Sri V.gopala Krishna Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: SRI V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Wednesday, this the 3 rd day of February, 2016

C.C.No.308/2014

This case is coming on 01-02-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, Counsel for Complainant and Sri M.Ravi Kumar, Legal Aid Counsel for Accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

Serial No. of the case:C.C.308/2014

Date of Commission of the :23.10.2014 offence

Name of the Complainant:State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the accused, his :Suttapalli Nageswara Rao, S/o.Sivayya, aged parentage and residence etc.32 years, Vysya by caste, r/o.D.No.7-192, block No.5, Sri Ram Nagar, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. Offence complained of or proved:Under Section 286 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5 r/w. 9(B)(i)(b) of Explosive Act. Plea of the accused and his :When examined Under Section 251 of examination if any.Criminal Procedure Code, accused pleaded not guilty. When examined Under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, accused denied the incriminating material.

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, filed a charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 286 of Indian

Penal Code and Section 5 r/w. 9(B)(i)(b) of Explosive Act.

2.The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet filed by the police is that on 23-10-2014 at about 1900 hours, as per the orders of the superior officers, P.W.1 along with his staff L.W.2 Appari Jagadeeswara Rao, P.W.2, L.W.4 Boddepalli Dilleswara Rao were 2 performing duties at Rama Krishna Junction to prevent the firing of crackers on occasion of Diwali in view of Hudhud cyclone effect and checking vehicles, at that time P.W.1 along with his staff stopped the auto bearing registration number AP 31TD 4218 which was coming from Poorna Market towards Advani Rythu bazaar junction and checked it and found 10 cement bags each containing 20 Nos. of Venna Muddalu (fire crackers) are in the possession of the accused, P.W.1 took the accused into custody, on questioning he confessed that he made the fire crackers at his house to sell them at the time of Diwali

Festival and brought them to Poorna Market in auto to sell them for higher rate but it was not possible, so he was taking the stock back to his house in the hired auto, the same was caught by the police, on interrogation he replied that he do not possess any license and that P.W.1 seized the fire crackers under a cover of an occurrence report as no mediators could be secured at that time, P.W.1 handed over the accused and occurrence report, seized property by Sub-Inspector of police to I Town Police Station, he registered a case in Cr.No.282/2014 under section 286 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5 r/w. 9(B)(i)

(b) of Explosive Act, during the course of investigation the Sub-Inspector of police, I Town

Police Station, Visakhapatnam, examined their witnesses, recorded their statements, accused was released on bail, after completion of investigation he laid a charge sheet and that the Investigation established that the accused committed the offences punishable Under Section 286 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5 r/w. 9(B)(i)(b) of

Explosive Act. Hence the charge.

3.Cognizance in this case was taken for the offences punishable Under Section 286 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5 r/w. 9(B)(i)(b) of Explosive Act against the accused.

On appearance of accused, copies of all documents were furnished to the accused under

Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code and accused was examined under Section 251 of

Criminal Procedure Code with reference to the allegations in the charge sheet and the accused denied the charge sheet allegations and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

4.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to

P.3. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code with reference to the incriminating evidence that is brought on record and the accused denied the said evidence. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused.

5. Now the point for consideration is :-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable Under Section 286 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5 r/w. 9(B)(i)(b) of Explosive Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

Point:

6.The case of prosecution is that on 23-10-2014 at about 7-00 p.m, P.W.1 along with his staff were performing duties at Rama Krishna Junction to prevent the firing of crackers on occasion of Diwali in view of Hudhud cyclone effect and checking vehicles, at that time

P.W.1 along with his staff stopped the accused in an auto bearing registration number

AP 31TD 4218 which was coming from Poorna Market towards Advani Rythu bazaar junction, they checked it and found 10 cement bags each containing 20 Nos. of Venna

Muddalu (fire crackers), the accused did not possess any valid license and that the accused is liable for the offences punishable under section 286 of Indian Penal Code and

Section 5 r/w. 9(B)(i)(b) of Explosive Act.

7.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined three witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.3. P.W.1 deposed in his evidence that he is working as Sub-

Inspector of police, on 23-10-2014 himself along with his staff proceeded to Ramakrishna

Junction to attend the patrolling duty as per orders of his superior to prevent the firing of crackers in view of the Hudhud Cyclone on the occasion of Deepavali, they stopped the auto bearing registration AP31 CD 4218 while coming from Poorna market towards Advani rythu bazar, they found 10 cement bags containing 20 number of vennamuddalu in the possession of accused, accused is proceeding in the auto, they interrogated the accused, the accused confessed that he made the fire crackers at his house to sell them at the 4 time of Deepavali festival and brought them to Poorna market in an auto for higher rate, but it is not possible, the accused failed to produce valid license. In cross-examination nothing was elicited from P.W.1 to discredit the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.1 further deposed in his cross-examination that as the mediators are not available he did not secure, they drafted occurrence report Ex.P.1.

