Smt. T.pravalika

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :

NARASARAOPET.

Present: Smt. R.Aseervadam Paul,

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet, FAC: II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

Friday, the 21st day of March, 2025.

C.C.No.332/2018

Between

Gogineni Siva Nageswara Rao, S/o Veeraiah, Hindu, Business, Aged about 58 years, Jonnalagadda village,

Narasaraopet Mandal. ... Complainant.

And

Dowpati Chinnaiah, S/o Late Paparao, Hindu, Aged about 25 years, Private employee, Flat No.305, Vijaya Apartments, Prakash Nagar, Narasaraopet Town,

Guntur District. ... Accused.

This case is coming on 04-03-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for Complainant and of Sri P. Anjaneyulu Chowdary, Advocate for Accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a private complaint filed by the Complainant against the Accused for the offence punishable under Secs.138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881.

2

2.The facts leading to the presentation of the complaint is that:

Accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant on 18-09-2015, Rs.50,00,000/- on 20-12-2015 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 17-09-2016 from the complainant at Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal and executed three separate promissory notes on its respective dates for the purpose of business, agreeing to repay the said amounts with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., whenever the complainant demands for repayment or at his order on demand. On the demand of the complainant to the accused, on 25- 11-2017 the accused issued a cheque for Rs.50,00,000/- bearing No.033012 drawn on ICICI Bank, Narasaraopet branch to the complainant towards the part payment of the above said debt. The complainant presented the said cheque to his Banker i.e., Karur Vysya Bank, Narasaraopet Branch for collection on 05-12-2017. But the said cheque was dishonored on the ground of “Funds Insufficient” by reasons stated and the same was came to know the complainant through a return memo issued by complainant bank to the complainant on 07-12-2017. The complainant issued a registered legal notice to the accused on 22-12-2017 and the said notice was received by the accused on 26-12-2017, but the accused did not repay any amount and did not issue any reply notice. Hence, complainant has presented the complaint to punish the accused for the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act.

3

3.This case was taken on file under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act against accused.

4.On appearance of accused, he was supplied with the copies of the case documents as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., and examined under 251

Cr.P.C. and substance of the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act, read over and explained to accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the case of the complainant, himself examined as

P.W.1, and one of the attester of promissory note examined as PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8.

6.After completion of complainant evidence, accused is examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material in the evidences of P.W.1 and

P.W.2 are put forth to accused, for which he stated all false and reported defence evidence. The accused examined as DW1 and Dws 2 and 3 also examined on his behalf and Ex.D1 also marked on his behalf.

7.Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel

for the accused and perused the material available on record.

8. Now the point for consideration is :

1) Whether the complainant proved the guilt of Accused for the of- fence U/Sec.138 N.I Act beyond reasonable doubt ?

4 9.The learned counsel for complainant has submitted that the complainant has examined as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to P8 and PW2 also examined on his behalf. By producing Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 he has proved that

Ex.P1/cheque was given to the complainant towards discharge of legally enforceable debt of Ex.P7/Promissory note. Ex.P2/Original return memo clearly showing that Ex.P1/Cheque was returned for “Funds Insufficient”.

Ex.P5/acknowledgment and Ex.P4/postal receipt issued by postal authorities showing that accused have received the Ex.P3/Statutory notice and did not pay the amount covered under Ex.P1/cheque. He further submitted accused did not dispute his signatures on Ex.P1, Ex.P7/cheque and promissory note.

Once the signature is admitted the presumption U/Sec.138 N.I Act shall be drawn in favour of the complainant. He further submitted the evidence Pws 1 and 2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 are proving the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore prays the Hon’ble Court to convict the accused.

10.The learned defence counsel contended that accused has acquaintance with PW1 and he has no financial capacity to lend such a huge amount of

Rs.50,00,000/- to him. He further argued that he never executed any promis- sory note for Rs.50,00,000/- as alleged by the complainant and he never is- sued any cheque to that effect and the Ex.P7/promissory note was rank forged one and there is no legally enforceable debt in between him and the complainant. Hence the evidence of PW1 clearly established there is no any direct creditor and debtor relationship between him and Ex.P1/Cheque was 5 not given by accused to PW1 for discharging of any legally enforceable debt or liability as stated by PW1. Hence he prays to Hon’ble Court to acquit the accused.

11.To prove the case as stated above the complainant examined as PW1 and PW2 also examined on his behalf and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. To file complaint U/S 138 of N.I. Act, the complainant has fulfill the following conditions. Section 138 of N.I Act has three ingredients Vz:-

1) There is a legal enforceable debt or liability

2) The drawer of the cheque issued the cheque to satisfy part or whole of the debt or liability

3) The cheque so issued has been returned due to “Funds Insufficient”

4) The drawer of the cheque failed to repay the cheque amount within a statutory period even after receipt of statutory notice to him within stipulated period.

12.There is dispute about the signatures of the accused on Ex.P1/Cheque and Ex.P7/Promissory notes. Complainant presented Ex.P1/cheque in the bank, Ex.P2/return memo for “Funds Insufficient”. Complainant issuing

Ex.P5/Legal notice, receipt of the same by the accused and non payment of cheque amount by the accused. Both parties are dispute with regard to legally enforceable debt and also the accused contended that the statutory legal notice was not served to him as per the provision of N.I.Act and he took a plea 6 that his signature was forged on Ex.P7 promissory note by the complainant and to support his contention he filed Ex.D1 expert opinion.

13.With regard to legally enforceable debt, to prove that Ex.P1/cheque was issued to discharge the legal enforceable debt. The complainant has examined himself as PW1. The complainant in his chief affidavit reiterated his complaint averments. He has deposed that on 25-11-2017 the accused issued a cheque for Rs.50,00,000/- bearing No.033012 drawn on ICICI Bank,

Narasaraopet branch to the complainant towards the part payment of the above said debt. The complainant presented the said cheque to his Banker i.e., Karur Vysya Bank, Narasaraopet Branch for collection on 05-12-2017. But the said cheque was dishonored on the ground of “Funds Insufficient” by reasons stated and the same was came to know the complainant through a return memo issued by complainant bank to the complainant on 07-12-2017.

The complainant issued a registered legal notice to the accused on 22-12- 2017 and the said notice was received by the accused on 26-12-2017, but the accused did not repay any amount and did not issue any reply notice. Though

PW2 got examined to support his contention but in his cross examination PW2 categorically admitted that he is resident of Piduguralla and he do not remember what he had mentioned with regard to his district and the complainant is his relative. On perusal of the above admissions this court feels that the presence of PW2 on the date of execution of alleged three promissory 7 notes and the presence of PW2 on the alleged dates are doubtful circumstances.

14.At this juncture this Court relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

RANGAPPA Vs. MOHAN, AIR 2010 SC 1898.

“once the cheque relied to the account of the accused and he accepts and attempts the signature on the said cheque then initial presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of N.I. Act as to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant”.

15.The presumption referred under Section 139 of the N.I Act is mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption.

16.Relying on the above mandatory presumption laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, Ex.P1/cheque appears to be drawn on the account of accused and accused admitted his signatures on Ex.P1/cheque but he denied his signature and Ex.P7/Promissory note. To support his contention accused has examined as DW1 and admitted that he borrowed amounts of

Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant for his business purpose, due to which, he issued two blank signed pronotes to the complainant and later he repaid the said amounts and he questioned the complainant fur return of his promissory notes but he postponing the same that he was in busy as he is going to UK, and later will return the same but 8 after returned from UK also complainant never returned the same. Except that

DW1 never issued any other documents and he never borrowed an amount of

Rs.50,00,000/- from the complainant at any point of time and he borrowed money from one Upputuri Babu Rao an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- at that time he issued a blank signed cheque and blank signed two promissory notes to said Upputuri Babu Rao and said Babu Rao and complainant are friends and the complainant filed civil suit against DW1 under three promissory notes on the file of Hon’ble XIII Addl. District Judges Court,Narasaraopet vide

O.S.No.38/2018. On perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that DW1 did

not cited the Said Upputuri Babu Rao as witness in this case to prove his contention and he failed to issue any notices or give police report for return of his empty pronotes alleged to have been issued by DW1 after repayment of alleged amounts of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- and hence the version stated by DW1 on this aspects do not taken into consideration as he failed to prove the said version.

