Smt.V.Usha Kranthi

1

OS No.284/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-

CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

DATED THIS THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

PRESENT: SMT V. USHA KRANTHI

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-

CUM-PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

O.S NO. 284 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

1. Bala Somaji Darla, S/o Darla Satyanarayana Murthy, Aged about 39 year, Private Employee, R/o H.No.13-7, Block No.13, Rajiv Gruhakalpa, Almasguda, Balapur Mandal, K.V.Ranga Reddy District – 500 058, Telangana State.

2. Mamidi Lakshmi Divya, W/o Bala Somaji Darla, Aged about 34 years, Housewife, R/o H.No.13-7, Block No.13, Rajiv Gruhakalpa, Almasguda, Balapur Mandal, K.V.Ranga Reddy District – 500 058, Telangana State. …… Plaintiffs

AND

1. Guguloth Dinesh, S/o Guguloth Narasimha, Aged about 31 years, Business, R/o H.No.3-73, Rajamansing Thanda, Pochampalle, Peddavangara Mandal, Mahabubabad District – 506 317, Telangana State.

2. Guguloth Divya, W/o Guguloth Dinesh, Aged about 23 years, Housewife, R/o H.No.3-73, Rajamansing Thanda, Pochampalle, Peddavangara Mandal, Mahabubabad District – 506 317, Telangana State.

3. The Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Badangpet, K.V.Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

…… Defendants

This suit is coming on 27.08.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Dr.E.Saidulu Goud, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri P.Anvesh Goud, 2

OS No.284/2024

Advocate for the Defendants and having perused the material papers available on record, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff to declare the Dattata Homam Certificate and receipt issued by Swayambu Sri Alimelu Manga Padmavathi Sametha Sri

Venkateswarlu Swami Devastanam Authority, Badangpet village, Balapur Mandal,

K.V.Ranga Reddy District dated 05.04.2024 is valid and to declare the minor baby old name Guguloth Aradhya”, new name “Lasya Shree Parnika Darla” born on

dated 28.10.2023 as adoptive daughter of plaintiff No.1 and 2 and also to permit

the plaintiffs to change the name of minor baby old name “Guguloth Aradhya” to new name “Lasya Shree Parnika Darla” and also direct the defendant No.3 to issue birth certificate in favour of name “Lasya Shree Parnika Darla” by mentioning date of birth as 28.10.2023.

2. The brief facts of the plaint in nutshell are as follows: The plaintiffs

No.1 & 2 are Hindus by religion and their marriage was performed on dated 25.01.2015 at Kakinada East Godavari District as per Hindu rites and customs.

That the marriage of plaintiffs No.1 & 2 was consummated but there are no children born our of their wedlock till date. It is submitted that as the plaintiffs

No.1 & 2 married nine years ago and they have no children, and they are interested to adopt a female baby. Accordingly, they have submitted an application form before the Central Adoption Research Authority (CARA) vide registration no.PrTE22050398793 dated 29.03.2021 and it was informed by the said

Authority that it is time taking process as many applications were pending during 3

OS No.284/2024

that period. Hence, the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 were advised to wait for couple of years for their turn. In this way, two years passed and as of the date and still their application form is in the queue.

(i)It is further submitted that the defendants No.1 & 2 are aware of the facts stated supra and that the plaintiff No.1 being a close friend of defendant

No.1 & 2 has shared their views in friendly relation with him. It is submitted that defendants No.1 & 2 are also Hindus by religion and their marriage was performed on dated 05.02.2020 at Pochampalle village, Peddavangara Mandal,

Mahabubabad District as per Hindu rites and customs. That, out of their wedlock, defendant No.1 & 2 were blessed with three female children by names

Guguloth Diya born on dated 29.10.2021, Guguloth Preethi born on dated 18.02.2022, Guguloth Aradhya born on 28.10.2023 who are minors.

(ii) The plaintiff No.1 & 2 further submits that the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 has later performed the naming ceremony and accordingly, the female baby born on

dated 28.10.2023 old name “Guguloth Aradhya” new name “Lasya Shree Parnika

Darla”.

(iii) The plaintiff No.1 & 2 further submits that the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 requested defendants No.1 & 2 to give old name “Guguloth Aradhya”, new name “Lasya Shree Parnika Darla” who was born on 28.10.2023 in adoption to them as they cannot be blessed with any children in future and considering their situation, the defendant No.1 being very well of the fact as a friend of plaintiff

No.1 is childless and with much confidence, belief and trust upon the plaintiffs have come forward with an understanding and after obtaining valid consent from 4

OS No.284/2024

his wife i.e., defendant No.2 to give old name Guguloth Aradhya”, new name “Lasya Shree Parnika Darla” in adoption with permanent custody to the plaintiffs

No.1 & 2 so that they can provide better standard of living and quality of education to old name “Guguloth Aradhya”, new name “Lasya Shree Parnika

Darla” and plaintiffs No.1 & 2 felt blessed to take permanent custody of old name “Guguloth Aradhya”, new name “Lasya Shree Parnika Darla” by way of adoption.

(iv)It is further submitted plaintiffs No.1 & 2 with their free will accepted for taking old name “Guguloth Aradhya”, new name “Lasya Shree Parnika Darla” in adoption and on dated 05.04.2024 a ritual and ceremony physical act of giving and taking of the said baby in adoption was performed in the presence of witnesses who are none other than friends and relatives of plaintiffs. Accordingly, both the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 and defendants No.1 & 2 have consented for valid adoption of old name “Guguloth Aradhya”, new name “Lasya Shree Parnika

Darla”, Dattata Homam accompanied by the ceremony of Dattata Homam at

Swayambu Sri Alimelu Manga Padmavathi sametha Sri Venkateswara Swami

Devastanam, Badangpet village, Balapur Mandal, K.V.Ranga Reddy District.

Hence, the adoption of old name “Guguloth Aradhya”, new name “Lasya Shree

Parnika Darla” has been already taken place by following the traditional rites and customs and on the basis of Dattata Homam certificate, receipt was issued by

Swayambu Sri Alimelu Manga Padmavathi sametha Sri Venkateswara Swami

Devastanam, Badangpet village, Balapur Mandal, K.V.Ranga Reddy District.

(v)It is further submitted that although the adoption process of old name “Guguloth Aradhya”, new name “Lasya Shree Parnika Darla” is completed 5

OS No.284/2024

by the plaintiffs and defendants by following traditional customs and usages, however, the plaintiffs and defendants felt it necessary that the said customary adoption shall be accompanied with the principles of settled law. Thus, to have a legal sanctity, for such customary adoption, the present suit is filed before this

Court.

(vi) The plaintiff submits that in view of settle law, for adoption purpose, the paramount consideration shall be the welfare and well-being of the child and the defendants No.1 & 2 has considered that the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 will be the appropriate persons to whom the permanent custody of old name “Guguloth

Aradhya”, new name “Lasya Shree Parnika Darla” to be given by declaring them as adoptive parents. That there are no malafide intentions behind the plaintiffs

No.1 & 2 in adoption of old name “Guguloth Aradhya”, new name “Lasya Shree

Parnika Darla”, as the purpose of adoption is that the plaintiffs are childless parents and are affectionate towards children. Hence, the said baby apart from getting affection through adoptive parents, will also get sufficient means of livelihood and good standard of living in terms of shelter, education and further property rights standing on the name of plaintiffs No.1 & 2 through inheritance if any, as the old name “Guguloth Aradhya”, new name “Lasya Shree Parnika

Darla”, will be the only legal heir to inherit the properties of the plaintiffs.

(vii) The plaintiff further submitted that both the plaintiffs and defendants are Hindus by religion and that the defendants No.1 & 2 are the original parents of old name “Guguloth Aradhya”, new name “Lasya Shree

Parnika Darla”, is not an orphan/abandoned/surrendered one and that the 6

OS No.284/2024

plaintiffs have approached the defendant No.3 to issue the birth certificate of their daughter old name “Guguloth Aradhya”, new name “Lasya Shree Parnika

Darla” in the name old name “Guguloth Aradhya”, new name “Lasya Shree

Parnika Darla” since the adoption of old name “Guguloth Aradhya”, new name “Lasya Shree Parnika Darla” is over as per rules. Hence, it is requested to direct the defendant No.3 to issue the birth certificate as per the Dattata Homam certificate, receipt and photos i.e., plaintiffs No.1 & 2, defendants No.1 & 2 during adoption of baby old name “Guguloth Aradhya”, new name “Lasya Shree Parnika

Darla”. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendants No.1 & 2 entered their appearance and filed admitted

written statement and the defendant No.3 reported no written statement:

(i) That the plaintiff No.1 being a close friend to defendant No.1 & 2, plaintiff No.1 shared his views in friendly relation with them. Defendant No.1 & 2 are Hindus by religion and their marriage was performed on dated 05.02.2020 at

Pochampalle village, Peddavangara Mandal, Mahabubabad District as per Hindu rites and customs and that out of their wedlock, they were blessed with three female girl children. The first daughter name is Guguloth Diya born on dated 29.10.2021 minor, second daughter name is Guguloth Preethi born on dated 18.02.2022 minor and third daughter name Guguloth Aradhya born on dated 28.10.2023 whose surname is Guguloth as per the Birth certificates.

(ii)The defendants No.1 & 2 further submits that plaintiffs No.1 & 2 later performed a naming ceremony and accordingly, the female baby born on dated 28.10.2023 old name “Guguloth Aradhya” is given new name “Lasya Shree 7

OS No.284/2024

Parnika Darla” in adoption to plaintiffs No.1 & 2 as they cannot be blessed with any children in future and considering their situation, adoption with permanent custody to the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 so that they can provide better standard of living and quality of education to old name “Guguloth Aradhya” new name “Lasya

Shree Parnika Darla” who was born on dated 28.10.2023 and the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 felt blessed to take permanent custody of old name “Guguloth Aradhya” new name “Lasya Shree Parnika Darla” by way of adoption.

(iii) It is further submitted by the defendants No.1 & 2 that plaintiffs No.1 & 2 with their free will accepted for taking old name “Guguloth Aradhya” new name “Lasya Shree Parnika Darla” in adoption and on dated 05.04.2024, a ritual and ceremony physical act of act of giving and taking of the said baby in adoption was performed in the presence of witnesses who are none other than friends and relatives of plaintiffs. Accordingly, both the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 and defendants

No.1 & 2 have consented for valid adoption of old name “Guguloth Aradhya”, new name “Lasya Shree Parnika Darla”, Dattata Homam accompanied by the ceremony of Dattata Homam at Swayambu Sri Alimelu Manga Padmavathi sametha Sri Venkateswara Swami Devastanam, Badangpet village, Balapur

Mandal, K.V.Ranga Reddy District. Hence, the adoption of old name “Guguloth

Aradhya”, new name “Lasya Shree Parnika Darla” has been already taken place by following the traditional rites and customs and on the basis of Dattata Homam certificate, receipt was issued by Swayambu Sri Alimelu Manga Padmavathi sametha Sri Venkateswara Swami Devastanam, Badangpet village, Balapur

Mandal, K.V.Ranga Reddy District. Hence, plaintiffs and defendants have 8

OS No.284/2024

approached this Hon’ble Court to declare the adoption process as valid and binding in view of the settled law. Therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to permit the defendants No.1 & 2 to give adoption to plaintiffs No.1 & 2 baby girl child born on dated 28.10.2023.

4.Basing on the contentions of the both parties the following issues are settled for trial:

I. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief that the Dattata

Homam certificate and receipt issued by Swayambu Sri Alimelu

Manga Padmavathi sametha Sri Venkateswara Swami Devastanam,

Badangpet village, Balapur Mandal, K.V.Ranga Reddy District dated

05.04.2024 can be declared as valid and consequently whether the

minor baby old name “Guguloth Aradhya” and new name “ Lasya

Shree Parnika Darla” can be declared as adoptive daughter of

plaintiffs?

II. Whether the plaintiffs can be permitted to change the name of

minor girl old name “Guguloth Aradhya” and new name “ Lasya

Shree Parnika Darla” with a direction to defendant No.3 to issue

birth certificate?

III. If so, to what relief?

5.During the course of trial the plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW1 and on his behalf got marked Exs.A1 to A17. On the other hand, the defendants No.1 & 2 examined themselves as DWs1 and 2 and on their behalf, no documents were marked.

6.Heard the learned counsels for both sides. Perused the records.

Issues No.I and II:

9

OS No.284/2024

7.The plaintiffs No.1 & 2 filed this suit seeking declaration that the daughter of defendants No.1 & 2 old name “Guguloth Aradhya” and new name “ Lasya Shree

Parnika Darla” as their adopted daughter. So far a relief of declaration as to any legal character or as to any right to any property, the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 have to prove their entitlement, at the time of suit, to such legal character or right to such property which the defendant denied or interested to deny said legal character or right of the plaintiffs No.1 & 2. The other requirement for relief of declaration is that the plaintiffs No.1 & 2, who seek the remedy of declaration, were not in a position to claim a further relief than a bare declaration. If the above ingredients are satisfied from the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, they are entitled for relief of declaration.

8.To substantiate their case, the plaintiff No.1 got examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A17 documents. PW1 filed his chief affidavit which is nothing but repetition of the entire contents of the plaint. In order to prove, their case, the plaintiffs produced Exs.A1 to A17 documents. The case of the plaintiffs is that since their marriage, they were not blessed with any child and to that extent they made application before Central Adoption Resource Authority, CARA but though two years were lapsed and they could not get adoption of daughter and in the meanwhile, defendant No.1 being a close friend of plaintiff No.1 was blessed with a third daughter and in view of their friendship, plaintiffs intended to adopt their third daughter and the defendants were also ready to give their third daughter to the plaintiffs for adoption.

10

OS No.284/2024

9.It is further evidence of plaintiffs that they adopted the the third daughter of the defendants i.e., old name “Guguloth Aradhya” and new name “ Lasya Shree

Parnika Darla” by following the traditional rites and customs and the said adoption took place at Swayambu Sri Alimelu Manga Padmavathi Sametha Sri

Venkateswarlu Swami Devastanam Authority, Badangpet village, Balapur Mandal,

K.V.Ranga Reddy District, but to avoid the future complications and to get a declaration by court of law that the daughter of defendants No.1 & 2 as the adopted daughter of plaintiffs, the present suit is filed. Thus, the above oral and documentary evidence clearly establishes that defendant No.1 & 2 were blessed with a baby girl and the said baby girl was given in adoption to the plaintiffs and as such, the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration to that extent.

10. There is no proviso to Section 34 of Specific Relief Act that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief that a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. The object of said proviso is to avoid multiplicity of suits. The case of the plaintiffs is that they changed their adopted daughter name from old name “Guguloth Aradhya” to new name “ Lasya

Shree Parnika Darla” and requested defendant No.3 to issue birth certificate with the old name “Guguloth Aradhya” and new name “ Lasya Shree Parnika Darla” but the defendant No.3 denied to issue the same. However, defendant No.3 did not choose to file written statement.

11. On the other hand, the parents of the baby girl old name “Guguloth

Aradhya” and new name “ Lasya Shree Parnika Darla” who are defendants No.1 & 2 filed their chief affidavits as DW1 and DW2 admitting the plaint contents and 11

OS No.284/2024

are ready to give their third daughter old name “Guguloth Aradhya” and new name “ Lasya Shree Parnika Darla” to plaintiffs No.1 & 2 in adoption.

12. In view of the above discussion, the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to

A17 and the evidence of DW1 and DW2 establish the plea of the plaintiffs that the daughter of defendants No.1 & 2 old name “Guguloth Aradhya” and new name “

Lasya Shree Parnika Darla” is their adopted daughter and adoption was done at

Swayambu Sri Alimelu Manga Padmavathi Sametha Sri Venkateswarlu Swami

Devastanam Authority, Badangpet village, Balapur Mandal, K.V.Ranga Reddy

District. Hence, this court is of the opinion that it is just and proper to declare the Dattata Homam Certificate and receipt issued by Swayambu Sri Alimelu

Manga Padmavathi Sametha Sri Venkateswarlu Swami Devastanam Authority,

Badangpet village, Balapur Mandal, K.V.Ranga Reddy District dated 05.04.2024 as valid and to declare the minor baby old name Guguloth Aradhya”, new name “Lasya Shree Parnika Darla” born on dated 28.10.2023 as adoptive daughter of plaintiff No.1 and 2 and also to permit the plaintiffs to change the name of minor baby old name “Guguloth Aradhya” to new name “Lasya Shree Parnika Darla” and also direct the defendant No.3 to issue birth certificate in favour of name “Lasya Shree Parnika Darla” by mentioning date of birth as 28.10.2023.

Issue No.III:

In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed without costs,

(i) Declaring the Dattata Homam Certificate and receipt issued by

Swayambu Sri Alimelu Manga Padmavathi Sametha Sri Venkateswarlu 12

OS No.284/2024

Swami Devastanam Authority, Badangpet village, Balapur Mandal,

K.V.Ranga Reddy District dated 05.04.2024 as valid.

(ii) Declaring the minor baby old name Guguloth Aradhya”, new name “Lasya Shree Parnika Darla” born on dated 28.10.2023 as adoptive daughter of plaintiff No.1 and 2.

(iii) Permitting the plaintiffs to change the name of minor baby old name “Guguloth Aradhya” to new name “Lasya Shree Parnika Darla”.

(iv) Directing the defendant No.3 to issue birth certificate in favour of name “Lasya Shree Parnika Darla” by mentioning date of birth as 28.10.2023.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me, in the Open Court, on this the 27th day of September, 2024.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW1 Bala Somaji Darla DW1 Guguloth Dinesh

DW2 Guguloth Divya

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is application of PAPs dated 14.02.2021.

Ex.A2 is current family photographs.

Ex.A3 is original two reference letters from acquaintance or relatives in support of adoption and Aadhar Cards dated 14.03.2024.

13

OS No.284/2024

Ex.A4 is original medical fitness dated 12.02.2024.

Ex.A5 is attested copy of PAN card dated 27.10.2006.

Ex.A6 is original Aadhar card of plaintiff No.1 dated 24.10.2011.

Ex.A7 is original Aadhar card of plaintiff No.2 dated 25.10.2011.

Ex.A8 is original Aadhar card of defendant No.1 dated 29.12.2012.

Ex.A9 is original Aadhar card of defendant No.2 dated 27.12.2013.

Ex.A10 is wedding card dated 16.02.2011.

Ex.A11 is date of birth certificate/SSC ceremony of plaintiff No.1.

Ex.A12 is date of birth certificate/SSC ceremony of plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A13 is original birth certificate of adopted baby dated 22.01.2024.

Ex.A14 is IT returns certificate of plaintiff No.1 dated 01.07.2023.

Ex.A15 is original Dattata Homam certificate, receipt and photos dated 23.10.2015.

Ex.A16 is original bank statements dated 24.02.2024.

Ex.A17 is witnesses Dattata Homam ceremony, Aadhar Cards

For Defendants:

- NIL -

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

1 C.C. 167/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE-CUM I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

DATED THIS THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY, 2024

PRESENT: SMT. V. USHA KRANTHI,

Prl.Junior Civil Judge FAC I Additional Junior Civil Judge cum I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, R.R.District, L.B.Nagar

C.C. No. 167 of 2017

BETWEEN:- The State of Telangana Rep. by P.S. Balapur … Complainant

AND

A1. Ibrahim Hasan Dardam, S/o. Hassan Bin Salam, Age: 30 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.18-11-103/B, Barkas, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad.

A2. Jafar @ M.D. Jafarullah Khan, S/o. Yousuf Khan, Age: 47 years, Occ: Real estate agent, R/o. 10-5-38/3, Ahemad Nagar, Beside Mohammadia Madarasa, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad.

A3. Mohammed @ M.D. Mohammad Samiulla Khan, S/o. Yousuf Khan, Age: 47 years, Occ: Real estate agent, R/o. 9-4-57/D/22, Hakeempet, Tolichowki, Hyderabad.

A4. Abdul Haleem Baig, S/o. Abdul Faiz Baig, Age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Villa No.55, Dream Vally, Aramghar, Ranga Reddy District.

A5. Asad Misri, S/o. Afsar Misri, Age: 33 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.9-4-48/A/43, Hakeempet, Tolichowki, Hyderabad. A6. Shaik Asif, S/o. Late Shaik Ahemad Shareef, Age: 28 yrs, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No.18-1-423/9, Phoolbhagh, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad.

2 C.C. 167/2017

A7. Syed Azam Ali, S/o. Syed Afzal Qadri, Age: 31 yrs, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.no. 19-3-262/60/36/D, Jahanuma, Falaknama, Hyderabad.

A8. Amzad Khan, S/o. Mohd. Basheer Khan, Age: 35 years, Occ: Labour, R/o.18-1-436/5/1, Phoolbhagh, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad.

A9. Naseem Banu, S/o. Late Shak Ahmed Shareef, Age: 37 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No.18-1-491, Phoolbhagh, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad.… Accused No.1 to 9

This case is coming before me for fnal hearing on 26-07-2024 in the presence of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri. Pujari Venkateshwar Rao, counsel for the accused and after perusal of 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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Balapur fled charge sheet in Crime No.

509/2016 for the ofences punishable under Section 447, 427, 506, 323, 504 r/ w 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) against the accused

No. 1 to 9.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that

On 02-11-2016 at 1300 hours, Sri. Mekala Mallesh lodged a complaint stating that they are fve brothers to his parents. They are having land admeasuring Ac.25.17 guntas in Sy. Nos. 27, 28, 29 situated at Renukapur,

Mallapur village area. In the year 2007, they have partitioned the above land in

Ac.5.00 and they executed an agreement of the above land i.e., Ac.25.17 guntas on 06-06-2016 to Abdul Aleem Baig “Pride India Venture” and stipulated time is ten months and on the same day, the complainant and his brothers got 3 C.C. 167/2017 registered Ac.3.00 land to Abdul Aleem Baig as each one part is 24 gts. The complainant and his brothers cultivated in the land on 02-11-2016 at about 1030 hours Ibrahim, Jafar, Mohammed and their associates criminally encroached into their land, along with JCBs and damaged the cultivated land, damaged room, boundaries stones with the help of JCBs. When the complainant and his brothers questioned about their illegal act, they beat them with their hands and threatened them with dire consequences by abusing in flthy language, when one Ibrahim slapped his elder brother by name Balaiah on his cheek using abusive language, he was mentally depressed and consumed the pesticides in the land and tried to commit suicide. Hence, the complaint.

3.Basing on the petition, LW11/V.V. Chalapathi registered a case in

Cr.No.509/2016 Under Secs.447, 427, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and entrusted the investigation to LW12/M. Sudhakar, S.I. of Police.

4.During the course of investigation, LW12 has examined and recorded the statement of LW1/complainant, immediately proceeded to the scene of ofence situated at Sy. Nos.27, 28, 29, Mallapur, Balapur, R.R.District secured two mediators i.e., LW9/Ravula Lingam and LW10/Doddi Srinivas conducted scene of ofence panchanama. Later, LW12 seized two JCB’s vehicles i.e., Br. Nos.

TS12ED3055 and TS12EB7348 under cover of panchanama. Thereafter, LW12 examined the eye witnesses i.e., LW2 to LW8 and recorded their statements.

Later, on 05-11-2016 LW12 along with his staf apprehended A1, A5 to A9 shifted them to police station, after completion of legal formalities produced

before the Hon’ble court for judicial custody. On 19-12-2016 he served section

41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused No.4 and on 29-12-2016 served section 41-A 4 C.C. 167/2017

Crpc notice to accused no.2 and 3 apprehended remaining accused and collected all the relevant documents. After completion of investigation, LW12 fled charge sheet.

5.This case was taken cognizance of ofences punishable Under Secs.447, 427, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused No.1 to 9. They are examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and accusation for the said ofences, read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To establish its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and marked

Exs.P1 to P3. The learned APP had givenup the evidence of LW3/Mekala

Srinivas, LW6/Istiyak Khan, LW7/Mohd. Arif, LW8/Abdul Gafer and LW10/Doddi

Srinivas and LW11/V.V.Chalapthi, Inspector of Police is closed by the Hon’ble court U/Sec. 294 Crpc since all documents are marked on prosecution side.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence the accused No.1 to 9 examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating material appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, accused No.1 to 9 pleaded not guilty.

8.Heard APP and learned counsel for accused No.1 to 9 at length.

9. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has

proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the ofences Under

Secs.447, 427, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused No. 1

to 9?

10.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PWs1 to

PW6, Exs.P1 to P3 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.

11.In the evidence of PW1/defacto complainant/eye witness, he deposed that he is the resident of Balapur. PWs 2 to PW4 and LW3/Mekala Srinivas are 5 C.C. 167/2017 his brothers. He knows LW6/Istiyak Khan, LW7/Mohd. Arif, LW8/Abdul Gafer and A1 to A4, but he do not know remaining accused persons. He further deposed that he and LW2, PWs2 to PW4 are having agricultural land in Sy. Nos.

27, 28 and 29 to an extent of Ac. 25. 17 guntas situated at Renukapur village,

Mallapur Grampanchayath, which is an ancestral property. Subsequently, they partitioned the above said land among themselves equally. He further deposed that about two years back one day, they entered into an agreement for sale with A4 who was running a business in the name of “Pride India Venture” and entered into an agreement of sale with A4 for total Ac. 25.17 guntas and on the same day they got registered the land to an extent of Ac.3.00 i.e., 24 guntas of land for each of them and sought time for 10 months for payment of the entire amount. The said land was registered by them in favour of Pride India Venture.

Even after lapse of time A4 did not paid them amount as per the agreement, as such they gave legal notice to A4, but he failed to abide the terms of agreement nor did not gave any reply to the said notice. As A4 did not respond to their legal notice, as such they went to ofce of A4 and asked him about the agreement, but he replied that he is not interested to purchase their land as his business is very dull and gave assurance that he will not interfere in cultivating their lands. PW1 stated that since then they were cultivating in their agricultural felds leaving Ac.3.00 of land which was registered in favour of

Pride India. He further deposed that in the year 2016, on one day at about 10:30 AM when himself, PW2 to PW4 and LW2 were working in their agricultural feld, A1 to A4 and some other persons entered into their felds with JCB and damaged their Jowar crops, garden grass, store room and fencing which was 6 C.C. 167/2017 fxed around their agricultural felds. When they resisted acts of the accused persons, A1 slapped LW2 on his cheek and abused them in flthy language and threatened them to kill by holding a knife, due to the act A1, LW2 got disturbed mentally and consumed pesticides in their agricultural felds and tried to commit suicide. Immediately they rushed to private hospital at Balapur and thereafter they went to Pahadishareef police station and lodged Ex.P1 complaint.

During the cross examination, he admitted the Himself and LW2, PW2 to

PW4 are having agricultural land in Sy. Nos. 27, 28 and 29 to an extent of Ac.

25. 17 guntas situated at Renukapur village, Mallapur Gram Panchayath, and they registered land to an extent of Ac.3.00 guntas in favour of A4. He admitted that A4 had fled a civil case for specifc performance of remaining Ac.

22.17 guntas of land against his family. He further admitted that apart from the above said suit another suit for injunction was fled against him and his family.

12.PW2/Mekala Balaiah, PW3/M. Manikyam and PW4/Mekala Srisailam they deposed that PW1 and LW3 are their brothers. They have ancestral property in

Sy. No.s. 27, 28 and 29 to an extent of Ac. 25.17 guntas at Mallapur village. A4 approached them to purchase the above said land on 10-06-2015 for a sale consideration of Rs.30lakhs per acre. A4 paid Rs.90lakhs towards sale consideration of Ac. 03.00 guntas out of Ac. 25.17 guntas of land and got registered the same in the name of A4. One year later, all the accused trespassed into their land and damaged the boundary stones, removed the

Jowar crop and demolished a house which was constructed in the land with the help of JCB and they beat them with hands and sticks. On seeing them PW2 7 C.C. 167/2017 consumed pesticide poison and tried to commit suicide. Immediately he was shifted to Om Sai hospital, Balapur for treatment.

During the cross examination, they deposed similar lines as PW1. Further they denied all the suggestions.

13.PW5/Ravula Lingam, deposed in his evidence that he know

LW10/D.Srinivas. On 02-11-2016 police called him and LW10 to act as panchas in Sy.Nos. 27, 28 and 29 at Balapur and they conducted the scene of ofence panchanama in their presence and also seized two JCB’s Br. Nos. TS12ED3055 and TS12EB7348. Ex.P2 is the Scene of ofence cum seizure panchanama, regarding trespass and damaged crop.

During the cross examination, he admitted that Ex.P2 does not contain his signature. He further admitted that the land in Sy.Nos. 27, 28 and 29 at

Balapur was disposed of and purchasers were in possession of the above said land. Further all the suggestions denied by him.