8.PW.2 S.Shankararao, deposed in his evidence that on 23-10-2014, himself along with other constables L.W.2 Jagadeeswararao, L.W.3 Dilleswararao proceeded along with

P.W.1 are performing duty at Kotha road junction and they are checking the vehicles on the instructions of superiors, at that time one auto came, they stopped the auto, they noticed at about 20 cement bags containing Vennamuddalu in the possession of the accused who is traveling in the auto, P.W.1 handed over the accused along with

Vennamuddalu crackers to him.

9.PW.3 is the Investigating Officer, he deposed in his evidence that P.W.1 came to police station on 23-10-2014 at 20.30 hours along with the accused and Ex.P.1 occurrence report and produced before him, he registered the same as case in Cr.No.282/2014 under section 286 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5 r/w.9(B)(1)(b) of Explosive Act, later he investigated the case, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, accused is released on bail in police station, later he filed the charge sheet.

The police filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable Under

Section 286 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5 r/w. 9(B)(i)(b) of Explosive Act.

Cognizance in this case is also taken by the Learned Predecessor Under Section 286 of

Indian Penal Code and Section 5 r/w. 9(B)(i)(b) of Explosive Act. The evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2 proves about the possession of the Diwali crackers (vennamuddalu) by the accused. Accused also admitted in his 313 examination that he is carrying vennamuddalu on that day in the auto, the possession of Diwali crackers (vennamuddalu) is admitted by the accused. Therefore, it is the duty of the accused to show valid license to possess

Diwali crackers (vennamuddalu). According to the prosecution, the alleged offences 5 committed by the accused is section 286 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5 r/w. 9(B)(i)

(b) of Explosive Act.

10.Section 286 of Indian Penal Code says “Whoever does, with any explosive

substance, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be

likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently

omits to take such order with any explosive substance in his possession as is

sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life, from that

substance, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a

term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one

thousand rupees or with both”. The prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the section 286 of Indian Penal

Code.

11.Section 9(B)(i)(b) of Explosive Act says “whoever, in contravention of Rules

made under section 5 or of the conditions of a licence granted under the said

Rules possesses, uses, sells or transports any explosives shall be punishable

with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine

which may extend to three thousand rupees, or with both”. Here, the possession of Diwali crackers (vennamuddalu) is himself admitted by the accused, the accused failed to produce the valid licence to possess Diwali fire crackers (vennamuddalu). Therefore, I find the accused is guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 5 r/w. 9(B)(i)(b) of Explosive Act but I find accused is not guilty for the offence punishable under section 286 of Indian Penal Code.

Hence, the point is answered in favour of the prosecution.

12.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 5 r/w. 9(B)(i)(b) of Explosive Act and he is convicted under Section 255(2) of Criminal

Procedure Code.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Typist) transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, this the 3rd day of February, 2016.

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

6

Hearing of Accused on Quantum of Sentence :

Heard the accused with regard to quantum of sentence. The accused stated that “ NAAKU PELLI INADHI, IDDARU AADA PILLALU UNNARU, VAARU NAA MEEDANE

AADHARA PADI UNNAARU ”.

I am not inclined to invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act or the provisions of Section 360 of Criminal Procedure Code in view of the nature of the offence. Here in the present case, accused has not engaged any counsel to defend his case, the accused is defended by legal aid counsel. So, taking over all the circumstances of the case and considering the submission of the accused, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under section 5 r/w. 9(B)(i)(b) of Explosive Act. The accused was informed about the right of Appeal.

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Accused : PW.1/ N.Appa rao None PW.2/S.Shankararao PW.3/K.Sailendarrao

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Accused : Ex.P.1/: Occurence report. – Nil – Ex.P.2/: First Information Report. Ex.P.3/: Rough Sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Accused :

No Material Objects marked of either side.

