Sri V.S.S. Srinivasa Sarma

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

BHIMAVARAM

Present: Sri K. Krishna Murthy, M.A., M.L., III Addl. District Judge, Bhimavaram

Friday, this the 6th day of September, 2013

OS.No.111 of 2001

Between:

1.Sri Veereswara Visweswara, Subrahmaneswara Swami Varla Devasthanam, represented by its Group Executive Officer, Veeravasaram, BSCJC

2.Kanaka Durgamma Amma Vari Temple, represented by its Group Executive Officer, Veeravasaram, BSCJC

3.Sri Venugopala Swami, Sitarama Swami Varla Devasthanam, Represented by its Group Executive officer, Veeravasaram, BSCJC

.. Plaintiffs

and

Valiveti Venkata Achuta Kanaka Durga Mahamkaleswara Sastry, S/o Satyanarayana Murthy, Municipal Colony, Malakpeta, H.No.36-38, Hyderabad -3, Hyderabad SCJC

.. defendant

This suit is coming on 22.07.2013 for hearing before me in the presence of

Sri P.Narasimham, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri K.Subrahmanyam, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiffs to pass a decree in his favour against the defendant for (a) directing the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiffs; b) directing the defendant to pay these plaintiffs the mesne profits c) for costs of the suit and such other reliefs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

Originally an extent of Ac.6.75 cents of land situated in RS.No.139, TD.No.2912 of

Veeravasaram is endowed property and belongs to plaintiff group temple. Out of the said Ac.6.75 cents the Eastern Ac.3.37 ½ cents has been given possession to one Sri

Valiveti Venkata Subbarao for doing service of music i.e. for singing devotional music in 2 the plaintiff temples regularly during festivals and Kalyanam days. Likewise the

Western Ac.3.37 ½ cents has been given possession to the defendant for rendering the same service i.e. service of music during festival and kalyanam days and while matters stand so, the said Venkata Subbrao has surrendered the said Ac.3.371/2 cents which was given to him to the plaintiff temples on 14.05.1973 has he could not do the service as his health did not co-operate for the same. So far as the defendant is the concerned he continued the service till 1999 and stopped performance the said service for the last 2 years and he is at present staying at Hyderabad. The plaintiff temples authorities have been demanding the defendant either to do set aside or to surrender the said land to the plaintiff temples, but the defendant while promising to do so is only postponing the same on some pretext or other. These plaintiffs stated that by virtue of Sec.34 of

A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 all the hereditary of service rights have been abolished and ultimately the Supreme Court of

India is also upheld the validity of the said Section and in view of the non-performing the service the defendant is not entitled to continue the plaint schedule land. The temple authorities have also issued a demand lawyer notice dated 25.04.2001 demanding the defendant to surrender the possession of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff temples, but the defendant has avoided to take the said notice though it was sent twice, and hence the plaintiff temples have filed this suit for the recovery of the plaint schedule property from the defendant. These plaintiffs reserve their rights to claim that mense profits separately. Hence filed the suit.

3. The defendant denied all the plaint allegations except truly admitted facts and briefly submitted his written statement allegations are that the defendant does not admit that Sri V.V.Subbarao surrendered the land of Ac.3.37 ½ cents on the Eastern side of RS.No.139 to the plaintiff temples on 14.05.1973 on health grounds as he could not do serves. Even if the said V.V.Subbarao surrendered the possession of the said

Eastern side Ac.3.37 ½ cents in RS.No.139 to the plaintiff temples the same does not cloth the plaintiff temples with any legal rights over the Western Ac.3.37 ½ cents in

RS.No.139 owned and possessed by this defendant. The said V.V.Subbarao has no 3 right to surrender the possession of the said Ac.3.37 ½ cents land in Rs.No.139 and said surrender does not create any rights in favour of the plaintiff temples over the said land. Even if the alleged surrender of the Eastern Ac.3.37 ½ cents to the plaintiffs temples is true, the plaintiff temples cannot claim any rights over the Western Ac.3.37 ½ cents belonging to this defendant on the strength of the alleged surrender by

V.V.Subbarao.

4. On the other hand, the said T.D.No.2912 was in fact granted in favour of this defendant’s ancestor Valiveti Gangaiah. The very foundation for this suit is based on T.D. o.2912 and the plaintiff claims that the said title deed was granted in favour of the plaintiff institution. The said allegation is absolutely false and incorrect. This defendant’s father performed services till his death in the year 1999. After the death of defendant’s father this defendant performed the services through his nominee till 2001.

The authorities of the temples did not allow the defendant to get the services rendered in the plaintiff temples on the ground that they have filed this suit. Though the defendant and his father were not under any obligation to render services after institution of proceedings under A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams Abolition and Conversion into

Ryotwari Act, this defendant and his father rendered services till 2001 out of regard and respect to the deities of plaintiff temples.

5. The defendant further submitted that after the grant of Patta under the said act the Inam tenure comes to an end and Ryotwari tenure comes into operation.

After abolition of the Inams under the said A.P. Inams Abolition and conversion into

Ryotwari Act, there is no obligation to perform the services and the condition of services is no longer enforceable. This defendant is granted a Ryotwari Pattadar

Passbook and Title Deed in respect of the plaint schedule land as he is found to be the rightful owner and enjoyer of the plaint schedule land by the Revenue authorities. This defendant has been paying land revenue and other taxes to the Government till today.

6. The defendant further stated that in respect of all the Inams the Title dispute, if any, has to be decided by the authorities constituted under the A.P. (Andhra

Area) Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956. The Civil Court has no 4 jurisdiction to decide any matters pertaining to the Inam lands. The plaintiff temples without obtaining any patta under the said A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams Abolition and

Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956 have no right to file the above suit to recover possession of the plaint schedule land which is admittedly an Inam land in the beginning. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit and this suit is not maintainable in this court.

7. The plaintiff temples cannot seek recovery of possession of plaint schedule land on the ground that the defendant failed to render services. The plaintiff temples authorities having disallowed the defendant from performing services cannot complain of non-performance of services by the defendant in the said temples. This defendant is no longer under any obligation to render services. This defendant never received any notice from the plaintiff temples and this defendant never avoided to receive the notice. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim the possession of plaint schedule property. The plaintiff is not entitled for any mesne profits. The plaintiff’s suit is false, frivolous and vexatious. The suit is barred by time. Therefore the defendant prays to dismiss the suit with costs and award exemplary and compensatory costs to this defendant.

8. The defendant filed additional written statement that the grant was not made any institution or as remuneration for any office in plaintiff temples. The grant recognized in TD.No.2912 was only a personal grant to an individual burdened with service. The plaint schedule land was never vested with the plaintiff temples and as such the provisions of H.R.E. Act or not applicable.

9. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession?

2. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?

3. Whether the defendant is entitled to exemplary costs?

4. To what relief?

5

10. During the course of trial, P.W.1 examined and Exs.A.1 and A.14 were marked for the plaintiffs. DWs.1 and 2 examined and Exs.B.1 to B.28 were marked.

11. Heard both sides.

12. Issues1 And 2 are clubbed together for the sake of convenience and better appreciation.

13. Issue No.1 & 2:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession?

2. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?

The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the suit is filed for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property for an Ac. 3.37½ cents on the western sided out of Ac. 6.75 cents in RS.No.139 of Veeravasaram village. It is an endowed property belongs to the plaintiff group of temples. Out of the said Ac. 6.75 cents eastern side acres 3.37 ½ cents was in put in possession of Sri Valiveti Venkata Subbarao for rendering services of music for the plaintiff temples during festivals and Kalyanam days.

The western side acres 3.37 ½ cents has been given possession to the defendant for rendering the same service. The defendant and the said Sri V.V.Subbarao were only permitted to enjoy the crops for rendering service to the temple. The said

V.V. Subbarao has surrendered the said Acre 3.37 ½ cents to the plaintiff temples on 14.5.1973 itself as he could not do service because of ill-health.

14. Further the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the Exs. A.9 and

A.10 documents got maintained by the plaintiff temples established that an acre 6.75 cents in RS.No.139 belongs to the plaintiff temple. In support of the above contention the plaintiff relied a decision reported in Seelam Pasha and Others vs. Assistant

Commissioner of Endowments Karimnagar and another 2013 (2) ALT 446

whereinHis Lordship held that “entries made in the books of endowments are correct unless held otherwise by the Civil Court.” He also relied another decision reported AIR 1963 SC 833 wherein Apex Court pointed out that ”Books of endowments, the entries made in the books of endowments are correct and unless held to be otherwise by Civil 6

Court.” So the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the Pattadar Pass book (Ex.A.9) and Title deed (Ex.A.10) issued in favour of the plaintiff temples establishes their rights of the temple over the suit schedule land. Moreover the documents got filed by A.1 to A.14 are clearly established the rights of the plaintiff temple over the plaint schedule land and he prays to decide the issue in favour of the plaintiff.

15. The learned counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiffs failed to produce even a single scrap of paper in proof of their title over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff group of companies examined the Executive Officer as PW.1 and he admitted that “the plaint schedule land belongs to the defendant and his predecessors they are in possession of the schedule land and rendering services. He never saw the TD.No.2912 the defendant got title over the land by virtue of settlement deed executed by Maharajas. Neither trusty nor department people could the defendant in possession of the said land. Previously no auction was conducted acres 6.75 cents of land by their department. The Suit Schedule land is not in possession of the plaintiff temple at any point of time. It is true the acres 6.75 cents if originally

Inam land. The said acres 6.75 cents were given to the ancestors of defendant by way of personal grant for rendering with music service to the plaintiff temples.”

16. Further the learned counsel for the defendant argued that the plaint schedule property is endowed property is not clarified has to how and from whom the plaintiff temples acquired the said property. Sri V.V.Subbarao never admitted the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land covering under Ex.A.1. The defendant himself examined as DW.1 and he stated in his evidence that V.V.Subbarao owns land is effected by A.P. Land Sealing Act and hence he is surrendered possession of Ac.3.37 ½ cents to the plaintiff temples with a condition that somebody may be nominated to render service in plaintiff temples by paying Income tax for the said land to him.

17. The learned counsel for the defendant argued that the revenue authorities issued Pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the defendant for the plaint schedule land has sown is the owner of the said land as per records of rights of books.

7

The MRO has not issued any notice to the defendant before issuing Ex.A.6 to A.8 books and Ex.A.11 to A.13 to the E.O of plaintiff temples. The MRO has no authority to issue the Pattadar passbook to the plaintiff afresh without issuing any notice to the defendant. The defendant filed appealed before RDO, Narsapur to cancel the said

Pattadar passbook issued to the plaintiff temples. The RDO did not conducted any enquiry confirmed the action of MRO rejected the appeal filed by the defendant. The defendant preferred Revision to the Joint collector, Eluru asking to stay the order of the

RDO not effect until this suit is decided that Ex.A.6 to A.8, A.9 to A.13 were brought into existence subsequent filing of the above suit and no wait can be given to such a documents.

18. Further the learned counsel for the defendant argued that Ac.6.75 cents in RS.No.139 covered by TD.No.2912 was originally an Inam land. The Inam means a grant or Gift made by the kinds and other rulers. Inam is the word adopted by

Mahammadin kings ruled the country and the same is being continued. Earlier these grants are called as Manyams, during the period when the Hindu Kings were ruling the country. The Government of A.P. Enacted A.P. Inams Abolition and conversion into

Rytuvari Act 37 of 1956 abolished all the minor and converted the same into Rytuvari tenure. The tenants are to enjoy the lands has full owners without the liability of paying any makthas to the institutions or individuals.

19. The learned counsel for the defendant argued that after Inams abolition and conversion into Rytuvari Act, the arrest while Inamdar who was holding the land on the date of commencement of the act is confirmed absolute and full rights over the land in his possession and he is relied of doing services to the temple or institutions.

However the defendants father and defendant out of respect to the deities rendered music service in plaintiffs temples till 2001, when the defendant was prevented from rendering service after the filing of the above suit. The predecessor of the defendant were granted Rytuvari patta by Thahsildar after conducting enquiry but the same are not available with the defendant. However the defendant and his father paying land revenue to the government for the suit schedule land covering under Ex.B.1 to B.18 to 8 prove the schedule land after conversion into Rythuvari land belongs to the defendant and his father.

20. Further the learned counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff temples had no Title to the plaint schedule land and they failed to prove their title by way of endowment or otherwise. Every Inam land held by institution or individual are abolished under Inams act and brought into Rytuvari tenure by the government and

Inamdars are confirmed with absolute rights on the lands held by them as on the date of commencement of the act as it was admitted by PWs. in his evidence. Therefore the plaintiff temples have neither title nor possession at any point of time and hence they are not entitled for recovery of the possession of the schedule land.

21. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the defendant relied a decision reported in Indukuru Ramachandra Reddy and another vs.

Angnygundala Venkata Rangarao and another 2012 (4) ALT 569 wherein His

Lordship observed that “rectification of entries in records of rights can only be made by

MRO after following the procedure prescribed under rule 16 (1) and 17 (1) of the rules framed under the ROR act.” and he also another decision reported in Sri

Bavanarayana Swamy Temple Ponnur vs. Chinthalapudi Rudrayya reported

1986 (1) A.P.L.J wherein it was observed that Section 4 of A.P.(Andhra Area ) Inams

Abolition and conversion into Rythuvari Act 37 of 1956 Section 4 Holders of minor Inam burdened with the service. Not liable to render service to the temple after the abolition of Inams and conversion into Rytuvari tenure and grant of Patta in respect thereof and relying in another decision Peddinti Venkata Murali Ranganadhadeshika Iyengar and others vs. Government of A.P. and another 1996 (1) ALT 33 SC wherein it was held that any Inam granted to an archaka, service holder or other employee of religious institutions for the performance of any service or charity in connection with the institution shall be deemed to be a personal gift to the Archaka service holder or employee, notwithstanding the grant of Rythuvari patta to all archakas , service holders or employees under the Inams Abolition Act, but shall be deemed to be a religious 9 endowment. In view of the above referred decisions he prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

22. On hearing both sides rival contention and verification of the entire material evidence available on record that the defendant and one V.V.Subbarao were only permitted to enjoy the crops for rendering services to the temples. The said

V.V.Subbarao has surrendered the said Ac.3.37 ½ cents to the plaintiff temples on 14.5.1973 itself as he could not do service because of ill-health. In order to prove the same the plaintiff temple filed Exs.A.1 and A.2 letters dated 14.5.1973 and 25.5.1973 and the communication of Assistant Commissioner of the endowment department that the land RS.No.139 belongs to the plaintiff temple. The plaintiff filed Ex.A.6 to A.14 shows that the rights of the plaintiff temple over the suit schedule land. Ex.A.9 under 43 register maintained by the plaintiff Devastanam Ex.A.10 is the true extract of the

RSR these two documents establishes that 6.75 cents in RS.No.139 old RS.No.492 belongs to the plaintiff temple.

23. The Ex.A.9 which is register maintained by the endowment department in respect of the properties held by the plaintiff temples clearly shows that ac. 6.75 cents in Rs.No.139 of Veeravasaram in an endowed property and it is belongs to the plaintiff temples. The entries coupled with Ex.A.10 extract of re-settlement register would amply establish the rights of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land. In which the learned counsel for the plaintiff relied a recent decision reported 2013 (2) ALT Page 446 wherein His Lordship held that “entries made in the book of endowments are correct, unless held otherwise by the Civil Court.”

24. Wherein His Lordship clearly finds that entries made in under 43 register of the temple are true and correct holds that the property belongs to the temple. In another decision reported in 1963 SC 833 wherein the Apex Court following the above ruling and categorically held that the entries in the books of the endowments are true and correct and due wait should be given to them. Therefore Ex.A.9 entries are considered to be true and correct and the property in dispute belongs to the plaintiff temples. Ex.A.10 copy of RSR extract supports the entries in ex.A.9. So also Pattadar 10 and Title deed pass books issued in favour of the plaintiff temple also established the rights of the temple over the suit schedule land. Therefore Ex.A.1 to A.14 clearly establishes the rights of the plaintiff temple over the plaint schedule land.

25. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant is not rendering service and hence demanded him to surrender the possession of the plaint schedule land and notice was also issued to the defendant covering under Ex.A.3 but the defendant refused to receive the said notice and therefore the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession. The defendant put forth a defense that the suit schedule land is a Inam land and it is a personal grant given to the ancestor but admitted that they are burdened with the service to the plaintiff temple and further stated that though they are willing to continue the service the plaintiff temple authorities are not permitting them to do service. The plaintiff has no right over the plaint schedule land and this

Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Further the defendant contended

that he has every reason to believe his ancestors were given Rytuvari patta under A.P.

Inams Abolition and conversion into Rytuvari Act.

26. Under section 3 of A.P. Inams (A.A) Abolition and conversion into Rytuvari act the Thasildar is empower to decide whether a particular land is in his jurisdiction is a Inam land whether such a Inam land is Rytuvari, Jamindari or Inam village or whether such a Inam land he is held by any institution. Any decision given by Thasildar cannot be challenged in civil court. If any personal aggrieved by the order he can prefer an appeal before RDO . Section 14 of the said act puts a bar of jurisdiction of

Civil Courts to set aside or modified any decision of Thasildar, the revenue court or

Collector under this Act, except where such a decision is obtained by mis- representation, fraud or collusion of parties. Therefore section 14 contemplates under the act the civil court cannot re-open or set aside or modify any decision of the revenue authorities under the said act.

27. The temples is the owner of the plaint schedule land and to establish the

Title and it has filed section 43 register covering under Ex.A.9 and RSR extract covering under Ex.A.10, Pattadar passbooks covering under Ex.A.6 to A.8 and A.11 to A.13 .

11

The plaintiff also filed Ex.A.14 order passed by RDO. The order goes to show that in the year 1932 there was a resurvey conducted and in the said resettlement register the name of the plaintiff temple is duly registered as a patta holder for Ac6.75 cents in

RS.No.139 and the said revenue record did not show and register the said land as Inam land and the name of devastanam was only registered in the said records as patta holder and therefore the revenue records from 1932 onwards register the name of the temples as a patta holder in respect of Ac.6.75 cents in RS.No.139 .

28. Therefore in view of the above reason the contention of the defendant that pattta was granted in favour of his ancestor was negatived and the earlier passbooks which were issued in the name of the defendants were cancelled after due enquiry. Thus revenue records, accounts temple register would clinchingly establishes that the land belongs to the temple and it was not registered and recognized as Inam land.

29. The defendant mainly relying Ex.B.21 stating that it was Title Deed given to his Ancesstor Valiveti Gangayya by the Inam Commissioner, Government of Madras in the year 1860. When the defendant asserts that the schedule land is an Inam land the burden is on him to prove the same, except Ex.B.21 which was produced 10 years after filing of this suit and nothing is placed before this court. Section 2 (D) of the

Inams Act defines Inam Village and section 2 © defines Inam land. There are catena of decisions of our High Court shows that how to determine a particular village is an

Inam village and a particular land is an Inam land and courts have formulated a clear cut principal in land is a Inam land and the courts have formulated a clear cut principle in determining a particular village is a Inam village. The Thasildar has to see whether that village is designated as such a in the revenue accounts of the Government.

30. The relevant period cannot be confined in the year 1956 the year in which the act came into force but should look into the entry revenue record from the beginning to the end in order to find out the nature of the land and that of the village in which it is situated. The defendant did not place any revenue record before this court to prove that the village in which the plaintiff schedule land is situated is an Inam 12 village and the schedule land is an Inam land. Therefore the defendant fails to prove that the land is in question is an Inam land. Therefore Ex.B.21 has no probative value and it sees that the light of the day several years after filing of the suit and the particulars are also not clearly visible. The defendant did not even place any pedigree to prove that Gangaiah is his ancestor and was in possession of the land as Inamdar.

As such Ex.B.21 cannot be considered in the absence of any other corroborative and supporting evidence particularly the revenue accounts of the relevant period.

31. Further the defendant himself examined as DW.1 and he admitted in his evidence that “ I have no document to showing granting of Inam in the name of ancestor Valiveti Gangaiah, I tried to trace out the said document but the said document is not traced out. I have no documentary evidence to show that there was a partition in between in our ancestors in respect of Ac.6.75 cents in RS.No.139. I informed me once that after abolition Inams the Rytuvari patta was issued in favour of our ancestors in respect of the land in RS.No.139 but I do not know in whose name the

Rytuvari patta was granted and I am not having any such of the Rytuvari patta in my custody. I have not filed any document to show that Rytuvari patta in my custody. I have not filed any document to show that Rythuvari Patta was issued to out ancestors in respect of RS.No.139, after the advent of A.P.Inams Abolition and conversion into

Rytuvari Act. I have not approaching to any authorities for issuance of any Rytuvari patta in respect of RS.No.139 nor I verified with the settlement officer whether any

Rytuvarii patta was issued or not. I have not filed any document to show that relating to the proceedings before settlement officer if any claiming Rytuvari patta in RS.No.139.

The Government has not issued any Patta passbook or Title deed Pass book in favour of my father. “

32. In view of the evidence of DW.1 clearly shows that the contest of the defendant that the land in possession is in Inam land is not correct. If really any patta was granted in favour of the defendant’s ancestor after commencement of the act nothing prevents him from summoning the concerned officers to produce the relevant records to establish his case. Since the defendant did not choose to examine any of the 13 revenue authorities and did not choose to get any records from the revenue department. Therefore in adverse inference is to be drawn against him. Further the evidence of DW.2 is not helpful to the defendant case to destroy the plaintiff’s case.

33. Further it can be discussed that in view of the decision reported in

K.Krishnan and Others vs. T.T.D. represented by Executive Officer Tirupati

and another 1995 (2) ALT 122 (D.B) and in Gajuwaka Gram Panchayati

represented by the Executive Officer vs. Madisetti Venkata Suryanarayana

and another 1995 (2) ALT 113 (D.B) which is a Division Bench decision of High

Court clearly shows that no decision of Thasildar determining those lands as Inam

before the Court, question before Civil Court was not to set aside or modify any

decision of Thasildar in that respect. Therefore the suit for recovery of possession of land and title jurisdiction of Civil Court is not ousted.

34. The counsel for the defendant mainly relying on the evidence of PW.1 i.e.

E.O of the plaintiff temple that EO admitted that the schedule land is Inam land and the

Title of the defendant and his ancestor. It can be discussed that the EO of the plaintiff temple was confused by the word Inam and so called admissions have no value for the simple reason those are against the documentary evidence placed before this court and they are hit by Section 92 of evidence Act, as such the submission made by the learned counsel for the defendant are not tenable.

35. Further the decisions relied by the defendant with reference to ROR Act are not applicable to the case on hand because the plaintiff relying a decision reported in 2013 (1) ALT Page 184 wherein Justice Sri L.Narasimha Reddy observed that the land in question was granted as Inam to their Grandfather in 1965 and was under enjoyment and possession of their family members for the past more than 1½ centuries and also contended that Rytuvari patta was granted. The learned RDO after verification found that the revenue records discloses that the ownership of the land is vested to

Devastanam and the plaintiffs are not in possession either by themselves through any tenant and confirmed the rejection order of the application for grant of passbooks by

Thasildar. The Joint Collector was also confirmed the same. Their Lordship observed 14 that when the revenue records discloses that the ownership of land is vested in temple and petitioners are not in possession they cannot except passbook in their favour and dismissed the writ. Therefore the learned counsel or the defendant Pattadar passbook issued in favour of the plaintiff are not valid is not tenable.

36. Further even in the decision submitted by the defendant reported in AIR 1996 SC Page 2225 wherein Supreme Court held that in Para 3 and 4 that documents filed shows that the land belongs to the Mut and the respondents and his ancestors were permitted to continue in possession and enjoyment of the land as Inamdars for service rendered and to be rendered by them to the institution and when the evidence shows that Mut is the owner of the property and the respondent admittedly came in possession as Inamdar to render service to the Mut that he cannot claim any possession or Title in his own right under A.P.Inam Abolition and conversion into Rytuvari act 1956.

After the act had came into force the free existing right, title should extinguished and the holder of the land is entitled to Rytuvari patta under section 7. Therefore the above decision clearly says that a person who entered into the possession of the land of the temple to render service cannot claim title.

37. The learned counsel for the defendant relied the other proportion in the decision in respect of the jurisdiction is also not application to the case on hand as the defendant failed to prove the land is Inam land to attract the provisions of the Inams act and the suit is not for declaration of title and it is only for recovery of possession as the title is vested with the plaintiff temples. Therefore there is no bar to file the suit

before the Civil Court. In view of the above all reasons these issues are answered in

favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.

38. Issue No.3

Whether the defendant is entitled to exemplary costs?

In view of the findings of Issue No.1 and 2 the defendant is failed to prove that the schedule is an Inam land and the Thasildar as passed order is not null and void.

Therefore the defendant is not entitled any exemplary costs as prayed for. Accordingly this issue is negatived to the defendant case.

15

39. Issue NO.4

To what relief?

In view of the findings of Issue No.1 and 2 this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant and directing the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff within 90 days from the date of this judgment.

If the defendant not delivered the suit schedule land to the plaintiff within the stipulated period that the plaintiff is at liberty to get the suit schedule land on due process of law.

Further the plaintiff is at liberty to file a separate petition to claim mean profits from the defendant.

40. In the result, the suit is decreed without costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant and directing the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff within 90 days from the date of this judgment.

If the defendant not delivered the suit schedule land to the plaintiff within the stipulated period that the plaintiff is at liberty to get the suit schedule land on due process of law.

Further the plaintiff is at liberty to file a separate petition to claim mean profits from the defendant.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, typed on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 6th day of September, 2013.

III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram.

Appendix of Evidence.

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff. For Defendant.

PW-1 : Chitturi Venkateswara Rao D.W.1 VVAK. Durga Mahankaleswara Sastri

DW.2: Nalam Nageswara Rao 16

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 14.05.1973 Letter given by Valiveti Subbarao

Ex.A.2 28.5.1973 Communication of Assistant Commissioner Endowments Department, Eluru

Ex.A.3 25.04.2001 Office copy of the registered Lawyer notice sent to the defendant

Ex.A.4 20.05.2001 Refused postal cover

Ex.A.5 26.05.2001 Refused postal cover

Ex.A.6 23.10.2010 Original Pattadar pass book issued in favour of E.O

Ex.A.7 23.10.2010 Original Pattadar pass book issued in favour of E.O

Ex.A.8 23.10.2010 Original Pattadar pass book issued in favour of E.O

Ex.A.9 20.11.2009 Original Section 43 register

Ex.A.10 -- True copy of RSR extract

Ex.A.11 23.10.2010 Original Title deed pass book (No.E757276)

Ex.A.12 23.10.2010 Original Title deed pass book (No.E 757279)

Ex.A.13 23.10.2010 Original Title deed pass book (No.E 757248)

Ex.A.14 --- Letter

For Defendant:

Ex.B.1 12.11.1968 Original land revenue receipt

Ex.B.2 30.03.1978 Original land revenue receipt

Ex.B.3 29.05.1979 Original land revenue receipt

Ex.B.4 05.09.1990 Original land revenue receipt

Ex.B.5 29.04.1982 Original land revenue receipt

Ex.B.6 29.04.1982 Original DC.revenue receipt

Ex.B.7 19.08.1994 Original land revenue receipt

Ex.B.8 25.04.1995 Original land revenue receipt

Ex.B.9 25.04.1995 Original land revenue receipt

Ex.B.10 01.07.1998 Original land revenue receipt

Ex.B.11 16.01.1999 Original land revenue receipt 17

Ex.B.12 19.06.2001 Original land revenue receipt

Ex.B.13 28.05.2002 Original land revenue receipt

Ex.B.14 28.02.2003 Original land revenue receipt

Ex.B.15 27.02.2004 Original land revenue receipt

Ex.B.16 31.05.2006 Original land revenue receipt

Ex.B.17 24.05.2007 Original land revenue receipt

Ex.B.18 18.05.2009 Original land revenue receipt

Ex.B.19 20.04.1998 Original Pattadar passbook

Ex.B.20 20.09.1998 Original Title deed book

Ex.B.21 13.04.1860 Title deed issued by the Government of Madras

Ex.B.22 11.07.2012 Copy of appeal submitted to Joint Collector, W.G.Dt., Eluru

Ex.B.23 -- No.3 Adangal copy of fasalis 1409 and 1410

Ex.B.24 -- No.3 Adangal copy of fasalis 1412 and 1413

Ex.B.25 -- No.3 Adangal copy of fasalis 1415 and 1417

Ex.B.26 -- No.3 Adangal copy of fasalis 1418

Ex.B.27 -- No.3 Adangal copy of fasalis 1414, 1419 and 1420

Ex.B.28 -- Copy of letter send to Narsapur RDO

III ADJ, Bhimavaram

1O.S.No.206/2003(FTC)[24.04.2019] ASCJ/KVR.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KOVVUR

(Fast Tract Court)

Present:­V.S.S.Srinivasa Sarma,

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur

FAC::Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur (FTC)

Wednesday, the 24th day of April 2019. 

O.S.No.206/2003

Between: Sri Yantrapragada Abbulu, S/o.Raja Rao, Hindu, aged 42 years, Cultivation, Chikkala, West Godavari District.

….......…Plaintiff 

And

1. Sri Chekuri Padmanabham, S/o.Muniswamy, Hindu, aged 70 years, Cultivation, Retired Current Lineman, Unagatla, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District. (Died)

2. Sri Chekuri Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Padmanabham, Hindu, aged 35 years, Cultivation, Unagatla, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District.

3. Sri Nutangi Ananda Rao, S/o.Lakshmayya, Hindu, aged 40 years, Cultivation and Cashew gardens purchasing business, Chikkala village, West Godavari District.(Died)

4. Sri Kotta Satyanarayana, S/o.Veeranna, Hindu, aged 45 years, Cultivation, Mallavaram, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District. (Died)

5. Smt. Chekukri Ganemma, W/o.Late Padmanabham, Hindu, aged 80 years, Housewife, D.No.5­61/2, Near Vinayaka Temple, Unagatla, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District.

6. Smt. Chekuri Satyavathi, W/o.Late Ramakrishna, Hindu, aged 45 years, Housewife, D.No.5­61/2, Near D.No.5­61/2, Near Vinajayaka temple, Unagatla, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District.

7. Sri Chekuri Hanumantha Rao, S/o.Late Ramakrishna, Hindu, aged 26 years, Cultivation, D.No.5­61/2, Near Vinajayaka Temple, Unagatla, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District.

8. Smt. Nagireddi Nagamani, W/o.Durga Rao, D/o.Late Ramakrishna, Hindu, aged 24 years, Housewife, C/o.Ramulu, Kapavaram, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District.

2O.S.No.206/2003(FTC)[24.04.2019] ASCJ/KVR.

9. Sri Chekuri Balaji, S/o.Late Ramakrishna, Hindu, aged 23 years, Cultivation, Unagatla, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District.

10.Smt. Nutangi Manga, W/o.Late Ananda Rao, Hindu, aged 48 years, Housewife, Chikkala, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District.

11.Sri Nutangi Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Ananda Rao, Hindu, aged 30 years, Coolie, Chikkala, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District.

12.Smt. Geddam Jamuna, W/o.Rajesh, Hindu, aged 28 years, Housewife, Kadakatla, Tadepalligudem Town and Mandal, West Godavari District.

13.Sri Nutangi Chinababu, S/o.Late Ananda Rao, Hindu, aged 21 years, Student, Chikkala, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District.

14.Kumari Nutangi Darsi, D/o.Late Ananda Rao, Hindu, aged 20 years, Student, Chikkala, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District.

15.Smt. Bandi Ramtulasi, W/o.Veera Venkata Muneswararao, Hindu, aged 65 years, Housewife, Timmarajupalem, Nidadavole Mandal, West Godavari District.

16.Smt. Katta Suramma, W/o.late Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged 46 years, Housewife, Mallavaram, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District.

17.Sri Katta Harinadh, S/o.Late Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged 22 years, Cultivation, Mallavaram, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District.

18.Sri Katta Veeranna, S/o.Late Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged 20 years, Cultivation, Mallavaram, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District.

19.Smt. Thunta Venkata Lakshmi, W/o.Ramanjaneyulu, Hindu, aged 30 years, Housewife, Relangi Mandal, West Godavari District.

20.Smt. Relangi Durga, W/o.Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged 28 years, Housewife, Near Sangam Office, Akkayyapalem, D.No.45­33­34, Vizag, Visakhapatnam District.

21.Kum Katta Jyothi, D/o.Late Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged 25 years, No avocation, Mallavaram, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District.

[Defendant No.5 to No.9 were impleaded as Legal Representatives of the deceased 1st defendant deceased Chekuri Padmanabham vide orders in IA No.407/2009 dated 10.02.2010] [Defendant No.10 to No.14 were impleaded as Legal Representatives of the deceased 3rd defendant vide Orders in IA No.35/2014 dated 06.11.2017] [15th defendant was impleaded vide Orders in IA No.37/2016 dated 06.11.2017] 3O.S.No.206/2003(FTC)[24.04.2019] ASCJ/KVR.

[Defendant No.16 to No.21 were impleaded as Legal Representatives of the deceased 4th defendant vide Orders in IA No.35/2018 dated 01.03.2019]

..…......Defendants

This suit came up on 16.04.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Srinivas, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant No.1, No.3, No.4 since died and of Sri K.Gurraju and Sri P.Venkatesara Rao, Advocates for the defendants No.2, No.5 to No.9, and Sri K.V.Ramana, Advocate for the defendants No.10 to No.14; and of Sri A.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the 15th defendant; and of Sri Y.B.B.V.V.Prasad Rao, Advocate for the defendant No.16 to No.21; and this matter having stood over till this day for consideration and on perusal of entire case material on record, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff­Y.Abbulu filed this suit seeking Specific Performance of the suit agreement of sale dated 29.09.2000 read with transfer/assignment dt.19.8.2003 seeking the defendants to execute a registered Sale deed in his favour or his nominee or alternatively he sought for refund of Rs.1,00,000/­ with interest at 12 ½ per annum from the date of the plaint till realization with first charge on the schedule property and costs thereon.

2. The plaintiff­Y.Abbulu averred that the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 are related one another as 'father and son' and that the 1st defendant had another son but there was partition of the properties. He averred that the suit schedule property is a property of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 and that the defendant No.2 is taking care of the schedule property as the defendant No.1 became old and when the said defendants were not getting sufficient income over the schedule property, they offered to sell the schedule property to the 3rd defendant Ananda Rao @

Rs.45,000/­ per acre in all Rs.1,57,500/­ of Ac.3.50 cents of land and that on receipt of Rs.20,500/­ as advance, they executed an agreement of sale on 29.09.2000. He averred that as per the terms of agreement, the balance 4O.S.No.206/2003(FTC)[24.04.2019] ASCJ/KVR.

amount was required to be paid on or before 31.12.2000 taking into consideration the actual measurement of the land. 

3. The plaintiff­Y.Abbulu averred that later though the 3rd defendant was ready in obtaining Sale deed, the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 postponed it under the impression that the total extent of the land was less than to extent recited in the agreement of sale despite receiving part payments i.e., Rs.5000/­ on 31.10.2000, Rs.3,000/­ on 13.01.2001, Rs.1,500/­ on 27.01.2011, Rs.2,000/­ on 19.02.2001, Rs.4,000/­ on 12.01.2002,

Rs.10,000/­ on 02.03.2001, Rs.15,000/­ 09.03.2001, Rs.5,000/­ on 14.04.2001, Rs.5,000/­ on 05.06.2001, Rs.200/­, Rs.2,000/­ on 19.07.2001,

Rs.500/­ on 16.08.2001, Rs.480/­ on 30.09.2001, Rs.500/­ on 02.10.2001 and

Rs.5,320/­ on 12.10.2001 and in all Rs.80,000/­ from the defendant No.3.

4. The plaintiff averred that when the defendant No.3 Ananda Rao could not get the sale deed, he assigned/transfered the agreement of sale dt.29.9.2000 in his favour on 19.08.2003 for Rs.80,000/­. He averred that the defendant No.3 handed over the original agreement of sale dated 29.09.2000 to the plaintiff, which contained payment endorsements as well. 

5. The plaintiff­Y.Abbulu averred that he informed about the assignment of agreement of sale and he sought the defendant No.1 and the defendant

No.2 to execute the sale deed in terms of agreement of sale after getting the land measured and that when he got it measured, the land turned out to be

Ac.3.05 cents of land but it was not Ac.3.50 cents of land and that the defendants admitted the extent of land but they did not register the sale deed.

6. The plaintiff averred that he came to know that the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 were executing a nominal document in the name of the defendant No.4 Satyanarayana and as such, he issued a telegraphic notice 5O.S.No.206/2003(FTC)[24.04.2019] ASCJ/KVR.

to the defendant No.1, the defendant No.2 and the defendant No.4 on 15.09.2003 and that he informed the Sub Registrar also about the agreement of sale dt.29.9.2000 and he made a protest for execution of document in respect of the suit schedule property but despite such protest, the Sub

Registrar had entertained document stating that unless there be injunction, he cannot stop the registration of the document. He averred that thereafter, he got issued a legal notice to the defendant No.1 to the defendant No.4 and that on 18.09.2003 the 1st defendant issued a reply with untenable allegations contending that agreement of sale dated 29.09.2000 was a fabricated one. He averred that he is ready and willing to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.57,250/­ and he sought for Specific Performance of the agreement of sale dated 29.09.2000 which was assigned to him on 19.08.2003. 

7. As seen from the record, after the death of the 1st defendant, the defendant No.5 to the defendant No.9 were impleaded as his legal heirs.

When the 3rd defendant died his legal heirs were impleaded as the defendant

No.10 to the defendant no.14. Similarly, when the 4th defendant died, his legal heirs were impleaded as the defendant No.16 to the defendant No.21. When 4th defendant sold Ac.3.00 of land in Survey No.582, and No.583/2 of the schedule property vide Sale deed dated 20.10.2005 and when the defendant

No.1 and the defendant No.2 sold Ac.0.47 cents of land in R.S No.548 of the schedule property under the Sale deed dated 13.02.2006 to the 15th defendant, the 15th defendant was impleaded as party to the suit.

8. On receipt of the summons, the 2nd defendant made appearance and he filed written statement and it was adopted by the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.4. In such written statement, they contended that there was no valid agreement of sale between the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 and the defendant No.3 and as such, there cannot be any valid assignment on 19.08.2003. They contended that they sold the property to the defendant No.4 6O.S.No.206/2003(FTC)[24.04.2019] ASCJ/KVR.

Satyanarayna for valuable consideration of Rs.2,63,000/­ on 18.09.2003 and they delivered the property to the defendant No.4. They contended that the defendant No.3 Ananda Rao was one of the attestor of the Sale deed dated 18.09.2003. They sought for dismissal of the suit.

9. The defendant No.3 Ananda Rao filed written statement contending that he came to know that the defendant No.4 sold the schedule property to one Bandi Rama Tulasi of Thimmarajupalem (15th defendant) and she has the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. He denied the genuinety of the agreement of sale dated 29.09.2000 and assignment of sale dated 19.08.2003. He sought for the dismissal of the suit.

10. After the defendant No.5 to the defendant No.9 impleaded as the parties to the suit, they filed a memo adopting the written statement of the defendant No.1. Similarly, the defendant No.13 and the defendant No.14 filed memo adopting the written statement of the defendant No.3. Others also adopted it. 

11. The defendant No.15 Smt.B.Rama Tulasi filed written statement contending that she purchased Ac.3.00 of land in R.S No.582 and No.583 of

Chikkala village under the Sale deed dated 20.10.2005 from the defendant

No.4 Satyanarayana and that since the purchase of the same, she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. She contended that the Sale deed

dated 20.10.2005, there arose mistake as to the survey number and as such,

she obtained rectification deed on 09.02.2018 getting noted the correct

Survey number i.e., No.548/1 in respect of Ac.1.25 cents of land. She sought for dismissal of the property.

12. The defendant No.16 filed written statement contending that her husband Satyanarayana (4th defendant) purchased property from the 7O.S.No.206/2003(FTC)[24.04.2019] ASCJ/KVR.

defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 on 18.09.2003 and he sold the property to the defendant No.15 under the Sale deed dated 20.10.2005. She sought for the dismissal of the suit.. 

13. The defendant No.17 and the defendant No.21 adopted the written statement of the 16th defendant. They also sought for the dismissal of the suit. 

14. Basing on the pleadings, my predecessor had framed the following issues for trial.

1. Whether the agreement of sale dated 29.09.2000 executed by the defendant No.1 and No.2 in favour of the defendant No.3 is true? 

2. Whether the transfer endorsement dated 19.08.2003 in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant No.3 is true?

3. Whether the defendant No.4 is a bonafide purchaser?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Specific Performance of the suit agreement of sale dated 29.09.2000? 

‘ OR’ in the alternative: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for Rs.1,00,000/­ with interest with a charge over the plaint schedule property for recovery of the said amount? 

5. To what relief ?

15. As seen from the record, during the trial the plaintiff­Y.Abbulu examined himself as PW.1. He got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. He examined the attestors of Ex.A1 Agreement dt.29.9.2000 and Transfer/Assignment deed dt.19.8.2003 by name P.Brahmanandam as P.W.2 and K.Venkateswara Rao as

P.W.3. After closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, the 2nd defendant­

Ch.Srinivas Rao examined himself as D.W.1. The 10th defendant Nutangi

Manga @ Mangayamma examined herself as D.W.2. The 15th defendant Smt.

Bandi Rama Tulasi examined herself as D.W.3. The defendants examined

K.Srinivas Rao as D.W.4. 

8O.S.No.206/2003(FTC)[24.04.2019] ASCJ/KVR.

16. The evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses was regarding the

Ex.A1 Agreement of sale dt.29.9.200 and the Ex.A2­Transfer/Assignment deed dt.19.8.2003. P.W.2 Brahmanandham was the attestor of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.

P.W.3­Venkateswara Rao was the attestor of Ex.A2. Their evidence regarding the Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 was not much discredited in their cross­examination. The evidence of the 2nd defendant Srinivasa Rao is one denying the agreement of sale dt.29.9.2000. The evidence of 15th defendant Smt.Tulasi is that she purchased the property form the 4th defendant and she has possession and enjoyment of the sale. The evidence of 10th defendant Manga had supported the evidence of DW3 Smt.Tulasi. The minute details of the evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses as well the evidence of the defendants and their witnesses is not required to be considered. The relevant portion would be extracted, if required. 

Issue No.1:

17. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 are the owners of the schedule property and when they offered to sell the schedule property, the 3rd defendant Ananda Rao had agreed to purchased it @ Rs.45,000/­ per acre and in all Rs.1,55,500/­ under the impression that the schedule property is Ac.3.50 cents of land. The plaintiff pleaded that the 3rd defendant Ananda Rao had paid Rs.20,500/­ as advance and as such, the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 executed

Ex.A1 Agreement of sale. He also pleaded that as per agreement, the balance sale consideration Rs.1,37,000/­ was required to be paid on or before 31.12.2000. He averred that subsequently, the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 took part payments on different dates as noted on the Ex.A1

Agreement of sale and that the 3rd defendant had given them in all

Rs.80,000/­ by 12.10.2001 and that subsequently, when the defendant No.1 and No.2 did not come forward, the 3rd defendant had transfered the Ex.A1­

Agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff vide Ex.A2­Transfer/Assignment deed dated 19.08.2003. 

9O.S.No.206/2003(FTC)[24.04.2019] ASCJ/KVR.

18. As seen from the record, the defendant No.2 had filed written statement denying the agreement of sale dated 29.09.2000 and the defendant

No.3 had filed written statement denying the Transfer/Assignment deed dated 19.08.2003. As seen from the record, the plaintiff Y.Abbulu had chosen to file the Agreement of sale dated 29.09.2000 as Ex.A1 and the

Transfer/Assignment deed dated 19.08.2003 of the agreement of sale as

Ex.A2. As seen from Ex.A1 Agreement of sale dated 29.09.2000, it was executed by the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2. It was attested by one K.Rama Rao, A.Satyanarayana and P.Brahmanandam. Further, the part payments endorsements in all 15 in number were found on Ex.A1 Agreement, which were executed by the 2nd defendant Srinivas Rao. Similarly, the

Transfer/Assignment dated 19.08.2003 was executed by the 3rd defendant

Ananda Rao and it was attested by P.Brahmanandam, K.Venkateswara Rao and it was scribed by R.Kameswara Rao. During trail, P.W.2­P.Brahmanandam gave evidence regarding Ex.A1 Agreement of sale dt.29.9.2000 and part payments made thereon. He also gave evidence regarding Ex.A2­

Trnsfer/Assignment deed dt.19.8.2003. P.W.3 K.Venkateswara Rao gave evidence regarding Transfer/Assignment deed dated 19.08.2003. In his cross­ examination, the 2nd defendant Srinivas Rao had categorically admitted that the signatures found on Ex.A1 Agreement of sale dated 29.09.2000 belong to him and his father. He admitted all the signatures found on Ex.A1 Agreement of sale belongs to him. Therefore, the execution of Ex.A1­Agreement of sale

dated 29.09.2000 by the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 in favour of

the 3rd defendant Aananda Rao stands proved. Therefore, it is to be presumed that the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 had executed Ex.A1

Agreement of sale dated 29.09.2000 on receipt of Rs.20,500/­ as advance and subsequently, the defendant No.1 and No.2 were in receipt of Rs.59,500/­ and in all Rs.80,000/­. As such, the Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff holding that the Ex.A1­Agreement of sale is genuine. 

10O.S.No.206/2003(FTC)[24.04.2019] ASCJ/KVR.

Issue No.2:

19. Considering the above evidence on record and so also the fact that though the 3rd defendant Ananda Rao had taken a plea that he never executed the Transfer/Assignment deed dated 19.08.2003, neither the 3rd defendant

Ananda Rao nor his legal heirs adduced any evidence to show that the 3rd defendant Ananda Rao did not execute the Transfer/Assignment deed dated 19.08.2003. As seen, the evidence of P.W.1 Abbulu, P.W.2 P.Brahmanandam and P.W.3 K.Venkateswara Rao had proved that the 3rd defendant Ananda Rao executed Ex.A2 Transfer/Assignment dated 19.08.2003 on receipt of

Rs.80,000/­. At this juncture, the arguments of the counsel for the defendants that when the 3rd defendant Ananda Rao had agreed to purchase the property for Rs.1,57,500/­ and when he got obtained Ex.A1­Agreement of sale dated 29.09.2000 and when he paid in all Rs.80,000/­ to the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2, why would the 3rd defendant Ananda Rao transfer the

Ex.A1­Agreement of sale to the plaintiff for Rs.80,000/­ only sounds good.

But, it should be noted that it is the choice of the parties. One may sell the property for profit or one may sell the property for loss. Ultimately, it is the understanding between the 3rd defendant Ananda Rao and the plaintiff­

Abbulu. The 3rd parties to such Ex.A2 Transfer/Assignment dated 19.08.2003 cannot question the consideration. Therefore, the Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff. 

Issue No.3

20. In so far as the Issue No.4 is concerned, the 4th defendant took a plea that he was a bonafide purchaser of the schedule property. The 4th defendant

Satyanarayana adopted the written statement of the 2nd defendant and it reads that the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 had sold the schedule property to the 4th defendant Satyanarayana under the registered Sale deed

dated 18.09.2003 on receipt of valuable consideration of Rs.2,63,000/­ and

thereafter the possession was delivered to him. It is borne by the record that 11O.S.No.206/2003(FTC)[24.04.2019] ASCJ/KVR.

subsequently, the 4th defendant­Satyanarayana to the 15th defendant

Smt.Bandi Rama Tulasi under the Sale deed dated 20.10.2005 and since then, she is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The sale of the property in favour of the 4th defendant Satyanarayana or 15th defendant

Smt.Bandi Rama Tulasi is not in dispute. In fact, when the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 sold the schedule property to the 4th defendant

K.Satyanarayana, the 3rd defendant Anada Rao acted as an attestor. Therefore, the defendant No.3 Aanda Rao as the defendant No.1 and No.2 had given an impression to the 4th defendant­Satyanarayna as if the there never existed agreement of sale dated 29.09.2000. Therefore, the 4th defendant

Satyanarayna had bonafide impression that the property was free of encumbrances. Thus, the 4th defendant­Satyanarayana should be termed as a bonafide purchaser. Accordingly, the Issue No.3 is answered holding that the 4th defendant Satyanarayana is a bonafide purchaser and so also, the subsequent purchaser i.e., 15th defendant Smt.B.Rama Tulasi can also be termed as bonafide purchaser.

Issue No.4:

21. As noted above, the plaintiff Abbulu has sought for specific performance of Agreement of sale dated 29.09.2000 on the strength of Ex.A2

Transfer/Assigment deed dated 19.08.2003. Admittedly, the Ex.A2

Transfer/Assignment deed dt.198.2003 required to be properly stamped

before it was admitted in evidence. However, it seems that inadvertently, it

was admitted in evidence. (by my Predecessor). None of the parties questioned it. So, when Ex.A2 Transfer/Assignment deed dated 19.08.2003 was exhibited in evidence and when the Court holds that it stood proved, the plaintiff Abbulu would get entitle all rights based on Ex.A1 Agreement of sale

dated 29.09.2000 coupled with Ex.A2 Transfer/Assignment deed dated

19.08.2003.

12O.S.No.206/2003(FTC)[24.04.2019] ASCJ/KVR.

22. It should be noted that the plaintiff Abbulu had sought for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 29.09.2000 and alternatively, he had sought for decree for Rs.1,00,000/­ ie., Rs.80,000/­ towards refund of amount paid by him under Ex.A2 and Rs.20,000/­ as damages. In the instant case, the agreement of sale was dated 29.09.2000, and the suit was filed in the year 2003. The suit claim came to be adjudicated in the year 2019 i.e., after lapse of 16 years. Meanwhile, the property stood transferred in the name of the 4th defendant Satyanarayana and subsequently, it stood transferred to the 15th defendant Smt.Rama Tulasi as well. Therefore, it would be onerous to order to the relief of Specific Performance.

23. Before the Issue No.4 and or alternative relief is considered, it would be proper to refer the following judgments. 

23­A. In Nirmala Anand Vrs Advent Corporation (Private) Limited and

Others (2002) 8 SCC 146, the Apex Court while dealing with the provisions of

Specific Relief Act and the discretionary powers of the Court in granting the relief of Specific Performance, in Para 6, it held “Para 6. It is true that grant of decree of specific performance lies in the discretion of the court and it is also well settled that it is not always necessary to grant specific performance simply for the reason that it is legal to do so. It is further well settled that the court in its discretion can impose any reasonable condition including payment of an additional amount by one party to the other while granting or refusing decree of specific performance. Whether the purchaser shall be directed to pay an additional amount to the seller or converse would depend upon the facts and circumstances of a case. Ordinarily, the plaintiff is not to be denied the relief of specific performance only on account of the phenomenal increase of price during the pendency of litigation.

That may be, in a given case, one of the considerations besides many others to be taken into consideration for refusing the decree of specific performance. As a 13O.S.No.206/2003(FTC)[24.04.2019] ASCJ/KVR.

general rule, it cannot be held that ordinarily the plaintiff cannot be allowed to have, for her alone, the entire benefit of phenomenal increase of the value of the property during the pendency of the litigation. While balancing the equities, one of the considerations to be kept in view is as to who is the defaulting party.

It is also to be borne in mind whether a party is trying to take undue advantage over the other as also the hardship that may be caused to the defendant by directing specific performance. There may be other circumstances on which parties may not have any control. The totality of the circumstances is required to be seen.” 23­B. In the case of B.Jayakantham and others vs Abaykumar on 21

February, 2017 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Para 8 it held that “While evaluating whether specific performance ought to have been decreed in the present case, it would be necessary to bear in mind the fundamental principles of law. The court is not bound to grant the relief of specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so. Section 20(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 indicates that the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary. Yet, the discretion of the court is not arbitrary but is sound and reasonable, to be guided by judicial principles'. In the said case, the Apex

Court had considered several judgments and ultimately, it held that the Court has to exercise discretion based on the facts. It also considered a case where there would be phenomenal raise of the prices of land and it can also be taken as a factor while refusing to grant the relief of specific performance. 

24. Considering the ratio of the above noted judgments, it is certain that the Court is vested with the power of discretion. If the Court has to order for

Specific Performance in this suit, certainly it would cause great amount of prejudice to the defendants. It is not an unknown fact that there would be constant increase of prices of land. Therefore, if this Court is order for Specific performance of agreement of sale after 19 years, it would certainly prejudice the interest of the parties. Therefore, it is a fit case where this Court can order 14O.S.No.206/2003(FTC)[24.04.2019] ASCJ/KVR.

for refund of sale consideration with interest instead of ordering Specific performance of agreement of sale dated 29.09.2000. As noted above, the plaintiff had sought for Rs.1,00,000/­ ie.., Rs.80,000/­ towards sale consideration and Rs.20,000/­ towards damages but the plaintiff did not lead any evidence regarding damages. Therefore, the plaintiff Abbulu is entitled for refund of Sale consideration of Rs.80,000/­ with interest @ 12 ½ % per annum (as prayed by him) from the date of the filing of the suit till decree and thereafter, @ 12% per annum from the date of decree till realization. As such, the Issue No.4 is answered against the plaintiff Abbulu but alternative relief can be granted i.e., the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.80,000/­ with subsequent interest.

25. Now, the other point for consideration is who is/are liable to pay such amount with interest. Admittedly, the defendant No.1 and the defendant

No.2 executed Ex.A1 Agreement of sale dated 29.09.2000. Admittedly, the defendant No.3­Ananda Rao executed Ex.A2 Transfer/Assignment dated 19.08.2003. When the 1st defendant died, his legal heirs were impeladed as the defendant No.5 to the defendant No.9. Similarly, when the 3rd defendant died, his legal heirs were impleaded as the defendant No.10 to the defendant

No.14. In fact, the defendant No.1 to the defendant No.3 would be personally liable to refund Rs.80,000/­ with subsequent interest. The legal heirs cannot fastened with personal liability but the estate of the 1st defendant

Padmanabham and the 3rd defendant Ananda Rao, which is with the defendant No.5 to the defendant No.9 and the defendant No.10 to the defendant No.14 is liable to answer for the suit claim. Therefore, this Court should direct the 2nd defendant personally and the defendant No.5 to the defendant No.9 legal heirs of the 1st defendant and the defendant No.10 to the defendant No.14 being the legal heirs of the 3rd defendant from the estated of deceased defendants No.1 and the defendant No.3 respectively to pay the suit claim.

15O.S.No.206/2003(FTC)[24.04.2019] ASCJ/KVR.

26. In the result, the suit is partly decreed with costs directing the 2nd defendant personally and the defendant No.5 to the defendant No.9 from out of the estate of the deceased 1st defendant Padmanabham and the defendant

No.10 to the defendant No.14 from out of the estate of the deceased 3rd defendant Ananda Rao to pay the amount of Rs.80,000/­ with interest @ 12 ½ % per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till decree and thereafter, @ 12% per annum from the date of decree till realization.

Dictated to Stenographer­Grade­II on laptop, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court, this the 24th day of April 2019.

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur

FAC/Additional Senior Civil Judge(FTC), Kovvur.

Appendix of Evidence

Oral Evidence

For Plaintiff For Defendants P.W.1: Y.Abbulu D.W.1: Ch.Srinivas Rao(D2) P.W.2: P.BrahmanandamD.W.2: N.Manga(D1)) P.W.3: K.Venkateswara RaoD.W.3: B.Tama Tulasi(D15) D.W.4: K.Srinivas Rao

Documentary Evidence

For Plaintiff Ex.A1: Agreement of sale dated 29.09.2000 executed by the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 in favour of the 3rd defendant with 15 payment endorsements Ex.A2: Assignment deed dated 19.08.2003 executed by the 3rd defendant in favour of the plaintiff receiving Rs.80,000/­ Ex.A3: Telegraphic notice dated 15.09.2003 got issued by plaintiff to defendant No.1, the defendant No.2 and the defendant No.4 with postal receipts Ex.A4: Reply notice dated 18.09.2003 issued by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff’s advocate Ex.A5: Registered notice got issued by the plaintiff to defendant No.1 to the defendant No.4 with postal receipts Ex.A6:Postal acknowledgments of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 Ex.A7: Returned notice of the 4th defendant 16O.S.No.206/2003(FTC)[24.04.2019] ASCJ/KVR.

For Defendant ­ Nil ­

P.S.C.J/Kvr. FAC/A.S.C.J. (FTC)/Kvr.

1 S.C.No.52/2014 [13.09.2019] PASJ/KVR.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

KOVVUR.

Present: V.S.S.Srinivasa Sarma, Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kovvur.

Friday, this the 13th day of September 2019.

SESSIONS CASE No.52/2014

Between:

The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem Circle, West Godavari District. … Complainant.

And

1. Gunde Ganga Raju, S/o. Lakshmudu, aged 38 years, ST­Koya, Dibbagudem village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, West Godavari District.

2. Vanjam Papa Rao, S/o.Lakshmudu, aged 35 years, ST­Koya, Dibbagudem village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, West Godavari District.(DIED)

3. Sodem Lakshmudu, S/o.Pandaiah, aged 40 years, ST­Koya, Dibbagudem village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, West Godavari District.

4. Sodem Siramayya, S/o.Ramudu, aged 50 years, ST­Koya, Dibbagudem village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, West Godavari District.(DIED)

5. Sodem Dulayya, S/o.Gangulu, aged 45 years, ST­Koya, Dibbagudem village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, West Godavari District.

6. Gunde Nageswara Rao, S/o. Lakshmayya, aged 28 years, ST­Koya, Dibbagudem village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, West Godavari District.

… Accused.

This case came up on 12.09.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.V.V.Satyanarayana, Addl.Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Prosecution and of Sri G.Srinivas Rao, Advocate for the accused No.1, No.3, No.5 and No.6 and since the accused No.2 and No.4 having died and case against them is abated on 31.08.2017; and upon considering the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem circle filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.49/2013 of Jeelugumilli Police 2 S.C.No.52/2014 [13.09.2019] PASJ/KVR. Station for the offences under Sec.147, Sec.148, Sec.427, Sec.332, Sec.307 read with Sec.149 of Indian Penal Code. 

2. The Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem Circle alleged that on 03.09.2019 at 6.30 PM when L.W.1 P.Bala Suresh Babu, S.I of Police,

Jeelugumilli Police Station along with his staff had been to Jagannadhapuram village to enquire about the details of the accused in Crime No.8/2012 of

Jeelugumilli Police Station and he detained A1 and A2 involved in Cr No.8/2012 i.e., Tonam Muniyya and Kunja Raju. Later the Police had been to Dibbagudem

Village and while the Police was near Grocery shop of Konakalla Sattibabu, all the accused i.e., A1 Ganga Raju, A2 Papa Rao, A3­Laxmudu, A4 Sriramaiah, A5­

Dulayya and A6­Nageswara Rao along with 40 other persons male and female persons formed into unlawful assembly armed with knifes, sticks, arrows, chilly powder and obstructed L.W.1 Bala Suresh Babu in causing arrest of the other accused in Cr No.8/2012 and that they beat Police personnel with sticks and that all the accused sprinkled Chilly powder and they even damaged the Glass of

Police Jeep and atlast they took away T.Muniyya and K.Raju. It was also alleged that A4 Sriramaiah caused injuries to L.W.5 T.Madhusudhana Rao, Jeep Driver and L.W.6 Rabbani Mohammad­P.C of Undi P.S and that A4 Sriramaiah caused damage to the front glass of Jeep bearing No.AP 9226 and that A1 Ganga raju beat Mohammad Rabbani and A2 Papa Rao beat L.W.7 Parvatham Rajesh­PC­ 2291 of Peravali with a stick. It was also alleged that all the accused made an attempt to commit murder of the Police Personnel also and as such, on report given by L.W.1 Suresh Babu, the Head Constable Subba Rao registered a case in

Cr.No.49/2013 under Sec.147, Sec.148, Sec.427, Sec.332 and Sec.307 read with

Sec.149 of IPC.

3. The Inspector of Police further alleged during investigation, he examined material witnesses, he examined the scene of offence, he had drawn the rough sketch, he seized the crime weapons and he caused arrest the accused on 04.11.2013 and after obtaining wound certificates L.W.5 Madhusudhana Rao,

L.W.6­Rabbani, and L.W.7 Rajesh, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sec.148, Sec.427, Sec.332, Sec.307 and Sec.149 of IPC. 

3 S.C.No.52/2014 [13.09.2019] PASJ/KVR.

4. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangareddigudem had taken cognizance for the offences under Sec.147, Sec.148, Sec.427, Sec.332, Sec.307 of

IPC read with Sec.149 of IPC. Since, Sec.307 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of

Sessions, the case was committed to the Hon'ble Principal District & Sessions

Court, Eluru under Sec.209 (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure serving copies of the case to the accused under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the Hon'ble

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Eluru registered it as Sessions Case

No.52/2014 and it had made over the case to this Court for trial.

5. The charges framed against the accused A1 to A5 i.e., Charge for the offences under Sec.148, Sec.427 read with Sec.34, Sec.332, Sec.307 and Sec.149 of IPC against A1 to A3, A5 and A6 and Charge for the offences under Sec.148,

Sec.427, Sec.332, Sec.307 and Sec.149 of IPC against A4 were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty. They claimed for trial. 

6. During the trial of the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.14 and it got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and M.O.1 & M.O.2.

7. The accused were examined under Sec.313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating evidence. The accused reported no evidence.

8. Heard the counsel for the prosecution i.e., Additional Public Prosecutor and the Counsel for the accused. 

Points for Consideration:

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused i.e., Charge for the offences under Sec.148, Sec.427 read with Sec.34, Sec.332, Sec.307 and Sec.149 of IPC against A1 to A3, A5 and A6 and Charge for the offences under Sec.148, Sec.427, Sec.332, Sec.307 and Sec.149 of IPC against A4? •Whether the accused formed themselves into unlawful assembly armed with weapons? •Whether the accused had caused hurt to deter Public Servant? •Whether the accused made any attempt to kill the Police personnel i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.8? 

4 S.C.No.52/2014 [13.09.2019] PASJ/KVR.

9. As seen from the record, when the prosecution examined P.W.1 to

P.W.8, all of them deposed as if on 03.09.2013 they had been to

Jagannadhapuram by 6.00 PM, and that there P.W.1 Bala Suresh Babu arrested

Toram Muniyya and Gunde Ganga Raju involved in Cr.No.8/2012. They deposed that they had been to Dibbagudem village along with such accused for arrest of the other accused in Cr No.8/2012 and that the villagers of Dibbagudem had attacked Police and that they caused injuries to P.W.5 T.Madhusudana Rao,

P.W.6 Rabbani Mohammad and P.W.7 Parvatham Rajesh and that they damaged glass of the Jeep and that they took away the accused arrested at

Jagannadhapuram. As seen, though there is a slight variation in the version of the prosecution, but the substance of evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.8 was as stated above. As seen, P.W.1 Bala Suresh Babu gave evidence as if A2­Appa Rao lead about 40 persons including women at Dibbagudem and that they sprinkled chilly powder into the eyes of Police personnel, they beat Home Guard (P.W.5),

Mohammad Zaffer (P.W.6) and another (P.W.7) and that they had taken away

Toram Muniyya and Gunde Ganga Raju. P.W.2 Bhaskar Rao did not name the persons, who attached the Police at Dibbagudem. P.W.3 K.Suryachandram deposed that about 40 villagers of Dibbagudem under the guidance of Gunde

Ganga Raju attacked them. He specifically deposed that Gunde Ganga Raju beat

Rabbani Mohammad and that someone beat P.W.5 Madhusudana Rao. P.W.4

T.Babu Rao specifically deposed that Sodem Siramayya, Sodem Lakshmanudu,

Sodem Dulayya, Vanjam Papa Rao and Gunde Nageswara Rao and in all about 40 persons attacked Police personnel. He specifically stated that Sodem

Siramayya broke the glass of the Jeep and he beat P.W.5 Madhu. He specifically gave evidence that the said Gunde Ganga Raju (A1) beat Mohammad Rabbani and that one Vanjam Papa Rao (A2) beat Parvatham Rajesh. P.W.5 Madusudana

Rao stated that 100 persons attacked Police personnel and Sodem Sirayya broke the glass of Jeep and he beat him on right knee with stick. P.W.6 Mohammad

Rabbani gave evidence that one Ganga Raju (A1) beat him with a stick. P.W.7

Rajesh gave evidence that under the leadership of Gunde Raju, the villagers formed themselves as unlawful assembly and that he attacked Police Personnel and that one Vanjem Papa Rao (A2) beat him with stick on his left leg knee and one Gunde Raju beat P.W.5 Madusudana Rao. In their cross­examination, all of 5 S.C.No.52/2014 [13.09.2019] PASJ/KVR. them admitted that there was no identification parade to identify the persons, who attacked Police personnel or the persons, who attacked P.W.5 Madusudana

Rao or P.W.6 Mohammad Rabbani or P.W.7 Rajesh.

10. As seen, when the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.8 and P.W.13 Murali

Ramakrishna, former Inspector of Police is read in between lines, it is evident that P.W.1 to P.W.8 were unaware of the details of the villagers of Dibbagudem, who attacked the Police i.e., the accused. P.W.1 Suresh babu failed to properly name the accused arrested at Jagannadhapuram and the injured. The names of the present accused as well as the persons, who allegedly beat P.W.5 to P.W.7, were secured through the Local Police as well as the villagers of Dibbagudem.

But, the details of the persons who identified the assailants were not placed

before this Court. As seen from the record, P.W.1 to P.W.8 could not identify the

accused by name.

11. It is the specific case of P.W.1 to P.W.8 that about 40 to 50 villages lead by Accused (A1) Ganga Raju had attacked the Police personnel forming themselves into unlawful assembly. It is not made known as to why P.W.13

Murali Rama Krishna had chosen to implicate six accused only leaving other accused which include women villagers of Dibbagudem who had allegedly attacked the Police. If about 30 to 40 villagers had attacked Police Personnel, why P.W.13 Murali Rama Krishna had chosen to implicate six accused only is required to be answered by him, which he failed to answer. It would not be sufficient to just implicate six accused to clothe them with the offences under

Sec.148, Sec.147 and Sec.149 of IPC. It is the duty of the prosecution i.e., P.W.13

Murali Rama Krishna to bring truth on record. He supposed to conduct fair and impartial investigation and it is his duty to bring the offenders to the door steps of justice. He cannot be expected to do investigation to implicate some accused or secure conviction by hook or crook. The role of Investigating Officer and the duty of the prosecution is to place the truth before the Court. If there be any ambiguity in the case of the prosecution, it would certainly pave the accused in having acquittal in the form of benefit of doubt. But, it would relieve the legal duty cast on the Investigating Officer.

6 S.C.No.52/2014 [13.09.2019] PASJ/KVR.

12. In the case of Matru Alias Girish Chandra Vrs State Of Utttar

Pradesh AIR 1971 SC 1050, the Apex Court while considering the object of conducted Test Identification Parade (TIP) in Para held that “…..Identification tests, it may be pointed out, do not constitute substantive evidence. Such tests are primarily meant for the purpose of helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their progress with the investigation into the offence is proceeding on right lines...”.

13. In the case of Sureshbhai Haribhai Vadalia Vrs State Of Gujarat on 29 September, 2017 Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat while dealing with the necessity of conduction Test Identification Parade (TIP) and its evidenciary value, it held in Para 6.2 

Para 6.2 “......It is held that the accused person is well known by sight and it would be waste of time to put him up for identification parade. Law on the subject is thus, very clear. Substantive evidence of the witness in his evidence in the court but when the accused person is not previously known to the witness concerned, then identification of the accused by the witness soon after his arrest is of great importance because it furnishes an assurance that the investigation is proceeding on the correct lines in addition to furnishing corroboration of the evidence to be tendered by the witness later in court of law during the trial. The facts, which establish the identity of the accused persons, are relevant under section 9 of the

Evidence Act. 

Para 6.3 “In case of Mulla and another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3

SCC 508, the Court has given the object and scope of test identification parade and also the details as well to be held and at whose instance and also the evidentiary value of T.I parade and the principles regarding the same. The following paras are read as under : 

"41. Now, let us consider the arguments of the learned amicus curiae on the delay in conducting the test identification parade. The evidence of test identification is 28 admissible under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Identification 7 S.C.No.52/2014 [13.09.2019] PASJ/KVR. parade belongs to the stage of investigation by the police. The question whether a witness has or has not identified the accused during the investigation is not one which is in itself relevant at the trial. The actual evidence regarding identification is that which is given by witnesses in Court. There is no provision in the Cr. P.C. entitling the accused to demand that an identification parade should be held at or

before the inquiry of the trial. The fact that a particular

witness has been able to identify the accused at an identification parade is only a circumstance corroborative of the identification in Court. 

42. Failure to hold test identification par`ade does not make the evidence of identification in court inadmissible, rather the same is very much admissible in law. Where identification of an accused by a witness is made for the first time in Court, it should not form the basis of 29 conviction. 

43. As was observed by this Court in Matru v. State of U.P., (1971) 2 SCC 75, identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence. They are primarily meant for the purpose of helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their progress with the investigation into the offence is proceeding on the right lines. The identification can only be used as corroborative of the statement in Court. (Vide Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain, (1973) 2 SCC 406). 

45. The identification proceedings are in the nature of tests and significantly, therefore, there is no provision for it in the Code and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is desirable that a test identification parade should be conducted as soon as possible after the arrest of the accused. This becomes necessary to eliminate the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses prior to the test identification parade. This is a very common plea of the accused and, therefore, the prosecution has to be cautious to ensure that there is no scope for making such allegation. If, however, circumstances are beyond control and there is some delay, it cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution. 

Para 6.4 No reason is given for non­conduct of the test identification parade. In the instance case, without entering into the issue at this stage, the applicant has made out a case by exercise of discretionary relief in his favour. 

8 S.C.No.52/2014 [13.09.2019] PASJ/KVR.

14. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.8, P.W.12 Subba Rao and

P.W.13 P.Murali Rama Krishna, P.W.1 to P.W.8 had no previous acquaintance with villagers of Dibbagudem and therefore, when it was alleged that the villagers of Dibbagudem, be it lead by the A1 Ganga Raju had attacked the Police personnel and that they caused injuries to P.W.5 to P.W.7 and that they sprinkled chilly powder in the eyes of Police personnel and that they damaged the glass of

Police Jeep, it becomes obligatory on the party of P.W.13 M.Rama Krishna Rao to conduct Test Identification Parade (TIP) to fix of assailants. P.W.13 P.Murali

Rama Krishna did not conduct the Test Identification Parade and he did not assign any reason for not conducting Test Identification Parade despite the fact that the Police Personnel including injured P.W.5 to P.W.7 had no previous acquaintance with the villagers of Dibbagudem. So as noted above, the identity of the accused stands not established. It indicated that the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond not reasonable doubt.

15. In Sunil Kundu and another Vs. State of Jharkhand; Hira Lal Yadav

Vs. State of Jharkhand; and Nageshwar Prasad Sah Vs. State of Jharkhand

reported in 2013 AIAR (Criminal) 570, the Apex Court had dealt with the effect of inconsistencies in evidence and burden of proof. It held that if the inconsistencies are so glare in nature, they would go to the root of the case. It held that the prosecution should prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It also held suspicion however grave, it can not take place of proof. As noted in the above case, it is for the prosecution to prove its case. Suspicion however grave, it can not take place of proof. Therefore, the burden is always on the prosecution.

Even if the accused did not set out any reason as to why he was implicated in this case, it would not be a ground to suspect him or convict him. So, when the facts of the case on hand are examined in the ratio set out in the above stated case, it would be evident that P.W.1 to P.W.8 could not identity the accused, and there was inconsistencies in their evidence the involvement of accused and their overts acts and thus, the inconsistencies had destroyed the foundation of case of the prosecution. 

9 S.C.No.52/2014 [13.09.2019] PASJ/KVR.

16. In the case of Padam Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2000

Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) page 285, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when eye witnesses were inimically disposed towards the accused and when there be omission and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it should be held that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

17. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.8 about the specific overt acts of the accused in causing injuries to P.W.5 to P.W.7 should be doubted.

Similarly, the involvement of the accused was not brought on record properly.

Thus, the very case of the prosecution should also be doubted.

Delay in Lodging FIR and Delay in dispatch of FIR to the Court 

18. As seen from the record, it is the specific case of P.W.1 to P.W.8 that they had been to Dibbagudem village by 6.30 or 7.00 PM. The alleged incident was at about 7.00 PM. As seen from the record, P.W.1 Suresh Babu lodged Ex.P1

Report at 11.30 PM. It is undisputed fact that the distance between Dibbagudem and Jeelugumilli is about 30 KMs and one can travel within one hour. However, when the Ex.P.1 Report was given at 11.30 PM, when the alleged incident was happened at 6.30 PM. P.W.12 M.Subba Rao the Head Constable of Police,

Jeelugumilli noted that there was no delay in lodging report. P.W.1 to P.W.5,

P.W.7 Rajesh and P.W.8 Naresh stated as if the Police personnel got scattered after the incident and that they took time to reunite and go to Jeelugumilli Police

Station before P.W.1 Suresh Babu lodged Ex.P1 Report to Police. However,

P.W.6 Md. Rabbani stated as if the Circle Inspector of Police i.e., P.W.13 P.Murali

Rama Krishna came to Dibbagudem along with Police and he rescued P.W.1

Suresh babu and others. However, no other Police personnel gave such evidence.