17.Further DW1 took a plea that there is no legally enforceable debt with regard to Ex.P7 promissory note. PW1 categorically deposed that DW1 borrowed an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- on 20-12-2015 and to support his contention he examined PW2 and PW2 also support the version of PW1, but nowhere in the complaint filed by PW1 stated about the presence of PW2 at the time of execution of alleged three promissory notes by DW1 on the different dates. But PW1 relied on Ex.P7 promissory note to support his 9 contention. Admittedly, DW1 denied the same and took a plea that Ex.P7 is a forged document. To support his contention he filed Ex.D1 certified copy of

Expert opinion. DW1 contended that the alleged Ex.P7 promissory note was sent to expert opinion through the Hon’ble XIII Addl. District Judge,

Narasaraopet and obtained opinion. Ex.D1 expert opinion disclosed that “the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked S1 to S16 did not write the red enclosed signature marked Q”. On perusal of the expert opinion it is noticed that the signature on Ex.P7 promissory note for Rs.50,00,000/- was not tallied with the signature of DW1 and hence it is proved that accused did not executed the alleged Ex.P7 promissory note as alleged by PW1 in his complainant and it is declared as forged document. The plea of PW1 is that the accused executed Ex.P7 promissory note in his favour but Ex.D1 expert opinion disclosed that Ex.P7 promissory note was not executed by the accused. Hence, the plea of the complainant with regard to execution of Ex.P7 promissory note by the accused is false and it is declared as forged document and hence this court finds that accused proved that Ex.P7 promissory note was not executed by DW1 and the plea taken by the accused as there is no legally enforceable debt in between PW1 and DW1 is considered. As there is no legally enforceable debt in between the complainant and accused this court cannot order to discharge the debt due by DW1 to PW1.

18.With regard to issuing of Ex.P1 cheque is concerned, DW1 deposed that he never issued any cheque to PW1 at any point of time and he borrowed 10 money from one Upputuri Babu Rao an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- at that time he issued a blank signed cheque and blank signed two promissory notes to said Upputuri Babu Rao and said Babu Rao and complainant are friends.

Further DW1 even though admitted his signature on Ex.P1 cheque, but PW1 failed to prove the initial burden of execution of Ex.P7 promissory note, the question of issuance of Ex.P1 cheque to PW1 does not arise.

19.Further, the counsel for the accused questioned the capacity of the

PW.1 to lend such a huge amount and questioned the capacity of lender of

PW.1 and also cited the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case between Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa delivered in a Criminal Appeal

No.636 dated 09-04-2019. Wherein it was held that “once the question of lenders capacity is raised the burden lies on the lenders to prove his capacity by adducing evidence”. This court feels that it is necessary to go into the capacity of the complainant as one of the main ingredients of Section 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act i.e., legally enforceable debt, is not proved by the complainant.

20.On the other hand, accused successful in shaking credibility of evidence of complainant with regard to Ex.P1 is not supported by consideration and no legally enforceable debt between them with regard to Ex.P7 promissory note, thereby accused is succeeded in proving that cheque was not issued in furtherance of legally enforceable debt or other liability. Accordingly this point is answered.

11

21.From considering facts and circumstances and evidence available this court came to conclusion that complainant failed to prove essential ingredients of sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and accused raised reasonable doubt and he has been able to rebut presumption under section 139 of Negotiable

Instrument Act. Standard of proof on the part of accused is proved by preponderance of probabilities that cheque in possession of complainant was not issued towards any legally recoverable debt or other liability.

22.In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offense punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The surety bonds of accused shall stands canceled after expiry of appeal period. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 21 st day of March, 2025.

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

FAC: II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:-

P.W.1 : Gogineni Siva Nageswara Rao

P.W.2 : Potla Rama Krishna 12

For Accused:-

D.W.1: D. Chennaiah

D.W.2: Shaik Khalesha

D.W.3: D. Lakshmi

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:-

Ex.P1: Original cheque bearing No.033012 issued by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.50,00,000/-, dated 25-11-2017

Ex.P2: Cheque return memo, dt.07-12-2017

Ex.P3: Office copy of Regd. Legal notice issued by the complainant to the accused, dated 22-12-2017

Ex.P4: Postal receipt, dt.22-12-2017

Ex.P5: Postal acknowledgment card from accused, dt.26-12-2017

Ex.P6: Certified copy of Promissory note executed by accused in favour of complainant for Rs.1,50,000/-, dt.18-09-2015

Ex.P7: Certified copy of Promissory note executed by accused in favour of complainant for Rs.50,00,000/-, dt.20-12-2015

Ex.P8: Certified copy of Promissory note executed by accused in favour of complainant for Rs.5,00,000/-, dt.17-09-2016

For Accused:-

Ex.D1 : Certified copy of expert opinion

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

FAC: II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

13

ABSTRACT: GUNTUR

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

C.C.No.332/2018

Date of Offence: 07-12-2017 Date of Complaint: 02-02-2018 Date of Taken on File: 16-04-2018 1st appearance of accused: 04-11-2020 Commencement of trial: 06-06-2022 Closure of Trial: 04-02-2025 Sentence or Order: 21-03-2025 Name of the complainant: Gogineni Siva Nageswara Rao, S/o Veeraiah, Hindu, Business, Aged about 58 years, Jonnalagadda village,Narasaraopet Mandal. Name of accused: Dowpati Chinnaiah, S/o Late Paparao, Hindu, Aged about 25 years, Private employee, Flat No.305, Vijaya Apartments,Prakash Nagar, Narasaraopet Town, Guntur District.

Nature of offence : U/Secs.138 & 142 of N.I. Act Plea of accused : Not guilty Finding : Found not guilty ORDER:- In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offense pun- ishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, accordingly, he is ac- quitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The surety bonds of accused shall stands canceled after expiry of appeal period. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed. Explanation for delay: This court took cognizance on 16-04-2018 and copies furnished to the accused on 04-11-2020 and accused examined on 10-02- 2021 U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. and from 06-06-2022 to 06-02-2023 prosecution examined Pws 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8 and prosecution evidence closed on 06-02-2023 and accused examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. on 14-02- 2023 and he denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported defence evidence and from 02-03-2025 to 04-02-2025 Dws 1 to 3 are examined and Ex.D1 is marked and defence evidence closed on 04-02-2025 and on 07-03-2025 heard arguments on both sides and on 21-03-2025 judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

FAC: II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant Sessions

Judge, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

NARASARAOPET.

Present: Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul, Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. FACl: II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

Thursday, this the 20th day of March, 2025.

C.C.No. 06 of 2018

Between:

Bheemanadhuni Chennaiah, S/o China Anthaiah, Hindu, aged about 37 years, Private Employee, R/O. Vemiluripdu Village,

Phirangipuraam Mandal..Complainant

Vs.

1) Pothuraju Nagendram, son of Bollaiaa, Hindu, aged about 72 years,

2) Pothuraju Sambaiah, Son of Nagendram, Hindu, aged about 52 years, 3)Pothuraju Srinivasa Rao, son of Nagendram, Hindu, aged about 47 years, 4)Pothuraju Arjuna Rao, son of Nagendram, Hindu, aged about 37 years,

5) Pothuraju Rama Krishna, son of Sambaiah, Hindu, aged about 27 years,

6) Pothuraju Gopaiah, son of Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 24 years,

7) Pothuraju Tirupathaiah, son of Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 22 years,

8) Pothuraju Guru Murthy, son of Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 18 years,

9) Pothuraju Sambrajyam (abated)

10) Pothuraju Venkayamma, wife of Sambaiah, Hindu, aged about 47 years,

11) Pothuraju Malleswari, wife of Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 42 years,

12) Pothuraju Venkatgeswaramma wife of Arjuna Rao, Hindu, aged bout 35 years, All are Agriculturists and residents of Vemuluripadu Vilalge, Phirangipuram Mandal, within the limits of Phirangipuram PS. (Case against A9 is abated as she died)

.. Accused 1 to 12.

