Ms. Swarupa Kaatam

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT AMANGAL.

TUESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

Present: Ms.Swarupa Kaatam

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

At Amangal.

C.C. No. 1079 of 2022 Between:-

The State represented through Sub Inspector, PS. Talakondapally.

…..Complainant

A N D

Kuna Ravi Kumar S/o. Krishnaiah, Aged about 51years, Occ: Business, R/o. Veljal Village, Talakondapally Mandal, RR Dist.

.....Accused

This case is coming on this day before me on 25.09.2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned APP, on behalf of prosecution and of Sri.

E. Esrayal, V. Madhavai, B. Bujji Babu Advocates for the accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Talakondapally has filed the charge sheet against the sole accused for the offence Punishable U/s.270 r/w 188 IPC,

Sec.3 of Epidemic Disease Act 1897 & Section 53 of Disaster Management

Act 2005.

2. The brief averments of the case are that on 18.04.2020 at 10.00 hrs, the complainant G. Jayalaxmi, Occ: Panchayat Secretary, R/o. Veljal village,

Talakondapally Mandaal, RR Dist, came to Talakondapally PS lodged a telugu written petition in which she stated that the accused Kuna Ravi

Kumar is single window chairman and he belongs to Veljal Village of

Talakondapally Mandal and he is running a shop by name Vinayaka Traders at veljal village and on dated 18-04-2020 at 9.00 hrs the accused opened the said shop and sold the cement by violating lockdown rules and regulations issued by Government vide G.O No.45 which is pertaining to covid (carona virus).

Finally she requested to take necessary action against the above person as per law. Basing on the contents of the petition, LW5 registered a case in

Cr.No. 46/2020 U/s.270 r/w 188 IPC, Sec.3 of Epidemic Disease Act 1897 & Section 53 of Disaster Management Act 2005 and took up the investigation.

3. Basing on the complaint lodged by LW1, the then Sub-Inspector of

Police/LW5 registered a case as in Crime No.46/2020 for the offence punishable U/s.270 r/w 188 IPC, Sec.3 of Epidemic Disease Act 1897 &

Section 53 of Disaster Management Act 2005.

4. During the course of investigation, LW5 examined and recorded the statements of LW.1 and LW2 at police station and later visited scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW3 and LW4. On 18-04-2020 he has issued Sec. 41 A Cr.P.C to the accused to make his presence whenever required. Later on completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the sole accused.

5. Basing on the charge sheet filed by the police, the case was taken on file against the sole accused for the offences punishable U/s.270 r/w 188 IPC,

Sec.3 of Epidemic Disease Act 1897 & Section 53 of Disaster Management

Act 2005.

6. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relating to this case were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.PC. The sole accused was examined U/s. 251 Cr.P.C. Charge for the offence punishable U/s.270 r/w 188 IPC, Sec.3 of Epidemic Disease Act 1897 & Section 53 of Disaster

Management Act 2005 are framed read-over and explained to the sole accused in telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4. After closure of prosecution evidence, the sole accused was examined U/s.313 CR.PC. The incriminating material that appeared against him in evidence is framed read over and explained to the sole accused for which he denied the same in toto and reported no defence witnesses on behalf of him.

8. Heard both sides.

9. (a) Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the sole accused for the offences punishable U/s.270 r/w 188

IPC, Sec.3 of Epidemic Disease Act 1897 & Section 53 of Disaster

Management Act 2005 beyond all reasonable doubts?

b) To what relief ?

10. In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution has examined PWs.

1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. On careful scrutiny of the material on record, PW1, G. Jayashalini deposed before this court that she knows the accused and also LW2 in this case. She also stated that while she was working as panchayat secretary in the year 2020 on dated 18-04-2020 the accused in this case was selling cement business by violating the rules and regulations issued by State Government in respect of Covid Virus. For which she lodged the report to police along with some photographs and her statement was recorded by police.

PW2, G. Ravi Kumar deposed before this Court that he knows the accused & PW1 in this case. He deposed that in the year 2020 during covid period he found the vehicle with cement used for carrying the cement by violating the rules and regulations issued by the State Government in respect of the Covid virus. on seeing the same he informed the matter to PW1 and later PW1 lodged report pertaining to it. Even PW2 identified the accused present in the court hall during examination. there after he was examined and his statements was recorded by police.

PW3, N. Rmesh deposed before this Court that he knows LW4 in this case and on date 18-04-2020 at around 11.00am Police Talakondapally conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence pertaining to this case at Veljal Bus stand in this case and thereafter police obtained his signatures on it and he know the contents of it. The place of offence in this case is situated near by Jama Masid.

PW5, P. Suresh Yadav (IO) deposed before this Court that on 18-04-2020 at 10.00 hours, he registered a case against the accused in Crime

No.46/2020 U/s.270 r/w 188 IPC, Sec.3 of Epidemic Disease Act 1897 &

Section 53 of Disaster Management Act 2005 and after receiving the complaint from PW1. On the same day of receiving the file he has examined

PW1 and PW2 at police station and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW3 and LW4. On 18-04-2020 he has issued Sec. 41 A

Cr.P.C to the accused to make his presence whenever required. Later on completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the sole accused.

11. Coming to the appreciation of evidence of material on record, the prosecution altogether cited 5 witnesses and examined only 4 witnesses by giving up the evidence of Lw4. PW1 is defacto complainant, PW2 is eye- witness in this case. PW3 and PW4 are panch witnesses for the scene of offence. PW5 is the investigating officer in this case. PW1 i.e., G. Jayashalini deposed before this court that she knows the accused and also LW2 in this case. She also stated that while she was working as panchayat secretary in the year 2020 on dated 18-04-2020 the accused in this case was selling cement business by violating the rules and regulations issued by State

Government in respect of Covid Virus. For which she lodged the report to police along with some photographs and her statement was recorded by police.

Ex.P1 is the earliest form of information about commission of the offence. Whereas, PW2 G. Ravi Kumar deposed before this Court that he knows the accused & PW1 in this case. He deposed that in the year 2020 during covid period he found the vehicle with cement used for carrying the cement by violating the rules and regulations issued by the State

Government in respect of the Covid virus. on seeing the same he informed the matter to PW1 and later PW1 lodged report pertaining to it. Even PW2 identified the accused present in the court hall during examination. there after he was examined and his statements was recorded by police.

Whereas PW3 N. Ramesh who acted as panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama deposed before this Court that he knows LW4 in this case and on date 18-04-2020 at around 11.00am Police Talakondapally conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence pertaining to this case at Veljal Bus stand in this case and thereafter police obtained his signatures on it and he know the contents of it. The place of offence in this case is situated near by Jama Masid.

Whereas PW5, who acted as Investigating Officer in this case deposed about conducting of investigation after registering of crime.

During the course of cross examination, PW1 admitted that she did not file any document to show as proof to police that she was on duty on that day and she also admitted that she didnot file any document as proof to plice that the shop by name Vinayaka Traders belongs to the accused and she stated that she didnot give any original photographs or CD file to the police except the photographs captured by her through her mobile. She also admitted that she did not mention shop bearing number and also specifically the number of cement bags sold by the accused to the public. She also admitted that she did not mention the name of purchasers of those cement bags from the accused. She also admitted that the accused contested in the election and won as single window chairman and she also admitted there are three political parties at her village and the person by name Uppala

Venkatesh was contested and won as ZPTC chairman in the election by defeating Srinivas Yadav who is son in law of MLA Jaipal Yadav. But she denied she has some talks and good acquiantance with MLA and also with his son in law. She also denied that at the instance of MLA i.e. Jaipal Yadav and his son in law she filed this false case against the accused. She also denied that she was not on duty on the day of incident and also denied that the accused was not sending any cement to public. Also denied that the accused is innocent and no way releated to the present case.

Whereas PW2 admitted that he works under PW1 and he proceeded to work alloted by PW1 and he also admitted that he did not mention that he found the vehicle with the cement used by the accused for the purpose of selling the cement in his statement but he was deposing for the first time

before this court and he also admitted that he did not witness to whom the

accused sold the cement and also admitted that he do not know the contents of Section 161 Cr.P.C statements and also the shop bearing number of the accused. He also admitted that he do not know any thing about case he put his signatures at the instance of police.

