3 Sample Criminal Judgements

Criminal Judgement Sample 1

In the Court of the Sessions Judge, Eluru.

Present:-Sri…. (Name of the Judge), B.A., B.L.,

Tuesday, the 2nd day of July, 1974.

Judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 43/74.

JUDGMENT

The learned Public prosecutor agrees that this appeal should, under all circumstances, end in acquittal. The four appellants were A-l to A-3 and A-7 in C.C. 96/73 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Kaikaluru, filed by P.W. 1 Gnanavati, against ten accused under Section 500 I.P.C. The case against A-4 to A- 6 and A-8 to A-10 was separated and was registered in C.C. No. 143/73.

2. P.W. 1 alleged in her complaint that A-l to A-8 are the Panchayatdars of the society of her ….Caste; that A-9 is a peon of the society, that A-10 is a dhobi of her place, that A-l to A-8 with whom she had a litigation earlier, met at the village chavadi at 6. p.m. on 31-7-1973 and decided to boycott her; that they had it proclaimed by A- 9 that nobody in the village should speak to her or attend to her agricultural work and that no dhobi should wash her clothes and that contravention of their instructions was punishable with a fine of Rs. 50/- She further alleged that she was socially boycotted by all the villagers and that A-10 her dhobi refused to wash her clothes as a result of the proclamation and that her reputation was damaged by the boycott.

3. She swears to her case as P.W. 1. She gave up the witnesses cited in the complaint and had instead, examined P.Ws. 2 and 3 of her neighbouring village to say that they were present at the meeting of the accused where a boycott was organised.

4. The appellants denied every bit of the prosecution story and examined D.W. 1 to show that they are not the elders of their caste society. D.W. 1 claims to be one of the elders. The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution’s story and sentenced each of the appellants to pay a fine of Rs. 60/- and in default to suffer R.I. for two months.

5. The point for consideration is whether the appellants are proved guilty of the offence of which they were convicted?

6. Point:-the complaint makes out no offence under Section 500 I.P.C. The publication of an imputation concerning any person intending to harm his or her reputation is an essential ingredient of the offence of defamation. It is not alleged in the complaint or by any of the prosecution witnesses that any imputation was made by any of the accused against P.W. 1. The complaint does not, therefore, disclose the offence of defamation. Mere social boycott as rightly stated by the learned Public Prosecutor is not defamation. I am not convinced that even the prosecution’s evidence is true. P.W. 1 had given up the witnesses cited in her complaint. She had instead examined P.Ws. 2 and 3 who do not belong to her place. P.W. 3 says that he cannot identify the persons that took part in the meeting where in it was decided to boycott the complainant. The motive alleged in the complaint for the alleged boycott is that P.W. 1 had litigation with A-l and A-8 earlier and that they therefore resolved to boycott her at a meeting held at the village chavidi on the date of the offence. But, she curiously adds in her evidence that the accused summoned her to the village chavidi and fined her Rs. 100/- and that they decided to resort to boycott on account of her failure to pay the fine. She received some sort of support from P.W.2 in respect of the levying of the fine. But. P. 2 does not belong to her place. She had not referred to the alleged imposition of the fine in her complaint. She does not give any reasons for the alleged fine in her chief examination. She says in her cross-examination that she was fined because she was running a rice business. It is no offence to deal in rice and I am sure that alleged business in rice could not be the cause of the alleged imposition of the fine. There was obviously litigation between her and the accused. I am not satisfied that the facts alleged by her are true.

7. The point is, therefore, found in the appellants’ favour and the appeal is allowed setting aside their convictions and sentences. The fine, if already paid, shall be refunded to them.

Dictated to the short-hand writer, transcribed and pronouncedby me in Open Court, this the 2nd day of July, 1974.

Sd/……….. (Signature of the Judge)

Sessions Judge.

Criminal Judgement Sample 2

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present:-Sri….. (Name of the Judge). B.A., B.L.,

Tuesday the 11th day of February, 1975.

Judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 123/1974.

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Revenue Officer in D. dis. No. 21012/74 wherein he confiscated 3370 litres of kerosene belonging to the appellant who is a wholesale and retail kerosene dealer of Kakani. The Deputy Tehsildar of Kakani checked the appellant’s shop on the evening of 10-9-1974 in the presence of the appellant’s father as the appellant was out of station at the time. He found several irregularities on the appellant’s part and the Revenue Divisional Officer, sent up a report to the Collector listing out the irregularities detected by him. The irregularities are (1) that the appellant had not mentioned the names of the consumers in his sales register, (2) that he had not issued bills for 24 litres of oil sold in retail, (3) that he had not obtained signatures of the buyers in the bills, (4) that he issued bills for 1000 litres each to one V. Koteswara Rao and another V. Manikanta Rao, but later corrected the quantity in each bill to 1500 litres, (5) that he sold 3114 litres of kerosene on 9-9-74 but had accounted for only 3000 litres of kerosene in his stock register, (6) that he sold 535 litres of oil to several persons on 10-9-74 and had shown a sale of only 300 litres in his stock register and a sale of 3 litres in his retail sale register on the concerned date as per the bills issued by him, (7) that he had not stated the sale transactions in his sales registers and stock register on the concerned dates as per the bills issued by him, (8) that he is maintaining only one stock book for his wholesale and retail trade, and (9) that the two bills dated 9-9-1974 for 1500 liters each do not tally with the stock register. The learned District Revenue Officer issued a show-cause notice to the appellant with the following charges:

Charge No. 1: That he being a whole sale licensed dealer as defined under clause 2 (g) of the A.P. Kerosene (L&D) Order, 1965 has violated condition-8 of the licence:

Charge No. 2: that he being a wholesale licensee has violated conditions 3 and 5 of the licence read with clause -8 of the A.P. Kerosene (L&D) Order, 1965 by not maintaining correctly the daily accounts of Kerosene.

2. The appellant contended by his explanation to the learned District Revenue Officer that he has been maintaining wholesale and retail sales registers and had been issuing bills for sales of kerosene worth over Rs. 3/- only; that names and addresses of the purchasers need not be noted in the retail bills; that he sold a quantity of 24 litres of kerosene in retail to several customers each of whom bought less than Rs. 3/- worth of kerosene, that he had to make the correction of the quantity sold under the two bills to 1500/- litres as there was an initial mistake in the original bills; that he could not close his register for 10-9-74 as the Deputy Tahsildar inspected his shop before the closure of his business for the day.

3. The learned District Revenue Officer upheld both the charges framed against the appellant.

4. The point for consideration is whether the order of confiscation is liable to be set aside ?

5. Point :-The appellant had admittedly not issued bills for sale of kerosene worth less than Rs. 3/- but he is under condition -8 of his licence bound to issue a bill for the sale of kerosene for more than Rs. 2/-. The learned District Revenue Officer found that the appellant had not mentioned the names of the consumers in his sale register in violation of condition -3 of his licence; that he sold kerosene worth over Rs. 2/-. to eight persons each on 9-9-74 without entering them in his sales register in violation of condition -8 of his licence; that the correction of the quantity sold under the two bills dated 9-9-74 to 1500 litres each though the bills originally covered only 1000 litres each, was not bona fide. He further found that the appellant had issued bills for the sale of 625 litres of kerosene on 10-9-74 but that he had shown sale of only 400 litres of kerosene in his two stock books and that he, therefore, violated condition -3 of his licence.

6. The appellant had not seriously questioned these findings of the learned District Revenue Officer during the hearing of the appeal, but had merely appealed to my mercy, and pleaded for reduction of the extent of confiscation. The irregularities committed by him do not smack of black-marketing and hence the entire seized stock need not be confiscated.

7. In the result, 1 consider it fit to reduce the extent of confiscation to half of the seized stock and dismiss the appeal with the above modification. Half of the seized stock or its value shall be paid or delivered to the appellant.