Why P.W.6 Md. Rabbani gave evidence that P.W.13 P.Murali Rama Krishna C.I of

Police came to Dibbagudem and if it is true, why other persons i.e., P.W.1 to

P.W.5, P.W.7 and P.W.8 did not state about P.W.13 P.Murali Rama Krishna visiting Dibbagudem. If it is not true, why P.W.6 Rabbani stated so. This ambiguity remained unexplained. At any rate, it would suggest that there was delay of about few hours in lodging the report which was not properly explained.

10 S.C.No.52/2014 [13.09.2019] PASJ/KVR.

19. Further, as seen from the record, the FIR was sent to the Court by 3.00

P.M on 04.09.2013. As noted above, it was registered at 11.30 P.M on 03.09.2013. The Police Station of Jeelugumilli is at a distance of one hour travel time to JMFC Court, Jangareddigudem but there was delay about 15.30 hours in dispatch of FIR to the Court and P.W.13 P.Murali Rama Krishna did not justify the delay.

20. In the case of Y.N.Nanji Reddy and State of AP 2000(2) ALT (Crl.) 453 A.P, the Hon'ble High Court held that when there is a delay in lodging the

FIR and when there is a delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate and when no plausible explanation is submitted, it has to be termed as fatal to the case of the prosecution. It should be noted that P.W.1 to P.W.8 had admitted that there was dispute between the Villagers of Dibbagudem and the Revenue Official as well as

Police Officer regarding the cultivation of Agency lands. In view of it, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.

21. In the case of Corrai Chilakaiah and others Vs State of Andhra

Pradesh 2013 (2) ALD Crl. Page 280 (AP) while considering the aspect of prompt registration of the FIR and its despatch to the Magistrate, in Para 18 of the said Judgment the Hon'ble High Court had referred to the case of Rajeevan and another Vrs State of Kerala (2003) 3 SCC page 355.

“ As feared by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the possibility of subsequent implication of the appellants as a result of afterthought, may be due to political bitterness, cannot be ruled out. This fact is further buttressed by the delayed placing of FIR before the Magistrate, non­satisfactory explanation given by the Police Officer regarding the blank sheets in Ext.P30, counterfoil of the FIR and also by the closely written bottom part of Ext.P1., statement by PW.1. All these factual circumstances read with the aforementioned decisions of this Court lead to the conclusion that it is not safe to rely upon the FIR in the instant case.

The delay of 12 hours in filing FIR in the instant case irrespective of the fact that the Police Station is situated only at a distance of 100 meters from the spot of incident is another factor sufficient to doubt the genuineness of the FIR.

Moreover, the prosecution did not satisfactorily explain the delayed lodging of the FIR with the Magistrate”. 

11 S.C.No.52/2014 [13.09.2019] PASJ/KVR.

22. The facts of the case referred above similar to the facts of the case on hand, and thus, the delay in disptach of FIR to the Court which is hardly at the ravel distance of one hour would create doubt.

Discrepancy in medical treatment to the Injured i.e., P.W.5 to PW.7.

22. As seen from the record, P.W.7 Rajesh stated as if they were sent to

Government hospital, Jangareddigudem after they had been to Jangareddigudem

Police Station at 11.30 P.M. They specifically given evidence that after medical treatment, they came to Police Station and they stayed in the Police over night.

But, when the prosecution examined P.W.14 Dr.K.Vijaya Krishna, he gave evidence as if he examined the injured namely P.W.5 Madusudana Rao, P.W.6

Rabbani, P.W.7 Rajesh between 2.15 PM to 2.30 PM (after­noon) on 04.09.2013 and that he issued Ex.P7 to Ex.P9 Wound certificates.

23. As seen from Ex.P7 to Ex.P9 Wound certificates, P.W.14 Vijaya Krishna did not specifically endorse whether he examined the injured on AN or PM of 04.09.2013. When he gave evidence that he examined P.W.5 to P.W.7 during the after­noon session of 4.9.2013 and when P.W.5 to P.W.7 stated that they were treated during the early hours of 4.9.2013, it would create any amount of doubt about the version of the prosecution. Therefore, the ambiguity in the evidence should benefit the accused in having acquittal in the form of benefit of doubt.

Scene Observation and Seizure of Incriminating material Objects.

24. As seen from the record, P.W.11 Vasantha Rao deposed that on 04.03.2013 the C.I of Police i.e., P.W.13 P.Murali Rama Krishna called him to act as mediator and that he is taken to Dibbagudem village and thereafter observing the scene of offence, he prepared Ex.P4 Observation report and that P.W.13

Murali Rama Krishna seized M.O.1 Earth with Chilly powder and M.O.2 Glass pieces. Despite such evidence of P.W.11 Vasantha Rao, P.W.13 Murali Rama

Krishna did not give evidence regarding preparing of Ex.P4 Observation report or the Seizure of M.O.1 Earth with chilly powder and M.O.2 Glass pieces. Almost all the witnesses including P.W.1 Suresh Babu stated that C.I of Police i.e., P.W.13

P.Murali Krishna Rao took photographs of damages Jeep but such photographs 12 S.C.No.52/2014 [13.09.2019] PASJ/KVR. were not filed before this Court. So, there is no material which suggested that

M.O.1 Earth and M.O.2 was seized from the alleged scene of offence. Thus, it would be evident that the case of the prosecution was not consistent and it created doubt.

25. Considering the entire evidence on record, it is evident that the prosecution could not prove the case beyond doubt and hence, all the accused are entitled for acquittal. 

26. In the result, the accused No.1, No.3, No.5 and No.6 are found not guilty for the offences under Sec.148, Sec.427 read with Sec.34 of IPC, Sec.332,

Sec.307 and Sec.149 of IPC and A4 for the offences under Sec.148, Sec.427,

Sec.332, Sec.307 and Sec.149 of IPC and as such, they are acquitted under

Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of Six months as per the provisions of Sec.436­A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 and M.O.2 be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time. The case against A2 and A4 is abated since died.

Dictated to the Stenographer­Grade­II on laptop, corrected and pronounced

by me in the Open Court, this the 13th day of September 2019.

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

 Kovvur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

Oral Evidence

Prosecution Accused

P.W.1: P.Bala SubrahmanyamNone. P.W.2: I.Bhaskara Rao P.W.3: K.Suryachandram P.W.4: T.Babu Rao P.W.5: T.Madhusudana Rao P.W.6: Rabbani Mohammad P.W.7: P.Rajesh P.W.8: K.Naresh P.W.9: P.Rama Krishna 13 S.C.No.52/2014 [13.09.2019] PASJ/KVR. P.W.10: M.Seethaiah P.W.11: M.Vasantha Rao P.W.12: M.Subba Rao P.W.13: P.Murali Ramakrishna (I.O) P.W.14: Dr.K.Vijaya Krishna

Documentary Evidence

Prosecution

Ex.P1: Report dated 03.09.2013 of P.W.1 P.Bala Suresh Babu Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.9 Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.10 Ex.P4: Scene observation report dated 04.09.2013 Ex.P5: FIR in Cr No.49/2013 Ex.P6: Rough sketch Ex.P7: Wound certificate of P.W.7 Ex.P8: Wound certificate of P.W.8 Ex.P9: Wound certificate of P.W.9

Material Objects :: 

M.O.1: Chilli Powder with earth M.O.2: Broken glass pieces

Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge Kovvur.

1 SC No.21/2013 [FTC] dt.18.07.2019

AASJ-KVR.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST

TRACK COURT):: KOVVUR.

Present: V.S.S.Srinivasa Sarma, Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kovvur. FAC::Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (FTC), Kovvur.

Thursday, this the 18th day of July 2019.

SESSIONS CASE No.21/2013

Between: The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem P.S, West Godavari District.

… Complainant.

And

1. Payam Kamaiah @ Kamesh @ Ramesh, S/o.Mallaiah, aged 34 years, Koya, Koyamandaram village, Yelerupadu Mandal, Khammam District. 

2. Guruguntla Somanna @ Somireddy, S/o.Chinnaiah, aged 20 years, Kondareddi, Karambodderu, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District.

3. Madakam Narasimha Rao @ Raju, S/o.Venkaiah, aged 19 years, Koya, Kantlam village, Swaraopeta Mandal, Khammam District.

4. Tummiri Durga @ Vasantha, D/o.Pentareddy, aged 19 years, Kondareddi, Dandipudi village, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District.

5. Vetla Pothureddy, S/o.Veerappa Reddy, aged 50 years, Kondareddy, Reddikoppalle Village, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District. … Accused.

This case came up on 15.07.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.S.S.Chakrapani, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Prosecution and of Sri N.Sreemannarayana, Advocate for the accused and upon considering the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.57/2008 of Jangareddigudem Police Station alleging that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sec.147, 2 SC No.21/2013 [FTC] dt.18.07.2019

AASJ-KVR.

Sec.148, Sec.307, Sec.124(A), Sec.109 read with Sec.149 of IPC and Sec.25 and

Sec.27 of Indian Arms Act 1959 and Sec.3 and Sec.4 Explosive Substances Act 1883. 

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem Police Station alleged that A1 Payam Kamayya @ Kamesh @ Ramesh is the commander of Ramesh dalam whereas A2 is commander of Somanna Dalam and that A3 and A5 are sympathizers of A1 and A2, and A5 gave shelter to them. It was also alleged that combing operation was conducted on 9.07.2008 and 10.7.2008 in the forest areas of Reddikoppalle and Chintapalli, and that at about 9.00 AM on 10.07.2008 L.W.1 K.Venkateswara Rao S.I of Police, Polavaram, and L.W.2

T.V.R.K Kumar Reserve Sub Inspector, District Arm Reserved Eluru found A1 to

A4 under a thatched hut of A5 near Tamarind tree, Reddikoppalle village and those persons proclaimed that they would open fire against the Police. It was also alleged that when the Police disclosed their identity, A1 to A5 and some others in all nine persons got surrendered with explosives, weapons, ammunition, cash, cell phones and revolutionary literature. The Police found the other four persons to be juveniles. Therefore, the Police arrested all of them and basing on occurrence report/report of L.W.1Venkateswara Rao, L.W.11 R.Anjaneyulu

Asst.Sub­Inspector of Police, Buttaigudem Police Station registered a case in

Cr.No.57/2008 under Sec.147, Sec.148, Sec.307, Sec.124­A, Sec.109 read with

Sec.149 of IPC apart from Sec.25 and Sec.27 of Indian Arms Act 1959 and Ex.3 and Sec.5 of Explosive Substances Act 1883.

3. The Inspector of Police further alleged that when M.Ramesh Inspector of

Police, when questioned A1­Kannaiah, A1­Kannaiah produced explosives, weapon i.e., SLR with 22 rounds of bullets bearing No.BD No.4065­001578, ammunition, cash of Rs.22,310/­, cell phones (Nokia model 1680), revolutionary literature i.e., training skills to members (Karyakarthala Sikshana Abhivruddhi) authored by D.V.Krishna and red flags and as such, it was seized under the cover of mediators report drafted in the presence of L.W.9 Nagoor Meerasha and

L.W.10 P.Ramesh. It was further alleged that L.W.10 Ramesh seized 303 Rifle 20 rounds of bullets, cash of Rs.22,000/­ Nokia cell phone model No.6030 and 3 SC No.21/2013 [FTC] dt.18.07.2019

AASJ-KVR.

revolutionary material from the possession of A2; 8 mm Rifle 20 rounds of bullet and kit bag from the A3; and 303 rifle with five rounds of bullets from A4 under the cover of mediators report. Subsequently, A1 to A5 were remanded to judicial custody. It was also alleged that the Inspector of Police had sent the seized material to Ballistic Expert of FSL, Hyderabad and on obtaining his report dated 05.01.2009 vide FSL No.BAL/219/2008 dated 20.10.2008 and after obtaining permission from the District Collector vide Proceedings in R.Dis

No.C3/8545/2011 dated 30.12.2011, he filed the charge sheet. 

4. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangareddigudem had taken cognizance for the offences i.e., the offences under Se.148, Sec.124­A of IPC,

Sec.307 and Sec.149 of IPC; Sec.25 and Sec.27 of Arms Act 1959; and Sec.3 and

Sec.5 of Explosive Substances Act 1883. Since, Sec.124­A of IPC, Sec.307 of IPC and Offences under Explosive Substances Act 1883 being exclusively triable by

Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Hon'ble Principal District &

Sessions Court, Eluru under Sec.209 (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure serving

copies of the case to the accused under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the

Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Eluru registered it as Sessions Case

No.21/2013 and it had made over the case to this Court for trial.

5. The charges framed against the accused for the offences i.e., the offences under Sec.124­A of IPC against A1 and A5; Sec.148 of IPC against A1 to A4;

Sec.149 of IPC against A5; Sec.307 of IPC against A1 to A4; Sec.307 read with

Sec.149 of IPC against A5 and Sec.25 and Sec.27 of Arms Act against A1 to A4 were read over and explained to them in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and they claimed for trial. The accused were discharged of the Offences under

Explosives Substances Act 1883 as there was no sanction of Government vide

District Collector in respect of such offences. 

6. During the trial of the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and it got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.

4 SC No.21/2013 [FTC] dt.18.07.2019

AASJ-KVR.

7. The accused were examined under Sec.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating material evidence. They reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the Additional Public Prosecutor and the Counsel for the accused. 

Points for Consideration:

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 to

No.5 viz., ­ For the offences under Sec.124­A of IPC against A1 to A5; ­ For the offence under Sec.148 of IPC against A1 to A4; ­ For the offence under Sec.149 of IPC against A5; and ­ For the offence under Sec.307 of IPC against A1 to A5 and ­ For the offence under Sec.25 and Sec.27 of Arms Act against A1 to A4; 9 As seen from the record, during the trial of the case, the prosecution examined the defacto complaint­cum­S.I of Police by name K.Venkateswar Rao as

P.W.5. It examined the then S.I of Police T.V.R.K Kumar as P.W.1; the then Head

Constable K.Raja Ramesh Kumar as P.W.2; Constable P.Kamalakar Babu as P.W.3 and Mediator by name P.Ramesh VRO Buttaigudem as P.W.4. It lastly examined the Investigating Officer i.e., Inspector of Police by name M.Ramesh as P.W.6.

10. P.W.1 TVRK Kumar the then Reserve Sub Inspector, District Armed

Reserved, Eluru deposed that on 09.07.2008 he accompanied K.Venkateswara

Rao, the then SI of Police, Polavaram along with Staff when combing operations was conducted at Reddikopalle village and that 9­00 A M on 10.07.2008 when they had been to the place near Tamarind tree on the bund of Village near

Reddikopalle village, they found some persons present in a hut armed with weapons and that those persons threatened the Police that they would fire guns and then the Police covered the hut and that when the Police disclosed their identities as Police Personnel and when we wanted such of those persons to surrender, and then about Nine persons present in the hut came out with weapons. He also deposed that two were female and seven were male persons 5 SC No.21/2013 [FTC] dt.18.07.2019

AASJ-KVR.

and on their advise, such persons placed the guns, ammunition and other material on the ground. He also deposed that P.W.5 Venkateswara Rao and his staff had collected the weapons including SLR which belonged to the

Commander of Dalam i.e., A2 Somi Reddy. He deposed that the other Accused had three 303 Rifles and one SBBL apart from 8 mm spring field Rifle. He deposed that they also found 42 Rounds of SLR, 60 Rounds of 303 Rifles, Gun

Powder, Revolutionary literature and Seven kit bags apart from cash of

Rs.55,510/­, which P.W.5 Venkateswara Rao had seized. He deposed that the present accused and other accused, who were juveniles were brought to Station.

In his cross­examination, P.W.1 Kumar denied that he never accompanied P.W.5

Venkateswara Rao in any combing operation and that they never found the accused with arms or other materials. 

11. As seen, P.W.2 Raja Ramesh Kumar Head Constable deposed that he was associated with Special Party on 09.07.2008 and P.W­1 Kumar and to

Polavaram and then all of them had accompanied K.Venkateswara Rao, the then

SI of Police, Polavaram in conducting combing operations at Reddikopalle village on information that some persons were collecting money and extracting pressure on people. He deposed that they started on the night of 09.07.2008 and they reached the place where the Naxalites were present i.e., Tamarind tree on the bund of Village near Reddikopalle village by at 9­00 AM on 10.07.2008 and that there they found some persons present in a hut near Tamarind tree armed with weapons and such of those persons threatened the Police and that the Police covered the hut and when the Police disclosed their identities, and when the

Police wanted them to surrender, then Nine persons came out of the hut of which two were female and that then the Police detained them and those persons were brought them to Butaigudem Police Station and that the Police had handed over weapons, kit bags, Gun powder, cash and Cell phones to Buttaigudem, P.S. As seen, he gave evidence that A5 Pothierddy gave shelter and he could identify all the accused. In his cross­examination he contended that the Inspector of Police

Jangareddigudem had examined all of them at Buttaigudem P.S. He admitted that there is no evidence to show that he accompanied P.W.1 T.V.R.K.Kumar and 6 SC No.21/2013 [FTC] dt.18.07.2019

AASJ-KVR.

P.W.5 Venkateswara Rao in conducting combing operations. He admitted that

Inspector of Police did not conduct any Test Identification Parade (TIP).

12. P.W.3 P.Kamalakar Babu Constable deposed that he was associated with Special Party and that on 09.07.2008 he accompanied P.W­1 Kumar and

P.W.5 K.Venkateswara Rao, in combing operations at Reddikopalle village and that by 9­00 A M on 10.07.2008 the Police reached the place where there was information that some Naxalites were present and that it was a place near

Tamarind tree on the bund of Village near Reddikopalle village and that they found some persons present in a hut near Tamarind tree armed with weapons and such of those persons threatened the Police and then the Police covered the hut and the Police disclosed their identities and when the Police wanted them to surrender, the Nine persons which include two were female armed with weapons and then the Police caught hold of them and they brought to Butaigudem Police

Station. He deposed that such persons had weapons six in number including SLR,

Seven kit bags, Gun powder, cash Rs.55,510/­, Revolutionary literature and three Cell phones and that such property was handover to Buttaigudem, P.S.. As seen, he gave evidence that A5 Pothierddy gave shelter and he could identify all the accused. In his cross­examination, P.W.3 Kamalakar Babu admitted that there is no documentary evidence to show that he accompanied P.W.1 TVRK Kumar in conducting combing operations. He stated that the alleged place where the accused were found was hut facing towards North. He admitted that C.I of Police did not conduct any Test Identification Parade (TIP).

13. P.W.4 P.Ramesh Senior Assistant at MRO Office, Kovvur deposed that he worked as VRO, Buttaigudem, and that on 10.07.2008 at about 4.00 P.M., CI of Police, Jangareddigudem, other mediator L.W­9 Meerashah along with Police constables to the hut of Vetla Pochireddy i.e., A­5 and that after observing the scene of offence, they prepared Ex.P1 Observation report with details of the topography of the scene of offence which was scribed by VRO Nagoor Meerashah and that he signed it. He also deposed that L.W­9 Meerashah and he went to

Buttaigudem P.S at 7.00 P.M., and there they found about 10 Naxalites at Station 7 SC No.21/2013 [FTC] dt.18.07.2019

AASJ-KVR.

i.e., Somireddy (A2), Madakam Narasimha Rao (A3), G.Sandhya, P.Kamayya (A1), G.Gangireddy, G.Madhubabu, N.Chukka Reddy, T.Durga, Datla Joga Rao, and Vetla Pothireddy (A5) and that such persons stated about involvement in extracting money and Revolutionary movement. He also deposed that the Police had shown him Guns, Revolutionary literature, Cash of Rs.22,000/­ which was seized from A2 Somi Reddy and that on the information provided by A2, L.W­9

Meerashah scribed the Mediators report and he signed it. In his cross­ examination, P.W.4 Ramesh denied that he never found the accused at Police

Station and that the Police had never shown him any property seized from the accused. 

14. As seen, P.W.5 K.Venkateswara Rao the then SI of Police, Polavaram

Police Station deposed that he along with P.W­1 Kumar, Police Personnel went to

Chinthapali village on the night of 09.07.2010 on information that some people belonging to CPI ML New Democracy were moving with Arms and Weapons and that they were extracting money from the People and that they were conducting activities against the Government and that he conducted combing along with members of Special party and that on 10.07.2010 between 8­00 and 9­00 A.M., he reached Reddikopalle village and there the Police had found some people i.e.,

Naxalites with weapons near Tamarind tree and that they had pointed out weapons towards them and they threatened the Police to leave the place and that when the Police disclosed their identities as Police Personnel and then those persons i.e., Nine persons namely including Gudiguntla Somanna (A2),

Narasimha Rao (A3), Payam Ramesh (A1), Somireddy, Jogeswara Rao,

Vasantha, Madhu, Durga. Somanna including the person who owned the hut and who gave shelter to the Naxalites had surrendered. He deposed that A2 Somanna had handed over 303 Weapon, 20 Rounds of Ammunition, Cash of Rs.22,000/­,

Cell Phone. He deposed that A3 Narasimha Rao had handed over 8 mm Spring

Field Weapon, 20 Rounds of Ammunition. Kit bag; A1 Payam Ramesh had handed over SLR weapon, 42 Rounds of ammunition, Cash of Rs.22,310/­, Kit bag; and that A4 Vasantha had handed over a country made gun and 5 Rounds of Ammunition and that one of the persons gave 303 weapon and that one Durga 8 SC No.21/2013 [FTC] dt.18.07.2019

AASJ-KVR.

Rao had handed over the SBBL gun, Kit bag and Revolutionary literature and then he seized all the same and that he brought all of them to Buttaigudem P.S., and there he had handed over the Weapons, Ammunitions, Sash, Kit Bags and

Literature to Buttaigudem P.S.. He posed that he scribed Ex.P2 Report of the incident and he had handed over it to the SI of Police. In his cross­examination,

P.W.5 Venkateswara Rao admitted that whenever Station House Officer moves out of his Police Station, he has to make a GD entry. He admitted that he did not produce any G.D Entry to show that either he or P.W.1 TVRK Kumar had left the

Station for conducting combing operations. He admitted that the name of

Sudhakar was found as an addition in Ex.P2 and that it was with a different shade of ink. He admitted that Ex.P2 Report reads as if Reddikoppula village at 90 hours on 10.07.2008. He denied that as the Accused were supporting ST

People in the village, but they were falsely implicated in this case. He denied that the Accused never raised their voice against the Government, and that the accused never armed themselves with arms, ammunition and kit bags etc., and that the Record was fabricated to implicate the accused.

15. P.W.6 M.Ramesh the then CI of Police, Jangareddigudem circle deposed that on 10.07.2008 he took up investigation in Cr.No.57/2008 basing on a report given by P.W­5 Venkateswara Rao which the ASI of Police

Anjaneyulu registered as the case in Cr.No.57/2008 of Buttiagudem P.S vide

Ex.P­3 F.I.R and that during investigation of the case, he examined witnesses and that he recorded their statements. He deposed that along with mediators, he went to the scene of offence i.e., thatched hut situated at near Reddi Kopalle village which belongs to A­5 Pothi Reddy and that after examining the scene of offence, he got prepared Ex.P4 Rough sketch and he also got drafted Ex.P1 Scene

Observation Report through the mediators. He also deposed that during further investigation, he interrogated A­1 to A­5, he recorded their statements, he verified the weapons and other material seized by SI of Police from the accused and then he remanded the accused to Judicial custody. He deposed that on 18.10.2008 he had sent the weapons to FSL through SDPO, Jangareddigudem and on 05.01.2009 he received Ex.P5 RFSL Report and that later, his successor 9 SC No.21/2013 [FTC] dt.18.07.2019

AASJ-KVR.

Manojar filed Charge Sheet after obtaining sanction to prosecute the accused which is as found in Ex.P­6 i.e., the true copy of Proceedings dt.30.12.2011 issued by the District Collector, West Godavari. In his cross­examination, P.W.6

Ramesh admitted that there is no record to show that P.W.1 TVRK Kumar or

P.W.2 Raja Raman Kumar were deputed for combing operations. He admitted that he could not get any evidence to show that accused belongs to CPIM New

Democracy Party. He admitted that he prepared Observation Report and then he recorded the Confession on 10.07.2008. He admitted that he prepared

Confession on 10.08.2008 at Police station. He admitted that he did not know the serial numbers of weapons allegedly seized from the accused. He denied that the weapons and other material were not seized from the possession of the accused and that they were falsely implicated in this case.

16. Now, considering the above evidence on record, the Additional Public

Prosecutor argued that when P.W.5 K.Venkateswar Rao had information that the accused were extracting money from the Public and that they were doing Anti­

Social activities raising voice against the Government, and thus P.W.5

Venkateswara Rao had conducting combing operations with the assistant of

P.W.1 to P.W.3 and that he found the present accused with arms and ammunition, cash, kit bags and revolutionary literature. He argued that all accused made confession as found Ex.P1 on 10.07.2008 and it can be relied upon to convict the accused. He also argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 had categorically proved that basing on report given by P.W.5 Venkateswara Rao in

Ex.P2, the ASI of Police Anjaneyulu registered the case in Cr.No.57/2008 of

Buttiagudem P.S. and that during investigation, P.W.6 Ramesh had examined the scene of offence, he prepared Ex.P1 Observation report, Ex.P4 Rough sketch and when he had sent the seized Arms and Ammunitions, the FSL gave report on 05.01.2009 vide Ex.P5 that the Arms seized were Guns. He argued that the

District Collector had issued Ex.P6 Proceedings on 30.12.2011 for prosecuting the accused and as such, the accused are liable to be punished for the above said charges.

10 SC No.21/2013 [FTC] dt.18.07.2019

AASJ-KVR.

17. Per contra, the counsel for the accused had argued that there is no evidence to show that P.W.5 Venkateswara Raao had conducted combing operations at Reddikoppella. He argued that there is no evidence to show that

P.W.1 to P.W.3 had assisted him in such combing operations. He argued that

Ex.P2 Report lodged by P.W.5 Venkateswara Rao was in the nature of confession report and as such, it cannot be relied upon to convict the accused. He argued that the Police had failed to cause production of the weapons and other materials seized from the accused and therefore, as of now, there is no material which suggested that the accused had committed offences under Sec.124­A, Sec.148,

Sec.149 and Sec.307 of IPC or Sec.25 and Sec.27 of Arms Act 1959. Lastly, he argued that there is no evidence to show that the accused belonged any extremist

Group or that they had done any Anti­social activities against the Government and as such, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

18. Considering the evidence on record, this Court has to examine whether the prosecution had proved each and every charge leveled against the accused. In the instant case, the prosecution alleged as if P.W.5 Venkateswara Rao had conducted combing operations at Reddikoppella village with the assistance of

P.W.1 to P.W.3 and that they could find as many as Nine (9) persons in the hut of A5 Pohu Reddy near Tank bund, Reddikoppelle. It was also alleged that such

Nine (9) persons were found in possession of Arms and Ammunition, Kit bags,

Cash, Cell phones and Revolutionary literature. The prosecution alleged as if the crime weapons were sent to FSL and the FSL, Hyderabad gave its report vide

Ex.P5 FSL Report dated 05.01.2009. However, the said crime weapons were not produced before this Court. Leave aside the crime weapons, the prosecution was unable to produce any material which it alleged that P.W.5 Venkateswara Rao had seized from the accused. The prosecution failed to tender any reason for non­production of such material. Therefore, on this count, there is no material to connect the accused with the alleged offences.

19. Further, as seen from the record, it is case of the prosecution that after

P.W.5 Venkateswara Rao caught hold of the accused with Guns and other 11 SC No.21/2013 [FTC] dt.18.07.2019

AASJ-KVR.

materials, the accused were brought to Buttiagudem Police Station. At Police

Station., P.W.4 Ramesh prepared Ex.P2 Report and Police Proceedings and then, he lodged it. Basing on Ex.P2 Report the then ASI of Police R.Anjaneyulu registered the case in Crime No.57/2008 vide Ex.P3 FIR. Admittedly, Ex.P2

Report was prepared at Police station after the so­called detention of the accused and seizure of Arms and Ammunition from them. Admittedly, there was no seizure list. Admittedly, Ex.P­2 Report did not contain the signature of the accused. Therefore, Ex.P2 Report perse cannot be looked into for creating evidence against the accused.

20. In the instant case, the Ex.P.2 Report reads as if the P.W.5

K.Venkateswara Rao had detained 10 persons. But, the evidence of P.W.1 to

P.W.3 before this Court was that the Police could find Nine persons only. Why such discrepancy arose was not explained by the Prosecution. As seen, the

Investigating Officer namely P.W.6 Ramesh did not conduct any Test

Identification Parade. He did not secure any material to show that P.W.5

Venkateswara Rao and P.W.1 Kumar along with Police Staff had conducted raid on 10.7.2008 and that they found the accused with Arms and Ammunition.