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

7

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No.308/2014

Date of Offence23-10-2014 Date of Filing01-12-2014 Date of Apprehension31-12-2014 Date of Release on bail23-10-2014 Date of Commencement of trial19-01-2016 Date of Close of trial28-01-2016 Date of Sentence/Order03-02-2016 Explanation for delay No delay and Remarks C.C.No.308/2014 in Cr.No.282/2014 of I Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Under Section 286 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5 r/w. 9(B)(i)(b) of Explosive Act. ComplainantState represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. Name of the accused, parentage, Suttapalli Nageswara Rao, S/o.Sivayya, aged age and residence. 32 years, Vysya by caste, r/o.D.No.7-192, block No.5, Sri Ram Nagar, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. OffenceUnder Section 286 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5 r/w. 9(B)(i)(b) of Explosive Act. FindingAccused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 5 r/w. 9(B)(i)(b) of Explosive Act, found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 286 of Indian Penal Code. Sentence In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 5 r/w. 9(B)(i)(b) of Explosive Act and he is convicted under Section 255(2) of Criminal Procedure Code. Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under section 5 r/w. 9(B)(i)(b) of Explosive Act. The accused was informed about the right of Appeal.

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: SRI V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Tuesday, this the 9th day of February, 2016

C.C.No.31/2013

This case is coming on 08-02-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, Counsel for Complainant and Sri M.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for Accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

Serial No. of the case:C.C.31/2013

Date of Commission of the :11.01.2013 offence

Name of the Complainant:State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Harbour Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the accused, his :Gujju Jayaraju, S/o.Late Bangari Raju, 37 parentage and residence etc.years, Reddy by caste, D.No.58-132-166/2, Gaayatrinagar, Near Sivalayam Temple, NAD KothaRoad,Visakhapatnam,Cell Nos.9989398234, 9030225565, working as Driver of Private Bus bearing No.AP 35 T 8769 belonging to Bhargav Travels.

Offence complained of or proved:Under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code

Plea of the accused and his :When examined Under Section 251 of examination if any.Criminal Procedure Code accused pleaded not guilty. When examined Under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, accused denied the incriminating material.

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Harbour Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, filed a charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of

Indian Penal Code.

2.The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet filed by the police is that on 11-01-2013 at 08.10 hours, accused driver of the bus bearing No.AP35 T 8769 coming from Shipyard Junction drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the rider of motor cycle bearing No.AP31 AU 4708 near Port Connectivity Road, Port Area,

Visakhapatnam City, when he was proceeding towards Dockyard from Chavulamadum 2

Junction resulting which the rider of the motor cycle fell down on the road and sustained severe head injury, lost his conscious and was shifted to Seven Hills hospital for treatment. Basing on the report, police registered a case in Cr.No.07/2012 under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Harbour Traffic Police Station,

Visakhapatnam conducted investigation, arrested accused at Harbour Traffic Police

Station, Visakhapatnam city on 12-01-2013 at 10.00 hours, send him to the Court for

Judicial custody, accused was released on bail, the Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the vehicle and gave opinion that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle, Dr.M.D.Ismail who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased gave opinion that the cause of the death of the deceased is “Due to Head Injury” and that the investigation established that the accused committed the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Hence, the charge.

3.Cognizance in this case was taken for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. On appearance of accused, case copies of documents have been furnished to him under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code and accused was examined under Section 251 of Criminal Procedure Code with reference to the allegations in the charge sheet and the accused denied the charge sheet allegations and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code with reference to the incriminating evidence that is brought on record and the accused denied the said evidence. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused.

5. Now the point for consideration is :-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, beyond reasonable doubt?

6. Point: The case of the prosecution is that on 11-01-2013 at 08.10 hours, accused driver of the bus bearing No.AP35 T 8769 coming from Shipyard Junction drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the rider of motor cycle bearing

No.AP31 AU 4708 near Port Connectivity Road, Port Area, Visakhapatnam City, due to that the rider of the motor cycle fell down on the road, sustained severe head injury, lost his 3 conscious, he was shifted to Seven Hills Hospital and later he was succumbed with injuries.

7. In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined seven witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.7. P.W.1 is the eye witness to the accident, he deposed in his evidence that while he was proceeding to Naval Dockyard to attend his duty, he reached the starting point of the bridge at 7-50 p.m, one bus bearing No.AP 35 T 8769 came opposite to their vehicle in wrong direction and hit the Hero Honda passion vehicle, as a result the accident was occurred, he got shifted the injured to Seven Hills Hospital for treatment and thereafter he was died and the accused who is present in the Court Hall is the driver of the bus at the time of the accident and the accused drove the vehicle in a wrong direction in the negligent manner. P.W.1 is the eye witness to the accident, his evidence clearly shows that the accused drove the bus bearing No. AP 35 T 8769 in a rash manner and dashed to motor cyclist due to that he was fell down and sustained injuries and later he was succumbed with injuries.

In cross-examination, the evidence of P.W.1 is not disturbed on the material aspects of the case. It is not the case of the accused that he is having enmity with P.W.1, due to that enmity P.W.1 deposed falsehood against the accused.