14.PW6 is Investigating ofcer, deposed that on 02.11.2016, LW11/Inspector of police received a petition from PW1. Basing on the contents of the petition, he registered a case in Cr.No.509/2016 for the ofence under Sections 447, 427, 323, 506, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR. Ex.P3 is FIR and entrusted investigation to him. He examined and recorded the statement of PW1, collected documents from him, visited scene of ofence situated at Sy.No.27 to 29, Mallapur, Balapur, secured the presence of mediators PW5 and

LW10/Srinivas, conducted scene of ofence panchanama and drafted rough sketch. Ex.P2 is scene of ofence panchanama and rough sketch (already marked) and seized JCBs bearing No.TS 12AD 3055 and TS 12EB 7348 under 8 C.C. 167/2017 the cover of panchanama. He examined and recorded the statement of PW2 to

PW4, LW3/M.Srinivas, LW6/Khan, LW7/Arif and LW8/Gafar. On 05.11.2016, himself along with his staf apprehended A1, A5 to A9 shifted them to police station, produced before this court for judicial custody. On 19.12.2016, he served Section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to A4 and on 29.12.2016 served Section 41-A

Cr.P.C notice to A2 and A3, collected all relevant documents, deposited the crime vehicles before this court and fled charge sheet against the accused.

During cross examination of PW6 he admitted as per the agreement of sale with possession dated 10.06.2015 in between PWs1 to PW4 and accused, possession was delivered to A4 and agreed to sell land to an extent of Ac.25.17 gts in Sy.No.27 to 29. He further admitted that Ex.P1 does not discloses registration numbers of JCB’s and A4 came to the scene of ofence. He deposed that he do not know that there are civil disputes between accused and complainant and a suit for specifc performance is fled by accused. As per agreement dated 10.06.2015, possession was delivered to A4. He further admitted he had not obtained any photographs at the scene of ofence showing that jowar crop and a room were existing in disputed land and not seized pesticides bottle and not collected any medical reports from where PW1 got treatment. Further he denied all the suggestions

15. In order to decide the case. It is germane to have birds eye on essential ingredients of Sec. 447 IPC.

(i) Entry into or upon property in possession of another.

(ii) If such entry is lawful, then unlawfully remaining upon such property.

9 C.C. 167/2017

(iii) Such entry or unlawful remaining must be with intent to commit an ofence or to intimidated or annoy the person in possession of property.

16.Intention is “sine qua non” for the ofence of criminal trespass and such an intention must be an actual one but not just probable one. Direct evidence of intention can hardly even be produced and the intention has in most cases to be inferred from the circumstances. As it could be seen from the evidence of

PWs1 to PW4, they are all brother and are interested witnesses, interested in the outcome of prosecution case. Therefore their evidence should be seen with great care and caution. If the evidence of PWs1 to PW4 is scanned, they are claiming that they have land admeasuring Ac.25.17 gts in Sy.Nos. 27, 28 and 29 at Renukapur, Mallapur. They got partitioned the land to the extent of

Ac.5.00 each. Among themselves, admittedly no document is fled before the court to show the title of complainant and his brothers in Sy.No. 27 to 29.

It is further contention of PW1’s to PW4 that on 06-06-2016, all the brothers executed agreement of above land total Ac.25.17 gts to one Abdul

Aleem Baig, “Pride India Venture and got executed registered document

Ac.3.00 each to Abdul Aleem baig as one part i.e., 24 gts for stipulated time for ten months. On 02-11-2016 A1, A2 and others associates criminally encroached into their land and damaged room and boundary stones.

Admittedly, there is no agreement of sale placed before this court to show that the accused are in the possession of land in Sy.No. 27 to 29. The admissions made by PWs1 to PW4 clearly shows that, Accused No.1 got fled civil suit for specifc performance and also perpetual injunction suit pending for adjudication and hence inview of the civil suits pending it can be held that PW1 to PW4 are 10 C.C. 167/2017 having strained relations. As they are strained relationship between both parties, it can be inferred that there is any amount of scope for implicating the accused and when the material eye witnesses are interested witnesses, and are interested in the out come of the case. Apart from that, the eye witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW4 are not land owners adjacent to the scene of ofence lands, as admitted by them. Hence, serious doubt casts over their testimonies.

Above, I would like to rely on a decision between Doddapaneni

Umamaheshwar Rao and others Vs. Navuru Gopal Reddy and another

reported in 2013(2) ALT (Crl.) 74 (A.P.) wherein it is held by his Lordship that:-

“It is true that a civil dispute may also give rise to a

criminal ofence in certain cases, but when the

dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature,

the parties shall not resort to launch criminal

prosecution against the other. The remedy open to

the parties when the dispute between them is

essentially of a civil nature is to pursue their

remedies before the civil court in which the civil suit

is pending. When the dispute is of purely civil nature,

if a party drags his opponent into criminal litigation,

it is nothing but abuse of process of court. Such

criminal prosecution if allowed it will result in

miscarriage of justice as it causes undue hardship to

the opponent to face frivolous criminal litigation.

Resorting to fle criminal cases parallel to the civil

proceedings is prohibited in law and the court shall

not encourage such a course.”

In the absence of any documentary proof showing possession of PW1 to

PW4 in Sy. No. 27 to 29 their evidence cannot be considered to uphold the prosecution case.

17.The evidence of PW5 mediator for panchanama, Ex.P2 is that police conducting about the scene of ofence panchanama but notably, Ex.P2 does 11 C.C. 167/2017 not contain signature of PW5 in addition he admitted that Sy.No. 27 to 29 was disposed of by PW1 to PW4 to purchasers and the purchasers are in possession. The said admission of PW5, creates doubt in the prosecution case and his evidence is not useful. PW6/Investigation Ofcer evidence clearly shows that he was not taken any pains to establish that the accused was in possession of the place as on date of incident and even he has not collected documentary evidence showing possession of PW1 over the place of ofence on the date of incident and PW6 admittedly that he did not secure any document to establish the possession of PW1/complainant to PW4 herein to establish the possession of PW1 to PW4 over scene of ofence, it is highly unsafe to accept to testimonies of PW1 to PW4 alone to uphold possession in Sy. No. 27 to 29 they are in possession which is vital ingredient of Sec. 447 IPC.

18.So far as 427, 506, 504, 323 IPC is concerned, the evidence brought on record is not showing about the quantum of loss to PWs1 to PW4 and there is no material evidence to show PWs1 to PW4 sustained simple hurt and as so cogent evidence is placed before this court to show possession of PWs1 to PW4 in Sy.No. 27 to 29 and the evidence of PW1 to PW4 are interested in nature. I hold the prosecution miserably failed to establish the case U/Secs. 427, 506, 504, 323 IPC and thus the accused is entitled for acquittal.

19. In the result, this court founds accused No. 1 to 9 are not guilty for the ofences under Sections U/Sec. 447, 427, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly, 12 C.C. 167/2017 he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time and they are set at liberty.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of July, 2024

FAC I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CUM I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

PW1: M. Mallesh- None - PW2: Mekala Balaiah PW3: M. Manikyam PW4: Mekala Srisailam PW5: Ravula Lingam PW6: M. Sudhakar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED Ex.P1 is the complaint. NIL

Ex.P2 is the scene of ofence cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P3 is the FIR

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED

-NIL-

FAC I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CUM I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

1 /11 CC.No.38/2019

Dt. 11-03-2022

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Friday, dated on this the 11 th day of March, 2022

C.C. No. 38 of 2019

BETWEEN:- The State of A.P. Rep. by P.S. Shamshabad … Complainant

AND

A-1) Nendunuri Chiranjeevi, S/o.Chandraiah, Age: 34years,Occ:Agriculture R/o.H.No. 2-77,Chinnagolkonda village, Shamshabad mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

A-2) Palle Devender Goud, S/o. Balraj Goud, Age:29 years, Occ:Driver, R/o.H.No. 1-12, Chinagolkonda village, Shamshabad mandal Ranga Reddy District. … Accused No.1 to 2.

This case coming before me on 10-03-2022 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the complainant and of Sri.P.S.Anjaneyulu, counsel for Accused No.1 and 2 and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Balapur filed charge sheet in Crime No.209 of 2019 for the offences punishable Under Section. 171-E, IPC & 34 (a) of A.P.

Excise Act 1968 against the Accused No.1 and 2.

2.The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:-

The complainant is the Deputy Tahsildar. On 11-05-2019 LW1 complainant entrusted with flying Squad was conducting vehicle check duty in view of general 2 /11 CC.No.38/2019

Dt. 11-03-2022

elections in the state, at the time of checking at ORR Service road, Chinna Golkonda village, one person by name Palle Devender Goud S/o.Bal Raj goud R/o.

Chinnagolkonda was transporting 26 cotton Haywards Beerbottles in Maruthi

ERTIGA vehicle bearing.No. TS 08 EV0022 when the complainant Deputy

Tahsildar on enquiry with the person, he reported that on the instructions of

N.Chiranjeevi he is transporting the Beer bottles to Chinnagolkonda village in view of MPTC and ZPTC Elections of 2019 year. The LW1 seized the beer bottles and car in the presence of 3 mediators and shifted the accused along with beer bottles and car and handed over to SHO of police LW5 N.Sridhar for initiating legal action.

3. Basing on seizure panchanama the SHO/LW5 registered the case in Crime

No. 209/2019 Under Section. 171-E, IPC & 34 (a) of A.P. Exsice Act and took up investigation. During the course of investigation LW5 recorded the statements of

LW1/Tahsildar and LW2/Police constable and on the next day i.e. 12-05-2019 LW5 served 41-A notice to the A1 and A2 with a direction to appear before this court and seized articles i.e.beer bottles were deposited before this court vide CPR.No.

38/2019 along with the car and remaining case property was handed to Deputy

Commissioner Probation, Excise Department, Nampally, one of the sample was sent to FSL on 29-08-2019 the LW5 received FSL opinion. From the above facts, the accused A1 and 2 are punishable for the offences Under Section. 171-E, IPC & 34 (a) of A.P. Exsice Act after completion of investigation LW5 Sridhar/SHO laid charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2.

4.The case is taken on cognizance Under Section. 171-E, IPC & 34 (a) of A.P.

3 /11 CC.No.38/2019

Dt. 11-03-2022

Excise Act 1968 against the Accused No.1 and 2. After appearance of the accused, copies of the documents as required U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to them and when they were examined U/s. 239 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the charges leveled against them in vernacular language for committing the offence Under Section 171-

E, IPC & 34 (a) of A.P. Excice Act 1968 against the Accused No.1 and 2, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined seven witnesses as

PWs-1 to 7 and Ex.P-1 to P-10 and MO.1 and 2 marked.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence the Accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material voiced against them for which they pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now point for determination is : “Whether the prosecution has proved their case beyond all the reasonable doubt for the offence Under Section. 171-E, IPC & 34 (a) of A.P. Exsice Act 1968 against the Accused No.1 and 2 ?

9.The APP argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses more particularly the evidence of PW-1, 2, 7 is clearly proving the guilt of the Accused No.1 and 2 as such she prayed the court to convict the Accused No.1 and 2.

4 /11 CC.No.38/2019

Dt. 11-03-2022

10.The case of the Accused is one of total denial. The learned defense counsel argued that the evidence of PW- 3 to 6 are no way connecting the Accused No.1 and 2 and the hostile behavior of PW- 3 to 6 proving the innocence of the Accused

No.1 and 2 as such they prayed the court to acquit the Accused No.1 and 2 .

11.This court have gone through the evidence of PW-1 (Bonagiri Shanker) who is Deputy Tahsildar and he deposed that in view of the elections of MPTC and

ZPTC he was entrusted to work as flying squad officer at Shamshabad mandal, in the year 2019 and his nature of duties are to check the vehicles on the road and if any un-account cash, liquor is found in possession of any person the same shall be seized. Accordingly on 11-05-2019 at about 10.30 PM, he along with LW2

Anjaneyulu police constable and some other staff were performing their duties at

ORR service road, Chinna Golkonda, he noticed one vehicle Br.No. TS08 EV 0020

Maruthi ERTIGA, on search in car they found 312 Haywards cotton beer bottles.

The driver of the car revealed his name as Palle Devender goud s/o.Balraj Goud. On the instructions of A1 Chiranjeevi he is transporting the liquor which was purchased from Tondupally wine shop but he failed to produce the receipts for the same.

Therefore, PW1 seized contraband liquor/beer bottles and secured the presence of

PW3/Suram Raju and PW4 /K.Raju in their presence recorded the scene of offence panchanama. On the next day lodged petition before police and handed over the liquor/MO.1 and MO.2 Car to police. Ex.P2 is confession panchanama drafted by him. Ex.P1 is petiton lodged to police. He deposed that he was examined by Police and recorded the statement. He identified the accused No.2 as the driver of

ERTIGA vehicle who was in the dock of the court hall.

5 /11 CC.No.38/2019

Dt. 11-03-2022

12. PW2 (S.Anjaneyulu) who is the Police constable deposed that in view of

MPTC and ZPTC elections he was working as police constable to aid flying squad officer at Shamshabad mandal. On 11-05-2019 at about 10.30 pm he along with

PW1 and some others of Revenue staff were performing their duties at Hamidulla

Nagar, ORR Service Road, Chinna Golkonda. They noticed one vehicle Br.No.TS 08 EV 0020 Maruthi ERTIGA vehicle, upon search in the vehicle they found 312

Haywards, 26 cotton beers. On questioning the driver of vehicle, he revealed his name as Palle Devender Goud, he admitted that on the instructions of

A1/Chinranjeevi he is transporting the liquor, in that regard PW1 conducted panchanama and seized contraband He deposited that he was examined by police and recorded statements. He identified the accused No.2 as driver of ERTIGA Car.

13. PW-3 is Suram Raju and PW4 K.Raju are the mediators of recording scene of offence panchanama and they turned hostile and their portion of signatures were marked as Ex.P3 and P4. They categorically stated that the police obtained their signatures on some papers and they do not know the contents of the said papers and further they deposed that the police never seized beer bottles in their presence. As they turned hostile, the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor cross examined them at length, wherein the PW- 3 and 4 denied that the police conducted scene of panchanama seized contraband beer bottles.

14. PW5 Sadan Goud and PW6 Ellaiah are confession panchas/mediators they deposed that they do not know any facts of the case and they never stood as mediators for recording confession panchanama and further stated that at the request 6 /11 CC.No.38/2019

Dt. 11-03-2022

of police they have attested their signatures on some white papers and their portion of signatures are marked as Ex.P5 and P6.

15. PW7 Sridhar is SI of police who deposed that he worked as SI of police at

Shamshabad from 17-05-2018 to 19-04-2020. In view of general elections on 12- 05-2019 he received Ex.P1 from PW1 Deputy Tahsildar and basing on the petiton he registered the case in Crime No.209/2019 Under Section. 171-E, IPC & 34 (a) of

A.P. Exice Act. Basing on Ex.P1 he issued FIR i.e. Ex.P7 and took up the investigation. He examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and 2, later visited the scene of offence secured the presence of PW3 and 4 conducted scene of offence panchanama drawn samples from beer bottles. Ex.P8 and also recorded confession panchanama by securing mediators PW5 and 6 drafted by PW1. Ex.P9 is confession panchanama. Seized contraband beer bottles and also Car bearing No. TS 08 EV 0020, issued 41-A notice to the accused No.1 and 2 and the samples of the beer bottles were deposited before this court and the remaining property was handed over to Deputy Commissioner, Nampally the seized contraband and car ie. MO1 and 2 were deposited before court vide CPR.No.23/2019 the remaining case property samples of beer was sent to FSL for opinion. After receipt of opinion he laid charge sheet against A1 and A2. In the cross examination PW7 admitted that he have not re-examined any independent eye witness and that scene of offence. He stated that one of the constable drafted Ex.P.8 scene of offence and he failed to collect the document to show that PW1 and 2 were entrust0ed to work for flying squad staff.

16.The main contention of APP is that the evidence of revenue police witness i.e.

7 /11 CC.No.38/2019

Dt. 11-03-2022

PW-1, 2 and 7 is sufficient to convict the Accused No.1and 2. But, the learned defence counsel contended that the police has not followed the provisions of Sec. 24 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act and the accusation against the accused is not proved by them. It is true in this case the entire case is based on the evidence of only police revenue witness i.e., PW-1 and 2. Since, the other independent eye witness /mediators were not examined by police, further PW-3 to 6 who are panchas for scene of offence and mediators of confession panchas they have turned hostile and their portion of signatures are marked Ex.P3 to P6. “It is a settled law that the evidence of police officials can be relied on if it is convincing in nature”. But, in this case, the evidence of PW-1, 2 and 7 is not convincing in nature for the reason that the panchanama for confession and seizure of property ofA1 was done at

Shamshabad and at the scene of offence . Further PW7 served Sec. 41(A) of Cr.P.C to the Accused No.1 and 2, and A1 voluntarily admitted his guilt and even the

Revenue officer who detected this case was though present and he drafted the panchanama though but no obtained signature of PW2 constable who was very much present at the scene of offence. Even the signature of the A1 was not obtained by the Pw1 on panchanama. Apart from it, the hostile behavior of mediators for confession and seizure panchanama is also creating doubt about the genuineness of the case. The un-corroborated testimony of PW-1 is unsafe to rely as such this court has no formidable evidence before it, as many contradictory statements on par with

PW7 evidence.

17.Apart from it, the prosecution failed to prove that special authority was given 8 /11 CC.No.38/2019

Dt. 11-03-2022

to the complainant/PW1 to file this case to show that he is deputed to work as Flying squad officer. Though the prosecution examined as PW-1 to 7, the independent mediators examined as PW-3 to 6 are turned hostile. PW-3 and 6 though are residents of Chinnna golkonda village and they denied that the police never conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in their presence, but the police obtained their signatures on some white papers. Though the PW-3 to 6 were cross examined at length, nothing material could be elicited out of the cross examination of PW-3 to 6. In the absence of evidence of PW-3 to 6 the evidence remained for consideration is that of PW-1, 2, and 7 who are police officials.

18.It is settled law that unless independent witness are corroborates the version of the police official, their evidence alone cannot be sustained to record the conviction of the Accused. The Hon’ble High Court of A.P. considered a similar case in the decision reported in 2001(1) ALT (Crl.) 66 (A.P.) between Poddutur

Sarvam Reddy Vs State of A.P., and it was held that the evidence of a complainant cum investigation officer alone cannot be based to convict the Accused for an excise offence in the absence of any corroborative independent evidence.

19.However, as per the PW-1 the accused No.1 confessed his guilt and basing on the said confession panchanama , PW7 arrested the accused and Pw1 seized the property. The contents of confession panchanama Ex.P1, clearly shows that it was recorded in the immediate presence of the police. Section. 25 and 26 of Indian

Evidence Act provides a bar to receive the confession made to police officer. Since 9 /11 CC.No.38/2019

Dt. 11-03-2022

the contents under Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW-1 clearly shows that it was recorded in the immediate presence of the police official, this court hold that the confession cum seizure panchanama as relied by the prosecution under Ex.P3 is inadmissible in evidence. The said aspect was considered by the Hon’ble High

Court of Andhra Pradesh in a recent decision reported in 2005 (1) ALD (NOC) 52 between Mudavath Mothia Vs State of Andhra Pradesh held that the confession made to the police officials and the seizure there under is hit by Sec.25 and 27 of

Indian Evidence Act and the Hon’ble High Court hold as follows.

20.“The offence Under Section.34 of the A.P. Excise Act is made cognizable offence and once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials. When once they become police officials, the confessions recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. Moreover

Ex.P2 is hit by Section.25, 27 of the Evidence Act and Section. 161 of Cr.P.C. The benefit if any cases due to the invalidity of the investigation only goes to the

Accused. Once the Ex.P2 is hit by Sections.25 and 27 of the Evidence Act, and

Section.161 of Cr.P.C and when the independent witness are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing of beer bottles from the custody of the

Accused has to the looked with suspicion. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar Under Section.25 and 27 of the Evidence

Act and Section.161 of Cr.P.C. It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar 10 /11 CC.No.38/2019

Dt. 11-03-2022

and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt.“

21. To sum up, in view of the above observations as the independent mediators i.e., PW-3 to 6 did not support the case and it is found that the confession cum seizure panchanama is inadmissible in evidence in view of the above legal bar and in view of the above legal principles laid by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. This court hold that the prosecution miserable failed to establish the guilt of the accused for an offence U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and the Accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for an acquittal.

22.In the result the Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence

U/s. 34 of IPC and 171 -E accordingly they are acquitted U/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the Accused no.1 and 2 shall be cancelled. The material object

I.e.Sample beer bottles shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and MO.2

I.e.Maruthi ERTIGA Car bearing No. TS 08 EV 0020 was given to interim custody to its true owner vide Cr.M.P.No. 2/2019 shall be made absolute after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of March , 2022.

FAC I ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR

11 /11 CC.No.38/2019

Dt. 11-03-2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

PW-1: Bonagiri Shanker - None - PW-2: S.Anjaneyulu PW-3:Suram Raju PW-4: K.Raju PW-5:P.Sadhan Goud PW-6: R.Yellaiah PW-7:N.Sridhar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1: Petition, Ex.P-2: Portion of PW-2 signature on confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P-3: Portion of PW-3 signature on scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P-4: Portion of PW-4 signature on scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P5 : Portion of PW5 signature on confession and seizure panchanama Ex.P6 :Portion of PW6 signature on confession and seizure panchanama Ex.P7: FIR Ex.P8: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P9 : Confession panchanama of A1 and A2 Ex.P10 : FSL Report

FOR ACCUSED:

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

MO.1 :Sample seized bottles -NIL- MO.2 : Car bearing No. TS 08 EV 0020

FAC I ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR

12 /11 CC.No.38/2019

Dt. 11-03-2022

CALANDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

C.C. No. 38 OF 2019

1. Complainant : State, SI of Police, P.S. Shamshabad

2. Cr.No. & Nature of Offence : Cr.No.209/2019 U/s. 171-E, IPC & 34 (a) of AP Excise Act 1968

3. Name of the accused : A-1) Nendunuri Chiranjeevi, S/o.Chandraiah, Age: 34years, Occ:Agriculture A-2) Palle Devender Goud, S/o. Balraj Goud, Age:29 years, Occ:Driver,

D A T E S:

4. OFFENCE : 11-05-2019 5.COMPLAINT : 12-05-2019 6.APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED : Served 41-A Cr.P.C notice on 12-05-2019 7.COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL : 16-02-2022 8.CLOSURE OF TRIAL : 03-03-2022

9. JUDGMENT : 11-03-2022 10.PLEA OF THE ACCUSED : Not Guilty

11. SENTENCE OR ORDER: In the result the the Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence U/s. 34 of IPC and 171 -E accordingly they are acquitted U/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused no.1 and 2 shall be cancelled. The material object i.e.Sample beer bottles shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and MO.2 i.e.Maruthi ERTIGA Car bearing No. TS 08 EV 0020 was given to interim custody to its true owner vide Cr.M.P.No. 2/2019 shall be made absolute after appeal time is over.

12. REMARKS : -Nil-

FAC I ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR

13 /11 CC.No.38/2019

Dt. 11-03-2022

Page 1 of 13

CC 6090/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-

CUM-PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

DATED THIS THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

PRESENT: SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-

Cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, R.R. District, L.B. Nagar.

C.C No. 6090/2020

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana Rep., by P.S Pahadishareef.

..... Complainant.

And

Yousuf Patel, S/o Syed Qursheed, Aged about 41 years, R/o H.No.13-133, Ali Ain Colony, Shaheen Nagar, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. …. Accused.

This case is coming before me on 01.10.2024 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri Pujari Venkateswara Rao, Advocate, for the accused and upon the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Pahadishareef filed charge sheet in

Crime No.639/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 448, 341, 506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) against the accused.

2. The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as that:

Page 2 of 13

CC 6090/2020

On 29.07.2020 at 18.50 hours, Ahmed Safiullah lodged a complaint stating that on 29.07.2020 at 12.00 hours he is working as Municipal

Commissioner of Jalpally and he held a council meeting in the chamber of the Chairperson through Zoom App. When the meeting in Zoom App started, accused who is brother of Vice Chairman i.e., Smt. Farhana Naaz has entered in Zoom App in the group. On that the complainant and

Deputy Executive Engineer has directed the accused to exit the group and not to sit in the Chairman’s chamber during the meeting and that he is no way concerned with the council meeting. Upon which, the accused got angry and abused the complainant and threatened him with dire consequences. The said accused interfered and interrupted the official meeting. Hence, the complaint.

3.Basing on the above private complainant, LW6/S.Vishnu Vardhan

Reddy/Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr.No.440/2020 under

Sections 353, 448, 341, 506 of IPC and entrusted the investigation to PW6-

Sub-Inspector of police who took up the investigation.

4.During the course of investigation, PW6 had examined the PW5/ complainant-victim, eye witnesses/PW1 and PW2 and recorded their statements, visited the scene offence and conducted the scene of offence, secured the presence of mediators PW3 and Pw4 and drawn rough sketch of the scene and conducted scene of offence panchanama. PW6 issued

Page 3 of 13

CC 6090/2020

section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and he complied the same. After completion of investigation, PW6 laid charge sheet for the offences under

Sections 353, 448, 341, 506 of IPC against the accused.

5.Cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 353, 448, 341, 506 of IPC against accused. The copies of the documents were furnished to him as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C, when he was examined under

Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined

PW1 to PW6, and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. PW1 and PW2 are the eye- witnesses, PW3 and and PW4 are the mediators for the scene of offence,

PW5 is the complainant and PW6 is the Investigating Officer. This court closed the evidence of LWW6 after giving reasonable opportunity to the police.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material voiced against him to which he pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard, the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

9. Now the point for consideration is

(i) Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond

reasonable doubt for the offence under Sections 353, 448, 341

of IPC against the accused?

Page 4 of 13

CC 6090/2020

(ii) Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond

reasonable doubt for the offence under Sections 506 of IPC

against the accused?

POINT No.(i):

10.The learned APP prayed this court to consider the evidence of PW1 to

PW6. Learned defence counsel submitted that the evidence on record is not sufficient to hold conviction and accused is falsely implicated and prayed to acquit the accused.

11. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything is essential to establish the charge against the accused is always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until and unless the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject to, of course to some statutory exceptions. In the light of the above statutory provision and cardinal principles of the criminal jurisprudence what is the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case has to be looked into.

12. PW1/K.Panduranga Vittal is the eye witness who deposed in his chief examination that the complainant is their Municipal Commissioner and that on 29.07.2020, there was a General Body meeting in Zoom app in view of COVID-19 and while they were present in the meeting, the sister of accused/Smt.Farhana is the Vice Chairperson. PW1 deposed that generally, in the meeting only the members are permitted to attend but they noticed accused was also present. As he is non member to the

Page 5 of 13

CC 6090/2020

meeting, they requested him to go away and that since he was the then

TRS leader, he was angry on them and threatened them how will the meeting proceed and caused obstruction to their duties and in that regard, complainant filed report.

In his cross examination, PW1 admitted that total 28 counselors were there at Jalpally Municipality and there are separate chambers for

Commissioner and Chairman and that the meeting took place at one place.

PW1 admitted that after the alleged incident, the complainant got transferred and he did not mentioned in enquiry with the police that generally, in the meeting only members are permitted to attend and accused was the then TRS leader. As there are allegations levelled against the complainant, a false case is filed against the accused. PW1 denied that accused never committed any offence and never obstructed their duties and never entered into the room and since he is the then TRS leader, a false case is filed against him and that he is not at all present in the Zoom meeting and that he was deposing false.

13. PW2/B.Rama Chandra Rao is also an eye witness to the incident and he deposed on similar lines as that of PW1. PW3/Mohd Ismail and PW4/

Mohd Khaja are the mediators for the scene of offence panchanama and they turned hostile and did not supported the case of prosecution. Through them their portion of signatures are marked under Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.

Page 6 of 13

CC 6090/2020

Though learned APP cross examined PW3 and PW4 at length, no useful evidence is elicited from PW3 and PW4 to uphold the case of prosecution.

14. PW5/Ahmed Safiullah is the complainant who deposed in his chief examination that he was working as Municipal Commissioner, Madhira,

Khammam District and that PW1 and PW2 are his colleagues. PW5 deposed that in the month of July, 2020, while council meeting was conducted in Zoom App, accused without having any role in Municipality and prior permission, participated in said meeting. PW5 deposed that they asked the accused to got outside as he is no way concerned with the meeting. Inturn, the accused obstructed their duties and also abused him in filthy language and that due to the acts of the accused, meeting was stopped for a while. PW5 deposed that he approached police and lodged petition in this regard Ex.P3 is the petition.

PW5 admitted in his cross examination that because of COVID-19, only limited members are permitted to attend the Zoom meeting and that there are altogether 22 councellors and that there is no agenda to the meeting furnished to the police. PW5 admitted that he had not received any complaint from Municipal Chairman and counselors and that after two days of complaint given to the collector, he was transferred in the month of

August, 2020. PW5 admitted that he did not gave complaint in person but he sent through his employee and that he denied all other suggestions.