P.W.6 Ramesh could not offer any explanation for non­production of the material seized from the accused during the trail of the case. Further, as seen from the record, the Ex.P­3 FIR was registered at 2.00 PM on 10.7.2008 but it was sent to the Court at 5.30 P.M on 11.7.2008. The Investigating Officer P.W.6­Ramesh did not assign any reason for delay in sending the FIR to the Court. Further, Ex.P.6

Proceedings dt.30.12.2001 of District Collector shows that despite the plea of the

Superintendent of Police for sanction of Prosecution against the accused for the

Offences under Sec.3 and Sec.5 of Explosive Substances Act 1883, the District

Collector had not accorded such permission. The infirmities in the case of the prosecution makes this Court to hold that the case is not proved beyond doubt i.e., the charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the accused are entitled for acquittal exercising benefit of doubt.

12 SC No.21/2013 [FTC] dt.18.07.2019

AASJ-KVR.

21. In the result, the accused No.1 to No.5 are found not guilty for the offence i.e., A 1 to A5 for the offences under Sec.124­A of IPC; A1 to A4 for the offence under Sec.148 of IPC; A5 for the offence under Sec.149 of IPC; A1 to A5 for the offence under Sec.307 of IPC and A1 to A4 for the offence under Sec.25 and Sec.27 of Arms Act; and as such, the accused are acquitted under Sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of Six months as per the provisions of Sec.436­A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time. 

Dictated to the Stenographer­Grade­II on laptop, corrected and pronounced

by me in the Open Court, this the 18th day of July 2019.

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovvur

FAC/Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge(FTC), Kovvur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

Oral Evidence

Prosecution Accused P.W.1: T.V.R.K KumarNone. P.W.2: K.Raja Raman Kumar P.W.3: P.Kamalakar Babu P.W.4: P.Ramesh P.W.5: K.Venkateswarlu P.W.6: M.Ramesh (IO) CI of Police

Documentary Evidence

Prosecution Ex.P.1: Scene observation report dated 10.07.2008 Ex.P.2: Report dated 10.07.2008 given by P.W.1 K.Venkateswarlu Ex.P.3: FIR dated 10.07.2008 Ex.P.4: Rough sketch Ex.P.5: FSL report 30.12.2008 Ex.P.6: Copy of Collectors Proceedings issued by Collector, West Godavari, Eluru

Accused :: NIL.

Material Objects ­ Nil ­ 

Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kovvur. FAC/Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge(FTC), Kovvur.

1SC No.76/2013[17.05.2019] AASJ/KVR.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS

JUDGE(FTC):: KOVVUR.

Present: V.S.S.Srinivasa Sarma, Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kovvur. FAC/Addl. Asst. Sessions Jude, Kovvur(FTC)

Friday, this the 17th day of May 2019.

SESSIONS CASE No.76/2013

Between: The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Polavaram circle, Polavaram, West Godavari District. … Complainant.

And

Gangiredla Somasundaram Naidu @ Nanipandu, S/o. Late Satyanarayana, aged 58 years, Kapu, Owner of M/o.Satyanarayana Explosives, Koyyalagudem, West Godavari District.

… Accused.

This case came up on 15.05.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.S.S.Chakrapani, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Prosecution and of Sri K.S.Raghavulu, Advocate for the accused; and upon considering the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Polvaram Circle filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.90/2008 of Koyyalagudem P.S.

alleging that the accused committed the offence punishable under Sec.5 of

Explosives Substances Act 1908.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police alleged that on 15.07.2008 about 4.00 PM when the Inspector of Police, Polavaram conducted a raid at Old Rice Mill bearing D.No.6-53 belonging to the accused Gangiredla Somasundaram, and tehre he found the accused in unauthorized possession of explosives namely

Electrical Detonators 3200, Detonators fuses-Red in colour-Big rolls as well as

Small rolls; Safety fuse-210 Rounds and Plastic detonator-150. He averred that the accused possessed it with an intention to sell the same in contravention of his license and as such, he seized the same in the presence of mediators namely

LW.5 M.Gopala Rao and L.W.6 T.K.V.S.Sanker Rao. Later, basing on it initially the case in Cr.No.90/2008 under Sec.9(B)(1)(b) of Explosives Act 1984 at 5.30 2SC No.76/2013[17.05.2019] AASJ/KVR. Pmom 15.7.2008. Later, during investigation, he again inspected the scene of offence, he prepared rough sketch, he examined witnesses and subsequently, he altered the section of law to Sec.5 of Explosive Substance Act 1908. After completion of investigation in all respects and after obtaining sanction from the

District Collector on 30.12.2011, he filed charge sheet under Sec.5 of Explosive

Substances Act.

4. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangareddigudem had taken cognizance for the offences under Sec.5 of Explosive Substances Act 1908 against the accused. Since Sec.5 of Explosive Substances Act 1908 is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Hon'ble Principal

District & Sessions Court, West Godavari, ELuru under Sec.209 (a) of Code of

Criminal Procedure serving copies of the case to the accused under Sec.207 of

Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, West

Godavari, Eluru registered it as Sessions Case No.76/2013 and it had made over to this court for trial.

5. The charge framed against the accused for the offence under Sec.5 of

Explosive Substances Act 1908 were read over and explained to him in Telugu.

The accused pleaded not guilty and he claimed for trial.

6. During the trial of the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and it got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10.

7. After closure of trial, the accused was examined under Sec.313(1)(b) of

Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating evidence. The accused reported no evidence.

8. Heard the counsel for the prosecution i.e., Addl. Public Prosecutor and the Counsel for the accused.

Point for Consideration:

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec.5 of Explosive Substances Act 1908 read with Sec.34 of IPC ?

3SC No.76/2013[17.05.2019] AASJ/KVR.

9. As seen from the record, during the trial of the case, when the prosecution examined M.Prabhakara Rao as P.W.1, M.Veeraswamy as P.W.2,

K.Satyanarayana as P.W.3, P.W.1 to P.W.3 resiled from their earlier statements under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. They denied knowledge that the accused stored explosive substances. The then VRO of Vadapalli M.Gopala Rao was examined as P.W.4 and the Investigating Officer G.Rajeev Kumar was examined as P.W.5.

10. As seen from the record, P.W.4-M.Gopala Rao deposed that on 15.07.2008 at 4-00 P.M., SI of Police, Koyyaalgudem P.S., called him to act as mediator along with one T.K.V.S.Sankara Rao and they were taken to Sri

Krishna Rice Mill, Koyyalagudem and it was found under 'Lock and Key' and that the owner of the Rice Mill i.e., G.Somasundaram was present and that the

CI of Police got opened the lock of the Rice Mill and there he found some card board boxes and on verification, the CI of Police found bombs, fuses etc., and then he was made to scribe a mediators report regarding the existence and seizure of such bombs and other material and as such, he drafted the Mediators report at the time of seizure of the bombs and fuses. His signature on Mediators report dated 15.07.2008 was marked as Ex.P4. He deposed later, the Police had taken away the bombs and other material to the Police Station. In his cross- examination, he contended that he prepared Mediators report dated 15.07.2008 as desired by the Police. He denied that there was no seizure as stated by him from the accused or in the presence of the accused.

11. Then the prosecution examined the Investigating Officer G.Rajeev

Kumar the Inspector of Police, Polavaram as P.W.5. He deposed that on 15.07.2008 on information he went to Krishna Rice Mill situated at

Koyyalagudem along with his staff and mediators viz., P.W.4 and TKVS Sankar

Rao by 5-30 P.M., and there they found a person i.e., Somasundara Naidu

Accused and when he tried to run away, the Police detained him and that on questioning, the accused stated that he had kept explosive susbtances in the Rice

Mill, which is not an authorized place and then he went to the Rice Mill, and tehre he found 3200 Electrical Detonators; 4 Rolls of Detonators fuses- Red in color consisting big rolls and small rolls; 210 Rounds of safety fuses and 150

Plastic detonators and thus, though the accused had license, he was not authorized to keep explosive substances at Rice Mill and as such, he seized the same under cover of mediators report. He depsoed that he obtained samples 4SC No.76/2013[17.05.2019] AASJ/KVR. from the seized explosives in the presence of mediators and then, he had brought the accused and explosive substances to Police Station.

12. P.W.5 Rajeev Kumar further deposed that later he directed the ASI

DH.Khasim to register a case based on such mediators report and after the said

DH Khasim ASI of Police registered a case in Cr.No.90/2008 vide Ex.P-6 FIR, he visited the scene of offence, he examined the scene of offence, he prepared

Rough Ex.P7 Rough sketch at the scene of offence, he examined P.W-1 to P.W-3 and that later he remanded the accused to judicial custody. He deposed that he had sent the samples to the FSL and he filed Memo before this Court seeking modification of Sec.9 (B) (1) (b) of Explosives of 1984 to Sec.5 of Explosive

Substances Act 1908 and that later he obtained Ex.P-8 Proceedings from the

Court to conduct sale of explosive substances seized from the accused and then, the explosive substances were sold in Auction and the amount realized was deposited vide Ex.P9 Challan. He also deposed that he sought permission to prosecute under the provisions of Explosives Act and on obtaining Ex.P10

Proceedings of the District Collector dated 03.12.2010, the then CI of Police filed

Charge Sheet. In his cross-examination, P.W.5 Rajeev Kumar gave evidence as if the case stands registered basing on the report which he drafted at Krishna Rice

Mill where he allegedly found the accused storing explosive substances but he did not secure any evidence to show that the accused is either owner of Sri

Krishna Rice Mill or he had possession of it. He admitted that he was the complainant and the Investigating Officer in the case. He denied that there was delay in dispatch of the FIR to the Court. He denied that the record was build up to implicate the accused in this case.

13. As seen when the prosecution alleged that the accused had licence in dealing with explosives but the accused had storing explosive substances in Sri

Krishna Rice mill in violation of the Rules and Regulations of the licence. Thus, it becomes necessary for the prosecution to prove that the Investigating Officer could found explosive substances at Krishna Rice Mill and that the said Krishna

Rice Mill was either owned by them and it was in possession of the accused. In the instance case, the so-called explosive substances, which were said to be useful in nature were auctioned as per the proceedings of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Jangareddigudem. The accused never denied the same. The

contention of the accused was that the Investigating Officer never found the 5SC No.76/2013[17.05.2019] AASJ/KVR. accused storing the explosives at Krishna Rice Mill. In his cross-examination,

Rajeev Kumar had categorically admitted that he did not make enquire about the ownership of Krishna Rice Mill. He contended that the accused had to maintain Magazine where he can store the explosive substances. He gave evidence as if he examined the Magazine but it was situated at another place but the Records were not properly maintained. No record was seized. The

Investigation Office Rajeev Kumar did not secure any evidence to show that either the accused owned Krishna Rice Mill or he had possession of it and that the accused stored explosive substances in it. In the absence of such evidence

before this Court, this Court cannot hold that the accused stored some explosive

substances at Krishna Rice Mill. The Court cannot hold that the prosecution was able to prove that the accused held explosive substances, which were allegedly seized at Krishna Rice Mill and that the accused stored the same at Krishna Rice

Mill. Therefore, the case of the prosecution should fail and as such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

14. In the case of the Mukhtiar Ahmad Anshari Vs. State – NCT Delhi reported in 2005 (2) Criminal ALD page 25 SC it was held that when the Police Officer is complainant as well as the Investigating Officer and when the case of the prosecution is not corroborated by independent witnesses, the conviction based on the evidence of

Investigating Officer is bad in law. In this case, the Investigating Officer Rajeev Kumar admitted that he was shown as the comlainant in the FIR and that he was the

Investigating Officer. So, the present case falls with the ratio of the above case. In the instant case, though the Court cannot except for independent witnesses, it becomes necessary that the prosecution should lead some evidence corroborating the evidence of

Investigating Officer Rajeev Kumar be it in the form of documentary evidence to show that the explosive substances were stored in Sri Krishna Rice Mill and that it was done by the accused. Hence, the case of the prosecution should be doubted.

15. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.5 of Explosive Substances Act 1908 against the accused and as such, the accused is acquitted under Sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of Six months as per the provisions of Sec.436-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

6SC No.76/2013[17.05.2019] AASJ/KVR.

Dictated to the Stenographer-Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 17th day of May 2019.

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,Kovvur

FAC/Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Kovvur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Oral Evidence

Prosecution Accused P.W.1: M.Prabhakara RaoNONE. P.W.2: M.Veeraswamy P.W.3: K.Satyanarayana P.W.4: M.Gopala Rao P.W.5: G.Rajeev Kumar (Investigating Officer)

Documentary Evidence

Prosecution Ex.P.1: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1-M.Prabhakara Rao Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2-M.Veeraswamy Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3-K.Satyanarayana Ex.P.4: Signature on the report dated 15.07.2008 of P.W.4 M.Gopala Rao Ex.P.5: Relevant portion of seizure of property in mediators report Ex.P6: FIR Ex.P7: Rough sketch Ex.P8: Proceedings of JFCM of Jangareddigudem dated 27.08.2011 Ex.P9: Challan NO.478 showing deposit of Auction Amount Ex.P10: Proceedings of District Collector, West Godavari, Eluru dt.3.12.2010.

Accused ::

NIL.A. S.J,

Kovvur.

7SC No.76/2013[17.05.2019] AASJ/KVR.

FORM TO BE APPENDED TO THE FAIR COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN

ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 71 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE IN

SESSIONS CASE NO.76/2013 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE’S COURT, KOVVUR.

1. Sessions Case No.: S.C.No.76/2013

2. Complainant: The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Polavaram Circle, Polavaram, West Godavari District.

3. Description of the accused: Gangiredla Somasundaram Naidu @Nanipandu,S/o.Late Satyanarayana, aged 58 years, Kapu,Ownerof M/o.SatyanarayanaExplosives, Koyyalagudem, West Godavari District

4. Date of occurrence: 15.07.2008

5. Date of complaint: 15.07.2008

6. Date of apprehension of: 16.07.2008 accused

7. Date of committal order: 05.10.2012.

8. Date of commencement of: 06.05.2019 Trial

9. Date of close of Trial: 14.05.2019

10. Date of sentence or Order: 17.05.2019

11. Charges: Sec.5 of Explosives Substances Act

RESULT:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.5 of Explosive Substances Act 1908 against the accused and as such, the accused is acquitted under Sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of Six months as per the provisions of Sec.436-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY:-

On 04.02.2013 the Hon'ble District & Sessions Court, West Godavari, Eluru had made over this case to Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge's Court, Kovvur. On 08.02.2013 this Court received the record. The charges were framed against the accused on 26.04.2019. The trial commenced on 06.05.2019 and it was closed on 14.05.2019. P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P.10 were marked. On 15.05.2019 the accused was examined under Sec.313(i)(b) Cr.P.C. The arguments heard both sides on 15.05.2019. The Judgment was pronounced on 17.05.2019. Hence, there is no delay in conducting trial of this case.

8SC No.76/2013[17.05.2019] AASJ/KVR.

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovvur.

FAC/Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Kovvur.

Submitted to: The Hon'ble Registrar (Judicial.) High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi through the Hon'ble Sessions Judge, West Godavari District Eluru.