C.C. No.19116/2019 10 th day, April, 2026 Page No.1
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ::
AT NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD
Present: SMT. A.SWARNALATHA IV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2026
C.C.No. 19116 of 2019
Between: The State, Police, through S.I of Police, PS. Osmania University, Hyderabad.
.... Complainant
A n d
A1 P. Pavan Kumar, S/o Late P. Jaya Prakash, Age: 56 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 7-8-158/1, Road No. 3, Goutham Nagar, Bala Nagar, Hyderabad.
A2 Kamble Ganesh, S/o Eknath Kamble, Age: 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 16/19, Rajeev Gruhakalpa, Suraram Colony, Home Jenda, Jeedimetla, RR. Dist.
A3 Vallabothu Sadguna Chary, S/o Gopal Dhanraj, Age: 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 8-150/1, Prasanna Nagar, Chintal, Jeedimetla, RR Dist. …. Accused no. 1 to 3
This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Smt. Ayesha, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of
Sri. Raghu Shakar Varma, SK Baba Saheb, K. Vijender Reddy, Counsel
for accused persons, upon hearing on both sides, stood over for
consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
01)The Sub-Inspector of Police, Osmania University P.S., laid charge sheet against accused no. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 238/2019 with a prayer to punish the accused for the alleged offences u/Sec. 406 & 420 IPC.
C.C. No.19116/2019 10 th day, April, 2026 Page No.2
02) The Brief facts of the prosecution case is that:
(a)On 05-07-2019 at 10.00 hours LW7 received a complaint from LW1/Sri. .
Bhanu Prasad employee in Sumargsai Technologies Pvt. Ltd, situated in the premises bearing No. 12-13-1239/F202, Ruhana Apartments, above SBI, Main
Road Tarnaka, Hyderabad stating that he was monitoring the Naidupet contract doing LED street light installation and maintenance work in East and West
Godavari and in Naidupet of Nellore Districts. In that contact they have started installation work in Naidupet division in Nellore Dist, and with Mr. P. Pavan
Kumar (accused no. 1 herein) resident of Hyderabad an MOU was entered by company and payment charges towards installation were being paid to accused no.1 through Tarnaka Office only. Government of India PSU have supplied 30,000/- Nos. to Naidupet division. Accused no. 1 have received the same quantity and installed 19,867 and submitted the reports in turn the company paid the agreed amount towards installed LED lights to that extent through bank. Accused no. 1 was withholding the installation reports ands LED street light with him and blackmailing LW1 to collect more money.
(b)Further averred that accused has shipped 2500 LED street lights kept in his custody under trust for transport purpose in Naidupet division from
Naidupet to Hyderabad by ANL transport and kept in his friend place. When accused shipped the material from Naidupet to Hyderabad LW1 caught the consignment at RTC loading point Naidupet which was sent back to Naidupet vide ANL LR No. 7545657 dt 21/05/2019 and Lr.No. 7069541 dt 21/04/2019 consignor Pavan (accused no.1) and consignee Chari (accused no.3) through
Vigilance Sub-Inspector. Some other consignment reached to accused no. 3
C.C. No.19116/2019 10 th day, April, 2026 Page No.3 sent by accused no. 2 and accused no. 1 hired premises at Bhagath Singh
Nagar, Jeedimetla, R.R.Dist through accused no. 2. Further accused no. 1 to 3 secretly shipped LED lights and stands into this concealed storage barrack thereby misappropriated the Government of India issued LED lighting material.
Hence requested the police to take necessary action against the accused.
Basing on the above contents, LW7 registered a case in Cr.No. 238/2019 U/sec.
406, 420 of IPC and handed over investigation to LW8. Hence the charge.