Page 7 of 13

CC 6090/2020

15. PW6/G.Kumaraswamy, SI of Police, PS Pahadishareef, in his chief examination deposes that LW6/S.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy/Inspector of

Police, registered a case in Cr.No.440/2020 under Sections 353, 448, 341, 506 of IPC and entrusted the investigation to him and he took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he had examined the

PW5/complainant-victim, eye witnesses/PW1 and PW2 and recorded their statements, visited the scene offence and conducted the scene of offence, secured the presence of mediators PW3 and PW4 and drawn rough sketch of the scene and conducted scene of offence panchanama. PW6 deposed that he issued section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and he complied the same.PW6 deposed that after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet for the offence under Sections 353, 448, 341, 506 of IPC against the accused.

During the cross examination, PW6 admitted that Municipal

Commissioner and Chairperson has separate chambers and that he had not received any complaint from either Municipal Chairman and other members about accused attending meeting and obstructing the meeting.

PW6 admitted that PW5 had not came to the police station to lodge complaint but he send his Senior Assistant/clerk and that he had not collected CC footage of Zoom meeting. PW6 admitted that no separate confession is recorded and that nothing was seized and that in the month

Page 8 of 13

CC 6090/2020

of July, 2020, COVID-19 was prevailing all over India and that there were directions from the Government for restriction of movement of public. PW6 admitted that as there is restriction of movement of public, there is no possibility of the accused participating in the Zoom meeting physically at

Municipal office and that the complaint/Ex.P3 does not discloses specific abusive language. PW6 admitted that the sister of accused is Chairperson at the time of incident and PW6 denied other suggestions.

16. For bringing home the guilt of the accused, for the offence punishable under Sections 353 of IPC, though all the prosecution witnesses deposed in a sequence that when they were discharging their duties at the

Municipal Office and because of the act of the accused they were unable to discharge their duties. In order to attract the ingredients of 353 of IPC though prosecution witnesses deposed that the accused without having any prior permission, participated in the Zoom meeting but failed to depose that because of the acts of the accused their duties were halted. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to show that accused obstructed PW5 in discharging their duties. In addition the PW6 investigation Officer who conducted investigation failed to collect CC footages of the Zoom meeting or

URL ID of the Zoom App. Hence, in this angle also prosecution was not able to prove their case in that regard. Therefore, the point is answered against the prosecution. The evidence on record is not sufficient to hold

Page 9 of 13

CC 6090/2020

conviction s such prosecution failed to prove suit of accused under Section 353 of IPC.

17. In order to decide the case. It is germane to have birds eye on essential ingredients of Section 448 IPC.

“Punishment for house-trespass.— Whoever commits house-

trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine

which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”

18. The prosecution is to prove that PW5 was in possession of the

Municipal Commissioner office consisted of building and the accused entered into or upon such building and having entry into the building committed the offence with an intention to either to intimidate, insult or annoy PW5 and other officials who were in the meeting.

19. Upon perusal of evidence of PW5 r/w Ex.P3 i.e., complaint though the evidence of PW5 is reiteration of complaint averments, according to him, there was a Zoom meeting held in the Municipal Office and accused without having prior permission and non member of the council had participated in the Zoom meeting in view of COVID-19. It is allegation of the prosecution that the accused herein, with criminal intention trespassed into the meeting and participated into the meeting by entering into the chambers of Vice chariman. To ascertain the said fact, Vice Chairman is not examined by the police. Even, there is no identity proof of the accused

Page 10 of 13

CC 6090/2020

that he is brother of Vice Chairman/ Farhana Naaz. No CC footage or filed nor any meeting ID is filed before this court to ascertain the presence of accused in the meeting. It is the defence of the accused that there are two chambers in the Office one is for Vice Chairman and one is for the

Municipal Commissioner. Being Municipal office a Government office, generally there will be movement of public at large everyday. Though it is the contention of prosecution that in view of COVID-19, limited members were present in the meeting, they failed to show that either accused or anybody are authorized to attend the meeting. There is no material before this court produced either by the prosecution i.e., either the photographs or CCTV footage to show alleged house trespass. Admittedly, it was the version of PW5 that he has sent Ex.P3 thorough his Senior Assistant and there are no valid reasons assigned why the Senior Assistant lodged the complaint but not him and there is no evidence brought on record that accused has wrongfully restrained and its officials for the proceeding of the meeting and that he abused PW5 and other members. Except, version of

PW5, record reveals that no complaint is filed by Municipal Commissioner or by counsellors. The evidence brought on record is insufficient and though PW1 and PW2/eye witnesses supported the case, the identification and presence of accused in the Zoom meeting is not established by the prosecution and in view of the hostile behavior of the mediators for the

Page 11 of 13

CC 6090/2020

scene of offence and as there is no evidence to show that PW5 and its members are wrongly constrained by the act of the accused, the charges under Sections 448 and 341 of IPC are not proved by the prosecution and the point is answered accordingly.

POINT No.(ii):

20.To prove 506 IPC, prosecution has to prove that accused intimidated

PW1 as defined under Section 503 of IPC. The essential ingredients are (1) there should be a threat of injury to a person, reputation or property, (2) to the person or reputation of any person in which the person is interested, (3) threat must be with intent to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to do an act which is not legally bound to do as the means to avoiding the accused of such threat, (4) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as means of avoiding the causing of such threat.

21.In the case on hand, it is the case of prosecution that accused abused

PW5 and threatened him. A mere threat without causing any alarm does not amount to a criminal intimidation. As it could be seen from the evidence of PW5, there is no threat or alarm on the accused side, having regard to the above held discussion and the scant evidence is not sufficient to connect the accused with the charge under Section 506 IPC and the essential ingredients under Section 506 IPC are absent. Hence, points No.

Page 12 of 13

CC 6090/2020

(i) and (ii) are answered against prosecution. To sum up, this court is of opinion that prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sections 353, 448, 341, 506 of IPC and thus accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, this court found the accused not guilty for the offences under Sections 353, 448, 341 and 506 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancel after expiry of appeal time.

Typed my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd Day of October, 2024.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-

CUM-PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW1 K.Panduranga Vittal - NIL -

PW2 B.Rama Chandra Rao

PW3 Mohd Ismail

PW4 Mohd Khaja

PW5 Ahmed Safiullah

PW6 G.Kumara Swamy

Page 13 of 13

CC 6090/2020

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

Ex.P1 – Portion of signature of PW1 on CDF - NIL-

Ex.P2 – Portion of signature of PW2 on CDF

Ex.P3 – Petition

Ex.P4 – First Information Report

Ex.P5 - Crime Details Form

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-

CUM-PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

1 C.C. No. 5775/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

` DATED THIS THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

PRESENT: SMT. V. USHA KRANTHI,

Prl.Junior Civil Judge FAC I Additional Junior Civil Judge cum I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, R.R.District, L.B.Nagar

C.C No. 5775 /2019

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana Rep., by P.S Balapur. ...Complainant

And

A1. Mohammed Noor @ Noor Mohammed, S/o. Ahmed Zahir @ Late Nazeer Ahmed, Aged 52 years, R/o. H.no. 8-4611, Jalpally, Pahadishareef, Balapur Mandal, R.R.District.

A2. Shamjedaha Begum @ Sobaah Begum, W/o. Mohammed Noor, Aged: 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.no. 8-4611, Jalpally, Pahadishareef, Balapur Mandal, R.R.District.

A3. Mohammed Javeed @ Saber, S/o. Noor Mohammed, Aged: 22 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.no. 8-4611, Jalpally, Pahadishareef, Balapur Mandal, R.R.District.

A4. Ismail, R/o. Balapur, N/o.Mayanmar (Absconding)

A5. Dil Mohammad, R/o. Kishanbagh,

N/o. Mayanmar(Absconding)... Accused No.1 to 5

This case is coming before me on 30.07.2024 for final hearing in the presence of the learned APP for the complainant and of Sri. Shaik Shafee Ur-Raheman, the Learned Counsel for the accused No.1 to 3 and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

2 C.C. No. 5775/2019

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Balapur filed charge sheet in Crime No. 114/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 14(A) of Foreigners Act against the accused No.1 to 3.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that

On 27-04-2018 at about 2100 hours S.I. of Police/ Maqbool Jani received a credible information that some of the Myanmar refugees obtained Indian Aadhar Cards illegally, gave information to the superiors, after obtaining the instructions, summoned two mediators i.e., LW8/Nasar Ali Khan and LW9/Syed Taj to police station and proceeded to Al-Jabri colony, Opp. to Jalpally gate, Balapur Mandal along with his staff/Police constables LW2/D.

Naveen Kumar, LW3/P. Balaraju, LW4/K. Jagadish, LW5/Smt. P. Vimala and LW6/A.

Mounika and mediators PW3 and Nasar Ali Khan took custody one Mohammed Noor @

Noor and conducted his confessional statement in the presence of said mediators, wherein he confessed that in the year 2012 he along with family members migrated to India as refugees by crossing the Indian border illegally and stayed at Nagli village of Haryana State for one year and later came to Hyderabad and residing in a rented house at New Babanagar,

Jalpally along with family members with other Myanmar refugees. At that time, their

Rohingya Muslims who are well acquainted with him namely Ismail, Dil Mohammad used to reside the same house, for an amount of Rs.8000/- from him and assured to get the

Aadhar cards to his family members, and took his family members to Aadhar centre at

Shaheen nagar, Balapur and obtained the Aadhar cards by giving false information that they are residents of Jalpally village. At instance of A1 confessional statement, LW1 also 3 C.C. No. 5775/2019 recorded the confessional statements of A2, A3 and deposed that they have obtained Aadhar cards with the help of A4 and A5. In pursuant of their confessional statement seized Aadhar cards and UNHCR cards from the possession of A1 to A3 under cover of confessional cum seizure panchanama. As A1 to A3 cheated the Government/officials by obtaining the Aadhar cards by giving false information to officials for claiming benefits from Government and causing wrongful loss to the Government. After completion of their confessional cum seizure panchanama shifted the accused No.1 to 3 to police station along with seized cards.

Hence, the report.

3.Basing on the report, LW1/Maqbool Jani, S.I. of Police registered a case in

Cr.No.114/2018 under Secs. 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Sec. 14(A) of Foreigners Act and took up the investigation.

4.During the course of investigation, LW1 examined and recorded the statements of

LW2/D. Naveen Kumar, LW3/P. Balraju, LW4/K. Jagadish, LW5/Smt. P. Vimala, LW6/A.

Mounika and LW7/Ahmed Syed Ali Mohammad and caused enquiries about the facts of the case. Further LW1/S.I. of Police arrested A1 to A3 on 28-04-2019 and remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, LW1 filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 and shown A4 and A5 as absconding.

5.This case was taken cognizance of offences punishable under Secs. 420, 468, 471 of

IPC and Sec. 14(A) of Foreigners Act against the accused No.1 to 3. They were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and accusation for the said offences, read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 C.C. No. 5775/2019

6.To establish its case, the prosecution examined PWs1 to PW4 and marked Exs.P1 to

P4 and MO1 to MO7. Prosecution failed to produce the evidence of LW3/P. Balraju, LW4/

K. Jagadish, LW5/Smt. P. Vimala, LW6/A. Mounika, LW7/Ahmed Syed Ali Mohammad,

LW8/Nasar Ali Khan and LW9/Syed Taj. Hence, their evidence is closed by this court after giving reasonable opportunities to the police.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence the accused No.1 to 3 are examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating material appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, accused No.1 to 3 pleaded not guilty.

8.Heard APP and learned counsel for accused at length.

9. Now the point for consideration is (i.) whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the

offences under Secs. 420, 468, 471 of IPC against the accused No.1 to 3?

(ii.) whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the

offences under Sec. 14(A) of Foreigners Act against the accused No.1 to 3?

POINT No.(i) :

10. In order to prove the establish of their case that the accused No.1 to 3 who are the native of Rohingya Muslims community having obtained Indian Aadhar cards illegally and forged the electronic documents by violating rules of Government without any authorization cheated Government officials, prosecution relied on evidence of PW1 to PW4.

11. PW1 Md. Maqbool Jani, Inspector of Police deposed that on 27-04-2018 at about 2100 hours he received a credible information that some of the Myanmar refugees have obtained Indian Aadhar cards illegally and upon the instructions from the superiors he had summoned to LW8/Nasar Ali and LW9/Syed Taj and proceeded to A1-Jabri colony, Shaheen

Nagar wherein, they have taken custody of A1 and recorded the confession panchanama of 5 C.C. No. 5775/2019

A1 to A3 on the same day, and also JCL’s 1 to 4. On the basis of their confession Sub-

Inspector of Police had seized the MO1-UNHCR-30500084937 Aadhar No. 622917790134,

MO2 UNHCR – 30500084938 Aadhar No. 897168335884, MO3 UNHCR – 30500084935

Aadhar No. 752674950701, MO4 UNHCR – 30500084939 Aadhar No. 976988839102,

MO5 UNHCR – 30500084940 Aadhar No. 341460108165, MO6 UNHCR – 30500084941

Aadhar No. 722630984491, MO7 UNHCR – 30500084942 Aadhar No. 783920701274.

Ex.P1 is the confession cum seizure panchanama. After completion of recording Ex.P1 he seized MO’s 1 to 7 and shifted accused to the police station and registered a case in Crime

No. 114/2018 under Secs. 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Sec. 14(A) of Foreigners Act and issued FIR. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of

LW2 to LW7. Thereafter, he effected the arrest of A1 to A3 and remanded them to judicial custody. Immediately, on his transfer he handed over the entire case file to PW4 and marked

Ex.P2 complaint and Ex.P3 FIR.

During the cross examination he deposed that he know that accused No.1 to 3 belongs to Rohingya Muslims community as they have obtained Rohingya certificate from

UNHCR and arrested the A1 to A3 at their house. Further, he deposed that they have obtained Aadhar cards illegally with the assistance of A4 and A5 and that A1 to A3 have not made any application before the authority of Aadhar for issuing of Aadhar cards on their names. He admitted that children of A1 and A2 have made an application for obtaining

Aadhar cards before authority of Aadhar for the purpose of their birth certificates,

Electricity bill and voter ID, Passport etc. further he denied all vague suggestions.

6 C.C. No. 5775/2019

12. PW2 D. Naveen Kumar is the Head constable he deposed similar lines as stated by

PW1. During the cross examination PW2 deposed that they seized PAN cards, Aadhar cards and passports from the possession of A1 to A3 at their house. He denied a false case is filed.

13. PW3 is Syed Taj who is the panch witness for the confessional cum seizure panchanama and he turned hostile though APP, cross examined him at length. Nothing useful evidence elicited by prosecution.

14. PW4 is Nagaraju, Sub inspector of police deposed that, in the month of June 2018

PW1 got transferred an on his transfer he received entire file and found investigation on proper lines deposited the case property before this court i.e., Aadhar cards/MO1 to MO7 and filed charge sheet against the accused No. 1 to 3s.

During the cross examination he deposed that accused No.1 to 3 are the residents of

Myanmar country and he had not investigated the case to find out any whether any application was forwarded by accused before E.Seva or not. Further he admitted that A4 and

A5 are shown as absconding and they are residents of Kishan bagh, Hyderabad. He deposed that he submitted the refugees card of A1 to A3, but not seized from A1 to A3.

15. On perusal of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution it is evident that

PW1, 2 and 4 are admittedly witness and are interested witness and are in the interested on the outcome of the prosecution case. It is settled line of principle that the evidence of interested witnesses should be seen with care and caution. The evidence of PW3 who is the panch for confession cum seizure panchanama did not supported the case of the prosecution case, though learned APP cross examined PW3 at length nothing useful evidence was ilicited to throw light on prosecution case.

7 C.C. No. 5775/2019

16. To decide point No.1 sec. 420 IPC there must be dishonest, at the very inception. It is settled law that dishonestly emphasizes a deliberate intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss and when this is coupled with cheating and delivery of property, the offence becomes punishable U/Sec. 420 IPC.

(i) Deception of any person

(ii) Fraudulent and inducing that person to deliver any property and

(iii) Mensrea of accused at the time of making inducement.

17. Admittedly, there is no evidence brought on record to show that the accused had cheated the Government of India. Moreover it is the admission of PW1 that A1 to A3 have not made any application before the authority of Aadhar cards for issuance of Aadhar cards in their names, but notably the children of A2 forwarded an application to Aadhar card authority. Even otherwise considering the said fact that the children of A1 and A2 forwarded the application before Aadhar authorities with the help of A4 and A5, the A4 and

A5 are not apprehended by the police as on date and as per the own admission of PW1 there is no evidence brought on record to prove that A1 to A3 has committed cheating, and deceived Government officials and in addition, when A1 to A3 had not forwarded any letter

before any authority the alleged application forwarded by A4 and A5, no material evidence

is brought on record therefore the question of forging the documents as genuine as U/s. 468 does not attract. Hence the evidence of PW1, PW2 and Pw4 are interested witnesses is not useful for the offences u/s. 420, 468, 471 A1 to A3 are charged with ingredients are not made out. Accordingly there is no evidence brought on record that A1 to A3 were truing to cheat the officials by creating the Aadhar cards and get the benefits from the government.

Prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 and there is no 8 C.C. No. 5775/2019 deception by them made or committed against any Government authorities, as such point

No.1 is answered accordingly against the prosecution.

POINT NO.2 (ii.) whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the

offences under Sec. 14(A) of Foreigners Act against the accused No.1 to 3?

18. There is no evidence brought on record that A1 to A3 without obtaining any permission from the authority/Government that the accused are trying to remain in India beyond the periods specified in permit or stay by the prosecution and inview of the discussion held above in absence of there been material on record this scant evidence is insufficient to connect the accused for the offence U/s. 14 (A) of Foreign Act are charged with, accordingly as there is no iota of evidence brought on record and absolutely the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 being the interested witnesses is no useful and inview of the hostile behaviour of the PW3 the evidence of prosecution witnesses creates doubt and suspicion, accordingly point No.2 is answered against the prosecution and as prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the accused No.1 to 3 U/Secs. 420, 468, 471 of

IPC and Sec. 14(A) of Foreigners Act and the accused No.1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal.

19. In the result, this court founds accused No.1 to 3 are not guilty for the offences under Secs. 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Sec. 14(A) of Foreigners Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time and that they are set at liberty. MO1 to MO7 9 C.C. No. 5775/2019 shall be returned to its original owner after expiry of appeal time under proper acknowledgment and affidavit.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me, in the Open Court, on this the 2 nd day of August , 2024.

FAC I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CUM I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR ACCUSED

PW1 Md. Maqbool Jani - NIL - PW2 D. Naveen Kumar PW3 Syed Taj PW4 P. Nagaraju

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR ACCUSED

Ex.P1 is the confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P2 is the complaint Ex.P3 is the FIR Ex.P4 is the signature of PW3 on confession cum seizure panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1-UNHCR - 30500084937 Aadhar No. 622917790134 MO2 UNHCR – 30500084938 Aadhar No. 897168335884 MO3 UNHCR – 30500084935 Aadhar No. 752674950701 MO4 UNHCR – 30500084939 Aadhar No. 976988839102 MO5 UNHCR – 30500084940 Aadhar No. 341460108165 MO6 UNHCR – 30500084941 Aadhar No. 722630984491 MO7 UNHCR – 30500084942 Aadhar No. 783920701274

FAC I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CUM I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR