VSN Lakshmi Lavanya P

1

C.C.No.14 of 2021

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

PALAKOL

PRESENT: Smt. V.S.N. Lakshmi Lavanya P,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)

FRIDAY, THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

C.C.No.14 of 2021

Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakol Town P.S ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Aki Veera Naga Venkata Atchyutha Kishore @ Kishore, S/o Rangarayakulu, Age 44 years, R/o Thilak road, Doddipatla village, Elamanchili mandal.

2. Chille Bhogi Raju, S/o (late) Tataiah, Age 55 years, R/o Chillevaripalem, H/o Kanchustambhampalem village, Elamanchili mandal.

.... Accused

This case coming on 24.02.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri S.K.R.R, learned Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakol Town Police Station filed charge sheet against accused A1 & A2 in Cr.No.185/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (here-in-after referred as “IPC”) and Sec.7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. The brief facts of the charge-sheet are as follows:-

(a). On 09.06.2020 at about 07.00 am, on receipt of credible information about illegal transportation of PDS Rice, LW7/S.I of police along with staff (LWs 1 to 3) and mediators /LWs 5 & LW6 went to near Y.Junction, Yallavani garuvu,

Palakol town and they observed one vehicle ie, TATA Ace bearing no.AP39 TJ

2

C.C.No.14 of 2021 0849, on that they stopped the vehicle and searched. They found PDS Rice and got weighed said Rice ie., 2090 Kgs and also found cash of Rs.5000/- from A1.

On enquiry A1 revealed their identity particulars and confessed that he used to purchased PDS Rice from beneficiaries and sell the same at higher price with the assistance of A2 who is driver of the said vehicle. Then they seized the same along with accused and brought to police station and drafted mediators report in the presence of mediators.

(b) Basing on mediators report, LW7/ S.I of police registered a case in

Cr.No.185/2020 under Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.7(1) of Essential

Commodities Act, 1955 on 09.06.2020 at 08.45 am. During course of investigation LW7 examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements and prepared rough sketch. He served Sec.41-A CrPC notice to accused. After completion of investigation LW7 filed charge sheet. Hence the charge sheet.

3. The case was taken cognizance by this Court for the offences under

Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.7(1) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against accused A1 & A2.

4. On appearance of accused A1 & A2, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and accused was examined under

Section 239 Cr.P.C for the allegations levelled against them. Charge was framed under Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.7(1) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against A1 & A2 and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4,

MO.1 & 2 were got marked. And reported no further evidence. Consequently, prosecution side evidence is closed.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused A1 & A2 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating material was put to them.

3

C.C.No.14 of 2021

They have denied the entire evidence against them and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material on record.

8. Now the point for determination is __

Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt of accused A1 & A2 for the offence punishable under Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.7(1)

of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9. The case of prosecution is that A1 and A2 were found in possession of

PDS Rice illegally. on 09.06.2020, on receipt of reliable information, PW4 along with PW1, and other staff and mediators / PW3 and PW6 went to the scene of offence and found A1 and A2 in possession of PDS rice illegally. PW4 arrested the accused and seized the said rice in the presence of mediators, basing on the confessional statement of A1 ie., A1 has purchaed PDS Rice from beneficiaries and about to sell the same at higher price and he used to take assistance of A2 in the said business. Hence A1 and A2 were liable for the offence punishable under Sec.7(1) of Essential commodities Act, 1955 and

Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC. The prosecution contended that the evidence on behalf of prosecution is cogent, coherent, Corroborative with each other and with material particulars of the case. Thereby the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused (A1 & A2) for the offences charged with beyond all reasonable doubt.

10. The defence put forth by the accused can be deduced from the lines of cross examination and the arguments advanced by the learned defence counsel that the police were not authorized to register a case under Essential

Commodities Act, 1955 without any report from the concerned authority and thereby the proceedings were vitiated. In support of his contention, he relied upon Sec.6E of E.C Act, 1955. Moreover, The confessional statement made

before the police is in admissible in evidence in view of Sec.25 of The Indian

Evidence Act 1872, Besides the confessional statement there is no other

4

C.C.No.14 of 2021 evidence either ocular or documentary, on behalf of prosecution to prove the guilt of accused for the offence charged with. Hence A1 & A2 were entitled for acquittal.

11. So far as the contention of the counsel of accused ie., the police have no authority to register FIR without any report from concerned authority and the

Court is not empowered to take Cognizance basing on the final report submitted by the police, The defence Counsel relied on Sec.6E of Essential Commodities

Act, 1955.

Now it is pertinent to refer Sec.6E of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as follows 6E. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases.-

Whenever any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto, or any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found, or any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity is seized pending confiscation under section 6A, the Collector, or, as the case may be, the judicial authority appointed under section 6C shall have, and, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, any other court, tribunal or authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity, package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.

12. On perusal of the same, this court found that Sec.6E of E.C Act only dealt with the jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of essential commodities, package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or any other conveyance seized in pursuance of any order made under E.C Act, 1955, but not dealt with the jurisdiction of court to take cognizance of the offence under E.C Act.

13. In order to answer the above said contention of the learned counsel of accused, this Court relied on Sec.11 of E.C Act, 1955 read as follows,

5

C.C.No.14 of 2021

11. Cognizance of offences.—

No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a person who is a public servant as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any person aggrieved or any recognised consumer association, whether such person is a member of that association or not.

14. As per Sec.1l of E.C Act-1955, the Court cannot take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act Supra, except on a report made by a public servant as defined in Sec-21 of The Indian penal code 1860, or any person aggrieved or any recognized consumer association, here the police officer is a public servant within the meaning of Sec.21 of IPC. And this count found that when cognizance was taken on the report of police officer the requirement of

Sec.11 of the Act supra complied with, relied upon the verdict of the Honourable

Supreme Court of India in “Satya Narain Musadi and others Vs State of

Bihar” (1980) 3 SCC152 wherein, The Apex court observed that a police officer submitting his report would be a public servant within the meaning of Sec.11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Since the offences under the Act Supra were cognizable offences, therefore, a police officer would be entitled to investigate into such offences without order of Magistrate and if the police officer proceeds to investigate into the offences, it is obligatory upon him to submit a report under Sec.173(2) of CrPC and such report would be a police report for the purpose of Sec.190(1)(b) CrPC and if the Magistrate take cognizance of offences under the E.C Act upon such a report of police officer under Sec.11 of

E.C Act would be complied with in it's entirety.

15. Now coming to the charge under Sec.7(1) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Sec.7 dealt with penalties against a person who contravened any of the order made Under Sec-3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, whereas Sec.3 of

E.C Act dealt with powers to control, production, supply, distribution etc of

Essential Commodities and it permits the Central Government to pass any control order for securing equitable distribution of Essential Commodities and

6

C.C.No.14 of 2021 availability for the defence of India. The efficient conduct of military operations and provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein by any order

16. Here the contention of prosecution is that the accused confessed as he purchased PDS rice from beneficiaries and he used to sell the same at higher price with the assistance of A2, thence he contravened the order made under

Sec.3 of E.C Act. In order to substantiate it's Case, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW1,PW3 and PW4 and Ex.P1 to P4. Since PW2 who is said to be able to testify about the business of A1, not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile and the learned APP failed to elicit anything from the mouth of witness except got marking his statement under Sec.161 of CrPC, 1973.

17. PW1, PW3 and PW4 categorically deposed in their chief examination as, on receiving credible information about illegal transportation of PDS Rice, PW4 along with his staff/ PW1 and other public and mediators / PW3 and LW6 by name Nalli Jayaraju went to Yallavani garuvu, Y junction, Palakol. There they found A1 and A2 in MO2/ TATA ace bearing no.AP39 TJ 0849 in possession of

PDS Rice. On enquiry they revealed their identity particulars and confessed that A1 purchased PDS rice from beneficiaries and used to sell the same at higher price with the assistance of A2 in it's transportation. On that PW4 seized the rice along with MO.1 and MO.2 under the cover of Mediators report/Ex.P2 and arrested A1 and A2. Basing on Ex.P2, PW4 registered FIR / Ex.P3 and submitted find report after completion of investigation.

18. But in cross examination PW3/ who is punch witness has deposed that they conformed the seized rice as PDS rice by its appearance and he cannot remember the names on the seized bags and also admitted that the seized rice is also be available in open market. And further deposed that he did not mention the variety of seized rice in Ex.P2 and there is a difference in his signatures on

Ex.P2 and identity slips affixed on the seized property/ MO.1 and MO.2. And also there is correction in the time of beginning of drafting Ex.P2 and there is no

7

C.C.No.14 of 2021 initial at there to authenticate the same. And in cross examination PW4/ the investigation officer testified as he confirmed the seized rice as PDS rice based on the bags in which the rice was stored and he did not obtain the photographs of the same and the seized rice was sent to FCI for it's disposal. But he did not collect any sample and sent the sample for expert examination.

19. Having gone through the entire evidence on record and considering the arguments put forth on both sides, this Court found that there is no such evidenced either ocular or documentary on behalf of prosecution in order to show that the seized rice was PDS rice and admittedly they confirmed the seized rice as PDS rice by its appearance and no sample was taken from the same for Expert examination, except the confessional statement made by the accused before the police and it is not admissible in evidence in view of Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Since as long as there is no evidence on behalf of prosecution in order to show that the seized rice is PDS rice, The charge under

Sec.7(1) of E.C Act will not sustain.

20. Now coming to the charge under Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused must deceive another and induced such person to deliver any property or to retain any property fraudulently or dishonestly ie, for gain wrongfully or to cause loss wrongfully. In this context, the contention of prosecution is that the accused found in possession of PDS Rice and the court can conclude that it is only for wrongful gain and thereby the accused is liable under Sec.420 of IPC. On considering the evidence, this court found that in the absence of evidence to show the seized rice as PDS rice, the accused was not attributed to be in the possession of PDS Rice and purchased the same from beneficiaries for wrongful gain. Hence the prosecution failed prove the guilt of accused under Sec.420 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

21. In the result, this court found accused A1 & A2 are not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.7(1) of E.C Act, 1955 and accordingly they are acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the

8

C.C.No.14 of 2021 accused no.1 and 2 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment in view of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 is cash of Rs.5000/- shall be confiscated to the state after appeal time is over. The interim custody of

MO.2 which was given earlier is hereby made absolute after the time for appeal is over.

Typed to dictation by the Typist on computer system, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 28 th day of February, 2025.

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE

(Junior Division) Palakol

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined

For Prosecution: - For Defence: -

PW.1: K.Prasad Babu - None – PW.2: G.Satyanarayana PW.3: Ch.Subba Rao PW.4: Fazul Rahaman

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: - For Defence: -

Ex.P1: 161 CrPC statement of PW2. - Nil- Ex.P2: Report. Ex.P3: FIR. Ex.P4: Rough sketch.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1 : Cash of Rs.5000/-. MO.2 : TATA Ace bearing no.AP39 TJ 0849.

ACJ (J.D)

PKL

9

C.C.No.14 of 2021

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

PALAKOL

C.C.No.14 OF 2021

Date of

Offence Complaint/Arrested released CommenceClose of Sentence or Report ment of trial trial order 09.06.2020 09.06.2020 Sec.41-A -- 10.08.2022 19.02.2025 28.02.2025 CrPC notice served Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakol Town P.S ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Aki Veera Naga Venkata Atchyutha Kishore @ Kishore, S/o Rangarayakulu, Age 44 years, R/o Thilak road, Doddipatla village, Elamanchili mandal.

2. Chille Bhogi Raju, S/o late Tataiah, Age 55 years, R/o Chillevaripalem, H/o Kanchustambhampalem village, Elamanchili mandal.

.... Accused

Offence: under Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.7(1) of Essential Commodities Act Act, 1955.

Pleading:”Pleaded Not Guilty”

Finding:“FOUND Not GUILTY”

SENTENCE (OR) ORDER :

In the result, this court found accused A1 & A2 are not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.7(1) of E.C Act, 1955 and accordingly they are acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no.1 and 2 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment in view of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 is cash of Rs.5000/- shall be confiscated to the state after appeal time is over. The interim custody of MO.2 which was given earlier is hereby made absolute after the time for appeal is over.

10

C.C.No.14 of 2021

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY:

This case was taken on file on 20.01.2021. On 04.03.2021 appearance of accused A1 & A2, they were furnished with the copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 Code of Criminal Procedure–1973. On 05.07.2022, Accused no.1 & 2 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, charges framed against accused A1 & A2 for the offence under 420 r/w 34 of

IPC and Sec.7(1) of E.C Act, 1955. On 20.01.2025, PW.1 and PW.2 examined and Ex.P1 got marked. On 29.01.2025, PW.3 is examined, Ex.P2 and MO.1 got marked. On 19.02.2025, PW.4 is examined and Ex.P3, P4, MO.2 got marked.

Prosecution evidence is closed. On 21.02.2025, Accused no.1 & 2 were examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. On 27.02.2025 Heard arguments. On 28.02.2025 Judgment pronounced in open Court.

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE

(Junior Division) Palakol

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District AND Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari (Through Compact Disk).

1

C.C.No.180 of 2018

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

PALAKOL

PRESENT: Smt. V.S.N. Lakshmi Lavanya P,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)

FRIDAY, THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

C.C.No.180 of 2018

Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakol Rural P.S ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Nalli Rajesh, S/o Narasimhamurthy, Age 35 years, Venkatapuram village, Palakol Mandal.

2. Yenugupalli Chandra Sekhar, S/o Subbarao, Age 35 years, Chinapeta, Lankalakoderu village of Palakol mandal.

3. Kunche Venkateswara Rao, S/o Ramudu, Age 32 years, Venkatapuram village, Palakol Mandal.

4. Nakka Nageswara Rao, S/o Subba Rao, Age 45 years, Venkatapuram village, Palakol Mandal.

5. Nakka Vijaya Kumar, S/o Subba Rao, Age 40 years, Venkatapuram village, Palakol Mandal.

6. Nakka Bulli Krishna, S/o Adamu, Age 42 years, Venkatapuram village, Palakol Mandal.

7. Veeramallu Chandrayya, S/o Sri Ramulu, Age 40 years, Venkatapuram village, Palakol Mandal.

8. Veeramallu Narasimha Murthy @ Narasayya, S/o Sriramulu, Age 35 years, Venkatapuram village, Palakol Mandal.

9. Veeramallu Nageswara Rao, S/o Sriramulu, Age 47 years, Venkatapuram village, Palakol Mandal.

.... Accused

This case coming on 24.02.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri M.Venkata Rama Reddy, learned Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakol Rural Police Station filed charge sheet against accused A1 to A9 in Cr.No.10/2017 for the offence punishable

2

C.C.No.180 of 2018 under Sections 341, 506, 153(A) r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code (here-in-after referred as “IPC”) and Sec.7(1)(b) of the Criminal law Amendment Act, 1932.

2. The brief facts of the charge-sheet are as follows:-

(a). LW1/ Medidi Prakash/ VRO is defacto complainant in this case. The

LW10 loss his purse at Sankranthi Festival at Dagguluru village nearby

Anjaneya Swamy temple nearby NH165 road of Palakol to Bhimavaram road and LW10 purse was found and LW7 & LW8 handed over the purse to LW10.

After few minutes the accused A1 to A9 came to the spot on 14.01.2017 at 03.00 pm and A1 put his white colour Scorpio car on the NH214 Bhimavaram to

Palakol road acrossed his car on the middle of the road and accused A1 to A9 created nuisance on the said road. A1 to A9 announced and slogans that we are SC mala caste and why bet the upper caste and SC mala castes. The accused objected the traffic and wrongful restrained the vehicles and the accused deviate the Government rules. All the accused A1 to A9 announced that if any person interference into their work, they put SC –ST attractive case against them and threatened the public. Then LW1 gave report to police.

(b) Basing on statement/ report of LW1, LW11/ S.I of police registered a case in Cr.No.10/2017 under Sections 341, 506, 153(A) r/w 149 of IPC and

Sec.7(1)(b) of the Criminal law Amendment Act on 14.01.2017 at 05.30 pm.

During course of investigation LW11 examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements and prepared rough sketch. He served Sec.41-A CrPC notice to all accused. After completion of investigation LW13 filed charge sheet.

Hence the charge sheet.

3. The case was taken cognizance by this Court for the offences under

Sections 341, 506, 153(A) r/w 149 of IPC and Sec.7(1)(b) of the Criminal law

Amendment Act against accused A1 to A9.

4. On appearance of accused A1 to A9, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and accused was examined under

Section 239 Cr.P.C for the allegations levelled against them. Charge was

3

C.C.No.180 of 2018 framed Sections 341, 506, 153(A) r/w 149 of IPC and Sec.7(1)(b) of the Criminal law Amendment Act against A1 to A9 and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P10 were got marked. And reported no further evidence. Consequently, prosecution side evidence is closed.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused A1 to A9 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating material was put to them.

They have denied the entire evidence against them and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material on record.

8. Now the point for determination is __ Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt of accused A1 to A9 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 506, 153(A) r/w 149 of IPC and Sec.7(1)(b) of the Criminal law Amendment Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9. The contention of the prosecution is that, on 14.01.2017 at about 02.00 pm, two unknown persons were stolen the purse of PW9 at the Sankranthi celebrations held near Anjaneya Swamy temple, Dagguluru village. The purse was recovered from the said two persons due to which nearby people beat that persons with hands. On that at about 3.00 PM, A1 along with A2 to A9 and some other persons came to the celebrations and placed the vehicle across the road ie., NH165 Palace by causing inconvenience and obstructions to the vehicles passed on the road and the people as well. And announced and made slogans that they were belongs to SC-Mala by caste, why the upper caste people beat the lower caste people ie., above said two persons and also announced that they will file SC-ST atrocity cases against the upper caste persons by promoting enimity between castes. Thence the accused A1 to A9 were liable for the offences punishable under Sec - 341, 506, 186 153(A) r/w

4

C.C.No.180 of 2018 149 of IPC and Sec.7(1)(b) of Criminal law Amendment Act-1932. The prosecution also contended that the evidence on behalf of prosecution is cogent, corroborating with each other and with Material particulars of the case.

Hence the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offences charged with beyond all reasonable doubt.

10. Per contra the contention of the learned counsel of the accused is that due to political rivalries between two groups, the police foisted case against one group ie., A1 to A9 with false allegations to accommodate another group. And also contended that the allegation in the complaint together with other material collected during investigation are taken at one face value, it was not sufficient to prove the ingredients to attract the offences charged with beyond all reasonable doubt. Moreover there were material discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution leads to a reasonable doubt as to its case. Hence A1 to A9, were entitled for acquittal.

11. Now it is pertinent to discuss the essential ingredients for the offences punishable under Sec.341, 506,153(A) of IPC and Sec.7(1)(b) of the Criminal

Law Amendment Act, 1932 as follows,

In order to substantiate its case, for the offence punishable under Sec.341 of IPC, 1860. The essential ingredients are as follows,

i) There must be voluntarily obstruction of a person, ii) The obstruction must be such as to prevent that person from proceeding in a direction in which he has a right to proceed.

To prove the guilt for the offences punishable under Sec.506 of IPC, 1860, the essential ingredients are as follows

(i) The accused threatened someone with injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person, reputation or property of another in whom the former was interested; ii) The accused did so with intent to cause alarm to the victim of offence; iii) The accused did so to cause the victim to perform any act which he was not legally bound to do.

5

C.C.No.180 of 2018

To prove the guilt for the offences punishable under Sec.153(A) of IPC, the essential ingredients are as follows

In so far as the offence under Section153A IPC is concerned, it provides for punishment for promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever or brings about disharmony or feeling of hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities.

To prove the guilt for the offences punishable under Sec.7(1)(b) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, the essential ingredients are as follows

Section 7(1)(b) in The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932

Loiters or does any similar act at or near the place where a person carries on business, in such a way and with intent that any person may thereby be deterred from entering or approaching or dealing at such place, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

12. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and Ex.P1 to P10 were marked. But the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and PW10, since PW4 to PW9 were not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Even in their cross examination by the learned

APP under Sec. 154 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, nothing was elicited from their mouth except got marking of their statements U/Sec.161 of CrPC, 1973.

13. PW1/ the complainant who is alleged to be present at the time of incedend deposed that at about 03.00 pm, on 14.01.2017, A1 came to the celebrations and conducted Rastraroko. A2 to A9 were also present there. The reason for rastraroko is that upper caste people beat lower caste people. But he did not remember the names of all of the accused who were in the dock. A1 threatened upper caste people that they will file SC-ST case against them. But in his cross examination, he testified that he cannot say the number of vehicle kept across the road. And also admitted as he did not know that who belongs to upper caste and who belongs to lower caste among the people gathered at

6

C.C.No.180 of 2018 celebrations. And also admitted that the police also present there at the celebrations but the police did not arrest the accused at the time of Rastraroko.

14. PW2 and PW3 who were alleged to be eye witnesses for the incident categorically deposed in their chief examination as on 14.01.2017, at about 2.00

PM, during Sankranthi Celebrations, the purse of PW9 fell down and 2 persons found the same and handed over it to PW9. At that time some galata took place and they do not know anything about the case except the said facts and in cross examination both PW2 and PW3 deposed that there were about 20 police were present and the police did not arrest the accused at that time.

15. PW9/ the person whose purse was stolen at the alleged time of incident ie, the alleged reason for incident turned hostile and admittedly no report was given by PW9 about the incident.

16. PW10/ The Investigation officer deposed the Chronological events of the investigation. In his cross examination he admitted that he did not examine the neighbors of scene of offence and nothing worthy is elicited to touch the core of prosecution case. Ultimately it was suggested to him that he had not done proper investigation and the accused was falsely implicated in this case basing on the false report given by PW1, and the accused did not commit any offence for which he denied.

17. Except PW1 none of the prosecution witnesses were deposed about the presence and overt acts of the accused at the scene of offence. And PW1 has not deposed even a single word about the participation of A2 to A9 in the commission of offence. And admittedly there were police at the time of incident and they were not tried to pacify the same. On perusal of evidence of PW1, this court felt that there is no mention of any specific words uttered by A1 to promote enimity between two communities and there is no such evidence to show that two or more community people were present there at the time of incident. And

PW1 cannot say the number or description of vehicle which was alleged to be

7

C.C.No.180 of 2018 put across the road thereby A1 caused obstruction to the people. And this court found that there is no such circumstances in the evidence of PW1 from which the intention to commit any of the offences can be drawn. The evidence of PW1 as a whole leads to a reasonable doubt as to his presence at the time of incident.

18. Having gone through the entire evidence on record and considering the submissions on both sides. This court found that there is no such evidence either oral or documentary on behalf of prosecution in order to prove any of the ingredients to attract any of the offences charged with. Since as long as the offences were not proved, there is no room for proof of common object to attribute vicarious liability to the accused for the acts done by any of them as contemplated u/s 149 of IPC.

19. In view of the above said discussion the prosecution miserably failed to prove the quilt of accused for the offences punishable under Sec.341, 506, 153 (A) of r/w 149 IPC and Sec.7(1)(b) of Criminal law amendment Act, 1932 beyond all reasonable doubt.

20. In the result, this court found accused A1 to A9 are not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 506, 153(A) r/w 149 of IPC and

Sec.7(1)(b) of the Criminal Amendment Act and accordingly they are acquitted

U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no.1 to 9 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment in view of

Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to dictation by the Typist on computer system, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 28 th day of February, 2025.

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE

(Junior Division) Palakol

8

C.C.No.180 of 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined

For Prosecution: - For Defence: -

PW.1: Medidi Prakash - None –

PW.2: D.Venkata Siva Kumar

PW.3: S.Chandra Sekhar

PW.4: K.Rama Krishna

PW.5: G.Dhanayya

PW.6: A.Lakshmi

PW.7: D.Madhu

PW.8: M.Jalli Poul

PW.9: M.Ratna Kumar

PW.10: K.Nageswara Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: - For Defence: -

Ex.P1: Report given by PW1. - Nil-

Ex.P2: 161 CrPC statement of PW3.

Ex.P3: 161 CrPC statement of PW4.

Ex.P4: 161 CrPC statement of PW5.

Ex.P5: 161 CrPC statement of PW6.

Ex.P6: 161 CrPC statement of PW7.

Ex.P7: 161 CrPC statement of PW8.

Ex.P8: 161 CrPC statement of PW9.

Ex.P9: FIR.

Ex.P10: Rough sketch.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

ACJ (J.D)

PKL

9

C.C.No.180 of 2018

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

PALAKOL

C.C.No.180 OF 2018

Date of

Offence Complaint/Arrested released CommenceClose of Sentence or Report ment of trial trial order 14.01.2017 14.01.2017 Sec.41-A -- 17.06.2019 19.02.2025 28.02.2025 CrPC notice served

Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakol Rural P.S ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Nalli Rajesh, S/o Narasimhamurthy, Age 35 years, Venkatapuram village, Palakol Mandal.

2. Yenugupalli Chandra Sekhar, S/o Subbarao, Age 35 years, Chinapeta, Lankalakoderu village of Palakol mandal.

3. Kunche Venkateswara Rao, S/o Ramudu, Age 32 years, Venkatapuram village, Palakol Mandal.

4. Nakka Nageswara Rao, S/o Subba Rao, Age 45 years, Venkatapuram village, Palakol Mandal.

5. Nakka Vijaya Kumar, S/o Subba Rao, Age 40 years, Venkatapuram village, Palakol Mandal.

6. Nakka Bulli Krishna, S/o Adamu, Age 42 years, Venkatapuram village, Palakol Mandal.

7. Veeramallu Chandrayya, S/o Sri Ramulu, Age 40 years, Venkatapuram village, Palakol Mandal.

8. Veeramallu Narasimha Murthy @ Narasayya, S/o Sriramulu, Age 35 years, Venkatapuram village, Palakol Mandal.

9. Veeramallu Nageswara Rao, S/o Sriramulu, Age 47 years, Venkatapuram village, Palakol Mandal.

.... Accused

Offence: under Sections 341, 506, 153(A) r/w 149 of IPC and

Sec.7(1)(b) of the Criminal law Amendment Act, 1932.

10

C.C.No.180 of 2018

Pleading:”Pleaded Not Guilty”

Finding:“FOUND Not GUILTY”

SENTENCE (OR) ORDER :

In the result, this court found accused A1 to A9 are not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 506, 153(A) r/w 149 of IPC and

Sec.7(1)(b) of the Criminal law Amendment Act, 1932 and accordingly they are acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no.1 to 9 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment in view of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY:

This case was taken on file on 08.06.2018. On 01.08.2018 appearance of accused A1 to A9, they were furnished with the copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 Code of Criminal Procedure–1973. On 07.05.2019, Accused no.1 to 9 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, charges framed against accused A1 to A9 for the offence under Sec. 341, 506, 153(A) r/w 149 of IPC and Sec.7(1)(b) of the Criminal law Amendment Act, 1932. On 12.09.2022, PW.1 examined and Ex.P1 got marked. On 02.03.2023,

PWs.2 and 3 are examined, Ex.P2 got marked. On 14.08.2024, PW.4 to 7 are examined and Ex.P3 to P6 got marked. On 27.01.2025, PW.8 & 9 are examined and Ex.P7 & P8 got marked. On 17.02.2025, PW10 is examined, Ex.P9 & P10 got marked. Prosecution evidence is closed. On 21.02.2025, Accused no.1 to 9 were examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. On 27.02.2025 Heard arguments. On 28.02.2025 Judgment pronounced in open Court.

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE

(Junior Division) Palakol Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District AND Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari (Through Compact Disk).

1

C.C.No.4 of 2020

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

PALAKOL

PRESENT: Smt. V.S.N. Lakshmi Lavanya P,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)

FRIDAY, THIS THE 1st DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

C.C.No.4 of 2020

Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Achanta Police Station.

….Complainant

Vs.

1. Purella Satish, S/o. late Srinivasa Rao, Aged 20 years, Kavurupalem village, Achanta Mandal.

2. Purella Bagya Lakshmi, W/o late Srinivasa Rao, Aged 38 years, Kavurupalem, Achanta village and mandal.

.... Accused

This case coming on 29.10.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri B.N.M, learned Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Achanta Police Station filed charge sheet against A1 & A2 in Cr.No.208/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 286 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (here-in-after referred as “IPC”) and Sec.9-B (1)(a)(b) of Indian Explosive Act, 1884.

2. The brief facts of the charge-sheet are as follows:-

(a). LW.1/Kommina Raja Babu/ VRO-II is the de facto complainant in this case. On 05.10.2019 at 03.30 pm, LW7/ SI of police along with mediators /

LW1 and LW2 and staff /LW3 and LW6 went to the house of accused at

D.No.29-112/1, Bokka Satyanarayana gari empty site, Rekula shed, Kindapora,

2

C.C.No.4 of 2020

H/o Achanta village and mandal and seized Taarajuvvalu with stick-650,

Taarajuvvalu-160, Empty Chichibudlu-90, Thread bomb fire crackers -195,

Sulphur powder -1/4 kg, Empty shells -75, worth of Rs.15,000/- from the possession the accused A1 and another A2 are manufacturing fire crackers.

(b) Basing on report given by LW1, LW7/ S.I of police registered a case in Cr.No.208/2019 under Sec.286 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.9-B (1)(a)(b) of

Indian Explosive Act, 1884. The seized material were separated and sent to Fire

Officer, Palakol under cover of mediators report duly signed by the LW1 and

LW2 and LW7 and the accused and Fire Officer, who opined that seized samples are low explosive in nature and gave report to that extent. On 05.10.2019, I issued 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the A1 and A2. As the accused A1 failed to comply the notice, on 07.10.2019 I arrested the A1 and sent for judicial custody.

3. The case was taken cognizance by this Court for the offence under

Sec.286 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.9-B (1)(a)(b) of Indian Explosive Act, 1884 against A1 & A2.

4. On appearance of accused A1 & A2, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and A1 & A2 are examined under

Section 239 Cr.P.C for the allegations levelled against them. Charges framed for the offence under Sec.286 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.9-B (1)(a)(b) of Indian

Explosive Act, 1884 against A1 & A2, read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.1 to 5 were got marked. And the prosecution reported no further evidence. Consequently, prosecution side evidence is closed.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating material was put to him. He had denied the entire evidence against him and reported no defence evidence.

3

C.C.No.4 of 2020

7. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material on record.

8. Now the point for determination is __ Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt of accused A1 & A2 for the offence punishable under Sec.286 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.9-B (1)(a)(b) of Indian Explosive Act, 1884 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9. The case of prosecution is that on 05.10.2019, the accused A1 and A2 found in possession of Explosive substance as they confessed before the police that they manufactured the same for selling at higher prices without license.

Thereby the accused A1 and A2 were liable under Sec.286 r/w 34 of IPC and

Sec.9-B (1)(a)(b) of Indian Explosive Act, 1884. To prove the same the prosecution got examined PW1 to PW6 and Ex.P1 to P4 and MOs.1 to MO.5 got marked. The prosecution contended that the evidence of prosecution witnesses were credible, cogent, corroborated with each other and also corroborated with material particulars of the case. Thereby the prosecution proved the guilt of accused A1 and A2 under Sec.286 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.9-B (1)(a)(b) of Indian Explosive Act, 1884 beyond all reasonable doubt.

10. Now it is pertinent to refer Sec.9-B (1)(a)(b) of Indian Explosive Act, 1884 and Sec.286 of IPC as follows 9B. Punishment for certain offences.- (1) Whoever, in contravention of rules made under section 5 or of the conditions of a licence granted under the said rules--

(a) manufactures, imports or exports any explosive shall he punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both;

(b) possesses, uses, sells or transports any explosive shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees or with both;

4

C.C.No.4 of 2020

Sec.286 of IPC

286. Negligent conduct with respect to explosive substance.—

Whoever does, with any explosive substance, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person,or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any explosive substance in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from that substance,shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

To substantiate its case the prosecution obliged to prove that,

i) The seized property must be the explosive substance ii) And the said property must be seized from the possession of the accused without license, iii) The accused acted negligently, when dealt with the explosive substances

11. In this case, the prosecution proved that the seized property / MO.1 to

MO.5 as fire works which is one of the forms of explosive by Ex.P4/ certificate of

Fire Officer, Palakol which is remarked as fire works (low explosive) and also remarked that no one can possess or manufactured the same without license.

And there is no dispute as to the authenticity of Ex.P4 and the mode of taking sample and sending the same for chemical analysis. Hence the prosecution proved that the seized property is fire works which is one of the forms of explosive substances and no one can possess or manufacture the same without license.

12. The only issue is whether the crime property ie., MO.1 to MO.5 seized from the possession of A1 and A2 as contended by the prosecution. To substantiate the same the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW6 and Ex.P1/ mediators report.

5

C.C.No.4 of 2020

13. Whereas the rival contention of the counsel of accused is that the police foisted the above case against the accused with false averments, by preparing the entire record at the police station, for statistical purpose only. And also contended that there were disagreement among the prosecution witnesses about the scene of offence at which allegedly the accused was found in possession of fire works that is PW1 to PW3, in their chief examination deposed that they went on raid to Kavurupalem of Achanta village. And PW5 and PW6 deposed that they went on raid to Kindipora of Achanta village. And during cross examination PW6 admitted that there are 14 hamlets in the village of Achanta which are separated with each other and as per facts of the case the scene of offence is Kindipora, one of the hamlets of Achanta village. This leads to a reasonable doubt as to the scene of offence at which allegedly the accused were found in the possession of fire works.

14. As per the case of prosecution the scene of offence is belongs to one person namely Bokka Satyanarayana, wherein the accused were allegedly found in possession of fire works. The prosecution neither arrayed the said person as an accused being the owner of the scene of offence, nor examined as a witness to show the accused A1 and A2 were in the possession of the scene of offence. And during cross examination PW6 deposed that he did not collected any documentary evidence in proof of the accused were in possession of scene of offence. All the above said infirmities in the case of prosecution leads to a reasonable doubt as to seizure of crime property from the possession of accused. Thereby the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused Sec.9-B (1)(a)(b) of Indian Explosive Act, 1884 as well as under Sec.286 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence A1 and A2 were entitled to acquittal.

15. Adverting the contentions on both sides, this court found as rightly contended by the counsel of accused that there are disagreements as to the scene of offence among the prosecution witnesses. Admittedly there are 14 hamlets in the village of Achanta village which are separated with each other.

Some of the witnesses deposed that they were went to raid to Kavurupalem of

6

C.C.No.4 of 2020

Achanta village, wherein the accused were found in possession of fire works.

And some of the other witnesses deposed that they went on raid to Kindipora hamlet of Achanta village. This leads to a reasonable doubt as to the very case of prosecution that the accused were found in possession of fire works in

Kindipora hamplet of Achanta village.

16. And this court further found that as per the case of prosecution, Bokka

Satyanarayana is the owner of the scene of offence, but he was neither arrayed as accused nor examined as witness in order to prove that the accused were in possession of scene of offence.

17. In view of above said discussion, and the above said infirmities, this court felt that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused were in possession of scene of offence as well as crime property. Hence there is no question of negligence on part of A1 and A2 when dealt with explosive substances. Thereby the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused A1 and

A2 under Sec.9-B (1)(a)(b) of Indian Explosive Act, 1884 and Sec.286 r/w 34 of

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. The point is answered accordingly.

18. In the result, this court found accused is not guilty for the offence under Sec.286 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.9-B (1)(a)(b) of Indian Explosive Act, 1884 and accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the

Judgment as per 437-A of Cr.P.C. The crackers which were seized and marked ie., M.O.1 to M.O.5 shall be destroyed and the investigating Officer shall prepare a panchanama to that effect and file report.

Typed to dictation by the Typist on computer system, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 1 st day of November, 2024.

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE

(Junior Division) Palakol

7

C.C.No.4 of 2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined

For Prosecution: - For Defence: -

PW.1: K.Raja Babu - None –

PW.2: V.Srinivasa Rao

PW.3: A.Thimmaraju

PW.4: P.Peddi Raju

PW.5: G.P.Ranga Rao

PW.6: Ch.Rajasekhar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: - For Defence: -

Ex.P1: Mediators report - NIL -

Ex.P2: FIR.

Ex.P3: Rough sketch

Ex.P4: Certificate.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1: Tarajuvvalu with stick-650

M.O.2 : Tarajuvvalu-160

M.O.3: Thread Bomb fire crackers -195

M.O.4: Sulphur power ¼ kg

M.O.5: Empty Chichibudlu-90

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE

(Junior Division) Palakol

8

C.C.No.4 of 2020

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

PALAKOL

C.C.No.4 OF 2020

Date of

Offence Complaint/Arrested released CommenceClose of trial Sentence or Report ment of trial order 05.10.2019 05.10.2019 -- -- 22.02.2021 28.10.2024 01.11.2024

Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Achanta Police Station.

….Complainant

Vs.

1. Purella Satish, S/o. late Srinivasa Rao, Aged 20 years, Kavurupalem village, Achanta Mandal.

2. Purella Bagya Lakshmi, W/o late Srinivasa Rao, Aged 38 years, Kavurupalem, Achanta village and mandal.

.... Accused

Offence: under Sec.286 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.9-B (1)(a)(b) of Indian Explosive Act, 1884

Pleading:”Pleaded Not Guilty”

Finding:“FOUND Not GUILTY”

SENTENCE (OR) ORDER :

In the result, this court found accused is not guilty for the offence under

Sec.286 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.9-B (1)(a)(b) of Indian Explosive Act, 1884 and accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the

Judgment as per 437-A of Cr.P.C. The crackers which were seized and marked ie., M.O.1 to M.O.5 shall be destroyed and the investigating Officer shall prepare a panchanama to that effect and file report.

9

C.C.No.4 of 2020

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY:

This case was taken on file on 18.11.2019. On 07.01.2020 appearance of

A1 & A2, they were furnished with the copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 Code of Criminal Procedure–1973. On 22.01.2021, A1 & A2 are examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, charges framed against accused for the offence under Sec.286 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.9-B (1)(a)(b) of Indian Explosive

Act, 1884. On 07.03.2022, PW.1 examined and Ex.P1 and MO.1 to 5 were got marked. On 26.09.2022, PW.2 is examined. On 19.10.2022, PW.3 is examined.

On 25.01.2023, PW.4 is examined. On 27.02.2023, PW.5 is examined. On 28.10.2024, P.6 is examined and Ex.P2 to P4 got marked. Prosecution evidence is closed. On 29.10.2024, Accused was examined under Sec.313 of

Cr.P.C. On 29.10.2024 Heard arguments. On 01.11.2024 Judgment

pronounced in open Court.

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE

(Junior Division) Palakol

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District AND Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari (Through Compact Disk).

1

C.C.No.228 of 2021

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

PALAKOL

PRESENT: Smt. V.S.N. Lakshmi Lavanya P,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)

FRIDAY, THIS THE 1st DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

C.C.No.228 of 2021

Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Achanta Police Station.

….Complainant

Vs.

Pandi Rambabu, S/o. China Narasimha Murthy, Aged 49 years, Penumanchili village, Achanta Mandal.

.... Accused

This case coming on 29.10.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri D.Subramanyem, learned Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Achanta Police Station filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.146/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 379 of Indian Penal Code (here-in-after referred as “IPC”) and Sec.3(1) of PDPP

Act, 1984.

2. The brief facts of the charge-sheet are as follows:-

(a). LW.1/D.N.V.Chalam/ VRO is the de facto complainant in this case.

LW2/K.Amminidu and LW3/ L.Subramanyam were working as a VRA’s of

Penumanchili village and Achanta mandal. LW1 received information on 19.07.2019 at evening, that the accused stored 10 units of sand illegally and thereby LW1 took assistance of LW2 & LW3 and went to scene of offence and saw the stored 10 units of sand at accused own vacant site, when the LW1

2

C.C.No.228 of 2021 asked about any proofs to the 10 units of sand, the accused person did not furnish any document. Later LW1 gave a report to LW6/ S.I of police to take action against the accused then LW6 registered a case in Cr.No.146/2019 under Sec.188 of IPC, Sub Sec.3 of 9(B)(3) of MMCR 1966 & Sec.3(1) of PDPP

Act, 1984 Mines and Mineral Development and Regulation for the unlawful acts in this case.

(b). During the course of investigation it is revealed that Sec.188 IPC and sub Sec.3 of 9(B)(3) of MMCR 1966 does not attract to the case and attracts Sec.379 of IPC to the case. A memo is filed by the police before the court to permit to deletion of Sec.188 IPC and sub Sec.3 of 9(B)(3) of MMCR 1966. Later LW6/ SI of police filed a requisition to Mandal Executive Magistrate,

Achanta to take the custody of the seized sand and as per his instructions the seized sand handed over to special Deputy Tahsildhar, Achanta and obtained acknowledgment. On 23.07.2019, LW6/ S.I of police served Sec.41-A CrPC notice to the accused.

3. The case was taken cognizance by this Court for the offence under

Sections 379 of IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act against accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and accused was examined under

Section 239 Cr.P.C for the allegations levelled against him. Charges framed for the offence under Sections 379 of IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act against Accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were got marked. Consequently, prosecution side evidence is closed.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating material was put to him. He had denied the entire evidence against him and reported no defence evidence.

3

C.C.No.228 of 2021

7. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material on record.

8. Now the point for determination is __ Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Sections 379 of IPC, 1860 and Sec.3 of PDPP Act, 1984 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9. The case of prosecution is that on receipt of information on 19.07.2019, the complainant /PW1 who is working as VRO, Penumanchili village that the accused illegally stored 10 units of sand at his own vacant site, PW1 along with

PW2 and PW5 went to the scene of offence and found 10 units of sand, for which the accused did not furnish any documents on complaint of PW1, PW6 registered the case. Hence the accused is liable under Sections 379 of IPC, 1860 and Sec.3 of PDPP Act, 1984. In order to prove the same the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. Material objects were not produced in this case. The prosecution contended that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was credible, corroborating with each other and also corroborating with material particulars of the case. Thereby the prosecution proved the guilt of accused under Sections 379 of IPC, 1860 and Sec.3 of

PDPP Act, 1984.

10. Per contra, the contention of the counsel of accused is that the prosecution failed to prove the charges for the offence punishable under

Sections 379 of IPC, 1860, since no ingredients are available to attract the offence under Sec.379 of IPC. There is no evidence to prove that the accused had committed theft of sand. Even according to the case of prosecution, the accused was found in possession of sand, the prosecution failed to prove from where the sand was taken and by whom it is taken. And also contended that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Sec.3 of PDPP Act, since no ingredients are available to attract the above said charge. In order to prove the charge under Sec.3 of PDPP Act the prosecution must prove that the accused

4

C.C.No.228 of 2021 caused mischief in respect of any public property. But there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that the accused procured the said sand by means of mischief in respect of public property. Thereby the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused under Sections 379 of IPC, 1860 and Sec.3 of

PDPP Act, 1984. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

11. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the provisions, Sec.3 of PDPP Act, 1984 which are as follows

Section 3 in The Prevention Of Damage To Public Property Act, 1984

3. Mischief causing damage to public property (1) Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property, other than public property of the nature referred to in sub- section (2), shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine.

(2) Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property being

(a) any building, installation or other property used in connection with the production, distribution or supply of water, light, power or energy;

(b) any oil installations;

(c) any sewage works;

(d) any mine or factory;

(e) any means of public transportation or of tele- communications, or any building, installation or other property used in connection therewith, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine:

Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in its judgment,

award a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.

In order to prove the charge for the offence under Section 379 of IPC, it is settled law that the prosecution must to establish essential factors,

that the accused had dishonestly taken the property, that the property was

5

C.C.No.228 of 2021

movable, that the property was taken out of the possession of another

person/complainant, that it was taken without the consent of that

person/complainant and that there must be some moving of the property in

order to accomplish the taking of it. In the light of the said principle, it has to be

seen whether the prosecution had proved the charge for the offence under

Section 379 of IPC or not.

12. Adverting the contentions on both sides, and on perusal of entire evidence on record, this court found as rightly contended by the counsel of accused that PW2 to PW5 who were allegedly eye witnesses for the seizure of said sand from the possession of the accused are not supported the case of prosecution. At this stage, the learned APP sought for permission to cross examine the witnesses under Sec.154 of Evidence Act, 1872. The permission was accorded, but no incriminating material against the accused was elicited from the mouth of the witnesses.

13. And this court further found that the case of prosecution is the accused was found in the possession of sand illegally. And PW1 and PW6 categorically stated that they were found the accused in possession of sand which is not accounted for, besides that there is no evidence on behalf of prosecution in order to prove the ingredients such as the accused moves the said sand with unlawful intention from the possession of another to attract the offence under

Sec.379 of IPC. And it is admitted by the PW6 that he did not enquired, from where the accused procured the sand, by means of which it was transported to the scene of offence. PW6 also admitted that he had not collected any documentary evidence to show that the scene of offence is belongs to accused.

14. In order to prove the charge under sec.3 of PDPP Act, 1984, the prosecution obliged to prove that, the accused caused mischief in respect of any public property to procure the seized sand. In this case, admittedly there is no enquiry conducted by PW6 to ascertain that from where the accused procured the seized sand.

6

C.C.No.228 of 2021

15. In the view of the above said discussion and above said infirmities in the case of prosecution, this court felt that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused under Sec.379 of IPC ad Sec.3 of PDPP Act, 1984 beyond all reasonable doubt. The point is answered accordingly.

16. In the result, this court found accused is not guilty for the offence

Sections 379 of IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act and accordingly he is acquitted

U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment as per 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to dictation by the Typist on computer system, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 1 st day of November, 2024.

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE

(Junior Division) Palakol

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined

For Prosecution: - For Defence: -

PW.1: D.N.V.Chalam - None –

PW.2: L.Subramanyam

PW.3: V.Satyanarayana

PW.4: P.Masen

PW.5: K.Ammineedu

PW.6: Ch.Rajasekhar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: - For Defence: -

Ex.P1: Mediators report - NIL -

Ex.P2: Report given by PW1.

Ex.P3: Sec-161 CrPC statement of PW.2

Ex.P4: Sec-161 CrPC statement of PW.3.

7

C.C.No.228 of 2021

Ex.P5: Sec-161 CrPC statement of PW.4

Ex.P6: Sec-161 CrPC statement of PW.5

Ex.P7: Signature of PW5 in Ex.P1 report.

Ex.P8: FIR

Ex.P9: Rough sketch

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE

(Junior Division) Palakol

8

C.C.No.228 of 2021

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

PALAKOL

C.C.No.228 OF 2021

Date of

Offence Complaint/Arrested released CommenceClose of trial Sentence or Report ment of trial order 19.07.2019 19.07.2019 -- -- 22.06.2022 28.10.2024 01.11.2024

Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Achanta Police Station.

….Complainant

Vs.

Pandi Rambabu, S/o. China Narasimha Murthy, Aged 49 years, Penumanchili village, Achanta Mandal.

.... Accused

Offence: under Sec.379 of IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act

Pleading:”Pleaded Not Guilty”

Finding:“FOUND Not GUILTY”

SENTENCE (OR) ORDER :

In the result, this court found the accused is not guilty for the offence under Sec.379 of IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act and accordingly he is acquitted

U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment as per 437-A of Cr.P.C.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY:

This case was taken on file on 31.05.2021. On 12.11.2021 appearance of accused, he was furnished with the copies of documents as contemplated under

Sec.207 Code of Criminal Procedure–1973. On 26.05.2022, Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, charges framed against accused for the offence under Sec.379 of IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act. On 13.10.2022, PW.1

9

C.C.No.228 of 2021 examined and Ex.P1 and P2 got marked. On 24.11.2022, PWs.2 and 3 are examined and got marked Ex.P3 & P4. On 25.01.2023, PW.4 is examined and got marked Ex.P.5. On 06.03.2023, PW.5 is examined and got marked Ex.P6 &

P7. On 28.10.2024, PW.6 is examined and got marked Ex.P8 & P9. Prosecution evidence is closed. On 29.10.2024, Accused was examined under Sec.313 of

Cr.P.C. On 29.10.2024 Heard arguments. On 01.11.2024 Judgment

pronounced in open Court.

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE

(Junior Division) Palakol

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District AND Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari (Through Compact Disk).

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

:: PALAKOL

PRESENT: Smt. V.S.N. Lakshmi Lavanya P,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Tuesday, this the 25th day of February, 2025

C.C No.102/2022

Between:

The State Sub Inspector of Police, Palakol Town PS

... Complainant

and

Bobbili Appa Rao, S/o Mutyala Rao, Age 46 years, D.No.12-3-11/1, Sriram peta, Palakol.

... Accused

This case is presented on 21.02.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri A.N.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following

:: J U D G E M E N T ::

1. The Sub Inspector, Palakol town police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.260/2021 for the offence punishable under

Section 34(a) of A.P Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 and Sec.269 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:

On 22.06.2021 prior to 08.00 pm, on credible information LW.5/S.I of

Police along with staff/ LW1 & LW2 and mediators /LW3 and LW4 went to the scene of offence situated at Gopi Bar and Restaurant and found the accused in possession of 1) Supreme Blend-180ml – bottles 2) Green Choice -180ml- 5 bottles and also cash of Rs.520/-. Accused confessed that he purchased the contraband with a view to sell to the general public at high rates and he seized the same and registered as FIR in Cr.No.260/2021 under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 and Sec.269 of IPC and took up 2 C.C 102/2022 investigation. He sent the samples for chemical analysis and received report.

Accused produced before the court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge.

3.Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P Excise (Amendment), Act, 2020 and Sec.269 of

IPC against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of the documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of

Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused is examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, the charge under Section 34(a) of A.P Excise (Amendment), Act, 2020 and Sec.269 of IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 3 and relied on Exs.P1 to P5 and MO.1 to 3. The Learned APP has given up the evidence of LW.2 and LW.4.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him from the prosecution evidence as contemplated under Section 313 of Code of

Criminal Procedure and accused denied the same and reported no evidence in defense.

8. The point that falls for determination is Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the

offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P Excise (Amendment),

Act, 2020 and Sec.269 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

9. Heard both the sides.

3 C.C 102/2022

POINT:

10. The case of prosecution is that the accused was found in possession of IML bottles without license at public place. And there was Corona virus prevailed at the relevant point of time at the relevant place. Therefore the accused was committed an offence of unlawful possession of IML bottles and violation of Government promulgation orders exhibited negligence likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life while Corona virus disease effect is existing in the society. Hence the accused is liable for the offences punishable U/Sec.269 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 and Sec.34(a) of AP

Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020. The prosecution also contended that the evidence on behalf of prosecution is cogent and corroborative with material particulars, thereby the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offences charged with beyond all reasonable doubt.

11. Whereas the contention of the learned counsel of accused is that there is no due adherence of procedure as contemplated U/Sec.100 of CrPC, 1973 for seizure of property leads to a reasonable doubt as to the case of prosecution. And admittedly the accused was not subjected to Covid test and there were material discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution, which entitled the accused for acquittal for the offences charged with. And also contended that the police foisted false case against accused only for statistical purpose.

12. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs 1 to PW3 and Ex.P1 to P5. Among whom PW1, PW3 were police officials participated in the raid and PW2 is said to be independent eye witness for the arrest of accused and seizure of contraband at scene of offence.

13. PW1 to PW3 were deposed in the similar lines in their chief examination as, on 22.06.2021 at about 08.30 pm, PW1 and PW3 along with 4 C.C 102/2022 some other police conducted raid and found the accused in possession of

IML bottles at opposite road of Gopi Bar and Restaurant, Palakol. PW3, arrested the accused and seized the contraband from him in the presence of

Mediator/ PW2 and LW4 and affixed slips on seized contraband.

14. But in cross examination, PW3 admitted that the scene of offence is buy area and he did not made an effort to secure local inhabitants to witness the arrest of accused and seizure of contraband and also admitted that the identity slips affixed on contraband /MO.1 and MO.2 did not reflect the crime number and there is no identity slips on seized cash /MO.3. And in cross examination, PW2 who is said to be independent witness, testified that he put his signature on identity slips, but also admitted that his signature was not there on the identity slips affixed on MO.1 and MO.2, which leads to a reasonable doubt as to the presence of PW2 at the time of arrest of accused and the seizure of contraband.

15. Now it would pertinent to discuss the essential ingredients to attract the offences punishable under Sec.269 of IPC and Sec.34 (a) of AP Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020.

So far as the charge U/Sec.269 of IPC, the essential ingredients as are follows,

1) The disease in question was infectious and dangerous to human life.

2) The accused did an act, which was likely to facilitate spreading of the disease, unlawfully or negligently 16. Now coming to the facts of present case in hand, the case of prosecution is that the accused was found in public place by violating the promulgation orders exhibited negligence likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life while Corana virus effect is existing in the Society. In this context, there is no dispute as to the existence of effect of Corona virus at the relevant time and the said disease is infectious and dangerous to human life.

But the accused disputed that he was not found in public place and acted negligently as alleged by the prosecution.

5 C.C 102/2022 17. Having gone through the entire evidence on record and in view of aforesaid discrepancies apparent in the evidence of prosecution. This court felt that there is reasonable doubt as to the arrest of accused in public place, committed violation of promulgation and acted negligently which likely to spread. The infectious disease. And it is not the case of prosecution that the accused had tested positive for Covid-19 and in the absence of such material, the offence under Sec 269 will not sustain.

18. Now Coming to the charge under Sec.34(a) of A.P Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 in order to prove its case, the prosecution, must prove that the accused either imported or exported, transported, manufactured, collected or possessed or sale of intoxication or was in possession of intoxicant more than the permissible quantity.

19. Having gone through the entire evidence this Court found that admittedly the procedure contemplated under Sec.100 (4)(5) of CrPC, 1973 was not duly complied with. And there were material discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution leads to a reasonable doubt as to the presence of

PW2/Mediator at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from the accused as well as the case of prosecution that the accused was found in possession of contraband.

20. In view of above said discussion, this court found that though mere non compliance of procedure contemplated under Sec.100 (4) (5) of CrPC, 1973 is not fatal to the case of prosecution. The above said material discrepancies apparent in the evidence of prosecution leads to a reasonable doubt as to its case. Hence this court felt that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.269 of IPC and

Sec.34 (a) of AP Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020.

6 C.C 102/2022

21. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 and

Sec.269 of IPC and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment as per 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., MO.1 &

MO.2 shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time and MO.3 cash of

Rs.520/- shall be confiscated to the state after appeal time is over.

Typed to dictation by the Typist on computer system, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 25 th day of February, 2025.

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE

(Junior Division), Palakol

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution: Defence

PW.1 : B.Balaji Nil PW2: Ch.Subba Rao PW3: Fazul Rahaman

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Mediators report. Ex.P2 : FIR Ex.P3 : Rough sketch Ex.P4 : Letter of advice Ex.P5 Chemical analysis report

Defence-Nil-

Material Objects:

MO.1 & 2: Sample bottles. MO.3 : Cash of Rs.520/-

ACJ (JD),

PKL 7 C.C 102/2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

:: PALAKOL

C.C.No.102 OF 2022

Date of

Offence Complaint Arrest of the Commence- Close of Sentence or accused ment of trial trial order 22.06.2021 22.06.2021 22.06.2021 14.07.2022 19.02.2025 25.02.2025

Name of the Complainant

The State Sub Inspector of Police, Palakol Town PS

Accused Bobbili Appa Rao, S/o Mutyala Rao, Age 46 years, D.No.12-3-11/1, Sriram peta, Palakol.

Offence: Section 34(a) of AP Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 and Sec.269 of IPC.

Finding: “Found not guilty”.

Result: In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 and Sec.269 of IPC and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment as per 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., MO.1 & MO.2 shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time and MO.3 cash of Rs.520/- shall be confiscated to the state after appeal time is over.

Explanation for delay: Due to non production of witnesses in time before the court the delay was caused.

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE

(Junior Division), Palakol

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, W.G.District, Eluru.