03) This court took cognizance for the offences U/Sec.406, 420 of IPC against accused no. 1 to 3. On appearance of the accused, the relevant copies of documents were furnished to them required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
04)On appearance and consideration, accused were examined U/Sec.239
Cr.P.C and framed charges for the offences U/Sec. 406, 420 of IPC against them, read over and explained to them. Having understood the same accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
05) To prove its case prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and exhibited P1 to P8. The details of which are mentioned in Appendix of evidence. On the other hand no defense evidence was adduced on accused behalf. The evidence of witness LW6 was closed as he demised, DC filed, evidence of LW3, 7 was closed on 10-02-2026, 08-04-2026 as police failed to produce him before this court despite of several opportunities.
C.C. No.19116/2019 10 th day, April, 2026 Page No.4
06) After closure of prosecution evidence accused were examined u/sec.313
Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence appeared against them for which they denied the same. When accused are called upon to enter upon their defense, they reported no defense evidence.
07) Heard the Learned APP., and the Learned Defense counsel. Perused the material on record.
08) Now the point for determination is:
“Whether the prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt to convict Accused for the charge punishable U/Sec. 406, 420 of IPC ?”
POINT:
09) It is the case of the prosecution that the accused no. 1 hired the premises bearing No. 12-13-1239/F202, Ruhana Apartments, above SBI, Main Road
Tarnaka, Hyderabad with the help of accused no. 2 and LED LIGHTS were shipped from Naidupet on the name of accused no. 3 and all of them concealed the items unlawfully in the hired premises for the purpose of misappropriation and the property belonged to Government of India. Thus accused no. 1 to 3 with criminal and malafide intention wrongfully possessed the Government property for the purpose of misappropriation. To substantiate the case, out of (8) witnesses prosecution could be able to examine PW1 to 5 on its behalf.
10)PW1 testified that he has been working as Manager in Sumargsai
Technologies Pvt. Ltd., situated at Tarnaka, Hyderabad since 2008 and it is a
C.C. No.19116/2019 10 th day, April, 2026 Page No.5 registered company. LW2 is Managing Director of that company. The company deals with installations of street lights and maintenance in Nayudupet of
Nellore District. His duty in that company is to monitor the works and reporting to the company from time to time. The company got the project from Central
Government for installation of 30,000 street lights in East and West Godavari and Nayudupet of Nellore District. Their company gave the installation work by way of sub-contracts to A1/Pawan Kumar and the lights, on their instructions, were transported to A1 from the manufacturer EESL i.e. Energy Efficiency
Services Ltd., from time to time in five installments totaling to 30,000 street lights and A1 installed only 19,867 street lights and after inspection and reporting, the amount was transferred to the account of A1.
11)Later, on verification of lights on ground by visiting, they found presence of 5,144 street lights at the different places in Nayudupet and came to know that about 2,768 street lights were transported to Hyderabad through RTC
Transportation. As such he immediately came down to Hyderabad, approached the RTC office and after disclosing the facts, they re-transported to Nayudupet.
When he enquired with regard to the remaining lights of 2,221, no information came to him. Then they tried to enquire A1 about those lights but he was absconded thus could not secure his information. At last he lodged the complaint under Ex.P1 with police after obtaining authorization of their company under Ex.P2 and also furnished the copies of documents to police while lodging the complaint.
C.C. No.19116/2019 10 th day, April, 2026 Page No.6
12)During the cross-examination PW1 admitted that he was working as
Manager in Sumarg Sai Technologies Pvt. Ltd since last 20 years. They received the contract from Central Government in the year 2018. Further admitted that he do not know the contract value and he has filed the documents to show that the Central Government sanction the contract to their company. Further admitted that he know A1 as he has been working in Nayudupeta, East
Godavari, West Godavari etc., places of their relative work. Further “admitted that he do not know as to how the work of their company was entrusted to A1”.
Further admitted that he do not know as to the details of the material supplied to A1 by their company to undertake the company work. Further admitted that there was an agreement in between their company and A1 and the same were filed before this court. Witness i.e., said MOU was handed over to police.
Further admitted that he has submitted the acknowledgment issued by A1 in respect of the stock received by him i.e. 30,000 lights. Further PW1 again says that A1 issued acknowledgments as and when he received the stock of lights.