This case coming on 12-03-2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.G.S.P.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri R. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for A1 to A12 and upon perusing the material available on record and 2 having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

[1.] The Protest petition filed by the complainant U/Sec.159 of Criminal

Procedure Code against A1 to A12 for the offences punishable Under Sections 120(B), 447, 427, 342, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code alleging as follows:

[2.] The brief facts of the case of complainant is as follows:

(i) On 14-06-1984 the mother of the complainant purchased a house site property at Vemuluripadu village, Phirangipuram Mandal and she resided with the complainant and recently she died and later the complainant constructed a house, with cement sheets and residing therein and constructed a compound wall, with hallow bricks and while, the said work is going on, on 18-8-2014, at about 3-00

P.M, all the accused under the leadership of accused 1 to 4, trespassed into his and fell down the fresh constructed wall, on South East Corner. When the complainant, his wife and mother, attempted to prevent the accused, Accused 9 and 10, caught hold of the wife of the complainant, accused 11 and 12 caught hold of the mother of the complainant; accused 5 to 8 caught hold of the complainant and in one ward, all the accused, wrongfully confined the complainant, his wife and mother and fell down the constructed wall and caused damage or loss of the property i.e., constructed wall spoiled by the accused amounts to Rs.5,000/- and odd. As the complainant, his wife and mother raised cries, several villagers gathered there and on seeing them, the accused left the place. In fact, on the Southern side of the complainant's site, accused 2 to 4, purchased house site on 14-6-1984, along with the complainant's mother. On their Southern side, the accused are having formed road, including the canal bund. But recently, the Gram Panchayat laid a Cement road after acquisition of the required site form the land owners and accordingly, the complainant and his mother, left more than four feet width site, to lay the cement 3 road and after the formation of the said road, it is convenient to all the dwellers in the street for their daily purposes. But all the accused, though they are having road, on their Southern side, they are demanding a pathway, from the site of the complainant, to reach the Eastern side cement road, to which the complainant and his mother refused. So that, all the accused, grew wild and conspired together, trespassed into the site and fell down the constructed wall, by causing damage to the property worth more than Rs.5,000/-. Besides that, all the accused, threatened the complainant, his wife and mother with dire consequences, unless their demand of pathway is not complied. Then, the complainant approached the Phirangipuram

PS on 19-8-2014, where, the Sub-Inspector of Police was absence and one person,

ASI designate was present and having influenced and managed by the accused, he refused, to receive the complaint and the complainant sent it through registered post, on 20-8-2014. After the receipt of the report, through RP, the said ASI, visited the scene of offence, on 21-8-2014 at about 4-00 PM and instead of registering the crime, he threatened the complainant, his wife and mother and openly proclaimed that he will get the favourable decision, to the accused, through the Revenue

Authorities. So, it is clear that, the Phirangipuram PS, is at the helm of helping the accused, no proceedings were initiated against the accused. So that, the complainant approached this Honourable Court.

(ii)Then this court recorded the statements of L.Ws 1 to 4 and referred the case to the Station House officer, Phirangipuram and posted the matter for filing of report on 30-10-2015. The station House Officer, Phirangipuram, being influenced and managed by the accused, never initiated any steps, with regard to the investigation and not called for either the complainant or other witnesses till today. Hence, the complainant preferred this protest petition, requesting the court to take the case on file U/Sec.120(B), 447, 342, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and to punish the accused according to law.

[3.] This complaint was taken cognizance of the offence Under Section 447, 4 342, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused 1 to 12, copies of the documents as required Under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to them. When examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence

Under Sections 447, 342, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, the accused pleaded not guilty for the offences and claimed to be tried. They further examined regarding the means of engagement of counsel to defend the case on their behalf, they reported that they have sufficient means to engage counsel.

[4.] In order to prove the complainant's case, the Complainant himself examined as P.W.1 and PW2 is also examined on his behalf and got marked

Ex.P.1. PW.1 is the complainant and PW2 is the wife of PW1. Ex.P.1 is complaint made by PW1 before this court. During the pendency of the trial, A9 died and case against A9 was abated and the present case is against A1 to A8 and A10 to A12 only.

[5.]Upon closure of the complainant evidence, A1 to A8 and A10 to A12 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining incriminating material recorded against them from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. A1 to A8 and A10 to A12 denied the same reported no defence evidence.

[6.]Heard both sides. The learned counsel for complainant argued that the complainant proved that the A1 to A8 and A10 to A12 conspired together, trespass into the house of PW1 and caused damage to a tune of Rs.5,000/- and threatened the PWs 1 and 2 and hence they are liable for punishment. Per contra, the learned counsel for the A1 to A8 and A10 to A12 argued that complainant filed a false case against the accused and the police already investigated the case and filed referred charge sheet before this court, by mentioned as false case and hence he prayed to acquit the accused.

5 [7.] Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of the A1 to

A8 and A10 to A12 for the offences punishable Under

Sections 447, 342, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

[8.] Evidence on record: As stated above, the complainant examined Pws.1 and 2 and Ex.P.1 was marked. Pw.1 deposed in his chief examination that her mother purchased Ac.0-05 cents of house site in the year 1984 from one

Chopavarapu Nagamma and her sons and A1 and others also purchased 19 cents of house site from said Nagamma and her sons in the same year and southern side of their site the house site of accused is situated and there are cement road and gravel roads in and around their lands and on 18-08-2014 he tried to construct a compound wall in the southern side and western side of his house and completed construction of 4 feets of wall with hallow bricks and at about 3.00 pm all the accused criminally trespassed into his house site and A1, his sons i.e., A2 to A4 started to demolish his compound wall. PW1 further deposed that himself, his wife and his mother went to the scene to stop the act of accused and then A5 to A8 caught hold him, A9 and A10 caught hold his wife, A11 and A12 of you caught hold his mother not to stop them from demolishing the compound wall and A1 to A4 demolished compound wall leaving basement and the neighbours rushed to the scene of offence as they raised hues and cries and you demolished 4 feets of compound wall due to the acts of accused, his mother suffered paralysis stroke after suffered shock and his shirt was also torned in the incident and his wife did not sustained any visible injury but she suffered pain and himself and his wife went to police station and lodged a report but police refused to take his report as accused went to police station before they reached and he sent the report to the police station through registered post but police did not register his case and hence he made a complaint before this court. Ex.P1 is his complaint filed before this court.

6 [9.] P.W.2-B. Naga Lakshmi deposed that they were constructing compound wall to their house, all the accused trespassed into her site and destroyed the compound wall and A9 and A10 wrongfully confined her and all the accused caught hold her husband and wrongfully confined them and on the next day they went to police station to file a report but the Inspector of police informed that the dispute belongs to civil matter and refused to register the report and they sent the report through register post on 20-08-2014 to Phirangipuram police station and on 21-08- 2014 ASI of police visited the scene and went away and no action was initiated against the accused due to fear of accused and hence they filed the present complaint and all the accused threatened to see their end if they will construct the compound wall.

[10.] Admittedly, this protest petition is filed by the complainant against the accused 1 to 12 and this court recorded the statements of LWs 1 to 4 and also sent the report to the concerned police to register a case and file charge sheet. Basing on it, the Phirangipuram police registered it as a case in Cr.No.139/2015 for the offence U/Sec.120-B, 447, 342, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and investigated into the matter and filed referred charge sheet by referring it as a false case. Basing on it, the complainant filed the present protest petition.The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 categorically supported the version of protest petition. But the charge sheet filed by the police concerned is not supporting the version of PWs 1 and 2 and referred as a false case. On perusal of the above case, it is noticed that this case is filed based on the dispute with regard to construction of compound wall by the complainant.

PW1 made several allegations against the accused persons, but no documents are filed to support his contention, which is fatal to his case. PW1 in his cross examination categorically admitted that prior to construction of their compound wall they conducted survey of their land through the surveyor, but he failed to file the surveyor report before this court. PW1 further admitted that he never took any photos or videos at the time of constructing of compound wall and he did not 7 mention in the report given by him to the police about the names of A1 toA4 as they were demolished their compound wall. PW1 further admitted that he did not mention in the report that while A1 to A4 were demolishing their compound wall, at that time he tried to stop them but A5 to A8 restrained him not move to stop to A1 to

A4. Pw1 further admitted that he did not mention in his report that A11 and A12 obstructed his mother. On perusal of the above admissions made by PW1, it is clear that PW1 stated developed version before this court to support his case only.

PW1 categorically admitted in his cross examination that accused persons were filed civil suit against them and thy were exparte in the said suit filed by the accused, which clearly established the real intention of the complainant, who filed the case against the accused and the contention of the learned counsel for the accused with regard to counter blast to the civil case filed by the accused, PW1 filed this false case against the accused is not brushed aside.

[11.]As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 it is clear that a false case foisted against the accused persons to counter blast the civil case filed by the accused persons against the PWs 1 and 2 and further PWs 1 and 2 failed to produce single piece of evidence either oral or documentary evidence to prove their case and hence, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 cannot be taken into consideration.

Except the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 no eye witnesses were examined by the complainant. Therefore, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to implicate the complicity of the accused person in commission of the offences. It is well known that penal statutes should be strictly construed and the complainant need to prove the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt, which is lacking in the present case on hand. The material produced by the complainant is hardly sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Thereby, the point is decided in favour of the accused persons.

[12.] IN THE RESULT, A1 to A8 and A10 to A12 are found not guilty for the 8 offences punishable under sections 447, 342, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused person and of his sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in the open court, on this the 20 th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

FAC: II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

NARASARAOPET.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:

For Complainant: For defence:

P.W.1 : B. Chennaiah -None- P.W.2 : B. Naga Lakshmi

Documents marked:

For Complainant:-

Ex.P.1: Complaint of PW1

For defence: - Nil -

Material objects marked:

-Nil on either side -

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

FAC: II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

NARASARAOPET.

9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AT

NARASARAOPET.

C.C.No. 06 of 2018

01.Date of offence : Prior to 21-01-2017

02.Date of report/complaint : 21-01-2017

03.Date of appearance of accused : ---

04.Date of release of accused on bail : --

05.Date of commencement of trial : 26-12-2018

06.Date of close of trial : 08-11-2024

07.Date of Judgment : 20-03-2025

08.Complaint:- Bheemanadhuni Chennaiah,S/o China Anthaiah, Hindu, aged about 37 years, Private Employee, R/O. Vemiluripdu Village, Phirangipuraam Mandal

09.Description of Accused:

1) Pothuraju Nagendram, son of Bollaiaa, Hindu, aged about 72 years,

2) Pothuraju Sambaiah, Son of Nagendram, Hindu, aged about 52 years, 3)Pothuraju Srinivasa Rao, son of Nagendram, Hindu, aged about 47 years, 4)Pothuraju Arjuna Rao, son of Nagendram, Hindu, aged about 37 years,

5) Pothuraju Rama Krishna, son of Sambaiah, Hindu, aged about 27 years,

6) Pothuraju Gopaiah, son of Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 24 years,

7) Pothuraju Tirupathaiah, son of Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 22 years,

8) Pothuraju Guru Murthy, son of Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 18 years,

9) Pothuraju Sambrajyam (abated)

10) Pothuraju Venkayamma, wife of Sambaiah, Hindu, aged about 47 years,

11) Pothuraju Malleswari, wife of Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 42 years,

12) Pothuraju Venkatgeswaramma wife of Arjuna Rao, Hindu, aged bout 35 years, All are Agriculturists and residents of Vemuluripadu Vilalge, Phirangipuram Mandal, within the limits of Phirangipuram PS. (Case against A9 is abated as she died)

10.Offence: U/sec. 447, 342, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC

11.Plea of Accused: Not guilty

12.Finding of the Court : Found not guilty.

13.Sentence or Order: In the result, A1 to A8 and A10 to A12 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 447, 342, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPCand accordingly they are acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused person and of his sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed. 14.Explanation for the delay: Due to non production of witnesses. Hence the delay.

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

FAC: II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

NARASARAOPET.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur, for kind perusal.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :

NARASARAOPET.

Present: Smt. R.Aseervadam Paul,

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet, FAC: II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

Wednesday, the 26th day of March, 2025.

C.C.No.289/2018

Between

Ponnapati Anji Reddy, S/o Obula Reddy, Hindu, Business, Aged about 26 years, D.No.4-101, Lingamguntla Agraharam, Narasaraopet Mandal.

...Complainant.

And

Mogili Koteswara Rao, Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Employee, Aged about 41 years, D.No.11-2-53/5, Opp. Church, Near Pavuluri Subbarao School, Navodaya Nagar, Narasaroapet Town, Guntur District.

...Accused.

This case is coming on 18-03-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Pratap Reddy and Sri Y.S. Rami Reddy, Advocates for Complainant and of Sri P. Chakra Pani, Advocate for Accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a private complaint filed by the Complainant against the Accused for the offence punishable under Secs.138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881.

2.The facts leading to the presentation of the complaint is that:

2

The complainant is resident of Lingamguntla Agraharam of

Narasaraopet Mandal. Accused is resident of Narasaraopet town and on 05- 02-2017 accused borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the complainant for his family expenses and executed a promissory note in his favour accused agreed to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and the complainant demanded the accused for repayment of the amount, for which accused issued cheque dt.08-02-2018 for Rs.8,00,000/- bearing No.872192 to be drawn on Syndicate Bank, Kurichedu Branch, Prakasam District towards part payment of the said debt, the complainant presented the said cheque through his banker State Bank of India, ADB, Narasaraopet and the same was returned unpaid on the ground of “Insufficient Funds” and the same was came to know the complainant through a return memo issued by complainant bank to the complainant on 13-02-2018. The complainant issued a registered legal notice to the accused on 21-02-2018 and the said notice was received by the accused on 24-02-2018, but the accused did not repay any amount and did not issue any reply notice. Hence, complainant has presented the complaint to punish the accused for the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act.

3.This case was taken on file under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act against accused.

4.On appearance of accused, he was supplied with the copies of the case documents as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., and examined under 251 3

Cr.P.C. and substance of the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act, read over and explained to accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the case of the complainant, himself examined as

P.W.1 and PW2 also examined on his behalf and got marked Exs.P1 to P9.

The accused himself examined as DW1 and DW2 also examined on his behalf and got marked Exs.D1 and D2.

6.After completion of complainant evidence, accused is examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material in the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2 are put forth to accused, for which he stated all false and reported defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel

for the accused and perused the material available on record.

8. Now the point for consideration is :

1) Whether the complainant proved the guilt of Accused for the of- fence U/Sec.138 N.I Act beyond reasonable doubt?

9.The learned counsel for complainant has submitted that the complainant has examined as PW1 and PW1 also examined on his behalf and marked Ex.P1 to P9. By producing Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 he has proved that

Ex.P1/cheque was given to the complainant towards discharge of legally 4 enforceable debt of Ex.P6/photostat copy of pronote. Ex.P3/return memo clearly showing that Ex.P1/Cheque was returned for “Funds Insufficient”.

Ex.P5/postal acknowledgment issued by postal authorities showing that accused has received the Ex.P4/Statutory notice and did not pay the amount covered under Ex.P1/cheque. He further submitted accused did not dispute his signature on Ex.P1. Once the signature is admitted the presumption

U/Sec.138 N.I Act shall be drawn in favour of the complainant. He further submitted the evidence Pws 1 and 2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 are proving the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore prays the Hon’ble Court to convict the accused.

10.The learned defence counsel contended that accused has acquaintance with PW1 and he issued the said cheque for security purpose of chit run by the complainant only and there is no legally enforceable debt in between him and the complainant and the alleged date of issue of Ex.P1 is wrong and at that time he is at Vijayawada under training. Hence the evidence of PW1 clearly established there is no any direct creditor and debtor relationship be- tween him and Ex.P1/Cheque was not given by accused to PW1 for discharg- ing of any legally enforceable debt or liability as stated by PW1. Hence he prays to Hon’ble Court to acquit the accused.

11.To prove the case as stated above the complainant examined as PW1 and PW2 also examined on his behalf and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. To file 5 complaint U/S 138 of N.I. Act, the complainant has fulfill the following conditions.

1) There is a legal enforceable debt or liability

2) The drawer of the cheque issued the cheque to satisfy part or whole of the debt or liability

3) The cheque so issued has been returned due to “Funds Insufficient”

4) The drawer of the cheque failed to repay the cheque amount within a statutory period even after receipt of statutory notice to him within stipulated period.

12.PW1 deposed that on 05-02-2017 accused borrowed an amount of

Rs.8,00,000/- from him for family expenses and executed a promissory note in his favour, agreed to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and when he demanded the accused for repayment of the amount, for which, accused issued cheque dt.08-02-2018 for Rs.8,00,000/- bearing No.872192 to be drawn on Syndicate Bank, Kurichedu Branch, Prakasam District towards part payment of the said debt, then he presented the said cheque through his banker State Bank of India, ADB, Narasaraopet and the same was returned unpaid on the ground of “Insufficient Funds” through a return memo issued by the bank on 13-02-2018 and he issued a registered legal notice to the accused on 21-02-2018 and the said notice was received by the accused on 6 24-02-2018, but the accused did not repay any amount and did not issue any reply notice. To support his contention, PW1 marked Ex.P1 to P9 documents.

13.PW1 categorically deposed that on 05-02-2017 accused borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from him by executing promissory note in his favour at Lingamguntla Agraharam, Narasaraopet Mandal and to discharge the debt accused issued a cheque bearing No.872192 on 08-02-2018 for Rs.8,00,000/- and said cheque was dishonoured with memo dated 13-02-2018 as Funds

Insufficient. But the said version was denied by the accused in toto and took a plea that there is no debtor and creditor relationship between them and he never issued any cheque to anybody on the alleged date and took a plea that on the alleged date of issue of cheque, he was under training at 01-02-2018 to 22-02-2018 at Divisional Civil Engineering Training Centre, Vijayawada.

14.To prove the contention of PW1, he relied on Exs.P1 to P6. On perusal of Exs.P1/cheque and Ex.P6 copy of promissory note supported the contention of PW1 and Ex.P3 return memo disclosed that the alleged Ex.P1 was returned and Ex.P4 disclosed that PW1 issued notice to accused and

Ex.P5 disclosed that said notice was served to accused. PW1 in his cross examination categorically admitted that he is doing contract business but he is not having any license for doing the same and besides contract business, he is doing cultivation and money lending business but he denied that he is doing chit business. Further, PW1 deposed that he is not an income tax assesse and he used to earn Rs.30,000/- per month and he cannot file any documents 7

before this court to prove his monthly income and he cannot file any document

before this court to show that he withdrawn the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from

the bank of or before 05-02-2017, which was given to the accused. On perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that PW1 failed to produce any license to support his contentions and also failed to adduce any documentary proof to support his financial capacity to lend amounts to accused. Therefore, it is clear that PW1 failed to establish that he has got financial capacity to lend amount to accused.

15.Further PW1 categorically admitted that accused issued Ex.P1 cheque to him towards part payment, but he do not mentioned the same neither in his notice nor in his complaint. PW1 further categorically admitted that he do not remember the day when Ex.P1 cheque was issued but it was a public holiday, but, admittedly, it is a working day. Hence, the version stated by PW1 is not trustworthy. On this aspect, DW1 deposed that PW1 is doing chit fund business in Narasaraopet and he joined as a subscriber in the chit and he participated in the bid and at the time of payment of the bid amount, at the demand of PW1, he handed over an empty signed pronote as well as empty signed cheque to him towards security for due discharge of the chit installment amounts and he fully discharged the entire chit amounts and requested for return of the empty signed pronote and cheque for which PW1 made promise that will return the same as they were placed in his almirah and on believing the same he kept quiet and later PW1 again requested him to join as a 8 member in the chit but he did not do so and hence PW1 developed grudge against him and filed false case by filing the cheque and promissory notes which were given previously to PW1 as security and the said version was categorically mentioned in his reply notice and also in his written statement, which are marked as Exs.P7 and P8 respectively.

16.Further DW1 took a plea that he is not in Narasaraopet at the time of issuing Ex.P1 as alleged by PW1 and the said fact was stated in his reply notice that during the time of issuing of Ex.P1 cheque he was in his training duty but not at Narasaraopet. To support his contention, DW1 produced Ex.D1 and D2. Ex.D1 is Keyman competency certificate issued by South Central

Railway dt. 22-02-2018 in his favour and Ex.D2 is L.W.R.Competency certificate issued by South Central Railway Engineering Department,

Vijayawada Division dated 22-02-2018 in his favour. On perusal of Ex.D1 and

D2 it is clearly certified that Sri M. Koteswara Rao, Trackmaintainer-I under

SEEP.Way/DKD successfully completed basic course of Gangmate/Keyman in

Batch No.1/Basic/KM & Mate from 01-02-2018 to 22-02-2018 at Divisional

Civil Engineering Training Centre, Vijayawada. He is competent to work on

Track as TGangmate/Keyman issued by Principal, Divisional Civil Engineering

Training Center, Vijayawada. On careful perusal of Exs.D1 and D2, it is clear that accused took training from Divisional Civil Engineering Training Center at

Vijayawada from 01-02-2018 to 22-02-2018. Generally, if any employee took training at training center they shall be stayed at training center till completion 9 of training and the local employees are exempted from the stay at training center. The evidence of DW2 also supported the said version. PW1 categorically contended that accused issued Ex.P1 cheque at Narasaraopet at 8.00 am on 08-02-2018. If really, accused issued Ex.P1 cheque at

Narasaraopet at 8.00 am on 08-02-2018, it is very difficult to reach Vijayawada for training at 10.00 am by the accused because Vijayawada is far away to

Narasaraopet and it will took minimum 3 hours one can reach Vijayawada by bus. If the accused went to Vijayawada by train, there is no such train is available at 8.00 am to go to Vijayawada from Narasaraopet. Hence, the version stated by PW1 with regard to issuing of Ex.P1 cheque at 8.00 am on 08-02-2018 is not impossible as accused is under training at Vijayawada on the said date as alleged by PW1 and Ex.D1 and D2 disclosed the same. On perusal of the above evidence this court believed the version of DW1 and hence this court feels that PW1 failed to adduce rebuttable evidence to prove his contention.

17.On the other hand, accused successful in shaking credibility of evidence of complainant with regard to Ex.P1 is not supported by consideration and no legally enforceable debt between them with regard to Ex.P6 transaction, thereby accused is succeeded in proving that cheque was not issued in furtherance of legally enforceable debt or other liability. Accordingly this point is answered.

10

18.From considering facts and circumstances and evidence available this court came to conclusion that complainant failed to prove essential ingredients of sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and accused raised reasonable doubt and he has been able to rebut presumption under section 139 of Negotiable

Instrument Act. Standard of proof on the part of accused is proved by preponderance of probabilities that cheque in possession of complainant was not issued towards any legally recoverable debt or other liability.

19.In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offense punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The surety bonds of accused shall stands canceled after expiry of appeal period. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 26 th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

FAC: II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:-

P.W.1 : P. Anji Reddy

P.W.2 : P. Subba Rao

For Accused:-

D.W.1: M. Koteswara Rao

D.W.2: M. Srinivasu 11

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:-

Ex.P1: Original cheque bearing No.872192 issued by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.8,00,000/-, dated 08-02-2018

Ex.P2: Counter foil

Ex.P3: Cheque return memo,13-02-2018

Ex.P4: Office copy of Legal notice issued by the complainant to the accused,

dated 21-02-2018

Ex.P5: Postal acknowledgment

Ex.P6: Photocopy of pronote

Ex.P7: Certified copy of Reply notice issued by the counsel for the Accused

dt. 30-03-2018

Ex.P8: Certified copy of written statements in O.S.16/19, 191/21 and 225/18 filed by defendant on the file of P.J.C.J.Court, Narasaraopet.

Ex.P9: Certified copy of decree in O.S.16/2019 passed by P.J.C.J.Court, Narasaraopet

For Accused:-

Ex.D1: Keyman competency certificate issued by South Central Railway dt. 22-02-2018 in his favour.

Ex.D2: L.W.R.Competency certificate issued by South Central Railway Engineering Department, Vijayawada Division dated 22-02-2018 in his favour

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

FAC: II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

12

ABSTRACT: GUNTUR

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

C.C.No.289/2018

Date of Offence: 13-02-2018 Date of Complaint: 20-03-2018 Date of Taken on File: 10-04-2018 1st appearance of accused: 06-07-2018 Commencement of trial: 24-12-2018 Closure of Trial: 21-01-2025 Sentence or Order: 26-03-2025 Name of the complainant: Ponnapati Anji Reddy, S/o Obula Reddy, Hindu, Business, Aged about 26 years, D.No.4-101, Lingamguntla Agraharam, Narasaraopet Mandal. Name of accused: Mogili Koteswara Rao, Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Employee, Aged about 41 years, D.No.11-2-53/5, Opp. Church, Near Pavuluri Subbarao School, Navodaya Nagar, Narasaroapet Town, Guntur District.

Nature of offence : U/Secs.138 & 142 of N.I. Act Plea of accused : Not guilty Finding : Found not guilty ORDER:- In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offense pun- ishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, accordingly, he is ac- quitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The surety bonds of accused shall stands canceled after expiry of appeal period. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed. Explanation for delay: This court took cognizance on 10-04-2018 and copies furnished to the accused on 06-07-2018 and accused examined on 15-11- 2018 U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. and from 24-12-2018 to 21-01-2025 prosecution examined Pws 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P9 and prosecution evidence closed on 03-09-2019 and on 11-09-2019 accused examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported defence evidence and from 28-10-2021 to 23-03-2023 Dws 1 and 2 are examined and Exs.D1 and D2 are marked and defence evidence closed on the same day and complainant evidence reopened and closed on 21-01-2025 and on 10-03-2025 heard arguments on both sides and on 26-03-2025 judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

FAC: II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant Sessions

Judge, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

AT NARASARAOPET

PRESENT: Smt.T.Pravalika, I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet,

Wednesday, this the 23rd day of April, 2025.

C.C No.1416/2021

[Cr No.183 of 2018, Narasaraopet II Town P.S.]

Between :

The State: The Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet II Town P.S. . . . Complainant.

And

1. Masana Muralidhar, S/o Ramakoti, 32 years, C/Padmasali, Amanigallu village and Mandal, Rangareddy District.

2. Kota Vivek, S/o Ashok, 24 years, C/Padmasali, Amanigalillu village and Mandal, Rangareddy District.

3. Koneti Venkataiah @ Venkateswarlu, S/o Ramulu, 50 years, C/Mudiraju, Amanigallu village and Mandal, Rangareddy District. . . . A1 to A3

This case came before me on this day for disposal in the presence of learned Senior APP for the State and Sri.K. Sambasiva Rao, Learned counsel for the accused 1 to 3 and after perusing the case records available on, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following :

2

J U D G M E N T

[1.] The Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet II Town P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused persons in Cr.No.183/2018 with a prayer to punish the accused by alleging that they committed an offence punishable Under Section 286 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.9(B)(I)(B) of Explosive Act.

[2.]Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is like this:- On 27-10- 2018 at 4.00 pm on information LW1-Ch. V.Suresh conducting surprised vehicle checking at Chilakaluripet flyover Narasaraopet along with LWs 2 to 5 i.e., Ch. Lokanadham, Ramesh, Chenakesavarao, G.Ashok Kumar where A1 to A3 transporting fire crackers in Mahindra Bolero goods vehicle bearing No. TS 06 UB 1768 without any valid license, proper documents and any precautionary measures to avoid untoward incidents and without valid license to do the business and that LW1 seized the fire crackers of different quality and quantity, Mahinda Bolero goods vehicle in the presence of mediators LWs 8 and 9 i.e., Ch. Pedda Ramireddy and

Ch. Chinna Ramireddy under cover of mediators report.

[3.] Basing on the mediatornama, LW12-B. Adinaayana, Inspector of Police registered it as a case in Cr.No.183/2018 U/Sec. 286 of Indian

Penal Code and Sec.9(B)(I)(B) of Explosive Act and investigated into, 3 sent the accused persons to judicial remand and collected the samples from fire crackers and sent the same to FLS and after receipt of expert opinion LW13-Venkata Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police conducted auction of firecrackers and LW7-Gajji Malleshgoud was the highest bidder and bid amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and LW13 produced the bid amount before this court and LW14-P. Krishnaiah, Inspector of Police after completion of investigation filed charge sheet. Hence, the case.

[4.] Considering the charge sheet and material on record, this court took the case on file for the offence punishable Under Section 286 of

Indian Penal Code and Sec.9(B)(I)(B) of Explosive Act against accused persons and issued process. In response to the process accused persons entered their appearance and they were provided with the case copies of documents, Under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., upon which the prosecution relied to prove the proposed guilt.

[5.] During the examination Under Section 251 of Cr.P.C, accusation U/Sec. 286 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.9(B)(I)(B) of

Explosive Act against accused persons were read over and explained to the accused persons, and having understood the same accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Upon invitation for trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P9 4 and M.O.1. The Learned APP given up the evidence of LWs 2 to 5.

Hence their evidence was closed.

[6.] After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused persons were examined U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C where-under the available incriminating material against them was explained, for which accused persons reported everything as false and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

[7.] Heard arguments of both sides.

[8.] Now, the point that arises for determination is that:-

Whether prosecution is able to establish the guilt

of accused 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under

section 286 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.9(B)(I)(B)

of Explosive Act , beyond all reasonable doubt?

[9.]POINT:

The case of the prosecution is that on 27-10-2018 at 4.00 pm A1 to A3 found with fire crackers without having valid license, documents and precautionary measures to avoid untoward incidents.

5 [10.]In order to bring the case within the provisions of Section 286 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.9(B)(I)(B) of Explosive Act, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused were transporting fire crackers without having valid license, documents and precautionary measures to avoid untoward incidents.

[11.]To prove its case the prosecution examined Pw.1 to 8.

P.W.1-Ch. Venkata Suresh deposed that on 27.10.2018 at about 4.00 pm LW12 received credible information about illegal transportation of fire crackers and immediately he secured Lw.8 and Lw.9 as mediators and directed them to proceeded to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Flyover,

Narasaraopet and started vehicle checking, at that time they found one vehicle bearing No TS06UB1768 coming from Chilakaluripet towards

Mallama center and they stopped the said vehicle and three persons who were present in the vehicle tried to ran away and they caught hold them and he examined the said accused persons in the presence of mediators, they disclosed their names as A1 to A3 and A1 to A3 also confessed that they are transporting crackers from KVR trading and selling the same to villagers for profit and he verified the said vehicle and found 127 items of fire crackers worth of Rs.44,00,000/- and A1 to A3 failed to produce valid licence for the crackers and he seized the vehicle along with fire crackers in the presence of mediators and drafted 6 mediatornama on his dictation one of his constable scribed mediatornama and he arrested A1 to A3 and returned to police station and handed over mediatornama and A1 to A3 to Lw.12 and Lw.12 examined him and recorded his statement.

[12.]Pws 2 & 3, who are mediators for arrest of accused and seizure of fire crackers deposed that police never requested to act as mediators and in their presence police never arrested any persons and never seized any fire crackers but their signatures are marked as Ex.P2 & P3 respectively.

[13.]PW5 deposed that he do not know the facts of this case and police never examined him and never recorded his statement. He was cross examined by learned Sr. APP and he denied his 161 Cr.P.C.

statement marked as Ex.P5.

[14.]Pws 5 & 6 are mediator for auction deposed that he never acted as mediator at the time of conducting auction in this case and his signature on mediatornama dt. 24-10-2019 is marked as Ex.P4 & P6 and he was cross examined by the learned Sr.APP and he denied the contents of auction mediatornama.

7 [15.]PW7-B. Adinarayan, DSP deposed that on 27 10.2018 at about 3.00 pm while he was present at police station Pw.1 came to their police station and handed over mediatornama and he registered it as a case in crime No. 183/2018 U/sec.286 IPC and Sec.9(b)(i)(b) of

Explosive Act and forwarded FIR to all concerned and he examined

Pw.1, Lw.2 to Lw5 at police station and recorded their Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

statement and on the same day at about 8.30 pm he sent A1 to A3 to lockup and proceeded to scene of offence situated at infront of Mahatma

Gandi Hospital, Narasaraopet and prepared rough sketch and on 28.10.2018 he produced A1 to A3 before this court and sent you for judicial custody and later he handed over CD fled to Lw13 for the investigation.

[16.]PW8-S. Venkata Rao, Inspector of Police deposed that on 24.10.2019 Pw7 handed over him the CD file of this case and he continued the investigation and on 24.10.2019 at about 5.00 pm conducted auction of case property on this case in the presence of mediators i.e., the LW2 and Pw6 and Lw7 stood as highest bidder for Rs 1.00.000/- he collected the bid amount and produced before this court and later he handed over CD fled to Lw14, he collected PSL report and

Bled charge sheet and he can identify signature of Lw.14 on charge sheet.

8 [17.]Admittedly, PWs 1, 7 and 8 are police officials and none of the prosecution witnesses supported the case of prosecution. The evidence of PW1 disclosed the seizure of fire crackers while A1 to A3 transporting it without having valid license, documents and precautionary measures to avoid untoward incidents fire crackers under cover of Ex.P1 mediatornama. PW1 in his cross examination categorically admitted that he cannot say the details of vehicles checked by him at scene of offence and the scene of offence is busy locality and one of the main area of

Narasaraopet and surrendered by hospitals, shops but they secured mediators from Dondapadu village, which is very suspicious and why

PW1 did not secure the mediators at the scene of offence is not explained by him. PW1 further admitted that he cannot say the particulars of items seized by him and he cannot say the colour of seized vehicle also and he did not mentioned the name of scribe in Ex.P1 mediatornama and place where Ex.P1 was scribed and he did not obtain any signatures of police parties on Ex.P1, which clearly established that

PW1 did not follow the mandatory provisions while seizing the objects and the version of PW1 on the date of alleged seizure from the possession of accused persons also suspicious and it cannot be believable. Admittedly PWs 2 & 3 are turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and their signatures on mediatornama were marked as Ex.P2 to P4 respectively. PW5 is direct witness also turned 9 hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and his 161 Cr.P.C.

statements is marked as Ex.P5. Further Pws 4 and 6 are the mediator for auction conducted by the police also turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and his signature on mediatornama dt. 24-10- 2019 is marked as Exs.P6 and 4. The prosecution also failed to examine

LW7 who stood as highest bidder inauction, which is fatal to the case of prosecution. The evidence of PWs 7 and 8 are supported the case of prosecution with regarding to registering of crime and filing of charge sheet only, but failed to prove the guilt of accused by producing sufficient evidence and hence their evidence cannot be useful to prove the case of prosecution.

[18.]From the above discussion, it is clear that the investigating officers failed to adduce any evidence to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Hence, this court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove the guilty of accused persons. In the light of above discussion this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

[19.] IN THE RESULT, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable Under Section 286 of Indian Penal Code and 10

Sec.9(B)(I)(B) of Explosive Act, and accordingly they are acquitted Under

Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons and their sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months as per under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 shall be confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, today, this the 23 rd day of April, 2025, under the hand and seal of this court.

Sd/- T. Pravalika,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined: For prosecution:

P.W.1: Ch. Venkata Suresh P.W.2: Ch. China Ramireddy P.W.3: Ch. Peda Ramireddy P.W.4: B. Viswanadha Reddy P.W.5: Sk. Jani Basha P.W.6: M. Manikanta Narendra P.W.7: B. Adinarayana P.W.8: S. Venkata Rao

For defence: -None-

Documents marked: For prosecution: For defence:

Ex.P.1 : Mediatornama -NIL-

Ex.P.2 : Signature of PW2 on mediatornama dt.27-10-2018

Ex.P.3 : Signature of PW3 on mediatornama dt.27-10-2018

Ex.P.4 : Signature of PW4 on mediatornama dt.27-10-2018

Ex.P.5 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5 11

Ex.P.6 : Signature of PW6 on mediatornama dt.24-10-2018

Ex.P.7 : First Information Report

Ex.P.8 : Rough sketch

Material objects marked:

M.O.1: FDR NO.268398 for Rs.1,00,000/-

Sd/- T. Pravalika,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

// True copy //

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

12

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AT

NARASARAOPET

C.C.No.1416 of 2021

Date of: Offence onComplaint Apph. ofReleasedCommenceClosure ofResult or beforeaccusedon Bailment of TrialTrial 27-10-2018 27-10-2018 28-10-09-11-2018 31-07-202423-04-202523-04-2025 2018

Complainant:

The State: The Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet II Town P.S. Name of the accused:

1. Masana Muralidhar, S/o Ramakoti, 32 years, C/Padmasali, Amanigallu village and Mandal, Rangareddy District.

2. Kota Vivek, S/o Ashok, 24 years, C/Padmasali, Amanigalillu village and Mandal, Rangareddy District.

3. Koneti Venkataiah @ Venkateswarlu, S/o Ramulu, 50 years, C/Mudiraju, Amanigallu village and Mandal, Rangareddy District. 4. Offence:Under Section 286 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.9(B)(I)(B) of Explosive Act Plea of accused: Not guilty Finding : Found not guilty. Sentence of Order : A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable Under Section 286 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.9(B)(I)(B) of Explosive Act, and accordingly they are acquitted Under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons and their sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months as per under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 shall be confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal time. Explanation for the delay: No delay.

Sd/- T. Pravalika,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Narasaraopet. Copy Submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur for kind perusal. // True copy //

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

NARASARAOPET.

Present: Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul, Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. FAC: II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

Tuesday, this the 25th day of March, 2025.

C.C.No.872 of 2023

[Cr.No. 148/2022 of Nekarikallu P.S.] Between:- The State, Through Sub-Inspector of Police,

Nekarikallu P.S. ... Complainant.

And

Gade Swapna Reddy, W/o Venkateswara Reddy, 31 years, C/Reddy, Jammalamadaka village, Macherla mandal. Owner of Duet Scooty bearing No.AP07CW4776. … Accused. DECEASED: Sasoju Siva, S/o Ramakrishna Achari, 20 years, C/Viswabrahmin, Gannavaram Village, Macherla Mandal.

This case is coming on this day before me for commencement of trial in the presence of the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri B.M.N.Murthy and Sri R. Gopalarao, Advocates for the accused and 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

[1.] The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nekarikallu Police Station filed a charge 2 sheet against accused in Cr.No.148/2022 for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A, 337 of Indian Penal Code and Sec. 180, 181 and 196 of M.V.Act.

[2.] The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows.

On 31-07-2022 both the deceased Sasoju Siva and injured at about 12.00 noon proceeded with scooty bearing No. AP 07 CW 4776 and reached to Ravipadu village and purchase the liquor and food and returned to Nekarikallu road near to

Machavaram addaroad and reached canal bund and drunk the liquor, the injured drunk the liquor heavily and both of them and went to Narasaraopet at that time

Siva Achari says that the injured is not in a position to drive the scooty and that the deceased take the scooty keys and drive the scooty and at about 4.00 pm reached out skirts of Santhinagar village of Nekarikallu Mandal deceased drove the scooty in drunken state in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the said scooty was skidded due to rain and both of them fell down on the road accidently, as a result, deceased received injury the injured Manikanta Achari received injuries on his head, legs and body, the deceased received severe bleeding injuries n head and blood is coming on his nose and left knee was bleeding injury and both of them shifted to Gopireddy Srinivasa Reddy hospital, after first aid deceased refer to

Guntur for better treatment and on 03-08-2022 at 7.10 am the deceased died.

[3.] On the statement of LW1-SasojuRama Krishna Chary, LW18-Vallepu

Koteswara Rao, Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police registered it as a case in

Cr.No.148/2022 U/Sec.304 (A) of IPC.

[4.] During the course of investigation, LW18 visited the scene, prepared observation report, rough sketch, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, examined Lws 1 to 10 i.e., Sasoju Rama Krishna Chari, Palakollu

Brahma Chary, yekabathula Siva, Palakollu Anjaneyachary, Palakollu 3

Ramabrahmachary, NagireddyBajiReddy, Mekala Venkateswarlu, Shaik Gouse,

Birudu Sudhkar, Kadiyala Manikantachary and recorded their statements, and

LW19 verified the investigation and incorporated the owner of crime vehicle as accused in this case as deceased was died and issued 41-A Cr.P.C. and LW15-Dr.