Whereas PW3 deposed that he works as water supplier at gramapanchayat veljal and the name of sarpanch of his village is Sangeetha Srinivas. He also admitted that srinivas yadav is son in law of MLA of kalwakurthy i.e Jaipal

Yadav and the said Srinivas yadav was defeated by uppala venkatesh in

ZPTC elections and he also admitted the accused is releated to uppala venkatesh and also admitted that the scene of offence panchanama did not contain shop bearing number if possessed by the accused and he also admitted that no notice was given to him to act as panch witnesses. He also admitted that he did not know the total contents of scene of offence panchanama but he knows it partially. He denied that he participated in TRS party campaigns and he further denied that at the instance of Srinivas Yadav and police he is deposing falsely agaist the accused before this court without conducting panchanama in this presence. Whereas PW4 admitted that he did not file any document before this court to show that PW1 was on duty on the day of incident i.e.18-04-2020 and he also admitted that Ex.P1 did not contain the particulars to whom the accused was selling the cement on the day of incident, he also admitted that he did not examine and record the statements of the purchaser of the cement and he was also admitted that he did not collect any document from grampanchayat pertaining to the shop stated in the present case. He also admitted he did not examine and recorded the statements of independent witnesses in the present case and he also admitted that he did not collect any document to show as proof that who acted as proprietor of Vinayaka Traders and even the same was not mentioned in the charge sheet. He also admitted that in the year 2020

Sangeetha srinivas was acted as sarpanch at veljal village and her husband by name Srinivas Yadav was contested as ZPTC chairman and lost the elections by uppala venkatesh and also admitted that the accused acted as single window chairman at veljal mandal. He stated that he do not know whether accused is follower of uppala venkatesh and whether PW2, PW3 and

LW4 works under the control of Sangeetha Srinivas. He denied that only with political rivalry between sangeetha srinivas and the accused the present case is foisted against the accused. He also denied the false case is registered against the accused without any act committed by him at the instance of

Sangeetha Srinivas along with MLA Jaipal Yadav. Further denied that on

dated 18-04-2020 accused did not sale any cement to any person and he is

innocent and did not commit any offence.

12. On perusal of material on record and also the evidence, even though the testimony of PW1, PW3 corroborated with PW4 but during the course the cross examination nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW1, PW3 and

PW4 to connect the accused to the present case and even PW2 turned hostile by stating he do not know the contents of section 161 Cr.P.C statement and he admitted that he put his signatures at the instance of police. As there is no material on record to show that the said shop belongs to the accused in the present case and no proof filed by PW1 to show the said act was done by the accused on the date of the incident except photographs captured by PW1 through her mobile phone which do not contain the particulars of the incident. As the testimony of PW1 to PW3 and PW4 did not support the case of prosecution and as there is no material on record to believe the version of

PW1 to connect the accused for the offences under section 270 r/w 188 IPC,

Sec.3 of Epidemic Disease Act 1897 & Section 53 of Disaster Management

Act 2005. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/s 270 r/w 188 IPC, Sec.3 of Epidemic Disease

Act 1897 & Section 53 of Disaster Management Act 2005 beyond all resonable doubts.

Hence, it can be said that the evidence placed on record is not sufficient to sustain conviction against the accused for the offences punishable U/s 270 r/w 188 IPC, Sec.3 of Epidemic Disease Act 1897 & Section 53 of

Disaster Management Act 2005.

13.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and material placed before this court and in view of the above appreciation of the evidence, it can be said that there is no material on record to connect the sole accused with the alleged crime. Hence the sole accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the sole accused and against the prosecution.

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

U/s 270 r/w 188 IPC, Sec.3 of Epidemic Disease Act 1897 & Section 53 of

Disaster Management Act 2005 and accordingly he is acquitted U/s 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months from today. As there is no property produced before this Court, hence no order with regard to disposal of property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 1st October 2024.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

At Amangal.

Appendix of Evidence.

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:- For defence:- PW.1 G. Jayashalini None PW.2 T. Ravi Kumar PW.3 N. Ramesh PW.4 P. Suresh Yadav

EXHIBITS MARKED.

For prosecution:- For defence:-

Ex.P.1 is complaint Nil Ex.P.2 CDF Ex.P.3 signature on CDF Ex.P.4 FIR

MO’s marked. Nil

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

At Amangal.