8.It was argued by the counsel for accused that the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by the evidence of Investigating Office P.W.7. Here Investigating Officer is not an eye witness to the accident. Hence, the question of corroboration of the evidence of P.W.7 with that of the evidence of P.W.1 does not arise.

9.P.W.2 deposed in his evidence that he know deceased, on 11.01.2013, himself and

L.W.2 D.Srinivasa Gupta were proceeding to the office by two wheeler vehicle in the morning time, they found there was a traffic jam on the bridge and mob was gathered, he found deceased on the road, somebody shifted the injured to the hospital.

10.P.W.3 deposed in her evidence that her husband received injuries due to accident, immediately she visited Seven Hills Hospital, her husband died while he was undergoing treatment, he was succumbed with injuries.

11. P.W.4 deposed in his evidence that on 14.01.2013 in the morning time himself and

L.W.10 Suryanarayanaraju were present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the 4 deceased at King George Hospital Mortuary and came to a conclusion that deceased died due to accident, Ex.P.4 is the inquest report.

12.P.W.5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the bus bearing No.AP35 T 8769. He deposed in his evidence that he found the accident is occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle.

13. PW.6 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer, he deposed in his evidence that he conducted investigation and later after receipt of Post Mortem Report, Motor Vehicle

Inspector Report, he filed charge sheet. Ex.P.5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector Report shows that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle bus bearing No.AP35 T 8769. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly proves the accused drove the bus bearing No.AP35 T 8769 in a negligent manner at the time of accident and due to that rash driving of the accused the motor cyclist fell down and received injuries and later he was succumbed with injuries. The postmortem examination report was marked through the Investigating Officer as Ex.P.9. The counsel of the accused has not raised any objection for marking postmortem examination report through the Investigating Officer.

Ex.P.9 clearly shows that the cause of the death of the deceased is due to the Head Injury.

14.The prosecution proved the death of the Pavada Madhusudhana Rao and the prosecution also proved due to the rash driving of the accused, the accident was occurred and the said Madhusudhana Rao received head injuries in an accident and later he was succumbed with injuries. The prosecution also proved due to the rash driving of the accused, the accident was occurred. The driver of the vehicle is expected to drive the vehicle by noticing movements of persons, traffic in his opposite direction, failure to take such precautions will allow me to conclude that the accused drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident.

15.Therefore, in view of the above reasons, I find the prosecution proved the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the accused.

Hence, the point is answered in favour of the prosecution.

5

16.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and he is convicted under Section 255(2) of Criminal

Procedure Code.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Typist), transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, this the 9th day of February, 2016.

SD/-, V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Hearing of Accused on Quantum of Sentence :

Heard the accused with regard to quantum of sentence. The accused stated that “ NAAKU PELLINDHI, OKA PAPA OKA BABU UNNARU ”.

I am not inclined to invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act or the provisions of Section 360 of Cr.P.C., in view of the nature of the offence. So, taking over all the circumstances of the case, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. The accused was informed about the right of appeal.

SD/-, V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Accused :

P.W.1/ Vedamodula Veera Raju None P.W.2/N.V.A.Krishna Rao P.W.3/P.Venkata Ramana Jyothi, P.W.4/A.Satyanand P.W.5/M.Butchiraju P.W.6/S.Somaraju P.W.7/ G.Narasingarao 6

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Accused : Ex.P1/: Statement of P.W.1. Ex.P2/: Report of P.W.1. – Nil – Ex.P3/: 161 of Criminal Procedure Code Statement of P.W.2. Ex.P4/: Inquest Report. Ex.P5/: Motor Vehicle Inspector Report.Observation Report. Ex.P6/: Altered First Information Report. Ex.P7/ : First Information Report for the offence under section 338 IPC. Ex.P8/: Rough sketch. Ex.P9/ : Post Mortem Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Accused :

N I L - - NIL -

SD/-, V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

// TRUE COPY//

CMM::VSP 7

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No.31/2013

Date of Offence11-01-2013 Date of Filing31-01-2013 Date of Apprehension18-04-2013 Date of Release on bail12-01-2013 Date of Commencement of trial30-04-2015 Date of Close of trial21-01-2016 Date of Sentence/Order09-02-2016

Explanation for delay No delay and Remarks

C.C.No.31/2013 in Cr.No.07/2013 of Harbour Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code

ComplainantState represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Harbour Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the accused, parentage, Gujju Jayaraju, S/o.Late Bangari Raju, 37 age and residence. years, Reddy by caste, D.No.58-132-166/2, Gaayatrinagar, Near Sivalayam Temple, NAD KothaRoad,Visakhapatnam,Cell Nos.9989398234, 9030225565, working as Driver of Private Bus bearing No.AP 35 T 8769 belonging to Bhargav Travels.

OffenceUnder Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code

FindingFound guilty.

Sentence In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and he is convicted under Section 255(2) of Criminal Procedure Code. Accused is sentenced to undergo R.I for six months. The accused was informed about the right of appeal.

SD/-, V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

// TRUE COPY//

CMM::VSP

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: SRI V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Friday, this the 19th day of February, 2016

C.C.No.80/2015

This case is coming on 18-02-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, Counsel for Complainant and Sri D.Hari Sastry, Advocate for Accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

Serial No. of the case:C.C.80/2015

Date of Commission of the :12.01.2015 offence Name of the Complainant:State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. Name of the accused, his :1. Pinali Nookaraju, S/o. Late Krishna, aged parentage and residence etc.47 years, Periki by caste, R/o. Burujupeta, Visakhapatnam City, painter by occupation.

2. Pinali Paradesi, S/o. Nookaraju, aged 23 years, Periki by caste, R/o. Burujupeta, Visakhapatnam City, painter by occupation. Offence complained of or proved:Under Section 324 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code. Plea of the accused and his :When examined Under Section 239 of examination if any.Criminal Procedure Code, accused 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty. The examination of accused 1 and 2 under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code has been dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused 1 and 2.

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, filed a charge sheet against accused 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 324 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet filed by the police is that on 12-01-2015 at about 21-00 hours, accused No.1 Pinali Nooka Raju and accused

No.2 Pinali Paradesi along with two unknown persons (alleged accused 3 and 4) while coming out of Janapriya bar and restaurant at Town Kotha road, picked up quarrel with P.W.1 who was about to enter into the said bar, on the pretext that he came in their way, then accused 1 and 2 beat P.W.1 with hand on his face resulting 2 in dislocation of tooth, P.W.1 informed about the incident to L.W.2 Sayyed Rafi who took him to King George Hospital for treatment, on receipt of report from P.W.1,

L.W.8 K.Sailendra Babu, Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station,

Visakhapatnam registered a case in Cr.No.12/2015 under section 325 r/w.34 of

Indian Penal Code and investigated into, during the course of investigation

Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, examined the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene, L.W.7 Dr. M.Surendra Kumar, Casuality Medical Officer,

King George Hospital, issued wound certificate in respect of P.W.1 that the injury is simple in nature, basing on the wound certificate, Sub-Inspector of Police,

I Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, altered the section of law from Section 325 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code to Section 325 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code, after completion of the investigation the police laid charge sheet against accused 1 and 2 under section 324 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and that the investigation established that the accused 1 and 2 committed the offence punishable under section 324 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, the charge.

3.Cognizance in this case was taken for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code. After appearance of the accused 1 and 2, case copies of all documents have been furnished to them under Section 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code, accused 1 and 2 were examined under Section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code with reference to the allegations in the charge sheet, the accused 1 and 2 denied the charge sheet allegations, charge under section 324 r/w.34 of Indian

Penal Code have been framed against accused 1 and 2, read over and explained to accused 1 and 2, accused 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and got marked

Exs.P.1 and P.2.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the examination of accused 1 and 2 under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code has been dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused 1 and 2. No defence is adduced on behalf of accused 1 and 2.

3

6. Now the point for consideration is :-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code, beyond reasonable doubt?

7. Point: The case of the prosecution is that on 12-01-2015 at about 21-00 hours, accused 1and 2 along with two unknown persons while coming out of Janapriya bar and restaurant at Town Kotha road, picked up quarrel with P.W.1 who was about to enter into the said bar, on the pretext that he came in their way, then accused 1 and 2 beat P.W.1 with hand on his face resulting in dislocation of tooth, P.W.1 informed about the incident to L.W.2 Sayyed Rafi who took him to King George Hospital for treatment.

8.To prove the case of prosecution, prosecution examined P.W.1. P.W.1 who is injured deposed in his evidence that he is doing painting work, he do not know the accused, in the year 2015 at about four persons beat him and he received injuries, he cannot identify the said persons, Ex.P.1 is his signature on the report, he do not know the contents, he was examined by the police, he was declared hostile by the prosecution.

9.P.W.1 was turned hostile. The evidence of P.W.1 is not supporting the case of the prosecution. P.W.1 was declared hostile by the prosecution. The prosecution given up the evidence of remaining witnesses cited in the charge sheet.

10.Therefore, in view of the above reasons, prosecution failed to prove that accused 1and 2 committed the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w.34 of

Indian Penal Code and prosecution also failed to prove the charge under section 324 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, I find the accused 1 and 2 are not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.

11.In the result, accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused 1 and 2 shall stand canceled after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Typist), transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court, this the 19th day of February, 2016.

SD/-, V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Accused : P.W.1/ Sayyed Attaullah None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P.1/: Signature of PW1 on his written complaint. Ex.P.2/: Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code statement of P.W.1.

For Accused :

NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Accused :

- NIL - - N I L -

SD/-, V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

// TRUE COPY//

CMM::VSP 5

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No.80/2015

Date of Offence12-01-2015 Date of Filing28-02-2015 Date of Apprehension13-04-2015 Date of Release on bailA1 & A2 – 02-02-2015 Date of Commencement of trial18-02-2016 Date of Close of trial18-02-2016 Date of Sentence/Order19-02-2016 Explanation for delay No delay and Remarks C.C.No.80/2015 in Cr.No.12/2015 of I Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Under Section 324 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code

ComplainantState represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the accused, parentage, 1. Pinali Nookaraju, S/o. Late Krishna, aged age and residence. 47 years, Periki by caste, R/o. Burujupeta, Visakhapatnam City, painter by occupation.

2. Pinali Paradesi, S/o. Nookaraju, aged 23 years, Periki by caste, R/o. Burujupeta, Visakhapatnam City, painter by occupation.

OffenceUnder Section 324 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.

Findingfound not guilty.

Sentence In the result, accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused 1 and 2 shall stand canceled after appeal time is over.

SD/-, V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

// TRUE COPY//

CMM::VSP

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: SRI V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Wednesday, this the 10th day of February, 2016

C.C.No.262/2015

This case is coming on 09-02-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, Counsel for Complainant and Accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

Serial No. of the case:C.C.262/2015

Date of Commission of the :02.08.2015 offence

Name of the Complainant:State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the accused, their :1. Vaddadi Polaraju @ Bheema, S/o.Late parentage and residence etc.Mohan Rao, aged 34 years, Relli by caste, r/o.D.No.17-14-19/10,RelliVeedhi, Visakhapatnam, cell-9849684113.

2. Kona Satyanarayana @ Suman, S/o.Late Lakshmana Rao, aged 32 years, Relli by caste, r/o.D.No.17-13-5, Upper Relli Veedhi, Visakhapatnam, cell-9701707324.

3. Ummidi Raju, S/o.Pydayya, aged 25 years, Vadabalija by caste, r/o.Golla Veedhi, near BhajanaKovela,Visakhapatnam, n/o.Annavaram,Bheemili,H.No.6-59, Yerrayyapalem, Visakhapatnam District, Cell No.9866589734, Auto Driver.

4. Ummidi Ramprasad, S/o.Narasinga Rao, aged 27 years, Vadabalija by caste, r/o.D.No.20-78-4/1,Chengalraopeta, Visakhapatnam, n/o.D.No.12-8/1, Pedda Mangamaripeta, Bheemili, Visakhapatnam, cell No.7093772977.

Offence complained of or proved:Under Sections 448, 323, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.

Plea of the accused and his :When examined Under Section 251 of examination if any.Criminal Procedure Code, accused 1 to 4 pleaded not guilty. The examination of accused 1 to 4 under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code has been dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused 1 to 4.

2

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, filed a charge sheet against accused 1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet filed by the police is that on 02-08-2015 at 10-05 p.m after completion of business hours, P.W.1 along with

P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 were downing the shutter to close the wine shop, when the accused 1 to 4 went to the said wine shop and asked P.W.1 to sell liquor, P.W.1 to

P.W.4 informed that it is out of time, the accused 1 to 4 revolted against P.W.1 to

P.W.4, trespassed into the wine shop and fisted P.W.1 to P.W.4 indiscriminately and also threatened them with dire consequences, basing on the report given by P.W.1, the police registered a case in Cr.No.197/2015 under sections 448, 324, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code, the Sub-Inspector of police, I Town Police Station,

Visakhapatnam city investigated the case and examined the witnesses, recorded the statements, basing on the wound certificates of P.W.1 to P.W.4 the injuries are simple in nature, after completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet and that the investigation established that the accused 1 to 4 committed the offences punishable under sections 448, 323, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, the charge.

3.Cognizance in this case was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code. After appearance of the accused 1 to 4, case copies of all documents have been furnished to them under Section 207 of

Criminal Procedure Code, accused 1 to 4 were examined under Section 251 of

Criminal Procedure Code with reference to the allegations in the charge sheet, the accused denied the charge sheet allegations, accused 1 to 4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.5.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the examination of accused 1 to 4 under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code has been dispensed with, as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused 1 to 4. No defence is adduced on behalf of accused 1 to 4.

3

6. Now the point for consideration is :-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused 1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code, beyond reasonable doubt?

7. Point: The case of the prosecution is that on 02-08-2015 at 10-05 p.m after completion of business hours, P.W.1 along with Co-Supervisor P.W.2 and other co-workers P.W.3 and P.W.4 were downing the shutter to close the wine shop and accused 1 to 4 asked P.W.1 to sell liquor, P.W.1 to P.W.4 informed that it is out of time, the accused 1 to 4 revolted against P.W.1 to P.W.4, trespassed into the wine shop and fisted P.W.1 to P.W.4 indiscriminately and also threatened them with dire consequences.

8.To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined four witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.4. P.W.1 to P.W.4 deposed in their evidences that they do not know the accused 1 to 4, in the month of August 2015 night time somebody beat them, they do not know who beat them. They were declared hostile by the prosecution.

9.P.W.1 to P.W.4 were turned hostile, the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.4 were not supporting the case of the prosecution. The prosecution given up the evidences of remaining witnesses cited in the charge sheet.

10.Therefore, in view of the above reasons, prosecution failed to prove that accused 1 to 4 committed the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, I find the accused 1 to 4 are not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.

11.In the result, accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 448, 323, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under Section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 4 shall stand canceled after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Typist), transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court, this the 10th day of February, 2016.

SD/-, V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Accused : P.W.1/ D.Rama Raju None P.W.2/P.Venkata Ramana P.W.3/ G.Naga Raju P.W.4/ S.Appa Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P.1/: Signature of PW1 on his written complaint. Ex.P.2/: Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3/: Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.4/: Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.5/: Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code statement of P.W.4.

For Accused :

NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Accused :

- NIL - - N I L -

SD/-, V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

// TRUE COPY//

CMM::VSP 5

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No.262/2015

Date of Offence02-08-2015

Date of Filing14-09-2015

Date of Apprehension16-10-2015

Date of Release on bailA1 to A4 - 08-08-2015

Date of Commencement of trial09-02-2016

Date of Close of trial09-02-2016

Date of Sentence/Order10-02-2016

Explanation for delay No delay and Remarks

C.C.No.262/2015 in Cr.No.197/2015 of I Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Under Sections 448, 323, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code

ComplainantState represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. Name of the accused, parentage, 1. Vaddadi Polaraju @ Bheema, S/o.Late age and residence. Mohan Rao, aged 34 years, Relli by caste, r/o.D.No.17-14-19/10,RelliVeedhi, Visakhapatnam, cell-9849684113.

2. Kona Satyanarayana @ Suman, S/o.Late Lakshmana Rao, aged 32 years, Relli by caste, r/o.D.No.17-13-5, Upper Relli Veedhi, Visakhapatnam, cell-9701707324.

3. Ummidi Raju, S/o.Pydayya, aged 25 years, Vadabalija by caste, r/o.Golla Veedhi, near BhajanaKovela,Visakhapatnam, n/o.Annavaram,Bheemili,H.No.6-59, Yerrayyapalem, Visakhapatnam District, Cell No.9866589734, Auto Driver.

4. Ummidi Ramprasad, S/o.Narasinga Rao, aged 27 years, Vadabalija by caste, r/o.D.No.20-78-4/1,Chengalraopeta, Visakhapatnam, n/o.D.No.12-8/1, Pedda Mangamaripeta, Bheemili, Visakhapatnam, cell No.7093772977.

OffenceUnder Sections 448, 323, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.

Findingfound not guilty.

6

Sentence In the result, accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 448, 323, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under Section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 4 shall stand canceled after appeal time is over.

SD/-, V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

// TRUE COPY//

CMM::VSP

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: SRI V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Tuesday, this the 16th day of February, 2016

C.C.No.298/2013

This case is coming on 15-02-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, Counsel for Complainant and of S/Sri T.Partha Sarathi, S.Srinivas, Advocates for Accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

Serial No. of the case:C.C.298/2013

Date of Commission of the :29.07.2012 offence

Name of the Complainant:State represented by the Inspector of Police, PothinamallayyapalemPoliceStation, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the accused, their :1. Panchadarla Mangaraju, S/o.Appa Rao, parentage and residence etc.aged 39 years, Yadava by Caste, D.No.9-11-7, Sivaji Palem, Park opposite, Visakhapatnam City.

2.PanchadarlaApparao,S/o.Late Simhachalam, aged 68 years, Yadava by Caste, r/o.D.No.9-11-7, Sivajipalem Park opposite, Visakhapatnam City.