V. Krishna Murthy conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and

LW16-Dr.GopireddySrinivasa Reddy issued wound certificate of LW10 and LW17-

B.Satyanarayana Prasad inspected the vehicle and gave his report and LW20-

A.Balakrishna, Sub-Inspector of Police took up further investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec.304-A, 338 of IPC and Sec. 180, 181 and 196 of M.V.Act.

[5.] Cognizance was taken under sections 304-A, 337 of IPC and Sec. 180, 181 and 196 of M.V.Act against accused. Copies of the documents were furnished to accused person under section 207 Cr.P.C, on her appearance.

[6.] When examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. the accused person denied the offence. Accusation under Section 196 of M.V.Act was framed against accused, read over and explained to her in Telugu, in which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

[7.] The prosecution in support of its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 10, marked

Ex.P.1 to P.14. The evidence of LWs 8, 10, 12 to 17, 19 and 20 are given by the learned Sr. APP as material witnesses turned hostile and prosecution evidence is closed.

[8.] After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused is examined

U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C whereunder the available incriminating material against her was explained, for which accused reported everything as false and reported no 4 defence evidence on her behalf.

[9.] Heard arguments of both sides.

[10.] Now, the point that arises for determination is that:-

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for

the offence punishable U/sec. 196 of M.V.Act beyond all reasonable

doubts?

[11.] Evidence on record: As stated above, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 10 and Exs.P.1 to P.14 were marked. Pw.1 at the first instance deposed in his chief examination that about four years back one Manikanta, LW10 took his son on scooty vehicle of him and when they were coming from Machavaram to

Narasaraopet, he came to know about LW10 threw his son from the bike and immediately he went to hospital and found his deceased son was in unconscious state and he found injuries on back of his head and right hand wrist on deceased and LW10 intentionally made accident and police examined him and recorded his statement. Ex.P1 is his statement. But either in his report or in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement he did not deposed the same and this is the first time he deposed against the LW10 and hence this court feels that this is developed version of PW1 against LW10 and there is contra evidence deposed by Pw1 with regard to the alleged accident and hence his evidence cannot be believable.

[12.] Pws 2 to 5 categorically deposed that they do not know the manner of accident and drover of crime vehicle and police did not examined them and they were declared as hostile witnesses with the permission of the court and they were cross examined by the learned Sr.APP and they denied their 161 5

Cr.P.C. statements marked as Ex.P2 to P5 respectively.

[13.] P.Ws.6 and 7 deposed that in the year 2022 they received a phone call at 3.45 pm that an accident occurred near Shanthinagar and two persons were injured and immediately they went to Shanthinagar and shifted the deceased and LW10 to Sushmitha Orthopedic Hospital, Narasaraopet and LW10 sustained injury on left parietal region of head.

[14.] PW8-Birudu Sudhakar deposed that he has been working as Pilot cum Driver in 108 Ambulance bearing No. AP 39 TL 8623 from 2021 to till date and on 31st day of in the year 2022 when were in the Government Hospital, at 3.50 pm they received a phone call that an accident occurred on the way of

Shanthinagar to Dechavaram and two persons were injured and immediately they went there and shifted injured Siva to Sushmitha Orthopedic Hospital,

Narasaraopet and he never observed the injuries over the body of the deceased.

[15.] PW9 who acted as mediator for the inquest over the dead body of the deceased categorically deposed that police obtained his signatures on drafted papers and he do not know the contents of it and Ex.P6 and P7 are his signatures on scene observation report and inquest panchaham and he never acted as mediator to scene observation and inquest panchanama.

[16.] PW10-Vallepu Koteswara Rao, Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police deposed that on 03-08-2021 at 12.30 am while he was present in police station, he received hospital intimation from GGH, Guntur along with statement of PW1 and he registered it as Cr.No.148/2023 U/Sec.304-A of IPC and visited the scene of offence, observed the scene, prepared scene observation report and draw rough sketch and on the same day came to GGH, Guntur held inquest 6 over the dead body fo the deceased in the presence of PW9 and Lws 12 and 13 and secured Pws 1 to 5 and examined them and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C.

statements and sent requisition to LW15 to conduct PM examination and also gave requisition to LW17 M.V.Inspector and on 12-08-2022 he secured LW10 examined and recorded his statement and after receipt of wound certificate of

LW10, MVI report and PM certificate and after completion of investigation LW20 has filed charge sheet.

[17.] As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, he deposed two inconsistent versions with regard to the alleged incident and hence his evidence cannot be taken as true version. The evidence of Pws 2 to 5 who are the alleged eye witnesses to the accident turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and hence their evidence is of no use to connect the accused to this crime. It is well settled law that the contents of statement U/sec.161 Cr.P.C can be used for contradicting a witness by the defence but the contents of statements cannot be relied upon by the prosecution. Thus, Exs.P.2 to P5 are of no way helpful to the prosecution case. On perusal of the evidence of PW6 and 7 it is no way useful to connect the accused to this crime. The evidence of PW8 disclosed only he shifted the deceased and injured to the hospital in his ambulance but his evidence is of no way useful to connect the accused to this crime. PW9 who is mediator for the scene observation and inquest over the dead body is turned hositle and did not support the case of prosecution and hence his evidence cannot be taken into consideration. The evidence of PW10 discloses only the manner in which he followed the criminal procedure code from the receipt of statement of PW1 to till handed over the case file to his successor. Admittedly, the evidence of other investigation officers i.e., Lws 19 and 20 were given up by the learned Sr. APP and prosecution failed to produce single piece of either oral evidence or documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case. As the material witnesses not 7 supported the prosecution case, learned Senior Asst. Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e., LWs 8, 10, 12 to 17, 19 and 20, as no purpose will be served even if they are examined.

[18.] Therefore, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to implicate the complicity of the accused person in commission of the offence. It is well known that penal statutes should be strictly construed and the prosecution need to prove the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt, which is lacking in the present case on hand. The material produced by the prosecution is hardly sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Thereby, the point is decided in favour of the accused.

[19.] IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 196 of M.V.Act and accordingly she is acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused person and of her sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in the open court, on this the 25 th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

FAC: II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

NARASARAOPET.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:

For prosecution: For defence:

P.W.1 : S. Ramakrishna Chari -None- P.W.2 : P. Brahma Chari P.W.3 : Y. Siva P.W.4 : P. Anjaneya Chari 8

P.W.5 : P. Rama Brahma Chari P.W.6 : Nagireddy Bazi Reddy P.W.7 : Mekala Venkateswarlu P.W.8 : Birudu Sudhakar P.W.9 : V. Lakshmanudu P.W.10: V. Koteswara Rao

Documents marked:

For prosecution:- For defence: - Nil -

Ex.P.1: Statement of PW1 Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of Pw.2 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of Pw.3 Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of Pw.4 Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of Pw.5 Ex.P.6: Signature of PW9 on scene observation report Ex.P.7: Signature of PW9 on inquest panchanama Ex.P.8: Hospital intimation Ex.P.9: First Information Report Ex.P10: Scene observation report Ex.P11: Rough sketch Ex.P12: Inquest report Ex.P13: PM certificate Ex.P14: M.V.I. report

Material objects marked:

-Nil on either side -

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

FAC: II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

NARASARAOPET.

9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AT

NARASARAOPET.

C.C.No. 872 of 2023

01.Date of offence : 31-07-2022

02.Date of report/complaint : 03-08-2023

03.Date of appearance of accused : ---

04.Date of release of accused on bail : 41-A Cr.P.C.

05.Date of commencement of trial : 24-03-2025

06.Date of close of trial : 25-03-2025

07.Date of Judgment : 25-03-2025

08.Complaint:- The State, Through Sub-Inspector of Police, Nekarikallu P.S.

09.Description of Accused: Gade Swapna Reddy, W/o Venkateswara Reddy, 31 years, C/Reddy, Jammalamadaka village, Macherla mandal. Owner of Duet Scooty bearing No.AP07CW4776.

10.Offence: U/sec. 337, 304-A of IPC and Sec. 180, 181, 196 of M.V.Act.

11.Plea of Accused: Not guilty

12.Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

13.Sentence or Order: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 196 of M.V.Act and accordingly she is acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused person and of her sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14.Explanation for the delay: No delay

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

FAC: II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

NARASARAOPET.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur, for kind perusal.