Dictated to the short-hand writer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 11 th day of February, 1975.

Sd/… (Signature of the Judge).

Sessions Judge.

Criminal Judgement Sample 3

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM Monday: The 10th day of September, 1973.

Present:-Sri……. (Name of the Judge) B.A., B.L., Sessions Judge

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the accused in C.C.No. 321/71 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Parvatipuram, since he was convicted by the lower Court of the offence under Section 34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

2. The prosecution case is as follows:-At about 9 P.M. on 6-9-1971, P.W. 1 who was the Excise constable, Palasa, and P.W. 2, who was the Excise Sub-Inspector, Palasa, were at a place 3 furlongs to Palasa on the G.N.T. Road. They found the accused coming along the road carrying M.O. 1, the plastic can. On suspicion, the accused was detained and M.O. 1, the plastic can was found to contain 5 litres of I.D. arrack. P.Ws. 1 and 2 dipped a piece of cloth in the liquid contained in M.O. 1 and burnt it. As it gave out blue flames, they concluded that the liquid must be I.D. arrack. The accused was arrested and M.O. 1 together with its contents was seized as per Ex.P. 1, the mediator’s report drafted by P.W. 2. Ex.P. 2 is the F.I.R. in the case. A requisition as per Ex.P. 3 was issued to send the sample to a Chemical Examiner. Ex.P. 4 is the office copy of the forwarding letter addressed by the Court to the Chemical Examiner. Ex.P. 5 the report was received from the Chemical Examiner to the effect that it was I.D. liquor. Ex. P.3 to P.5 are marked through P.W.3, the Court-Clerk. It is contended by the prosecution that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act.

3. To a charge framed against the accused under Section 34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, the accused pleaded not guilty. When examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the offence.

4. On behalf of the accused, D.W.I is examined. His evidence is that the accused was working under an arrack contractor by name Chalapati Rao during 70-71 and that as the contractors did not pay mamools to the Excise officials cases were filed against the servants of the contractors only to harass them.

5. The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution evidence, found the accused guilty of the offence alleged and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.

6. The point for determination is: Whether the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act?

7. P.W. 1 and 2 are official witnesses and their evidence is perfectly consistent in all material particulars. Except the bare allegation that the Excise Officials were aggrieved with the arrack contractors who refused to pay mamools to them, there is no satisfactory proof of the fact that the present case is an attempt made by the Excise Officials to falsely implicate a servant of one of the reluctant contractors. From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who conducted an on – the – spot test to satisfy themselves about the nature of the liquid found in M.O. 1 , it is evident that what was contained in M.O.I was I.D. arrack. This inference is also strengthened by the opinion given by the Chemical Examiner as per Ex.P. 5 after analysis. Hence the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 coupled with the Chemical Examiner’s opinion as per Ex.P. 5 goes to show that the accused was found to be in possession of I.D. arrack at the relevant point of time.

8. The evidence of D.W. 1 does not lead the accused anywhere since there is no proof apart from D.W. l’s own assertion that the Excise Officials were aggrieved with contractors and their servants for not paying them mamools. In fact such a plea was not even advanced by the accused when examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C. The incident took place on high-way at about 9 P.M. There was no human inhabitation within a radius of few furlongs from the place of incident. It was, therefore, not possible for P.Ws. 1 and 2 to have secured mediators at the time when the accused was apprehended. I am unable to attach any importance to the so-called discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 to have secured mediators at the time when the accused was apprehended. I am unable to attach any importance to the so-called discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the question whether the place of occurrence is to the west or to the south­west Palasa. No other contentions were urged in this Court on behalf of the appellant.

9. In view of all the circumstances mentioned above, I am of the opinion that the lower Court was right in convicting the accused.

10. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed confirming the conviction ordered and the sentence passed by the lower Court against the appellant-accused.

Dictated to the short-hand writer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 10th day of September, 1973.

Sd/….. (Signature of the Judge).

Sessions Judge.