Witness again says that the originals of those acknowledgments were in the factory and copies of them only were filed.
13)Further admitted that he did not supply those lights personally to A1 and he do not know anything regarding the payments made to A1. Further admitted that on 25.04.2019, when he conducted initial inspection, he found shortage of 10,133 lights and on 27-05-2019 he found the presence of 7,896 lights in the stock at Nayudupet and there was balance of 2,221 lights. As such, he lodged the complaint under Ex.P1. First he gave report to his office regarding shortage of lights with A1. Further admitted that again on 27.05.2019, he gave another
C.C. No.19116/2019 10 th day, April, 2026 Page No.7 report to his office regarding tracing out of 7,896 lights and non placing on 2,221 lights and then, he lodged the complaint. Further admitted that he do not remember the exact date of complaint given in police station but he lodged the complaint and police seized more than 600 lights. Further admitted that as per inspection, about 19,867 lights were installed by A1 in Nayudupeta area.
Further admitted that he do not know whether any record of that inspection was filed before this court. Further PW1 admitted that he gave the complaint in writing on 04.07.2019 in which he stated as the consignment was found on 21.05.2019. Witness again says that he lodged the complaint on 05.07.2019 not on 04-07-2019. Further admitted that he do not know whether the accused paid any amounts to the company. Further admitted that they were informed that the first consignment was traced out in the limits of Dundigal PS, after lodging their complaint in Osmania University Police station.
14)PW2 is a circumstantial witness deposed that he is working as Managing
Director of Sumarga Sai Technologies Pvt. Ltd and their company deals with
Electrical maintenance contracts with the Government of Central and State. In the year 2018, they got contract from Central Government for installation of
LED Street light bulbs in Nayudupeta division, which were supplied from Energy
Efficiency Services Limited (EESL), New Delhi. That EESL gave work order to install 30,000 LED bulbs in Nayudupeta Division, Nellore District, on different dates and they were received by A1 as incharge of that division, on behalf of their company, as their company gave Sub-contract to A1, on cost of installation of Rs.80/- per light. Later A1 has installed 19,867 lights in said area and accordingly they have paid the charges of Rs.16.57 lakhs for those
C.C. No.19116/2019 10 th day, April, 2026 Page No.8 installed lights. In the meanwhile, PW1 visited the said places in that
Nayudupeta division and on verification, he found presence of 5,144 bulbs only out of balance of 10,133 and found shortage of around 5,000 bulbs. On verification of records, in one consignment, it was revealed that A1 shifted 2,768 lights to Hyderabad, without their information and on knowing the same,
PW1 traced out those bulbs at Hyderabad and returned back to Nayudupeta for installation.
15)He further deposed that they have issued notice to A1 earlier also for shifting with a consignment of 2,221 lights to Hyderabad and they did not have any information. When they questioned A1, he did not give any information, as such, as per instructions of their company, PW1 lodged the complaint.
Subsequently, they were informed that about 637 lights were traced out by police and he has also furnished relevant documents to police. Earlier he has filed some documents in this case and also filed some more documents
Crl.MP.No.3016/2023 orders dated 21.12.2023 got marked Bank statement of
their company Sumarg Sai Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and P.Venkata Nagalaxmi under Ex.P3 and P4. During the cross-examination PW2 admitted that still accused is working in the same company of “Sumarga Sai Technologies Pvt.
Ltd.” As per chief examination he deposed “himself and accused No.1 worked in many other companies”. Further admitted that they do not have any personal dispute with regard to work even during worked in another companies. Further admitted that he got the work in the company situated at
Nayudupeta through Tenders called for by the Government. They have not given any Sub-contract to anyone after getting contract from Government.
C.C. No.19116/2019 10 th day, April, 2026 Page No.9
Witness voluntarily added they have called for labour contracts.
16)PW2 further categorically admitted that they have not given any sub- contract to accused herein but given only labour contract work to him. Further admitted that there is no written contract between them, it is only oral basis and there is a time limit of 45 days but the accused did not complete in agreed time limit. Further admitted that he cannot say from which date and the month and year the accused left the work. Further admitted that he has given oral contract to install 30,000 LED bulbs to the accused and accused received the above LED bulbs straight from the company and he signed the delivery papers.
He has filed the proof of above acknowledgment of LED bulbs received by accused. Further admitted that the work obtained from the Central Government to his company is in written form and they have orally discussed about the payments of work entrusted to accused. Ex.P4 pertains to personal account of his friend. Further admitted that during the said 45 days time he has visited the site once and he cannot say the date, month and year of his visit to inspect the work given to accused. Further admitted that he has not entered any oral or written agreement with accused persons herein. Ex.P5 is Bank statement of their company Sumarg Sai Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and in accordance with oral agreement between them only they have issued such amount to accused.
17)PW3 is another circumstantial witness testified that he is residing at
Suraram and the accused No.1 and 2 were also residing behind to their building (situated just backside of his building). On 05.07.2019 during the night hours
C.C. No.19116/2019 10 th day, April, 2026 Page No.10 around 07:00 pm some police personals of OU PS came to their house and taken his details. Then they went to the house of accused and collected some carton boxes from that room containing electricity lights and took them to police station. During the cross-examination he admitted that he is doing Oil
Business. Since 5 years he is residing in Suraram house. Further admitted that there is no rental agreement between him and his owner to show that he is residing in said address at Suraram. There is no particular timings in their business, sometimes he run business from his house also on receiving orders.
Further admitted that while he was present in his house police came and took his details and he has no business transactions with accused No.1 and 2 but he knows them as they were his neighbors. Further admitted that after that day i.e., 05.07.2019 till today he has not seen the accused No.1 and 2 again.
18)PW4 is one of the panch witnesses who testified that at about 5 to 6 years back some police personals came to their locality and asked them to sign on some written papers except this he do not know anything about panchanama proceedings said to be conducted by police concern. On that day he along with one more person Akbar was present who is not alive at present who also appended his signature on a rough sketch map under Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 are his signatures on CDF and rough sketch map of the scene said to be and that turned hostile, thus supported nothing about the I/O investigation. During his cross-examination by Prosecution also witness did not support and completely go by to his presence during police investigation by saying police obtained his signature on some written papers and he appended his signatures
C.C. No.19116/2019 10 th day, April, 2026 Page No.11 as in Ex.P6 and P7 and he do not know what contents in those written papers as no one read over and explained what is in those papers before obtaining his signatures.
19)PW5 is the Investigation Officer testified that on 05.07.2019 at 10:00 hours LW7 had received a complaint from PW1 Basing on the contents of the same he registered a case in Cr.No.238/2019 for the offences U/secs.406, 420 of IPC and issued FIR under/Ex.P8 and entrusted CD file to him for investigation. He has examined and recorded the statements of LW1 and LW2 in Part-II CD and collected relevant documents of the case from PW2. Further
LW7 conducted observation-cum-seizure panchanama in presence of PW4 and
LW6 and recorded CDF and Rough sketch map for which PW4 appended his signatures on Ex.P6 and P7. Further he has issued 41-A CrPC notices to accused
No.1 and 2. Later A1 was absconded and later submitted anticipatory bail vide
Proceedings No.4990/2019 dated 11.09.2019 all the accused were released on conditions accordingly. Thereafter on completion of entire investigation he has filed charge-sheet in this case.
20)During the cross-examination PW5 admitted that Ex.P8 was registered only against accused No.1 but in his investigation it was revealed that the room was taken for rent by accused No.2 and the shipment alleged by complainant was received by A3 as such they have included accused No.2 and 3 in the charge-sheet along with A1. Further admitted that the relation of accused No.2 with the present case is A2 concealed the shipment of LED boxes in his room taken for rent. It is categorically admitted that there is no mention about
C.C. No.19116/2019 10 th day, April, 2026 Page No.12 details of accused No.1 except mentioning his name at column No.7 in Ex.P8.
Further admitted that the disputed shipment was with PW1 which is not mentioned in Ex.P8 by LW6. Further admitted that he has not filed the document to show the relationship between PW1 and accused No.1 i.e., MOU made between them. Further admitted that the disputed LED bulbs were issued by Central Government.
21)The record on hand show the Sumarga Sai Technologies Pvt. Ltd. deals with Electrical Maintenance contracts from State and Central Government. In the year 2018 it got Central Government contract for installation of 30,000 LED
Street light bulbs in Nayudupet division. PW2 is its Managing Director. PW1 is its employee/Manager. Accused No.1 has entered into MOU with PW1 company for installation of above bulbs at ground level by way of sub-contract and received 19,867 bulbs to install at Nayudupet division but had diverted transport of some bulbs to Hyderabad which were concealed by accused No.2 in his room that shipment was received by accused No.3. After complaint OU PS seized that part of consignment. Thereby A1 to A3 are liable for misappropriation of Government of India LED bulbs material and caused loss to
PW1 company and cheated them. Here in said circumstances the investigation was defective as PW1 says he has given the MOU made between company and
Accused No.1 to I/O and I/O admittedly not filed it in court either along with
Charge-sheet or during evidence. Whereas PW2 totally denied the existence of
MOU or any other written agreement with accused No.1 instead says it is only
C.C. No.19116/2019 10 th day, April, 2026 Page No.13 on oral understanding then how their company given instructions to EESL company to hand over such a huge number of 30,000 LED bulbs to accused
No.1 who is just a labour on field ground to install bulbs and it is a Central
Government contract obtained through tenders then why no single scrap of paper to show such a contract in the name of PW1 and 2 company is giving room to doubt on their story as a set up one since having contradictions and discrepancies in their evidence. Further PW3 evidence show he is a completely planted witness as full of contradictions to PW1 version regarding seizure of a part of consignment by OU police at Dundigal and PW3 says OU PS seized carton boxes from A2 room at Suraram and no such seizure material is got marked by PW5 and that believable his evidence is not believable in absence of prosecution and I/O failure to mark in seized material object to establish its case. As such PW3 evidence remained uncleared doubts which cannot be considered. Further PW4 turned hostile thus nothing is supported the PW5 investigation too.
22)Now coming to observe whether the prosecution proved the ingredients of Sec.406 and 420 IPC as alleged, for which it is pertinent to mention that offences of criminal breach of trust U/sec.406 IPC and cheating
U/sec.420 IPC have specific ingredients they are entrusting something valuable on accused and accused must deceive and induce complainant.
→ Here this Court relied on a decision * S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar 2002 (1) SCC 241 which expounded the difference of the ingredients required
C.C. No.19116/2019 10 th day, April, 2026 Page No.14 for constituting of an offence of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) vis-à- vis the offence of cheating (Section 420) at paras 9 & 10 as follows; (9). The ingredients in order to constitute a criminal breach of trust are:
(i) entrusting a person with property or with any dominion over property;
(i) that person entrusted: (a) dishonestly misappropriating or converting that property to his own use; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or wilfully suffering any other person so to do in violation (i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, (i) of any legal contract made, touching the discharge of such trust.
(10). The ingredients of an offence of cheating are: (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (it)(a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (ii) in cases covered by (ii)(b), the act of omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property." and another case *Delhi Race Club (1946) Ltd Vs State of UP. 2024 (10) SCC 690 at para (36) it was held that -
What can be discerned from the above is the offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) have specific ingredients:
In order to constitute a criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC)
(1) There must be entrustment with person for property or dominion over the property,
and
C.C. No.19116/2019 10 th day, April, 2026 Page No.15 (2) The person entrusted:
(a) Dishonestly misappropriated or converted property to his own use, or
(b) Dishonestly used or disposed of the property or wilfully suffers any other person so to do in violation of:
(i) Any direction of law prescribing the method in which the trust is discharged; or
(ii) Legal contract touching the discharge of trust (see: S.W.Palanitkar12).
Similarly, in respect of an offence under Section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients are:
(1) Deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission; (2) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property, or (3) The consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit (see: Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab'3).
Para (37)Further, in both the aforesaid sections, mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest intention must be present, and in the case of cheating it must be there from the very beginning or inception.
Para (38)In our view, the plain reading of the complaint fails to spell out any of the aforesaid ingredients noted above. We may only say, with a view to clear a serious misconception of law in the mind of the police as well as the courts below, that if it is a case of the complainant that offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 IPC, punishable under Section 406 IPC, is
C.C. No.19116/2019 10 th day, April, 2026 Page No.16 committed by the accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined and explained in Section 415 IPC, punishable under Section 420 IPC.
23)Therefore, in the present case on hand the evidence on record show no such deception or inducement played by accused no. 1 in taking the contract work from PW1 company since prosecution failed to prove PW1 company had entered into agreement MOU with accused no. 1 and in absence of their Central
Government work order copy atleast and sub contract or service provider deployed labour work through accused no. 1 as PW2 said they have oral agreement and he gave instructions to accused to receive that LED bulbs from
EESL and in accordance with that instructions accused no. 1 received the material without proof of any such receipts. So no inducement said to be on part of accused no. 1 played in getting that work. The second part is criminal breach of trust, if really accused no. 1 was entrusted with any work of PW1 company then what made them to show payments made to accused no. 1 part of installation work done by him on ground level and no single copy documents on record to consider he was entrusted with 30000 bulbs installation work. Here who brought accused no. 1 to accused company, how they given such work on oral basis, who was between accused no. 1 and company in sub letting this work all these questions are un answered by prosecution as contended by accused and the part of act played by accused no.
2 also not established as required and neither PW1 nor PW2 say any thing about their role in this offence in their evidence too. Except PW5 whose
C.C. No.19116/2019 10 th day, April, 2026 Page No.17 investigation remained un-supported by PW3 as well as PW4. Therefore, if
Section 406 IPC allegations are there then in the same breath cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating. As time and again the Hon’ble Apex Court has explained it as not maintainable in various cases.
24)Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion above without proving the essential ingredients of either Sec. 406 or 420 IPC as alleged by prosecution nothing on record to say prima facie case is proved as alleged against the accused no. 1 to 3 and that at present no sufficient evidence made out to say accused guilty for above alleged offences, this court has no hesitation to say the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion supra, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to implicate the accused person and it is well settled principle that penal statues should be strictly construed when prosecution proves the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt, which is lacking in the present case on hand. As the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused are liable to be acquitted.
25)IN THE RESULT, accused no. 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec. 406, 420 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under
Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused pesons and their sureties shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal period. The
C.C. No.19116/2019 10 th day, April, 2026 Page No.18 unmarked case property if any shall be disposed off under due process after lapse of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of April, 2026.
IV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENSE: PW1: Sri. R. Bhanu Prasad (Complainant) NIL PW2: Sri. JVR Kumar (Circumstantial Witness) PW3: Sri. K. Praveen (Circumstantial Witness) PW4: Sri. N. Padma Rao (Panch witness) PW5: Sri. A. Narsing (Investigation Officer)
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENSE: Ex.P-1: Complaint of PW1 NIL Ex.P-2: Authorization letter dt. 05-07-2019
Ex.P-3: Bank statement of Sumarg Sai Technologies Pvt. Ltd. from 01.12.2018 to 28.02.2019 issued on 21.10.2023. Ex.P-4: Bank statement of P.Venkata Nagalaxmi from 01.01.2019 to 15.02.2019 issued on 19.10.2023. Ex.P-5: Bank statement of Sumarg Sai Technologies Pvt. Ltd. issued on 21.10.2023 for the period 01.03.2019 to 31-05-2019. Ex.P-6: Signature of PW4 on CDF. Ex.P-7: Signature of PW4 on rough sketch map. Ex.P-8: Original FIR
MATERIAL OBJECTS:
NIL
IV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.