Offence complained of or proved:Under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.

Plea of the accused and his :When examined Under Section 251 of examination if any.Criminal Procedure Code, accused 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty. The examination of accused 1 and 2 under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code has been dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused 1 and 2.

1.The Inspector of Police, Pothinamallayyapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam

City, filed a charge sheet against accused 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under

Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet filed by the police is that on 29-07-2012 the accused criminally trespassed into the premises of L.W.1 Gurram

Venkata Krishna Reddy, they forcibly removed the name plate of the house and 2 granite name plate and illegally damaged house hold articles, as per the instructions of L.W.1 Gurram Venkata Krishna Reddy on 6-08-2012 P.W.1 rushed there with workers to rectify the damage, on seeing them the accused rushed there and threatened P.W.1 and the working staff as it is their property and they caused all the damage intentionally, basing on the report given by L.W.1 Gurram Venkata Krishna

Reddy, the police registered a case in Cr.No.304/2012 and took up investigation in this case, Inspector of Police, Pothinamallayyapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam visited the scene of offence, examined with scene, examined the witnesses, after completion of the investigation, he laid charge sheet and that the investigation established that the accused 1 and 2 committed the offences punishable under sections 447, 427, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, the charge.

3.Cognizance in this case was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code. After appearance of the accused 1 and 2, case copies of all documents have been furnished to them under Section 207 of

Criminal Procedure Code, accused 1 and 2 were examined under Section 251 of

Criminal Procedure Code with reference to the allegations in the charge sheet, the accused denied the charge sheet allegations, accused 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the examination of accused 1 and 2 under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code has been dispensed with, as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused 1 and 2. No defence is adduced on behalf of accused 1 and 2.

6. Now the point for consideration is :-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code, beyond reasonable doubt?

7. Point: The case of the prosecution is that on 29-07-2012 the accused criminally trespassed into the premises of L.W.1 Gurram Venkata Krishna Reddy, they forcibly removed the name plate of the house and granite name plate and illegally damaged house hold articles, on the instructions of L.W.1 Gurram Venkata Krishna Reddy on 6-08-2012 P.W.1 rushed there with workers to rectify the damage, on seeing them 3 the accused rushed there and threatened P.W.1 and the working staff as it is their property and they caused all the damage intentionally.

8.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined one

Authu Govinda Reddy as P.W.1. He deposed in his evidence that he is a private employee, L.W.1 Venkata Krishnareddy is his Managing Director, he know both the accused, himself and L.W.1 Venkata Krishnareddy gave a complaint to the police to prevent the incident, subsequently they compromised and no incident was taken place. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.1 was turned hostile, the evidence of P.W.1 was not supporting the case of the prosecution. The prosecution given up the evidence of remaining witnesses cited in the charge sheet.

9.Therefore, in view of the above reasons, prosecution failed to prove that accused 1 and 2 committed the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, I find the accused 1 and 2 are not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.

10.In the result, accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 447, 427, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under Section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused 1 & 2 shall stand canceled after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Typist), transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 16th day of February,

2016.

SD/-, V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Accused : P.W.1/ Authu Govinda Reddy None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Accused :

Ex.P.1/ : Section 161 of Criminal Procedure NIL. Code statement of P.W.1.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Accused :

- NIL - - N I L -

SD/-, V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

4

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No.298/2013

Date of Offence29-07-2012 Date of Filing12-11-2013 Date of Apprehension10-02-2014 Date of Release on bail18-09-2012 (A.1 & A.2) Date of Commencement of trial15-02-2016 Date of Close of trial15-02-2016 Date of Sentence/Order16-02-2016 Explanation for delay No delay and Remarks

C.C.No.298/2013 in Cr.No.304/2012 of Pothinamallayyapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code

ComplainantState represented by the Inspector of Police, PothinamallayyapalemPoliceStation, Visakhapatnam City. Name of the accused, parentage, 1. Panchadarla Mangaraju, S/o.Appa Rao, age and residence. aged 39 years, Yadava by Caste, D.No.9-11-7, Sivaji Palem, Park opposite, Visakhapatnam City.

2.PanchadarlaApparao,S/o.Late Simhachalam, aged 68 years, Yadava by Caste, r/o.D.No.9-11-7, Sivajipalem Park opposite, Visakhapatnam City. OffenceUnder Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code. Findingfound not guilty. Sentence In the result, accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 447, 427, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under Section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused 1 & 2 shall stand canceled after appeal time is over.

SD/-, V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

// TRUE COPY//

CMM::VSP