Smt.Surampudi Sree Devi

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MAHABUBNAGAR

Dated, this the 29" day of December, 2022

Present: Smt S.Sree Devi

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Mahabubnagar.

0.S.No.53 of 2016

Between:

Pasula Damoder Reddy S/o. Pasula Krishnaiah, age 62 years,

Occ:Business

and agriculture, H.No.5-2-17/1,

Vallabnager,

Mahabubnagar Proper.

..Plaintiff.

AND

1. Pasula Srinivas Reddy S/o. Pasula Ganapathi Reddy, agfe 45 years,

Occ:Business,R/o:H.No.2-109/A, Madhuranager Colony, Mahabubnagar

proper.

2. Pasula Bhagavan Reddy S/o. Pasula Ganapathi Reddy, age 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o:H.No.2-109/B, Madhuranager Colony,

Mahabubnager proper.

3. Pasula Ashok Reddy Slo. Pasula Ganapathi Reddy, age 40 years, Occ:Business, R/o:H.No.2-109/C, Madhuranager Colony, Mahabubnager proper.

..Defendants.

This Suit came before me for final hearing on 10.11.2022 in the presence of Sri G. Raja Narender Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri K. Pratap Kumar, Advocate for the defendants, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants seeking partition and separate poSsession of wet land an extent of Ac.0-32 gts in

Sy.No.195, situated at Mahabubnager proper, into two equal shares and to allot h share to the plaintiff by metes and bounds.

P a g e 0.S.No.53 of 2016 Page No.2 of 14

According to plaintiff, the plaintiff and defendants are agnates. 2.

One Pasula Nagaiah was ancestor who was grandfather of plaintiff and great grandfather of defendants. He died leaving his two sons by name

Ramulu and Krishnaiah and acquired the land to the extent of Ac.Z1.1

gts and after his death Krishnajah refused for partition. Hence, Kamuiu

Tled suit for partition and separate possession vide O.S.No. 13 of 197/ and the said suit was compromised and both of them got Ac.10-92 gs each by leaving the Sy.No.195 to the extent of Ac.0-32 gts, wet intact as the area was covered with a well and its bank which should not be divided into two parts and elders agreed to share the water for their cultivation. Both of them used to water of the well equally and they also used remaining area of suit schedule land as their cattle sheds. After

Some years, the first son of Nagaiah i.e., Ramulu died by leaving

Ganapathi Reddy who is father of defendants and after his death the defendants are enjoying the share allotted to Ramlulu and likewise after death of Krishnaiah, plaintiff inherited the share allotted to Krishnaiah.

The name of Ramulu was continued in the revenue records as he being elder son of Nagaiah. The defendants took advantage of it and got mutated in their favour illegally. Now the well is in dilapidated condition. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are trying to sell away the suit schedule property to the strangers under the guise of illegal entries in revenue records. When they enquired with defendants regarding the illegal entries and they informed that they will get them rectified. The 6 Page No.3 of 14 0.S.No.53 of 2016 defendant Nos.1 to 3 are trying to raise loans from banks with the help of their names in the revenue records. On that. the defendants forced the plaintiff for partition and separate possession. The unsatisfactory reply of the defendants, forced the plaintiff to demand for partition and separate possession. The defendant Nos.l to 3 evaded the same on one or the other pretext and finally on 02.04.2016 they refused for partition.

It was also the contention of the plaintiff mere entries in revenue records in favour of the defendants do not accrue any right.

Written statement was filed by the defendant No.2 by contending 3 that Nagaiah got two daughters Kistamma and Rangamma and that elder daughter Kistamma died issue less. He admitted that partition took place vide in O.S.No.13/1977 and the matter was compromised and brothers were allotted Ac.10-9½ gts each. They also admitted that suit schedule land in Sy.No. 195 is standing in the name of Ramulu. The total extent of land in S.No.195 is Ac.02-16 gts and there are three joint pattadars in the said land namely A. Anand, P. Ramulu and P. Chinna Kistaiah and the said land is ancestral property and also contended that the grandfather of the defendants was absolute owner of the suit lands and later the name of father of defendants was recorded as owner and after his death. It is also their version that the suit property is not joint property and plaintiff has no right to file the suit for partition. Plaintiff is contending that all the properties were partitioned but the suit property was not partitioned.

Plaintiff did not file any document to show that the suit property is joint )

P a g e

Page No.4 of 14 0.S.No.53 of 2016 family property and he is entitled for share which left to be partitioned. It

Is also contention of the defendants that the plaintiff is having a sister by

name Rangamma and she is proper and necessary party to the present

Suit and the said suit is bad for non joinder of the necessary partieS and liable to be dismissed. It is also their version stating that the claim ortne plaintiff do not have any right to him in the suit property as mere permitting to take water from the well will not give share or right in the property when once the well is closed. The well in Sy.No.195 exclusively belongs to Ramulu and he merely agreed to permit the branch of the plaintiff to take water from the said well. But he never admitted his share or right in the land bearing Sy.No.195 and vehemently contended that neither the plaintiff nor his father were in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time and prayed to dismissal of the suit.

4. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A15. In support of his case, the plaintiff as also examined P.W.2. On behalf of the defendant, defendant No.1 was examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.Bl to B8.

5 Heard both sides. Written arguments filed by the counsel for plaintiff and counsel for defendant No.2.

6. Basing on the plaint and written statement, the Court framed the

following issues :

of 3 2016

0.S.No.53 of 2016 Page No.5 of 14

1. Whether the suit schedule property is ancestral property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek partition of the

suit schedule property?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit

schedule property?

4. Whether parties to the suit had exempted the suit schedule property from partition in 0.S.No. 13/1977 and whether they had agreed to commonly use the suit schedule property so as to take water from the well

existing in the suit schedule property?

5. Whether the suit property is divisible, amendable to partition?

6. To what relief?

ISSUE No.1 : 7.

It is the version of plaintiff that the suit property is a joint family

property but taking advantage of names of father of defendant No.1, defendants are taking the partition. But whereas, according to the defendants, suit property is exclusive property of the defendants and plaintiff did not file any document to show that suit schedule property is

a jointly family property.

The plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 and reiterated in his 8. chief examination all the facts which are mentioned in the chief examination and exhibited Exs.Al to A15.

In the cross examination he admitted that he did not made his two 9

sisters as parties to the suit and did not even show them in the family

pedegree. He failed to give the total extent of land situated in suit

e Page No.6 of 14 0.S.No.S3 of 2016

Sy.No.195. According to him, the total land situated in Sy.No. 195 is about Ac.02.16 gts. He admitted Mallappa, Ramulu and Chinna Kistaiah

are the joint pattadars of the above said Ac.02-16 gts and defendants are

the legal heirs of Ramulu. He also adnmitted that in Sy.No.195 well as well as cattle shed were situated and at present there are no cattle shed in existence and admitted that there is a well in the suit schedule property and it is partly in a dilapidated condition and there is no water in the said well and nobody is utilizing the water from the past 15 years. It was suggested to him that there is no well and no water. He also admitted that no patta is standing either in the name of his father or in his name with regard to the suit land. He also admitted that in Ex.A1 there is no mention that the land in Sy.No.195 is jointly family property and it is yet to be partitioned. He admitted in Ex.A1 there is no land in Sy.No.195 is joint family property. He also admitted that there is no mention in

Ex.Al water of the well which is situated in Sy.No.195 shall be utilized by both the parties for their agricultural purpose. It is also admitted that he did not file any document to show that he get share in Sy.No.195. He also admitted that there is no mention in any revenue records from sethwar to till date that they got right in Sy.No.195. He stated that his father did not contend in O.S.No.13/1977 that he got right and share in the suit Sy.No.195. It was suggested to him that neither himself nor his father were in possession of the suit land at any point of time. It was suggested to him that the suit land is the exclusive property of

Page No.7 of 14 0.S.No.53 of 2016

defendants and their father and they have been in possession of the same

since inception till today and as there is enormous increase in the value

or suit land this false suit was filed, for which he denied.

10. P.W.2 also supported the version of P.W.I in his chief

examination. In the cross examination he stated that, he went through the

pahanies and decree passed by the Court and got mentioned in the chief

affidavit that Nagaiah's family is in possession of Ac.21 -11 gts. The said

decree was implemented in the year 1976-77 during his tenure as

patwari. The then Tahsildar implemented the decree in Ex.Al and no

role was played by him in such implementation. It was also elicited that three pattadars A. Mallappa, P. Ramulu and Chenna Kistaiah are no way related to Ramulu. Partition took place between Ramulu and Kistaiah

depending upon the decree which is Ex.AI filed before the Court. He

admitted that there is no mention in the decree that land in Sy.No. 195 is

ancestral property. But it was mentioned that parties can utilize the water

from the well which is situated in Sy.No.195. It was also elicited that there is no record to show that numbers of well situated in Sy.No. 195.

According to him the well which is situated in Sy.No.195 has got only

little water and he saw it about 12 years back. He stated that he got no

personal knowledge as who got succeeded from time to time in respect

of Sy.No.195 and he did not personal knowledge about the contentions

mentioned in his chief examination. It was suggested to him that he

deposing false at the instance of plaintiff, for which he denied.

Page 1S n Page No.8 of 14 0.S.No.53 of 2016

11. Defendant No.l was examined as D.W.l and reiterated in his

chiet examination all facts which are mentioned in the written statement.

In the cross examination it was elicited that the suit land is situated in

Sy.No.195 to the extent of Ac.00-32 gts and there is a well in Sy.No.195 and he volunteered that he close it upto half of it's extent. It was suggested to him that there are some huts pertaining to farm servants ol both parties existing in the above said survey number at the time of their cultivating the land, for which he denied. He admitted that Ramulu and

Krishnaiah were buried in Sy.No. 195. He do not know that whether the dead body of Subhan Reddy who is son of Krishnaiah was also buried in

Sy.No.195. It was suggested to him that he know about the burying of dead body of Subhan Reddy in Sy.No.195 as he attended the lost rituals of Subhan Reddy, for which he denied. It was suggested to him that he know about the existence of huts in Sy.No.195, for which he denied. He stated that he submitted the documents showing that Ramulu acquired the land in Sy.No. 195 during his life time. It was also elicited that there is no mention in 0.S.No.13/1977 that Ramulu got exclusive right over

Sy.No.195. He admitted that Krishnaiah filed suit against his brother

Ramulu for partition of lands. It was suggested to him that he apprehended once the suit was filed, they have to summon the joint ) properties of Sy.No. 195 and in order to avoid the same Sy.No.195 was not included in O.S.No. 13/1977, for which he denied. She admitted that there is no mention in decree passed in 0.S.No.13/1977 that Krishnaiah

Page No.9 of 14 0.S.No.53 of 2016

is not entitled to utilize the land in Sy.No.195 but confined only to get

water from the well. It was suggested to him that by taking advantage of

name of Ramulu in the revenue records pertaining to suit land and also

the suit land involved in 0.S.No. 13/1977 he got them transferred in his

name and the name of Ramulu was included in the revenue records as he

was kartha of joint family, for which he denied. It was suggested to him

that the land in Sy.No. 195 is not self acquired property of Ramulu and

plaintiff also got equal right on par with them in the suit land, for which he denied. It was suggested to him that the plaintiff is also entitled to equal extent of land on par with them in the suit land but in order to deny the share to plaintiff, he is deposing falsehood, for which he denied.

12. Both the counsel argued at length depending upon the averments of plaint and written statement and written arguments also filed on behalf of plaintiff. It is argued on behalf of the defendant that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Moreover, P.W.1 admitted that when well is in dilapidated condition and in Ex.Al there is no mention about Sy.No. 195. No documents which are in favour of the

plaintiff were filed before this Court. Ex.Al itself is creating doubt.

Moreover, defendants are permitted to use water but they are not entitled

for the land. Whereas, it was mentioned by the plaintiff in written arguments by the oral evidence and documents on which the defendants relied also proved the contentions of the plaintiff and do not support the

plea of self acquisition by Ramulu and the evidence lead by defendants

0.S.No.S53 of 2016 Page No. 10 of 14

clarifies that the suit land was in joint family property but not self

acquired property of Ramulu as pleaded by the defendants.

13. P.W.I has categorically admitted in the cross examination that in Sy. No. 195 there were wells and cattle sheds but at present there is no cattle sheds and well is in partly dilapidated condition. He also categorically admitted that there is no patta standing either in the name of his father or in his name with regard to the suit land and he also admitted that as per Ex.A1 partition took place between themselves with regard to all their properties. When that is the case and when P.W.1 has categorically admitted that no patta is standing in the name of either his father or in his name with regard to suit land, absolutely, there will not be right to claim that he is in possession of the property. Moreover, he

categorically admitted that as per Ex.Al partition took place between

them with regard to all properties. Whereas in the plaint it was mentioned that suit property was not partitioned. At one breathe

plaintiff is contending that partition took place with regard to all

property but in another breathe, P.W.1 is denying the same. Moreover,

P.W.1 did not filed any document to show that he got share in

Sy.No.195 and there is no revenue record filed on behalf of the plaintiff that he got right in Sy.No.195. Even though he denied the suggestion that suit properties are the exclusive properties of the defendants but their denial has no sanctity or validity. On the other hand, Exs.Bl to B8 are amply supporting the version of defendants. P.W.2 also admitted

Page No.11 of l4 0.S.No.53 of 2016

about the partition took place between Ramulu and Kistaiah depending

upon the decree which was passed by the Court i.e.. Ex.A1. He also admitted that there is no mention in the decree Ex.A1 that land in

Sy.No.l95 is their ancestral property and there is no revenue record to

show that the numbers of well situated in Sy.No.195 and he opined that

the well is situated in Sy.No. 195 and it got only little water. Moreover,

he categorically stated that he do not know any personal knowledge

about the contents mentioned in his chief affidavit. It is the version of

defendants that plaintiff got only to utilize the water from the well which

is situated in Sy.No.19S but no circumstance they can claim the land where the well is situated. Moreover, both parties admitted the well is in dilapidated condition and there is no water in the well. On perusal of

Ex.Al shows that land in Sy.No.178, 179, 180, 182, 181, 183, 186, 188, 189, 297, 298 for total area of Ac.20-19 gts were only partitioned between Krishnaiah and Ramulu but there is no mention about

Sy.No. 195. But no document was filed to show that Sy.No. 195 is a joint family property and it has to be partitioned. It was settled principle of

law that plaintiff has to sail or sick depending upon the pleadings and

evidence lead by the plaintiff. But no circumstance, plaintiff cannot

depend upon the weaknesses of the defendants. Likewise, in the present

case on hand it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove his contentions that

Sy.No. 195 is joint family property and plaintiff has got right in the same.

Plaintiff failed to prove the said contention for the reasons discussed

P a g e 0.S.No.53 of 2016 Page No.12 of 14 above. Plaintiff failed to prove that the suit property is ancestral property. Hence, issued No.1 goes in favour of the defendants and

against the plaintiff.

14. ISSUE No.2 :

The plaintiff can seek partition if the suit property is a joint family property but as mentioned earlier, no document was filed by the plaintiff to show that Sy.No.195 is joint family property. In the absence of the documentary evidence to show that the Sy.No.195 is joint family property the oral contentions of the plaintiff that he to0 got right for the land in Sy.No.195 have no legs to stand. Hence, issue No.2 was goes in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.

15. ISSUE No.3:

As findings under issue No.2 holds good for answering issue

No.3 also, when it was decided under issue No.2 that plaintiff is not entitled to seek partition obviously, plaintiff will not entitled to half share in the suit property. Hence, issue No.3 goes in favour of the defendants and against the plaintif.

16. ISSUE No.4 :

There is no cogent evidence to show that suit property was exempted from partition and there is an agreement to commonly used the suit property so as to take water from the well existing in the suit schedule property. Admittedly, in 0.S.No.13/1977 the suit survey

Page No. 13 of 1 4 0.S.No.53 of 2016 number was not mentioned, which goes to show that suit survey nu;mber is not mneant for partition. Hence, issue No.4 is answered accordingly.

ISSUE No.5 :

17.

The points which were discussed in issue Nos.2 and 3 holds good for answering issue No.5 also, by concluding the suit property is not meant for partition goes the nature of the property that it is an ancestral property was not proved by the plaintiff. Hence, issue No.5

goes in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.

ISSUE No.6 : 18.

In the result, the suit is dismissed, without costs.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court this the 29" day of December, 2022.

JUNIOR CIVIL JÚDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Plaintiff:

P.W.1: Pasula Damoder Reddy. P.W.2: Vemula Srinivas Rao.

For Defendants:

D.W.1: Pasula Srinivas Reddy.

Documents marked on behalf of For Plaintiff: Ex.Al: Certified copy of Final Decree in O.S.No. 13/1977.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of Sethwar.

0.S.No.53 of 2016 Page No. 14 of 14

Ex.A3: Certified copy of old ROR.

Ex.A4: Certified copy of new ROR.

Ex.A5: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1992-95.

Ex.A6: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1993-94.

Ex.A7: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1998-99.

Ex.A8: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000.

Ex.A9: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2004-05.

Ex.A10: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2006-07.

Ex.Al1: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-08.

Ex.A12: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2008-09.

Ex.A13: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2014-15.

Ex.A14: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2014-15.

Ex.A15: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2014-15.

For Defendants:

Ex.B1: Certified copy of Khasra pahani for the year 1954-1955.

Ex.B2: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1976-1977.

Ex.B3: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1980-1981.

Ex.B4: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1992-1993.

Ex.B5: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2003-2004 (2 sheets).

Ex.B6: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-2010 (2 sheets).

Ex.B7: Certified copy of old ROR. Ex.B8: Certified copy of new ROR.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

IN THE COURT OF CHILD JUSTICE BOARD-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS: MAHABUBNAGAR.

On this Friday, the 30th day of December, 2022.

Present: Smt S.Sree Devi, Chairman-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, for Child Cases,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Members: 1. Smt.Esther Grace Polumuri,

2. A.Girija

J.C.C.No.198 of 2021

Between: State of T.S rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, PS.Mahabubnagar, Rural. Cr.No.257 of 2021 of PS.Mahabubnagar Rural. … Complainant A N D

Kalal Bhanuprakash Goud s/o Yadaiah, age 16 yrs, Student, r/o H.No.3-80, Fathepur village of Mahabubnagar.

… Child in conflict with law

Section of Law:U/Sec.366(A), 376(3) of IPC and Sec.3 r/w 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

Plea of CCLs:Denied the offence

Finding of Board:Set at liberty

Sentence or Order:The accusation leveled against the Child in conflict with law for the offences U/Sec.366(A), 376(3) of IPC and Sec.3 r/w 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were not proved and accordingly he was set at liberty for the same U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The relevant parental bonds of Child in conflict with law shall stands cancelled. The unmarked case property, which was deposited before this Board vide CP.No.144/2021 was already given to its original owner as interim custody in viewoftheOrdersin

Crl.M.P.No.573/2021, dt.10-8-2021 is

made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

This case coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of the learned APP for the state and Sri Javid Ali, Counsel for 2 JCC.No.198 of 2021 the Child in Conflict with Law and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

FINAL ORDER

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Mahabubnagar Rural filed Final Report against the Child in Conflict with Law or the offences punishable U/Sec.366(A), 376(3) of IPC and Sec.3 r/w 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Cr.No.257 of 2020 of his police station.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 4-6-2021 at 1800 hours

LW1/complainant/victimgirllodgedacomplaintwith

P.S.Mahabubnagar Rural stating that she completed her 10th class and has to study Intermediate. She fell in love with her senior by name

Bhanu Prakash i.e., CCL herein and both decided to marry after they become majors. The parents of victim came to know about their love affairs and decided to perform her marriage against her wish. As such she along with CCL decided to escape from the home. According to their plan, on 28-5-2021 midnight at 0100 hours CCL got boarded the victim on his motorcycle bearing No.TS-06-FB-9353 and they both went to

Hyderabad. On 29-5-2021 they went to Gundaram village of Siddpiet.

CCL assured the victim girl that he will marry her after they became majors and CCL used to sleep at other bachelors and she only sleep in a hut. CCL did not harassed her either mentally or physically. On 4-6-2021 in the morning she woke up and found CCL was not available, due to fear the victim telephoned to her parents and informed about her location, on which father of the victim rushed to the spot and brought the victim to police station. As such she lodged the present complaint.

Basing on the above complaint, LW18/A.Ramesh, Sub Inspector of

Police registered a case in Cr.No.257/2022 U/Sec.366(A), 376(3) of IPC and Sec.3 r/w 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 3 JCC.No.198 of 2021 2012 and taken up investigation. After completion of investigation, he filed Final Report against the Child in Conflict with Law.

3.This Board took cognizance of the offences punishable

U/Sec.366(A), 376(3) of IPC and Sec.3 r/w 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against Child in Conflict with Law The copies of documents were furnished to Child in Conflict with Law as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Child in Conflict with Law was examined

U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C by explaining the contents of accusation against him for the offences punishable U/Sec.366(A), 376(3) of IPC and Sec.3 r/w 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 by the members of Board for which he denied and claimed to be enquired.

4.During the trial prosecution examined Eight witnesses as PW1 to

PW8 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 were marked.

5. After completion of prosecution evidence, Children in Conflict with

Child in Conflict with Law was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence is closed. Heard both sides and perused the record. Now the point for consideration is:

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Child in

Conflict with Law was for the offences punishable

U/Sec.366(A), 376(3) of IPC and Sec.3 r/w 4 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

beyond reasonable doubts?

7.POINT:- PW1 stated that during the year 2021 her parents were planning to perform her marriage and searching for suitable alliances.

She did not like to marry anybody as she fell in love with CCL. Herself and CCL both eloped on 28-5-2021 and went to Gundaram village of

Siddpet and stayed there for about seven days. Meanwhile she came to 4 JCC.No.198 of 2021 know that her parents lodged a complaint about her missing by alleging that CCL kidnapped her. The uncle of CCL brought them to their village.

In the cross examination, it was elicited that she went away along with CCL on her own accord and presently living with CCL only. She do not know the contents of Ex.P1, but she signed the same at the instance of police. She admitted that there is rivalry between their family and the family of CCL with regard to the boundary disputes at their agricultural land. She admitted that she was deposing against CCL at the instance of her parents and CCL is no way related to the offence.

PW2, PW3 and PW4 turned hostile to the prosecution.

PW5 stated that she issued bonafide certificate of CCL and PW1 on the request given by the police.

In the cross examination, it was elicited that she received written requisition from police for issuance of Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, but he did not filed the same before this Board. According to Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, the character of CCL and PW1 were mentioned as satisfactory.

PW6, PW7 and PW8 turned hostile to the prosecution.

8.According to the prosecution, CCL promised PW1 that he will marry her and enticed her to Gundaram village and participated in sexual intercourse with her.

9.To prove the above said version, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW8. the evidence of PW1 is very much crucial because she is the victim and direct witness to the incident according to the prosecution.

10.The statement recorded by the police pertaining to PW1 shows that she and CCL decided to marry each other, but when the parents of

PW1 trying to perform marriage with some others. Both of them eloped and CCL took PW1 to Hyderabad and he took her to his friends and 5 JCC.No.198 of 2021 there are huts at that place. CCL used to stay along with his friend in one hut and PW1 slept in another hut. She categorically mentioned that

CCL did not harassed her either mentally or physically, but on one day she woke up and found CCL was not present in the hit. Hence, she informed the same to her father and lodged complaint.

11.Even Ex.P1 also shows the same contention. PW1 stated same facts before the Board. The evidence of PW5 shows about ages of

PW1 and CCL, which is an undisputed fact. Except the evidence of PW1 and PW5, there is no other evidence which is incriminating and showing the role played by the CCL in the commission of offence. Even though, the evidence of PW1 is not attracting the ingredients of the offences, which are alleged against the CCL. The evidence of PW5 is having limited validity to the extent of agents of CCL and PW1. The offences leveled against CCL are serious in nature, but the evidence lead by the prosecution is not at all sufficient to prove the guilt of CCL beyond all reasonable doubts for the offences alleged against him. Hence, the prosecution could not prove the accusation leveled against him.

In the result, the accusation leveled against the Child in conflict with law for the offences U/Sec.366(A), 376(3) of IPC and Sec.3 r/w 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were not proved and accordingly he was set at liberty for the same U/Sec.255(1)

Cr.P.C. The relevant parental bonds of Child in conflict with law shall stands cancelled. The unmarked case property, which was deposited

before this Board vide CP.No.144/2021 was already given to its original

owner as interim custody in view of the Orders in Crl.M.P.No.573/2021, dt.10-8-2021 is made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of December, 2022.

6 JCC.No.198 of 2021

Sd/-

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Child Cases,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

1.

2.

::Appendix of Evidence ::

For Prosecution :- PW1 Sravani. PW2 Chandraiah. PW3 Padma. PW4 Laxman. PW5 Usha. PW6 Balraj, PW7 Chandrashekar. PW8 K.Naresh Goud.

For Defense:- None

:: Documents marked on behalf of ::

For Prosecution:- Ex.P1 is statement of PW1. Ex.P2 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.P3 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P4 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4. Ex.P5 is bonafide certificate of CCL. Ex.P6 is bonafide certificate of PW1. Ex.P7 is signature of PW6 on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P8 is signature of PW7 on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P9 is signature of PW6 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama. For Defense:- -NIL-

:: Material objects marked for::

-NIL-

Sd/-

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Child Cases,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

1.

2.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Monday, this the 29th day of April, 2024.

Present: Smt S.Sree Devi

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Mahabubnagar.

CC.No. 219 of 2019

Between: The State of Telangana through Sub- Inspector of Police, I-town Police Station. … Complainant

A N D

A1. G.Naresh S/o. Venkatramulu, Age: 18 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H.No.3-

16. Bokkaloni Pally, Mahabubnagar (abated) A2.Jangam Chandra Shekar S/o. Yerra Daasu, Age: 23 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.H.No.1-49, Bokkaloni Pally, Mahabubnagar.

... Accused

This case coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of the learned APP for the state and of Sri V.Jagadeeshwar,Counsel for the Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station I-Town filed charge sheet against the Accused no. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC and Secs.180 and 181 of Motor Vehicle Act, of his police station.

2. The case of prosecution is that on 05.10.2018 at 1630 hours LW1/Yedla

Nagaraju lodged a complaint stating that on 03.10.2018 in the evening hours his father/Yedla Balaiah was proceeding towards Hanumanpura to his shop at 6.30

PM by walk. When he reached Venkateshwara Bakery, one Honda Shine 2CC No.219 of 2019 vehicle driving by accused came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit Yedla Balaiah from his back side. Resulting which Yedla Balaiah sustained injuries on his chest and on his left leg. Balaiah was shifted to

Government Hospital, from there he was shifted to Navodaya Hospital. He underwent treatment at Navodays Hospital and after two days he succumbed to injuries. Hence, he requested to take necessary action.

2.1 Basing on the above complaint, LW13/Vijay Kumar, Head Constable ,

I-Town Mahabubnagar PS registered a case in Cr.No.136 of 2018, U/Sec.304-A

IPC and Secs.180 and 181 of MV Act and took up the investigation. After completion of investigation Sub Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 and 2.

3. This court took cognizance of the offences punishable U/Sec. 304-A IPC and Sec.181 of MV Act, against the Accused No.1 and Sec.180 of MV Act agaisnt accused No.2. The copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Accused No.2 was examined U/Sec.251

Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation to them for the offence

U/Sec.180 of MV Act, for which they denied and claimed to be tried.

4.During the trial prosecution examined seven witnesses as PW1 to PW6 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were got marked.

3CC No.219 of 2019

5. Accused are examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence against the Accused for which he denied the evidence and reported no defense evidence on behalf of the Accused. Heard both sides and perused the record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused No.2 for

the offence punishable U/Sec. 180 of MV Act beyond reasonable

doubts?

7. POINT:-

P.W.1 stated at about 5 years back his father was proceeding towards

Hanumanpura. When he reached Venkateshwara Bakery one Honda Shine

Vehicle driven by accused came at high speed and hit his father from backside.

Due to which he sustained injuries on his chest and on his left leg. The crime vehicle after hitting Balaiah fell infront of his shop. Balaiah shifted to

Government Hospital. From there he was shifted to Navodaya Hospital. He underwent treatment at Navodaya Hospital and succumbed to injuries. He identified accused is the same person who drove Honda Shine vehicle at a high speed and caused accident to Balaiah.

8.P.W.2 also stated the same facts as that of P.W.1. He further stated that he came to know the about the accident through P.W.1. He went to Government hospital and found his father injuries and shifted him from Navodaya Hospital.

4CC No.219 of 2019

9.P.W.3 stated that about 5 years back he went to Government Hospital and saw the dead body of one male person and found injuries on the legs and head of the deceased. Police prepared inquest panchanama and he attested the same along with L.W.8/Rakesh Kumar. In the cross-examination it was suggested to him that he never went to Government Hospital and did not see the deceased with injuries and did not attested Ex.P2 for which he denied.

10.P.W.4 stated police prepared scene of offence panchanama during the year 2018 at evening hours as when he was present near to Venkateshwara

Bakery, he found the crime vehicle and also found one person with head injury.

Police prepared scene of offence panchanama along with L.W.10/Srikanth. In the cross-examination it was suggested to him that he went to scene of offence nor Ex.P3 was conducted in his presence for which he denied.

11.P.W.5 stated on 05.10.2018 he received Ex.P1 from P.W.1 and he registered a case and issued FIR. He examined and recorded the statements of

P.W.1 and handed over the case file to L.W.14/SK.Shamshuddin for further investigation.

12.P.W.6 stated he received the case filed from P.W.5 and verified the investigation and found it on correct lines. He examined and recorded the statementsofP.W.2,L.W.3/Bheemamma,L.W.4/Padmamma,

L.W.5/Krishnaiah, L.W.6/Baswaraj. He conducted scene of offence 5CC No.219 of 2019 panchanama in the presence of P.W.4 and L.W.10/Srikanth. He also conducted inquest panchanama in the presence of P.W.3 and L.W.8/Rakesh Kumar. He gave requisition to conduct post mortem examination and obtained report from

L.W.11/Narsimha Kumar who opined that the death was due to Cardio

Respiratory failure as a result of head injury and poly trauma. He gave requisition to Motor Vehicle Inspector to inspect he crime vehicle and obtained report from L.W.12/Sai Krishna Veni who opined that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanic defect in the crime vehicle. He issued Sec. 41-A

Cr.P.C notice to accused and accordingly accused appeared from him. On completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

13.It is the version of the prosecution is that the deceased was proceeding in front of Vishnavi Bakery by walk at 6.30 PM on 03.10.2018 one person driving

Honda Shine motor cycle hit the deceased by driving his vehicle in a rash and

negligent manner due to which deceased succumbed to injuries. The evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 6 proves that accident occurred and it is not in dispute. It is the duty of prosecution to prove the nexes between the accident and the accused. There is no mention in the complaint given by P.W.1 or in his statement that he saw the accused and he can identify him. P.W.1 stated that after hitting the deceased the crime vehicle fell in front of his shop but the fact was not mentioned either in Ex.P1 or in the statement of P.W.1. P.W.2 is not the eye witness to the incident and he came to know about the accident through P.W.1. As mentioned 6CC No.219 of 2019 earlier the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4, 5 and 6 establishes the death of deceased but there is no whisper in the evidence laid by prosecution about the rash and negligent driving of the accused. As mentioned earlier even though P.W.1 stated that accused drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and hit his father due to which his father sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 is not much helpful in proving the identity of accused and his guilt beyond reasonable doubts. The evidence of P.W.1 is helpful to prosecution to consider the complaint given by him due to which the law was kept into motion. Even though in charge sheet it was mentioned that L.W.3, L.W.4,

L.W.5 and L.W.6 are the witnesses to the incident but they were not examined by the prosecution. But the statements of L.W.3 and Padmamma shows that they came to know about the accident through P.W.1 only. Whereas in the statement of Krishnaiah it was shown that he was eye witness to the incident and saw the crime vehicle hitting the deceased. Likewise, L.W.6 also stated that he is eye witness to the incident. But those two persons were not examined by the prosecution. But the said Naresh is no more and the case is running against

Accused No.2. There is no whisper in the evidence laid by prosecution about the role played by accused No.2 in committing the offence. None of the witnesses stated about accused No.2 also accompanied accused No.1 who is no more. Hence due to lack sufficient evidence against accused No.2 it was felt that prosecution utterly failed to prve the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts. Hence accused No.2 is acquitted.

7CC No.219 of 2019

14. In the result, Accused No.2 was found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.180 of MV Act and he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall stands cancelled and the sureties will be discharged after the expiry of appeal time. As there is no case property involved in this case, no separate property order was passed. The case against accused No.1 was abated.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of April, 2024.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar.

A PPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WINTESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: PW1 Y.Nagaraju PW2 Y.Keshavulu PW3 B.Ramesh PW4 Bhanu Prakash PW5 A.Vijay Kumar PW6 S.K.Shamshuddin

For Accused:

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 is the complaint given by P.W.1 Ex.P2 is the inquest panchanama Ex.P3 is the scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4 is FIR Ex.P5 is Inquest panchanama. Ex.P6 is the said report.

8CC No.219 of 2019

For Accused:

-NIL-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar.

1

CC No.28 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Monday, this the 29th day of April, 2024.

Present: Smt S.Sree Devi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar.

CC.No. 28 of 2022

Between: The State of Telangana through Inspector of Police, Maldakal police station. … Complainant.

A N D

1. Boya Thirumal S/o. Narsimhulu, Age: 25 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Maldakal Village and Mandal.

2. Uppari Pedda Eranna S/o. Ramudu, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Maldakal Village and Mandal.

... Accused no. 1 and 2.

****

This case coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of the learned APP for the state and Sri M.Ramesh, Counsel for the Accused nos.1 and 2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Police Station, Maldakal filed charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/Secs.420 IPC,

Sec. 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1966 and Sec. 19 of Seeds Act.

2 CC No.28 of 2022

2. The case of prosecution is that on 10.06.2021 at 10.30 AM complainant

LW1/K.Raja Shekar, Mandal Agricultural Officer, Maldakal lodged a complaint by stating that on credible information about illegal selling of loose cotton seeds at the hut of accused. On that above informtion he along with L.W.2/Niranjan,

L.W.3/H.Narsimhulu went to the hut of accused and found 300 KGS of cotton seeds stored in 2 gunny bags and 5 plastic bags. Accused No.1 failed to produce any documents for the same. On that he secured the presence of LW.6/Maldakal and LW.7/T.Narsimhulu and in their presence he conducted seizure panchanama. Hence, he requested to take necessary action.

2.1 Basing on the above complaint, LW.14/R.Shekar, Sub inspector of Police,

Maldakal police station registered a case in Cr.No.97 of 2021, U/Secs.420 IPC,

Sec. 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1966 and Sec. 19 of Seeds Act and took up the investigation. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the Accused persons.

3. This court took cognizance of the offences punishable U/Secs.420 IPC,

Sec. 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1966 and Sec. 19 of Seeds Act against the

Accused Nos.1 and 2. The copies of documents were furnished to Accused as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Accused were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C.

After framing charges, when they were examined about the charges leveled against them, they denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

3 CC No.28 of 2022

4. During the trial prosecution examined one witness as PW1 and no exhbits were marked.

5. Accused examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence against the Accused persons for which they denied the evidence and reported no defense evidence on behalf of the Accused persons. Heard both sides and perused the record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the

offence punishable U/Secs.420 IPC, Sec. 7 of Essential Commodities

Act, 1966 and Sec. 19 of Seeds Act beyond reasonable doubts?

7.POINT:-

P.W.1 stated that on 10.06.2021 he received credible information about illegal selling of loose cotton seeds at the hut of accused. On that he along with

P.W.2, L.W.3/H.Narsimhulu went to the scene of offence and found 300 KGs of cotton seeds stored in 2 gunny bags and 5 plastic bags. Accused No.1 failed to produce any documents for the same. He fetched the presence of P.W.4 and

P.W.6 and seized those cotton seeds under the cover of panchanama. He drew 3samples each containing 1 KG and sent one sample for testing lab and obtained report that the seeds do not conform any standards of germination. He handed over the cotton seeds, Exs.P1 and Ex.P2 to L.W.13/Shekar, the then SI of Police Maldakal. In the cross-examination, it was elicited that he did not visit 4 CC No.28 of 2022 any complaint in writing from any of the farmers. No orders in writing was issued to him that P.W.2 and L.W.3/Narsimhulu who accompanied. He also elicited that he did not issued any search memo or notice to accused before conducting the search. It is also elicited that that he did not recorded the confession of the accused. It is elicited that he did not follow the mode and manner for conducting panchanama. It is elicited that Exs.P1 and P3 are not in his handwriting. It is suggested to him that he neither went to the house of accused nor seized any cotton seeds and he did not conduct Ex.P1 in his presence for which he denied.

8.P.W.2 also supported the version of P.W.1 in his chief examination. It was elicited that no orders in writing was issued to him to accompany P.W.1 along with L.W.3/Narsimhulu.

9.P.Ws.3 to 9 turned hostile to the prosecution. According to the prosecution accused No.1 is selling loose cotton seeds to innocent farmers and gaining money illegally. P.W.1 along with L.W.3/Narsimhulu went to the shop of accused No.1 and seized loose cotton seeds and drew sample and obtained report and the sample do not conform any standards of germination. Police conducted scene of offence panchanama and accused Nos.1 and 2 confessed the offence in the presence of P.W.8 and L.W.11. To substantiate the above said version, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to P9. P.Ws.1 and 2 belongs to 5 CC No.28 of 2022 police department. Their evidence did not find any support from any independent witnesses such as punch for seizure and punch for scene of offence . Hence neither seizure of cotton seeds nor conducting scene of offence panchanama was proved by the prosecution before this Court as panchas failed to support the aspect of conducting seizure panchanama and scene of offence panchanama. The crucial witnesses are P.W.8 and L.W.11/Naragaraju.

According to prosecution, in their presence only accused Nos.1 and 2 confessed about the offence. But surprisingly, P.W.8 did not supported the above said version of accused Nos.1 and 2 confessing in their presence. Hence the confession of accused Nos.1 and 2 was not proved before this Court. There is no whisper and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 about the role played by accused

No.2 in committing the offence. L.W.14/Shekar is the investigating officer who laid charge sheet against accused No.2. Mere the filing of charge sheet is not sufficient and the investigating officer is supposed to speak about it the role played by accused No.2 in committing the offence before this Court. But that aliment is badly missing in this case. It was held by uncorroborated evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2. Moreover, no search memo was issued by P.W.1 to accused No.1 while conducting the search. Likewise, no document was filed by P.W.1 to show that scene of offence belongs to accused No.1. No nexes between accused

No.1 and scene of offence was proved. No document is showing the ownership of accused No.1 towards the scene of offence showing that he is the owner of 6 CC No.28 of 2022 the said property was filed either by the agricultural officer or by the police officer before this Court. Hence, by considering the uncorroborated evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 it was held that prosecution could not succeeded in brining home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Hence by considering all the above said aspects it was felt that prosecution utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts.

10. In the result, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences

U/Secs.420 IPC, Sec. 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1966 and Sec. 19 of

Seeds Act and they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of

Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall stands cancelled and the sureties will be discharged after the expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property, which was deposited before this Court vide CPR.No.184/2021 may be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of April, 2024.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar.

A PPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WINTESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: PW1 K.Rajashekar PW2 M.Niranjan PW3 Chennappa PW4 Maldakal PW5 Kistanna PW6 Narsimulu PW7 Obulesh 7 CC No.28 of 2022

PW8 Thimmappa PW9 G.Thimmappa

For Accused: -

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: -NIL-

For Accused:

Ex.P1 is the seizure panchanama Ex.P2 is the report Ex.P3 is the compliant given by PW.1 Ex.P4 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P5 is the signature of PW4 on seizure panchanama Ex.P6 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P7 is the signature of PW6 on seizure panchanama Ex.P8 is the signature of PW7 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P9 is the signature of PW8 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P10 is the signature of PW.9 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar.

1

CC No.145 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Monday, this the 29th day of April, 2024.

Present: Smt S.Sree Devi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar.

CC.No. 145 of 2022

Between: The State of Telangana through Inspector of Police, Kosgi police station. … Complainant

A N D

1. Veerapaneni Kondappa Nayudu S/o. Venkateshwarlu Nayudu, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gokafaslabad village of Doulthabad mandal, N/o. Peddapadu village of Kaligiri Mandal, Potti Sri Ramulu, Nellure District.

2. Dhannala Maha Lakshmaiah S/o. Mala Kondaiah, Age: 48 years, Occ: Business owner of Mahalaxmi Fertilizer Shop, R/o. Hakeempet village of Kosgi mandal.

... Accused no. 1 and 2

****

This case coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of the learned APP for the state and Sri M.Ramesh, Counsel for the Accused nos.1 and 2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Police Station V.Narender filed charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/Secs.420 IPC and Sec.3 (1) Seeds Contral Order and Sec. 19 of Seeds Act.

2 CC No.145 of 2022

2. The case of prosecution is that on 11.06.2021 complainant LW1/Samuel

John, Agricultural Officer, Kosgi lodged a complaint by stating that on credible information about selling of loose cotton seeds at the shop of accused No.2 which is being running under the name and style as “Mahalaxmi Fertilizer

Shop”. On that above informtion he along with L.W.2/Srinivas Reddy and

L.W.4/Venaktaiha went to the shop of accused and found 10 kgs of loose cotton seeds and. On that he secured the presence of LW5 and LW6 and in their presence he conducted seizure panchanama. Hence, he requested to take necessary action.

2.1 Basing on the above complaint, LW11/V.Narender, Sub inspector of

Police, Kosgi police station registered a case in Cr.No.138 of 2021, U/Sec.420

IPC, Clause 3 (1) of Seeds Control and Sec.19 of Seeds Act and took up the investigation. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the

Accused persons.

3. This court took cognizance of the offences punishable U/Sec.420 IPC,

Sec. 7 of Essentail Commodities Act, 1955 and Sec. 19 of Seeds Act and Sec.

15 (1) of Environmental Protection Act, 1986 against the Accused Nos.1 and 2.

The copies of documents were furnished to Accused as contemplated U/Sec.207

Cr.P.C. Accused were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. After framing charges, when they were examined about the charges leveled against them, they denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

3 CC No.145 of 2022

4. During the trial prosecution examined nine witnesses as PW1 to PW9 and

Ex.P1 to P10 were marked.

5. Accused examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence against the Accused persons for which they denied the evidence and reported no defense evidence on behalf of the Accused persons. Heard both sides and perused the record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the

offence punishable U/Sec.420 IPC, Sec. 7 of Essentail Commodities

Act, 1955 and Sec. 19 of Seeds Act and Sec. 15 (1) of Environmental

Protection Act, 1986 beyond reasonable doubts?

7.POINT:-

PW.1 stated that on 11.06.2021 he received credible information about selling of loose cotton seeds at the house of accused No.2. On that he along with P.W.2 went to the shop of accused No.2 and found 10 kgs of loose cotton seeds and accused No.2 failed to produce any document for the same. He fetched the presence of P.Ws.2 and 4 and seized the cotton seeds and sent the sample to testing to lab and obtained report and the sample are spurious. In the cross-examination it was elicited that he did not receive any complaint with regard to the offence. He did not followed the mode and method for lifting the sample. It is also elicited that he did not prepared any list of inventory. It is 4 CC No.145 of 2022 elicited that he did not followed the procedure for lifting the sample for which he denied. He admitted that farmers who raises their crops can store the yield.

8.P.W.2 also supported the version of P.W.1. P.Ws.1 to 9 turned hostile to the prosecution.

9.It is the story of prosecution that the accused No.1 is selling spurious cotton seeds without possessing any valid documents to farmers who are innocent. P.W.1 went to the shop of accused No.1 and found cotton seeds and entertained a doubt about their standards of germination and sent one sample and seized remaining seeds. To prove the said above allegations, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9. Admittedly, P.W.1 and P.W.2 belongs to agriculture officer and irrigation department. Their evidence should get support from independent witnesses who are remaining witnesses. But surprisingly, neither scene of offence panchanama nor seizure panchanama were proved before this

Court. Likewise, the confession of accused Nos.1 and 2 is very much important which will be basis for the case of prosecution. But surprisingly the panch witnesses for the confession of accused Nos.1 and 2 also did not supported the version of prosecution. Confession of accused Nos.1 and 2 is the vital piece of evidence and was not proved before this Court as L.W.11/Narender who conducted them also was not examined. Hence the evidence remained on record is that of P.Ws.1 and 2 which did not find any support from any independent witnesses. There is no whisper in the evidence of either P.Ws.1 or 2 about the 5 CC No.145 of 2022 role played by accused No.2 in committing the offence. Investigating officer is the proper person to speak about the conducting of confession panchanama of accused. But that vital relevant aspect was not proved before this Court.

Likewise the role played by accused No.2 was not spoken P.Ws.1 or P.W.2. The evidence which is available on record suffers from the above said aspects. The crucial witnesses turned hostile to prosecution and none of the aspects such as seizure panchanama, scene of offence panchanams and the confession of accused was not proved before this Court. Hence by considering all the above said aspects it was felt that prosecution utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts.

10. In the result, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences

U/Sec.420 IPC, Sec. 7 of Essentail Commodities Act, 1955 and Sec. 19 of

Seeds Act and Sec. 15 (1) of Environmental Protection Act, 1986 and they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall stands cancelled and the sureties will be discharged after the expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property, which was deposited before this Court vide

CPR.No.59/2022 may be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of April, 2024.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar.

6 CC No.145 of 2022

A PPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WINTESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: PW1 Samuel John PW2 Vinod Kumar PW3 Srinivas Reddy PW4 Venkataiah PW5 Veeresham PW6 Ramesh PW7 Buggappa PW8 Babu PW9 Venkatramulu

For Accused: -

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 is the seizure panchanama Ex.P2 is the report Ex.P3 is the complaint Ex.P4 is the signature of PW.3 Ex.P5 is the signature of PW.4 Ex.P6 is the signature of PW.5 Ex.P7 is the signature of PW.6 Ex.P8 is the signature of PW.7 Ex.P9 is the signature of PW.8 Ex.P10 is the signature of PW.9.

For Accused:

-NIL-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar.