he has agriculture land down of the
Kothakunta for about Ac.02-00gts and daily he go to his agriculture land for agriculture purpose. Towards south of his land the
Agriculture land of PW1 and PW2 was situated to an extent of Ac.04- 24gts in which they raised Caster oil crop after raise of small saplings they went to other village. Then on one day evening the brother of the Varalaxmi i.e., Accused/Umapathi Reddy ploughed the land with tractor. When he asked Accused why he was doing like that when the land belongs to Varalaxmi but the Accused did not reply him to anything and left away. Along with him LW4/G.Mallaiah was also present at that time. When PW1 and PW2 came to the village on 25.10.2018 then he informed them about the incident occurred. Thereafter PW1 gave report to the police on 26.10.2018.
17.During cross-examination by the learned counsel for the
Accused, he has stated that he studied upto degree. Police came to his agriculture land on 26.10.2018 at about 02:00 PM. Except him and LW4/G.Mallaiah were present when police came to his agriculture land. The land of Mallaiah is there towards east of his
JCJ-CUM-JMFC, ALAIR.
Page 11 of 22 Judgment C.C.No.14 of 2019 land. There was kunta towards west side of his land. One Madhava
Reddy land is there towards north side. There are no other lands adjacent to his land. His sy.no. is 836 situated at Kolanupaka village.
Mallaiah/LW4 was having Ac.02-00gts of land and he does not know his survey number. He does not know the sy.no. of the Ac.04-24gts of the land. Police read over the contents of his statement to him.
He know what is written in the same. What he stated now before the court same is written in his statement. He does not know tractor bearing number or it’s driver name with which land was ploughed.
He admitted that, he did not stated on which date and month and year Accused ploughed the land. He has stated in his 161 statement the time when the Accused came to the land. He does not remember whether he put his signature or not. Only the Accused and driver of the tractor was present at the time of incident.
Accused stays at Hyderabad. Whatever he remember he has stated.
The Ac.04-24gts of land belongs to Varalaxmi/PW1. He know only the Accused as brother of the PW1 but he does not know how many siblings are there to PW1. He denied that, he does not know who gave report to the police. He know only mother of the Accused and
PW1 but He does not know their father. The mother of the PW1 and
Accused was died at present and she died in the Kolanupaka village at the house of PW1. The Accused only took the body of his mother
JCJ-CUM-JMFC, ALAIR.
Page 12 of 22 Judgment C.C.No.14 of 2019 and performed all the death ceremony rituals. He does not know whether PW1 is having other lands. He denied that, the Accused never came to the land with tractor and never ploughed the land.
He denied all the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused.
18.On perusal of evidence of PW-4 who is the panch for scene of offence and rough sketch panchanama, he has deposed that, about 6 years back at about evening 05:00 PM near agriculture well of the
PW1 Alair police came there, when he along with LW6/N.Bikshapathi were going from there, police called him and police drafted panchanama and also sketch map of the scene. He observed damage of the Castrol crop and also plough of the land with the tractor. Police asked to put their signature then they put their signatures on the scene of offence panchanama under, Ex.P2 and rough sketch map of the scene under, Ex.P3 After knowing contents of the panchanama only he put his signature on the panchanama and along with him LW6/N.Bikshapathi also put his signatures. He can say the boundaries of the scene i.e., East: Land of Raghupathi
Reddy, West: Land of Anni Reddy, North: Land of Mamindla Anjaiah and South: Land of Papakari Narsi Reddy.
JCJ-CUM-JMFC, ALAIR.
Page 13 of 22 Judgment C.C.No.14 of 2019
19.During cross-examination by the learned counsel for the
Accused, he has stated that he does not know survey number of the land in which police called him. Police only drafted Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.
He does not know the contents of the Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. He does not know the survey numbers of the lands of the neighbors. He put two signatures. He does not know in which papers he put his signatures.
He is the same villager. He denied that, he does not know who are in possessions of the land before PW1. He did not seen what police recovered at scene of offence. He denied that, no panchanama was conducted in his presence and in the presence of
LW6/N.Bikshapathi. He denied all the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused.
20.On perusal of evidence of PW-7 who is the Investigating
Officer, has deposed that on 26.10.2018 at 16.00 hours he received
Ex.P1 from PW-1 basing on it he issued FIR under, Ex.P4. And took up the investigation and on the same day he recorded the statements of PW1 and PW2 at police station. And on the same day he went to the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW4 and LW6/N.Bikshapathi under,
Ex.P2along with rough sketch map under,Ex.P3.And also recorded the statements of PW3 and LW4/G.Mallaiah at scene of offence. And he also received Xerox copies of the land documents from PW1 and
JCJ-CUM-JMFC, ALAIR.
Page 14 of 22 Judgment C.C.No.14 of 2019 did further investigation. And on 20.12.2018 he issued 41-A CrPC notice to the accused. After completion of investigation he has filed charge sheet against accused person in this case.
21.During cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, Ex.P1 was given by PW1. He denied that, the signature in the Ex.P1 does not belongs to PW1 and she did not gave any report to him. He denied that Ex.P1 was given by PW2 and he only put the signature of PW1 in Ex.P1. He denied that, the xerox copy of registered sale deed documents which is given by PW1, the signature of the PW1 does not matched the signature of the PW1 in
Ex.P1. As per Ex.P1, incident was occurred 15 days prior to giving of
Ex.P1. He went to scene of offence after 15 days of the incident. On 26.10.2018 he received Ex.P1 and recorded the statement of PW1 and PW2 at police station. He secured the presence of PW4 and
LW6/N.Bikshapathi from the local village where incident occurred.
He did not seized any material objects at scene of offence. Witness adds that since it was after 15 days he conducted panchanama no tractor was present there. He did not enquire the tractor number through which the accused alleged to have ploughed the land.
Witness adds that, he enquired with the driver of the tractor but did not cited him as witness. He admitted that, as per Ex.P1 there is no time when incident was occurred whether it is day or night. Where
JCJ-CUM-JMFC, ALAIR.
Page 15 of 22 Judgment C.C.No.14 of 2019 incident occurred comes under 5 Sy. Nos. He can say the Sy.
No.818/EE to an extent of 04 guntas, in Sy.No.852 to an extent of Ac 01.00 guntas, Sy.No.854 to an extent of Ac.01.26 guntas,
Sy.No.855/A to an extent of Ac.00.06 guntas and Sy.No.866 to an extent of Ac.01.28 guntas. Total land is Ac 04.24 guntas. Ex.P3 was drawn by me, but he did not mentioned Sy.Nos in Ex.P3. He mentioned the boundaries as stated by the panchas. He denied that, PW1 has falsely created registered document in her favour from her mother, due to which the accused filed civil case before the Bhongir court for cancellation of the registered document, as such PW1 gave this false report against the accused.
On appreciation of Evidence to determine the case:
22.The case of the prosecution is that the Accused has trespassed into the land of PW1 and PW2 and damaged the castor crop with a tractor prior to 15 days of the giving of Ex.P1.
23. PW-1 is the defacto complainant and PW-2 is husbandof PW1.
PW-3 is the arraigned as eye-witnesses to the incident. PW-4 is the arraigned as Panch for scene of offence and rough sketch. PW-5 who is the investigation officer who laid charge sheet.
24.Whereas PW-1 who is the defacto complainant has deposed that on 26.10.2018 at about 9.00 AM she went to her land and found damaged crop. On enquiry from the neighbour farmers ie., PW3 and
JCJ-CUM-JMFC, ALAIR.
Page 16 of 22 Judgment C.C.No.14 of 2019 PW4 she came to know that Accused has damaged the said crop.
PW1 and PW2 though deposed similarly in their chief examination it is evident from their evidence that admittedly there are civil cases pending before Bhongir court and before this court between
Accused family and PW1 family with regard to the land where alleged incident occurred. In the cross-examination, PW1 she herself admitted about the pending O.S. No.64/2019 for partition filed by her and O.S. No. 143/2016 for cancellation of registered sale deed filed by the Accused before the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge Court,
Bhongir. As such it is evident that the accused and PW1 are own brother and sister and there is a admitted civil cases filed by both of them for the land where alleged incident to have been occurred.
Admittedly PW2 is the circumstantial witness and PW3 though he deposed that the Accused ploughed the land with the tractor but the prosecution has failed to examine the tractor driver and on perusal of the cross-examination of the PW3 there is contradictory statement made by him. And PW4 who is panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama he himself deposed in the cross- examination that he do not know the contents of Ex.P2 and P3 ie., scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch map. Due to which the prosecution failed to prove the panchanama conducted by the
PW5. And on the perusal of the cross-examination of PW5 he
JCJ-CUM-JMFC, ALAIR.
Page 17 of 22 Judgment C.C.No.14 of 2019 himself admitted that as per Ex.P1 there is no time when the incident occurred and it is an admitted fact that as per the Ex.P1 no date of incident was mentioned and prosecution failed to examine the tractor driver as same is admitted by the PW5.
25.Further PW1 stated that, she does not know in what mode sale consideration amount given to her mother at the time of registration. PW2 has stated in his cross-examination that, he was not there at the registration office when his mother-in-law executed registered sale deed in favour of of his wife. His wife and his mother went to registration office as he was on duty on that day in Jain
Mandhir. He does not know the details of tractor. As seen from the above discussion it clearly shows that, the disputes between the
Accused and PW1 is purely is civil in nature.
26.On perusal of the eyewitness evidence i.e., PW3 stated in his cross-examination that except himself and LW4/G.Mallaiah were present when police came to his agriculture land and he does not know the tractor bearing number or its driver name with which land was ploughed. He admitted that, he did not stated on which date and month year Accused came to the land. And he stated that he do not remember whether he put his signature or not. Only the
Accused and driver of the tractor were present at the time of
JCJ-CUM-JMFC, ALAIR.
Page 18 of 22 Judgment C.C.No.14 of 2019 incident. Admittedly prosecution did not took the photographs of the scene.
27.From the cumulative reading of the above oral and documentary material on record, it is evident that the case of the prosecution is not free from doubts. There are inconsistent statements from the witnesses i.e., PW-1 to PW-4 and due to admitted civil disputes between Accused family and PW1 family it is not safe to rely upon the contradictory and inconsistence statements of PW1 and PW2 and also interested witnesses i.e.,PW3 and PW4. And failure by the prosecution toseize any material objects from scene of offence,raises a doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case. Also, it is not clear whether the incident of trespass and damage of castor crop was caused by the Accused, in the absence of reliable evidence free from doubts and thus it is evident that the material on record prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the offences to constitute offences under sections 447, and 427 of Indian Penal Code.
28.Hence from the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 447 and 427 Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable
JCJ-CUM-JMFC, ALAIR.
Page 19 of 22 Judgment C.C.No.14 of 2019 doubt. As such the Accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
Accordingly, the point is answered.
29.IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of Indian Penal
Code. Accordingly, accused is acquitted under Section 255 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.
….Directly typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced in the open Court on this 7th day of October, 2024.
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ALAIR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENSE:
PW1 - T.Varalaxmi/defacto-complainant None PW2 - T.Anantha Reddy/circumstantial-witness PW3 - G.Nagaraju/Eye-witness PW4 - Y.Raji Reddy/Panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch. PW5 - J.Venkat Reddy/Investigating Officer.
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1: is the report given by PW-1. Ex.P2: is the scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3: is the rough sketch.
JCJ-CUM-JMFC, ALAIR.
Page 20 of 22 Judgment C.C.No.14 of 2019 Ex.P4: is the First Information Report. Ex.P5: is the Letter, dated:19.07.2016.
FOR DEFENSE: - NIL –
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: - NIL-
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ALAIR.
JCJ-CUM-JMFC, ALAIR.
Page 21 of 22 Judgment C.C.No.14 of 2019
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS :: ALAIR.
C.C.No. 14 OF 2019
1. Cr. No. & Offence :Crime No.171/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 447 and 427 of Indian Penal Code
2. Name of the Police Station.:Alair PS.
3. Name of the Accused. : Dharma Umapathi Reddy, S/o: Late Chinna Narsi Reddy, Occ: Business, R/o: H. No.3-150/3, Buddha Nagar, Firzadiguda, Uppal,Bus depot, Hyderabad.
4. DATE OF:
a) Occurrence.:-
b) Report.:26.10.2018
c) Apprehension of the accused. :…...
d) Released on bail.:….
e) Commencement of trial.:14.9.2023.
f) Closure of trial.:13.6.2024.
g) Judgment.:7.10.2024.
5. Explanation for delay. :-
6. Sentence or order.:IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, accused is acquitted under Section 255 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ALAIR
Submitted to: The Hon'ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
YADADRI BHONGIR.
Dis.No. ____________ Dated:_______________.
JCJ-CUM-JMFC, ALAIR.
Page 22 of 22 Judgment C.C.No.14 of 2019
JCJ-CUM-JMFC, ALAIR.