Sri V.Venkateswara rao

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of East Godavari Calendar of cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of the First class, Kothapeta

Date of offence Report of Complaint Apprehension of accused Released on Bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19.06.2018 19.06.2018 30.06.2018 30.06.2018 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) 23.07.2019 25.07.2019 26.07.2019 No delay _____________________________________________________________________________

Judgment of Calendar Case No:318/2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of The First class, Kothapeta

Complainant:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Ravulapalem Police station. ( Cr.No.252/2018) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- –---- Name of the Accused Father name Age Caste/Religion Calling Village

Penumatcha Chandra Sekhara Raju, S/o.Bala Rama Krishna, Pallamraju, Aged

44 years, Kshatriya, Vedhureswaram Road, Ravulapalem Mandal.. Accused

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFENCE: Punishable under section 353 of I.P.C.

FINDING: Found not guilty

RESULT : The accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 353 of Indian penal Code 1860. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall be inforce for a period 6 months from the date of judgment. No case property.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KOTHAPETA.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS : KOTHAPETA

Present : - Sri V.Venkateswara Rao

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kothapeta

Friday, the 26th day of July, 2019

C.C.No.318 /2018

Between: The State – Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Ravulapalem Police Station .. Complainant

And

Penumatcha Chandra Sekhara Raju, S/o.Bala Rama Krishna, Pallamraju, Aged

44 years, Kshatriya, Vedhureswaram Road, Ravulapalem Mandal.. Accused

This case coming on 25.07.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri

P.Venugopal, learned counsel for the accused and upon hearing and having stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State Sub-Inspector of Police, Ravulapalem Police Station has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 353 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the I.P.C.) in Crime No.252 of 2018 of

Ravulapalem P.S.

2.The brief averments of the Charge-Sheet are that the P.W.1 has been working as Constable PC No. 820 in Ravulapalem Police Station. On 19.06.2018 at about 09.15 a.m. P.W.6 has instructed the P.W.1 to verify 100 caller in respect of domestic offence occurred at Murravupeta, Podagatlapalli

Village vide caller number 8008212121 wherein it was reported that the accused has steeling the coconuts from the 100 callers garden criminally, then P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to Murravupeta of Podagatlapalli Village at 09.30 a.m.. There, they found that the accused has been removing the coconuts from coconut plants and when P.W.1 asked about 100 call, the accused raised 3 cries on them by stating that the matter belongs to their family, how you interfere into the matter, so saying the accused bombarded, deterred and assaulted P.Ws. 1 and 2 and also propelled P.W.1 aside while discharging his duties by pointing his hand on his shoulder by saying he will see his matter.

Based on the report given by P.W.1, P.W.6 registered a case in Crime No. 252 of 2018 u/s 353 of I.P.C. of Ravulapalem Police Station and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared the rough sketch, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses.

Subsequently, P.W.7 took up further investigation in this case. P.W.7 verified the investigation done by P.W.6 and found it in correct lines. After completion of investigation, P.W.7 filed the charge sheet. Hence, the accused is liable for punishment for the said offence. Hence, the charge sheet.

3.This court has taken the cognizance in this case against the accused for the offence under Sections 353 of I.P.C.

4. After appearance of the accused case copies are furnished to accused as required u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. Accused is examined u/s 251 of Cr.P.C by explaining the accusation made against him for the offence under Sections 353 of I.P.C. in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as

PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

by explaining the incriminating evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses in Telugu, he denied the same and reported no oral defence evidence, but marked Ex.D1.

4

6.Thereafter, heard the arguments advanced by the Learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

7.The point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of

the accused for the offence under Section 353 of I.P.C beyond

all reasonable doubt?

8.POINT: The case of the prosecution is that on 19.06.2018 at about 09.15 a.m. the P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to the scene of offence on the instructions of P.W.6 regarding occuring of domestic violence through 100 caller. When the P.Ws 1 and 2 reached the spot, they noticed that the accused removing the coconuts from the coconut garden of the person who dialed 100 caller.

When the P.Ws. 1 and 2 asked the accused to stop removing of coconuts, the accused raised huge cries stating that it is civil dispute and the police have no concern. The accused also deterred and assaulted P.Ws. 1 and 2 and that the accused also propelled P.W.1 from discharging his legitimate duties by pointing his hand on his shoulder by saying he will see his matter. The defence of the accused is total denial of the offence.

9In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the defacto-complainant by name K.Surendra Babu, is examined as P.W.1. He deposed before the court that he knows LW2 to 5 and also the accused. He further stated that on 19-6- 2018 at about 9.15am, Dial 100 call received by ASI of police Ravulapalem and that the ASI of police instructed himself and LW2 to proceed Podagatlapalli, Morravupeta.

He further stated that by that time they noticed the accused is plucking coconuts in coconut garden and when they have stated to the accused to stop the plucking of coconuts as they received dial 100 calls. He further stated that on that the accused replayed that it is civil dispute not to interfere and the accused knows higher officials if they unnecessarily interfere they have to face trouble and asked 5 them to get away. He further stated that due to act of accused, it is an obstruction to their legitimate duties. He further stated that immediately he left the place and proceeded to the police station and gaver report to the police. He further stated that Ex.P1 is the report and that Police examined him. He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In the cross-examination, he categorically stated that by that time they reached at about 8 persons were present there, who were engaged in the work. He further stated that he does not know the said coconut garden belongs to whom. He further stated that they did not ask the accused to produce documents in connection with land. He further categorically stated that except himself, PW.2, accused and the labour who are engaged in the work, no other persons were present there. He further stated that within one hour they returned to the police station from the place of incident. He further stated that he gave report to the police at about 12.00 p.m. to ASI of police.

10One N.Naveen Kumar, the Home Guard who accompanied with the P.W.1 is examined as P.W.2. He deposed before the court that he knows PW1 and also LW3 to 5.He further stated that he also knows the accused. He further stated that on 19-6- 2018 at about 9.15 am the ASI of police instructed himself and PW1 to proceed to the place of incident at Podagatalpalli, Morravaraipeta as he received dial 100 call.

He further stated that on that himself and PW1 proceed to the above place in a jeep and by that time they reached to the place of incident, they noticed the accused is plucking coconuts in the garden and on that they stated to the accused that they were sent by ASI of police and further stated that there is a dispute with regard land and they asked the accused to stop plucking of coconuts. He further stated that on that the accused replayed, it is the civil dispute and they have no concern with same and the accused knows the higher officials and the accused asked them get out and PC asked numbers and stated to them to leave the place.

He further stated that when they have asked the accused to attend the police station, the accused replayed that he can see the matter and asked them leave the place. He further stated that due to act of the accused they felt some 6 sorrowfulness. He further stated that immediately they left the place and went to the police station and PW1 gave report to the police and that Police examined him.

He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In the cross- examination, he categorically stated that it is true, he did not state to the police that while they asked the accused to attend the police station, the accused replied that he can see of the matter and asked them to leave the place. He further stated that by that time, they reached to the place of incident, no dispute and the atmosphere is in peaceful manner. He further stated that he cannot deny that the land belongs to accused. He further stated that it is true, he did not state to the police that the accused asked their P.C. numbers.

11One P.V.S.Narayana Raju, one of the alleged eyewitness and also the person who made call to 100 number is examined as P.W.3. He deposed before the court that the accused is the son of his elder brother and that he has got coconut garden in an extent of Ac. 2.00 at Podagatalpalli. He further stated that himself and father of accused have partitioned the said land and they shared Ac.1.00 each. He further stated that after th death of his brother, the accused used to pluckg the coconuts in his share of land also by that time he gave report to the police on two times. He further stated that on 19-6-2018 at about 8.15 am he received information that the accused is plucking coconut in the land and on that he informed the same to the police by dailingl 100 call. He further stated that immediately two constables came to the spot and asked the accused why he is plucking coconuts on that the accused raised voice against 2 constables. He further stated that the mother of accused filed a partition suit before Hon'ble II ADJ court, Amalapuram against himself and accused also, but the said suit dismissed for default and a petition for restore the suit filed the same is pending and that Police examined him. He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In the cross-examination, he categorically stated that he did not handover any document to the police pertaining to disputed land. He further stated that he went to the disputed land at the time the police constable came there and talked with accused. He further stated that he did not 7 state to the police that stay is pending on disputed property as marked portion in his Section 161 of Cr.P.c. statement. He further stated that he did not file any report to the police with regard to the commission of offence by accused. He further stated that he did not state to the police that he lodged complaint against the accused on two occasions. He further stated that the reason for not giving any report to the police on that day is as he informed the same to the police on line.

12The alleged eyewitness by name J.Tatarao is examined as P.W.4. But, he turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. So also, One R.Suresh the alleged eyewitness to the offence is examined P.W.5. He also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

13One The investigation Officer in this case R.V.Reddy, the ASI of police, is examined as P.W.6. He deposed before the court that he is working as ASI of police,

Ravulapalem since,2014 and that on 19-6-2018 at about 9.30am while he was present at police station he received dial 100 call stating that there is a dispute at

Podagatlapalli in connection with coconuts in the garden. He further stated that he sent PWs1 and 2 to pursue the matter and that PW1 and 2 returned to police station at 4.30 pm and stated to him that the accused behaved rudely and also

PW1 gave a written report. He further stated that he registered same as a case in

Cri No.252/18 U/Sec 353 IPC and submitted Original FIR to Hon'ble Court, copies to all concerned officials. He further stated that he examined PWs1 and 2 at police station and recorded their statements. he further stated that on the same day he proceeded to the place of incident at Podagatalpalli Movvarupeta, Prepared rough sketch and examined PW3 to 5 recored their statements. He further stated that subsequently he handed over further investigation to SI of police. He further stated that Ex.P4 is FIR, Ex.P5 is rough sketch. PW4 and 5 stated before him as in Ex.P2 and 3. He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In the cross- examination, he categorically stated that he did not make any GD entry with regard to receipt of dial 100 call. He further stated that it is true, on seeing the FIR it does not reveal that he received dial 100 call. He further stated that he did not handover 8 the data of dial 100 call toSI of police. He further stated that it is true, P.Ws. 4 and 5 are not the neigbours of place of incident so also they are not residents of that village. He further stated that he did not exasmine any labour at the place of incident. He further stated that he did not examine on the lines that the disputed property belongs to whom and the dispute is civil in nature. He further stated that the police have no concern with purely civil litigation.

14The another investigating officer in this case by name Ch.Vidya Sagar is examined as P.W.7. He deposed before the court that on 26-6-2018 he took up further investigation in this case and proceeded to th place of incident situated at Podagatlapalli coconut garden. He further stated that he examined PW3 to 5 but I did not record their statements as they stated earlier. He further stated that on 30-6-2018 he served notice U/Sec. 41 A

Cr.P.C on the accused and released him on bail after getting sufficient sureties. He further stated that after completion of investigation he field charge sheet. He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.

15The learned counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that the entire prosecution case is utterly false. The accused was falsely implicated in this case in view of the civil disputes between the accused and P.W.3. He further argued that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 6 itself shows that the entire prosecution case is created in order to implicate the accused. He further argued that there are several material contradictory statements in the evidences of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 6. He further argued that the entire investigation has been done very vaguely in the light of the admissions made by P.W.6. The prosecution failed to file a single scrape of paper before the court either to show that there was a 100 call on the alleged date about committing of offence by the accused or the property, from which the 9 coconuts have been removing, belong to whom. He further argued that the alleged eyewitness have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. So, except the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 6 and 7 who are police officials and also the alleged caller, there is no evidence of any independent evidence

before the court to connect the alleged offence against the accused. In the

light of these facts and circumstances, the learned counsel for the accused has prayed the court to acquit the accused by extending benefit of doubt.

16In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused, it is just and necessary to discuss the evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses to come to just conclusion in this case.

17Before parting with the evidence, it is just and necessary to look into the contents in the complaint under Ex.P1. As per the contents in Ex.P1, when the P.Ws. 1 and 2 were went to the scene of offence in order to stop the plucking of coconuts from the coconut garden, the accused has shouted loudly against the P.Ws. 1 and2 by stating that he knows all their higher officials, he will see how the P.W.1 will discharge his duties, threatened that he will see them and also pushed P.W.1 by placing his hands on the shoulder of the P.W.1.

18Contrary to it, in the evidence of P.W.1 the threatening and the pushing of accused by placing his hand on the shoulder of the P.W.1 are silent. In fact, as can be seen from the evidence of P.W.2, the said threatening and assault committed by the accused against the P.W.1 are silent. So, also in the evidence of P.W.3 who is an alleged eyewitness to the incident. If really, the threatening and the assault committed by the accused against the P.W.1 are true and correct, the said facts ought to have been stated by the P.Ws. 1 to 3

before the court. But, for the reasons best known to them, they did not state

10 the same before the court excepting mentioning in Ex.P1 report. Hence, it can be presumed that there is no threatening and the alleged assault of pushing the P.W.1 by accused.

19A careful perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 1, in the cross-examination, he categorically stated that except himself, L.W.2, accused and the labour who were engaged in the work, no other person were present there. So, according to him, the presence of P.W.3 is not there. But, surprisingly, the

P.W.3 has given evidence by stating that as if he has seen the entire incident.

If really, the presence of P.W.3 is there at the place of offence and at the time of offence, the presence of P.W.3 would have been stated by P.W.1. Hence, the presence of P.W.3 at the place of incident and at the time of incident creates any amount of doubt.

20The version of P.W.1 is that immediately after the incident, he left the place and proceeded to the police station and gave report to the police. So also, P.W.2 also stated as stated by P.W.1 in the above said lines. Whereas, in the cross-examination of P.W.1, he stated that he gave report at 12.00 p.m.

The incident in this case took place at 9.30. But, surprisingly, the P.W.6, who registered the case has stated in his chief examination itself that P.Ws 1 and 2 returned to the police station at 04. 30 p.m. and gave written report. So, this statement of P.W.6 falsifies the above statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2 including the statement of P.W.1 in his cross-examination. In fact, a perusal of the FIR under Ex.P4 shows that the information received at 04.30 p.m. So, it can be presumed that the P.W.1 has given the report at 04.30 p.m. after he went to the police station. So, there is a gap of more than 7 hours delay in giving the report by the P.W.1 after the incident. If really, the statements of

P.Ws. 1 and 2 are true and correct that immediately after the incident they went to the police station and submitted report, the P.W.6 also ought to have 11 corroborated with the said statements. But, he gave a different version.

Whatever it is, there is a delay in giving the report by the P.W.1 to the police.

The reason for delay is not explained by the prosecution. Hence, it is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

21Further, in the chief examination of P.W.2 itself, he stated that when the asked the accused to attend the police station, the accused replied that he can see the matter and asked them to leave the place. But, the asking the accused to attend police station is silent in the evidence of P.W.1. In fact, as can be seen from the cross-examination of P.W.2, he categorically stated that he did not stat to the police about asking the accused to come to police station. So, the above statement of PW.2 is an improved version and which was introduced for the first time during his evidence only.

22It may be mentioned here that there is no specific report from any body about the committing of offence by the accused except the call made by P.W.3 to 100 caller. When calls made to 100 caller, the receiver of the said call will record each and every detail including date, time, nature of offence and other important aspects officially and will enter the same in the

G.D. Register. But, in the instant case, the prosecution failed to produce any sort of evidence before the court to prove the same. In fact, in the cross- examination of P.W.6, he categorically stated that he did not make G.D. entry with regard to receipt of dial 100 call. He further stated that he did not hand over the data of dial 100 call to SI of police. If really, the case of the prosecution that the P.W.6 had received call to 100 number with regard to the offence, he ought to have produced some sort of evidence before the court to prove the same. But, for the reasons best known to him, he did not take any steps to produce the same either before the SI of police or before the court.

12 23Admittedly, in the present case, the P.Ws. 4 and 5 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. But, it is surprising to note here that, as can be seen from the evidence of P.W.1, the presence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 is not at all there. Further, as can be seen from the statement of P.W.6 during his cross- examination that it is true, P.Ws 4 and 5 are not the neighbours of place of incident so also they are not resident of that village. If that is so, how the prosecution has secured their presence and recorded their statements as if they were present at the time of offence at the place of offence. Hence, it creates any amount of doubt in the mind of the court about the way the investigation has been conducted by the prosecution.

24As can be seen from the evidence of P.W.3 who is none other than caller of 100 number about the committing of offence by the accused shows that the accused is none other than the brother’s son of P.W.3. There are civil disputes pending between the accused and P.W.3 before the Courts including the disputed site from which the accused allegedly removing the coconuts.

Giving complaint through 100 number is nothing but an intimation to the police about the offence and if really, the offence has taken place, there must be a written report to the police about the alleged offence. But, in the instant case, there is no such report from the P.W.3 to the police about the alleged offence committed by the accused i.e., plucking of coconuts from his garden. Thereby, it creates any amount of doubt in the mind of the court regarding genuineness in the case of the prosecution.

25So, on overall perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, 6 and 7, their evidence is not corroborated with each other on all material aspects of the case of the prosecution. Further, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 has been mixed with omissions, commissions and embellishments. Further, except the uncorroborated evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the evidence of P.W.3 who is 13 none other than the opponent to the accused in civil disputes that too whose presence is silent as per the evidence of P.W.1 at the place and time of alleged incident, there is no evidence of any independent witnesses to prove the alleged acts of the accused.

26It is settled law that the prosecution has to prove it’s case on it’s own strength without depending upon the weaknesses in the defence of the accused. Further, the prosecution has to lead cogent and convincing evidence in order to prove the guilt of the accused. But, in the instant, case, the entire case of the prosecution is mingled with contradictions and omissions and also not corroborated with each other on all material aspects of it’s case. Hence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

27In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under

Sections 353 of Indian penal Code 1860. Accordingly, he is acquitted under

Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall be inforce for a period 6 months from the date of judgment. No case property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 26th day of July, 2019

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KOTHAPETA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: P.W.1 : Kamidi Surendra Babu P.W.2 : Nelli Naveen Kumar P.W.3 : Penumasta Venkata Satya Suryanarayana Raju P.W.4 : Janipireddy Tata Rao P.W.5 : Yarudu Suresh P.W.6 : Venkateswara Reddy Reddy P.W.7 : Ch.Vidya Sagar 14

For Defence : None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1/19.06.2018: Report give by P.W.1 to police Ex.P2/:Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 Ex.P3/: Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement ofP.W.5 Ex.P4/19.06.2018: First information report Ex.P5/: Rough sketch.

For defence Ex.D1/: marked portion in Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3

Material objects

Nil

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KOTHAPETA

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS::

KOTHAPETA

Present: Sri V.Venkateswara Rao

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Kothapeta. Friday, the 26th day of July, 2019 C.C. No. 145 of 2015 Between:

State – Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothapeta P.S. .. Complainant

And

1. Baluvu Subrahmnyam, S/o.Koteswara Rao @ Kotayya, A/22 years, C/Kapu, Near Sai Baba Temple, Ganti, Kothapeta.

2. Nunna Venkateswara Rao @ Venkata Ratnam, S/o.Ramudu, A/23 years, C/Kapu, Near Poleramma Temple, Ganti, Kothapeta.

3. Prathi Suresh Babu @ Suribabu, S/o.Veeranna, Aged 19 years, C/Kapu, Near Panchayathi, Ganti, Kothapeta.

4. Demudu Srinu, S/o.Bhushanam, A/23 years, C/Kapu, Saibaba Street, Ganti, Kothapeta.

5. Manchili Nagendra @ Nagendra Babu S/o.Narayana, Aged 19 years,

C/Kapu, Ramalayam Street, Ganti, Kothapeta Mandal. .. Accused

This case coming on 26.07.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and Sri G.Sankarudu, Advocate for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The S.I. of Police, Kothapeta Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the offences punishable under

Sections427, 341 and 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after will be referred as “I.P.C.”) in Crime No.05 of 2015 of Kothapeta P.S.

2The facts pleaded in the charge sheet are that as Mukkoti Ekadasi

Festival ahead, on 31.12.2014 after noon, P.Ws. 1 and 5 and L.W.3 Chappidi

Maesh arranged devotional programmes and also erected public address system in their Ramalayam temple and at about 04.00 p.m. after completion of arrangements, P.Ws. 1 and 5 and L.W.3 went to their respective houses.

While so, on the night of 31.12.2014 the accused person damaged the public address systems. When the P.Ws. 1 and 5 and L.W.3 put the matter before the P.Ws. 2 and 3 and also informed the same to the parents of the accused and their caste elders. While the matter stood that, the P.Ws. 1 and 5 and 2

L.W.3 while handing over the cooking vessels to it’s owner, in the meantime, the accused Nos. 1 to 5 rushed there, wrongfully restrained the P.Ws. 1, 5 and L.W.3 and beat them with hands for the reasons that the matter was informed to their parents and caste elders. Based on the report given by

P.Ws. 1, 5 and L.W.3, a case in Crime No. 5 of 2015 u/s 427, 341 and 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C. has been registered by P.W.6 and investigated into. During the course of investigation, P.W.6 visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet. Hence, the accused are liable for the said offences.

3This court has taken the cognizance against the accused Nos 1 to 5 for the offences under Sections u/s 427, 341 and 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

4After appearance of the accused Nos. 1 to 5 before this court, copies of the documents are furnished to them as required under Section 207 of

Cr.P.C.

5The accused Nos 1 to 5 were examined as required under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the the accusation made against them for the offences u/s 427, 341 and 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C in telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused Nos. 1 to 5 were examined as required u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses, in Telugu. The accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the Accused Nos. 1 to 5. Perused the record.

8Now the point for consideration is:

3

Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of the accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the offences under Sections 427, 341 and 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C.. beyond all reasonable doubt?

9Point: The case of the prosecution is that for the upcoming Mukkoti

Ekadasi, the P.Ws. 1, 5 and L.W.3 on 31.12.2014 have arranged programmes and also erected public sound systems near their Ramalayam Temple. But, on the night of 31.12.2014 the accused caused damage to the said Public

Addressing System. The said fact has been intimated to the parents of accused and their caste elders. While so, when the P.Ws. 1, 5 and L.W.3 are handing over the cooking vessels to it’s owner, in the meantime, the accused persons came there and beat the P.Ws. 1,5 and L.W.3 with hands about their informing to the parents of accused and their caste elders about the incident of damaging of public address system. The defence of the accused is total denial of the offence.

10The prosecution in order to prove it’s case, one of the defacto- complainant by name V.Manikanta is examined as P.W.1. He deposed before the court that he is residing at Visakhapatnam doing business and that he knows

LW 2 to 7 and all the accused being residents of his village and residing on his side street. He further stated that on 31-12-2014 in the night hours on the occasion of

Mukkoti Akadasi all they i.e., villagers fixing loud speakers and also other materials at Ramalayam Temple after completion of fixation they went to their houses. He further stated that on the next day 1-1-2015 in the morning hours they came to the temple and noticed all the loud speakers and other materials were damaged.He further stated that they inquired with regard the who were caused for the damage and that LW6 informed them that A1 to A5 damaged their mike set materials. He further stated that immediately they informed to their cast elders and also cast elder of A1 to A5. He further stated that his elders approached the elder of A1 to A5 but they have not respond properly. He further stated that his elders names

Mattaparathi Venkata rao (LW4) ,G.Lakshmana rao( LW5),S.Venkateswar rao( LW6), 4 they sustained loss of Rs;30,000/- due to damage caused by A1 to A5. He further stated that On the same day himself ch. Mahesh, and Ch,Lakshman along with elders went to the police station gave report and that Ex.P1 is report and that the

Police examined him. He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In the cross-examination, he stated that they shown the damaged material to the police. He further stated that he did not infrom the details of the owner of the mike set to thepolice. He further stated that it is true the damage worth Rs. 30,000/- not mentioned in the report as well did not state the same to the police. He further stated that it is not mentioned in the report as well as Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

statement through whom he receive information that the accused damaged the mike set material. He further stated that it is true there are previous disputes between themselves and accused based on communal feeling.

11One M.Venkata Rao, alleged elder is examined as P.W.2. He deposed

before the court that on 31.12.2014 during night hours they fixed mike sets at

Ramalayam on occasion of Mukkot Akdasi after fixation all they moved from the

Ramalayam due to festival by that time A1 to A5 damaged mike sets which were fixed by them. He further stated that immediately they approached the caste elder of A1 to A5 but they were not properly responded. He further stated that immediately they went to the police station and gave report to the police and that he signed on the report as caste elder. He further stated that due to acts committed by the accused they sustained loss of Rs;30,000/-police examined him. He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In the cross-examination, he categorically stated that it is true, there are residential houses around the

Ramayalam.

12One G.Lakshmana Rao another alleged elder is examined as P.W.3. He deposed before the court that on 31.12.2014 during night hours they fixed mike sets at Ramalayam on occasion of Mukkot Akdasi after fixation all they moved from the Ramalayam due to festival by that time A1 to A5 damaged mike sets which were fixed by them. He further stated that immediately they approached the caste elder of A1 to A5 but they were not properly responded. He further stated 5 that immediately they went to the police station and gave report to the police and that he signed on the report as caste elder. He further stated that due to acts committed by the accused they sustained loss of Rs;30,000/-police examined him.

He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.

13K.Subba Rao an independent witness is examined as P.W.4. But, he turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that he does not know anything with regard to this case. Even though, he was cross-examined by the learned A.P.P.

nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution.

14Ch.Lakshmanudu another defacto-complainant is examined as P.W.5. But, he also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that he does not know anything with regard to this case. Even though, he was cross-examined by the learned A.P.P. nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution.

15A.Balaji the investigating Officer in this case is examined as P.W.6. He deposed before the court that on 6.1.2015 at about 04.00 p.m. while he was present at police station, P.W.1 came to the police station and submitted a report and he registered the same as a case in Crime No. 15 of 2015 u/s 427, 323, 341 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and immediately, he proceeded to the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined P.Ws. 1 to5 L.W.3 Chappidi Mahesh, L.W.6 Sunkara Venkatesh and recorded their statements. He further stated that on 18.01.2015 he served notice u/s 41 A of Cr.P.C. on all the accused and released them after obtaining sufficient bonds and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet. He further stated that P.Ws. 4 and 5 stated before him as in Exs.P2 and P3 and Ex.P4 is the FIR,

Ex.P5 is the rough sketch. He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.

16The learned counsel for the accused has submitted that due to communal differences between the accused persons and the prosecution witnesses the present case is foisted against the accused persons even though they did not commit any such offences. He further submitted that there is no direct eyewitness to the alleged damage caused by the accused persons and the prosecution has failed to examine the person who disclosed the names of the accused persons before the 6

P.W.1. He further submitted that the contents of Ex.P1 shows that the said report was submitted prior to 01.01.2015, whereas, Ex.P1 is dated 06.01.2015 and the said discrepancy clearly shows that in order implicate the accused persons the present case filed against the accused persons. Hence, he prayed the court to acquit the accused by extending benefit of doubt.

17As can be seen from Ex.P1, Ex.P1 is dated 06.01.2015 wherein the P.Ws. 1, 5 and L.W.3 prayed the SI of police to take necessary measures to conduct programmes without any hurdles today i.e., 01.01.2015. So, according to the contents in Ex.P1, the complaint prepared prior to 01.01.2015, but it was submitted on 06.01.2015. Admittedly, the case was registered on 06.01.2015. Hence, it can be presumed that Ex.P1 was prepared prior to 01.01.2015 but submitted on 6.1.2015 for the reasons best known to the P.Ws. 1, 5 and L.W.3. Further, it shows delay of about 6 days. Only in order to cover up the delay in submitting the report, the prosecution has mentioned the date as 6.1.2015 on the report. However, the delay in submitting the report without any justifiable cause is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

18As can be seen from the Ex.P1 report, there are two overt acts were alleged against the accused persons. The first one is the accused persons have damaged the public addressing system on the night of 31.12.2014. The second one is when the said fact has been informed by P.Ws. 1,5 and L.W.3 to the parents of accused persons and their caste elders, the accused persons beat the P.Ws. 1,5 and L.W.3 with hands by wrongfully restraining them. But, surprisingly, no witness including

P.W.1 has stated the second incident i.e., beating the P.Ws. 1, 5 and L.W.3 by accused persons by wrongfully restraining them. Hence, the charges under

Sections 341 and 323 have not been proved against the accused persons.

19The version of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is that the accused persons have committed damage of the Public Address systems on the night of 31.12.2014 which were installed near the Ramalayam temple in view of Mukkoti Ekadasi Festival.

Admittedly, there is no direct eyewitness to the alleged incident. As per the version of P.W.1, L.W.6 – Sunkara Venkateswara Rao informed that the accused have 7 damaged the said public addressing system. But, the prosecution did not examine the L.W.6 to prove the said fact. Unless and until, the prosecution has examined

L.W.6 before the court and elicit that the accused have damaged the public addressing system, the version of the P.W.1 cannot be believed.

20It may be mentioned here that neither in the report nor in the Section 161 of

Cr.P.C. stetement of P.W.1, he did not state the source of information that the accused have damaged the said public addressing system as admitted by him. If really, the version of P.W.1 is true and correct that L.W.6 has informed him that the accused persons have damaged the public addressing system, he ought to have mentioned the same in the report as well as in the Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement of him.

21It is pertinent to note here that, P.W.5 is also one of the victim in this case.

But, he turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that he does not know anything with regard to this case. Even though, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor has cross-examined him, nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution. Further, the prosecution did not chose to examine another victim in this case i.e., L.W.3 Chappidi Mahesh. The prosecution did not offer any explanation for not examining L.W.3. So, except the hearsay evidence of P.W.1, there is no any piece of material before the court to connect the accused with the alleged offences.

22Admittedly, P.Ws. 1 to3 are not direct witnesses to the alleged offence. Their evidence is hear say evidence. Thereby, the identification of the accused persons is doubtful in this case. Unless and until, the prosecution has examined L.W.6 who disclosed the names of the accused persons, merely, based on the evidence of

P.Ws. 1 to 3, it is not safe to believe the version of the prosecution that the accused persons have damaged the public addressing system.

23As can be seen from the admission made by P.W.1 that there are previous disputes between the accused persons and the prosecution witnesses regarding communal feelings. Hence, it cannot be ruled out the contention raised by the counsel for the accused that present case is falsely foisted due to communal disputes between the accused persons and the prosecution witnesses.

8 25In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond all reasons doubt. Moreover, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 6 is not corroborating with each other on all material aspects of the case of the prosecution as stated supra. In the light of these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the accused are entitled for acquittal by extending benefit of doubt.

32In the result, the accused Nos. 1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences under Section 427, 341 and 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. Bonds and

Bail Bonds of the accused shall be inforce for a period of 6 months. No case property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 26th day of July, 2019.

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Kothapera

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution P.W.1 : Vasamsetti Manikanta P.W.2 : Mattaparthi Venkata Rao P.W.3 : Guthula Laksmana Rao P.W.4 : Kulukuri Subba Rao P.W.5 : Chappidi Lakshmanudu P.W.6 : A.Balajee

For Defence : None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1/6.1.2015: Report submitted by P.Ws. 1, 5 and L.W.3 Ex.P2/: Section 161 of Cr.p.C. statement of P.W.4 Ex.P3/: Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5 Ex.P4/6.1.2015: First Information report Ex.P5/: Rough sketch.

For Defence : Nil

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Kothapera 9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of East Godavari Calendar of cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I class, Kothapeta Date of offence Report of Complaint Apprehension of Released on Bail accused (1) (2) (3) (4) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31.12.2014 06.01.2015 18.01.2015 18.01.2015 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial close of trial Sentence of order Reasons for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) 21.01.2019 24.07.2019 26.07.2019 Due to non production of witnesses

Judgment of Calendar Case No:145/2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I class, Kothapeta Complainant: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ravulapalem P.S. in Crime No. 5 of 2016 of Kothapeta P.S..

Name of Accused Persons:

1. Baluvu Subrahmnyam, S/o.Koteswara Rao @ Kotayya, A/22 years, C/Kapu, Near Sai Baba Temple, Ganti, Kothapeta.

2. Nunna Venkateswara Rao @ Venkata Ratnam, S/o.Ramudu, A/23 years, C/Kapu, Near Poleramma Temple, Ganti, Kothapeta.

3. Prathi Suresh Babu @ Suribabu, S/o.Veeranna, Aged 19 years, C/Kapu, Near Panchayathi, Ganti, Kothapeta.

4. Demudu Srinu, S/o.Bhushanam, A/23 years, C/Kapu, Saibaba Street, Ganti, Kothapeta.

5. Manchili Nagendra @ Nagendra Babu S/o.Narayana, Aged 19 years, C/Kapu,

Ramalayam Street, Ganti, Kothapeta Mandal. .. Accused

OFFENCE: Punishable under section 427, 341 and 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C. FINDING: Found not guilty

RESULT : The accused Nos. 1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences under Section 427, 341 and 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. Bonds and Bail Bonds of the accused shall be inforce for a period of 6 months. No case property.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KOTHAPETA.

Copy Submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram, E.G.Dt for favour of information.

2. The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari, Kakinada.

10

In the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class : Prathipadu

Present: Sri V.Venkateswararao, Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Tuesday, the 23rd day of August, 2016.

C.C.10/2014

Between:

M/s.Asmitha Microfin Limited, Nacharam, Hyderabad-76, Rep.by it’s Manager, Shaik Nagur Saheb, S/o Shaik Nasardi Shaheb, A/40 years, Branch Manager, Yeleswaram P.S.

.. Complainant

And

Gavireddy Pothuraju, A/38 years, Business, H.No.5-53, Opp.MRO office, Yeleswaram P.S.

.. Accused

This case has come before me on 18.8.2016 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Kamalakar, Advocate for complainant and of Sri B.Venkata Sivanarayana, Advocate for Accused and after having heard arguments on both sides, this court having stood over for consideration till this day this court has delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The present complaint is filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque bearing No.034352 issued by the accused to the complainant company.

2.Brief allegations mentioned in the complaint are as under:

On 21-7-2010 the accused approached the complainant company for obtaining loan of Rs.75,000/- for the purpose of his business investment.

Accordingly, the complainant sanctioned loan of Rs.75,000/- to the accused on 21-7-2010 and the accused executed hypothecation agreement and all other relevant documents infavour of the complainant, agreeing to repay the same in 12 equal monthly installments. The complainant made repeated demands for repayment of the said amount, but the accused did not choose to repay the same but he had issued a cheque infavour of the complainant for an amount of Rs.87,979/- towards part payment of the said debt. The said cheque bearing No.034352 dt.16-5-2013 drawn on Union Bank of India, 2

Yeleswaram branch. The complainant presented the said cheque in his account at Union Bank of India, Yeleswaram branch, for collection. The said cheque was dishonoured and the bank authorities had returned the said cheque to the complainant on 15-6-2013 with an endorsement that “INSUFFICIENT FUNDS”. The complainant issued a legal notice to the accused on 29-6-2013 by demanding him to repay the said cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice. The accused received the same but he neither issued any reply nor paid any amount.

The cause of action arose at Yeleswaram branch since the complainant presented the cheque at Union Bank of India, Yeleswaram branch. Hence the complainant filed this complaint with a view to take action against the accused under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused before this court, copies of documents furnished to him as contemplated u/sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of the accusation to him in Telugu for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the case of the complainant, the branch manager of the complainant company examined as P.W.1 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P6.

6.After closure of complainant side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining about the incriminating evidence deposed by the complainant (PW.1) to the accused in Telugu. The accused denied the incriminating evidence deposed by the complainant and stated that he had no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

3

7.Heard arguments on both sides.

8.Upon considering the material evidence available on record and submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, now the point for determination is, whether the complainant established the case U/S.138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.Point:-

To prove the case of the complainant, the branch manager of the complainant company M/s.Asmitha Microfin Limited, Nacharam, Hyderabad

T.N.V.Satyanarayana Murthy examined as PW.1. He reiterated the contents of the complaint in his chief examination. He was cross examined by the counsel for the accused. In the cross he categorically deposed that it is true he does not know personally what was written in Ex.P1 loan application. It is true he saw the accused today at first time in the court. It is true in

Ex.P1, it is not mentioned as per the Reserve Bank guidelines. He does not know the meaning for hypothecation. It is true if any loan holder failed to discharge the loan, the authority approached the civil court to get remedy.

He cannot say what was written in every column of the loan application unless he gone through the record. They did not obtain any property for the security of the loan amount from the sureties. Further deposed that they sanctioned loan to the accused for legal purpose. He cannot say when the complainant company presented the cheque in the bank, but it is in the year 2013. The cheque was bounced on 15-6-2013. The bank issued return memo on 15-6-2013. The loan was released on 21-7-2010. The complainant company issued notice on 29-6-2013. The accused received legal notice on 04-7-2013.

10.It is manifest that to constitute the offence U/S.138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, the complainant has to follow the required ingredients

U/S.142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. To file the complaint, limitation 4 starts to run from the day immediately following the day on which the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice expires. More over, as per

Sec.142(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of proviso to Section 138 of N.I Act. According to Sec.142 of N.I Act, the complainant has to file a complaint within 30 days after expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice by the accused.

11.While advancing the arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complaint is not maintainable under law as the alleged cheque issued by the accused is not for legally enforceable debt and the writing on the cheque is not belongs to the accused, so also the complaint was filed by the complainant limited after stipulated period of 30 days after expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and prays the court to dismiss the complaint.

12.A perusal of the record and after gone through the evidence of PW.1, admittedly, the accused received the notice on 04-7-2013. Obviously, complainant has to file complaint before the court within the stipulated time i.e., on 20-8-2013, but the complainant filed this complaint on 13-9-2013 which is beyond the limitation period.

13.While advancing the arguments, the learned counsel for the accused cited a decision reported in 1999(2) ALT (Crl.) 302 (SC) between SIL

Import Vs Exim Aides Silk Exporters, Bangalore wherein his lordship held that --

Period of Limitation for taking cognizance - “One month of the date on which cause of action arises” interpreted. In the

instant case respondent informed appellant by FAX message on

11-6-1996 about the dishonour of cheque and demanding

payment. On the next day he sent the same notice by

5

Registered post which was received by appellant on 25-6-1996.

Complaint filed on 08-8-1996. Period of 15 days started running from the date of receipt of the FAX i.e., 11-6-1996.

Complaint could have been filed on 26-7-1996, the last date.

But complaint filed on 08-8-1996. Court has no jurisdiction to

take cognizance of the offence on the said complaint.”

14.The learned counsel for the accused also cited on another decision reported in 2003(2) ALT (Crl.) 334 (A.P) between Agricultural Market

Committee, Adoni, Kurnool District Vs Sankar Rao and Company,

Adoni others wherein his lordship held that --

“Sec.142. Limitation Act, 1963, Secs.5 and 29(2). Application of

Sec.5 of Limitation Act to complaints under Sec.138 N.I. Act.

Section 142 prohibits the court from taking cognizance of an

offence except where it is made within one month from the

date on which cause of action arises. Section 5 of Limitation Act excluded.”

15.A careful perusal of the material evidence available on record and the evidence of PW.1, it clearly goes to show that the complaint is filed before the court beyond stipulated period, which is not permissible U/S.142 (b) of

Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, as per the evidence on record and as per the above judgments cited by the learned defence counsel, this court safely drawn the conclusion that the complaint is beyond limitation period.

Since initially it determined that the complaint is beyond limitation period, it is needless to discuss other aspects which are raised by the defence counsel that whether the debt under the cheque is legally enforceable debt and except the signature of the drawee on the cheque, the other writing on the cheque not belongs to him. Hence, in view of the above factual circumstances and discussion supra, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6

16.In the result, the complaint is dismissed. Accused is acquitted.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 23rd day of August, 2016.

Sd/- V.Venkateswara Rao

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Prathipadu.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For Complainant:-

PW.1 : Thammana Naga Venkata Satyanarayana Murty

For Accused:-

--None— Documents marked

For Complainant:-

Ex.P1/dt.21-7-2010 : Loan Application Ex.P2/dt.16-5-2013 : Cheque Ex.P3/dt.21-7-2010 : Pronote cum loan agreement Ex.P4/dt.15-6-2013 : Cheque return memo Ex.P5/dt.29-6-2013 : Office copy of legal notice Ex.P6/dt.---------- : Acknowledgment

For Accused:-

--Nil—

Sd/- V.Venkateswara Rao

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PRATHIPADU.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of East Godavari Calendar of cases tried by Sri V.Venkateswararao, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prathipadu.

Date of Complaint : 13-9-2013 Date of Commencement of trial : 04-8-2016 Date of Closure of trial : 04-8-2016 Date of Sentence of Order : 23-8-2016

Judgment in Calendar Case No.10 of 2014 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of

First Class Court, Pithapuram.

Name of Complainant : M/s.Asmitha Microfin Limited, Nacharam, Hyderabad-76, Rep.by it’s Manager, Shaik Nagur Saheb, S/o Shaik Nasardi Shaheb, A/40 years, Branch Manager, Yeleswaram P.S.

Name of Accused : Gavireddy Pothuraju, A/38 years, Business, H.No.5-53, Opp.MRO office, Yeleswaram P.S.

Offence : U/Sec.138 of N.I Act Plea of accused : Not Guilty Finding : Not Guilty

Sentence : In the result, the complaint is dismissed. Accused is acquitted.

Sd/- V.Venkateswara Rao

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Prathipadu.

Copy submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl.Senior Civil Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: KOTHAPETA

Present: Sri.V. Venkateswara Rao, Junior Civil Judge

CC 128 /2016

Between:

Yennapu Yesuratnam Age 45 Yrs, CSC Mala, Spandana Heights, New Maruthi Nagar, Kothapeta, Hyderabad. Native of L.Gannavaram Village, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

….. Complainant

And

Yennabathula Venkateswara Rao Age 70 Yrs, CSC Mala, L.Gannavaram Village, P.Gannavaram Mandal.

… Accused.

DOCKET ORDER 27.07.2019

Accused, defecto complainant and inured are present, At they request refer to Lok Adalat by suo motto advanced from 14-8-2019 to today i.e., 27-7-2019. Accused, defacto complaint and inured present,prosecution filed a petition U/Sec. 216 Cr.P.C to the charge from 324 IPC to 323 IPC, same is allowed. matter is settled before Lok Adalat, hence accused is acquittal U/Sec.320(8) Cr.P.C for the offence U/Sec. 341,323 IPC. No case property.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 23 th day of July, 2019

Sd/­Sri.V. Venkateswara Rao

 JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

 KOTHAPETA