Allowed

B. Hari Krishna v. the State of Telangana and 4 Others

Telangana HC8 Sept 2022CRLRC/886/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An assault prosecution arising from a family dispute over shop rents resulted in revisional interference with concurrent acquittals. The court held that admissible evidence had been ignored, allowed the revision, and convicted the four accused under Section 323 IPC, imposing fines with default imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Acquittals set aside; respondents 2 to 5 convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to fines, with one month's simple imprisonment each in default.

B. Hari Krishna Vs the State of Telangana and 4… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

l321s l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE^G.RADHARANI

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE^{NO: 886 OF 2016}

¶7

Criminal Revision Case Under^{Section397 & 401 of CrI P C againstthe} Judgment in Crl.A.No.714^o'f 2013^{daled 27.11.2015 on the file of the Courtof the} Additional tvletropolitan Sessions Judge,^{Ranga Reddy at L B.Nagar. Preferred} against the Judgment in STC.No.3 of^{2013 (OldSTC.No.4S of 20'12)dated} 26.08.2013 on the file of the Court of^{the I SpecialMagistrate,L B Nagar'Ranga} Reddy District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

B. Hari Krishna, S/o Late Sri B.^{Balraj, aged 42 years, Occ:Advocate, RJo} H.No.2-4-6911/8, Gandhi Nagar, Uppal, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER/APPE LLANT/COMPLAINANT

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana , rep. by its^{PublicProsecutor,High Court at} Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and^{for the State of AndhraPradesh,} Hyderabad.

¶12

B. Anjaiah S/o Late B. Yellaiah, aged 60^{years, Occ: Business}

¶13

B. Ramesh S/o Late B. Yellaiah, aged^{50 years, Occ: Business}

¶14

B. Ramaraju S/o B. Anjaiah, aged^{31 years, Occ:_Student}

¶15

B. Muralikr'ishna S/o^{B. Laxman,aged24 years, Occ: Student}

¶16

Respondent 2 to 5 are^{R/oH.No.2-4-70l1, Gandhi Nagar, Uppal, Hyderabad-} 500039

¶17

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED

¶18

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SRI S' ASHOKANAND KUMAR}

¶19

Counsel for the^{Respondent No'1:PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TS)}

¶20

Counsel for^{the Respondent Nos'2 to 5: SRI T' RAJINIKANTH REDDY}

¶21

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶22

'ItIE IION'BLE Dr. Jt;S'tt(lE G. RADIIA RANI

¶23

CRIMIN,\1. IiEVISION Cr\SE No.886 OF²⁰¹⁶

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

'lhis Clriminal l{cvrsion Case is pref'erred by the petitioner-appellantcornplainant to sct a;idc^{the ordcr.dated 27.11.2015in Crl.A.No.714of} 20 l3 on the llle o1'thc II Additional^{DistrictJudge,Ranga Reddy District} at L.B. Nagar, conlltr,,.^{np the oltlet s datcd26.08.2013passed in Sl'C No.3} of 2013 on the fi[c^o1- I-S;rccial^{Nlagistrate,L.B. Nagar, and to convictthe} accuscd Ibr thc ollcncc^{couturiltcdb1, them and to itlposeappropriate} sentence.

¶26

tr.

¶27

'f he case ol thc plosecution in brief was that on 05.07.2012 at 2.00 PM, thc clc 1ar:to conrplainant lodged a repofi stating that his tenants contacted Iriru over phonc and inlirrrned him that his uncles and his cousins came lo their shops and ntade thcm close the shops. The complainant reached the said place along l,itli his driver. Exchange of words took place between him and his unclcs and cousins and they beat him and his driver. Hc statcd rhirt hc *as collecting rents from tho tenants of4 shops for the last 12 years as the same came to the share of his father and after the death of his father, he ,uvas looking after the same. It was also alleged that his father had four brother.s and they shared the property between

¶28

2 DI GRR.,./ ( 11 R (' ,'a \nn ot :016

¶29

tliemselves during the year 2006. His uncles raised a dispute with regard to the sharing of rents derived from the said premises and till the matter was scttled belbre a Panchayat, asked the tenants to close the shops. When the con.rplainant visited the said place, his uncles and cousins picked up a quarrel with him and bet him and his driver with hands

¶30

On receipt of the said complaint, a GD entry was made by the Investigating Officer under Sections 323 and 506 IPC and after obtaining permission from the Court took up investigation and later filed charge sheet against the accused under Section 323 lPC. The said case was tned as STC No.3 of 2013 by the I-Special Magistrate, L.B. Nagar. The prosecution examined PWs.l to 8 and marked Exs.pl to p3. No witnesses were examined for the defence. But, the portions of the I 61 Cr.p.C. statements of PWs.2, 3,4,5 and 6 were marked as Exs.Dl to Dl l.

¶31

¶32

On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the I-Special Magistrate opined that it was civil dispute inter-se between agnates regarding sharing of rents from the premises, but the same was given a criminal flavour, acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 323 IPC. The trial court also observed that the evidence of pWs.l to 6 was interested and in the absence of any independent and

¶33

Dt GRR.J -) Ctl R⁽ ,.^886olat)1(t

¶34

corroborating^{evidence,convictingtbe accusedwas not proper' The trial} couft also obser-ved^{thar PWs l ancl2 approachedthe doctorPW 7 on their} ownwithoutanyr.eqr'risitiorltionltlrelroliceandthedoctoralsohadnot mentioned in^{Ex.P.2that it ri'as a \4edico Legal Casenor informed the} police. The doctor^{stated that hc rssuedEx'P 2 on the basis ofa slip issued} by the DMO,^{but thc saicl slip rvas also not filed before the cou( andas} such,disbelievedthcevider-rceo1-I)W.Tandthedocumentmarkedunder Ilx.P.2.

¶35

Aggricved by^{thc sarcl lincling of the courl belowin acqulttrng} the accused,^{the complait.rant} 1;rcferrecl^{an appeal' The said appealwas} heard by thc^{Aclditional MetropolitanSessionsJudge' Cyberabad'Ranga} Reddy District^{vide (lrl.A. No 7l4 ol 2013' The lower appellate Coutt} also confinned^{the judgrnentpassed by} .the I-Special^Magistrate' CyberabadatL.B.Nagarvicleitsjudgmentdated2T.ll.20l5observing that the evidence^{on t.ecord was inconsistentto the prosecution case, there} was no coroboration^{to the evidence of the witnesses' the medical} /) evidence was^{not convincing,the police did not sent PWs'1 and 2 to} hospital for treatmenL.^{PWs.1 and 2 voluntarily approachedthe hospital} and obtained thc ceftificate ancl gave it to police. There was no endorsement that they were referred by the police. There was a dispute

¶36

Dt^(iRR J 4 ('tR(. No 8il6 al )t)16

¶37

between the^{parlieswith regard to ownership over the mulgies claimedby} PW. I and disbelieved^{the prosecutioncase and obser-vedthat the trial courl} rightly considered the cvidence^{on recordand gave benefit of doubt to the} accused

¶38

¶39

Aggrieved by the said^judgment of^{the appellantcourl,the} complainant plelered^{this revisioncase contending that both the coutls} ought to have seen that^{the evidence of PWs.lto 5 together with the} evidence of PW.7 clearly^{provedthe guilt of the accused' The mere} omission to file^{properlydocumentscould not in any manner absolve the} accused of their criminal act.^{Both the courts below ought to have seen} that PW.l and 2 deposed that they^{had received injuries. Their evidence} was corroborated by the^evidence of^{PWs.3 to 5 and by the medical} evidencc of PW.7. Both the^{courts ought to have seenthat the chargesheet} would not disclose that PW. I was^{the aggressor,due to whichthe incident} took place. PW.S with an^{intention to help the accused, incorrectly} recorded the 161 statements of^{PWs.3 to 5 and deposedcontraryto the} charge sheet and prayed to set aside^{the orders ofthe courtsbelow.}

¶40

7 . Heard leamed counsel for the^{revisionpetitioneras well as the} learned counsel for the respondents^{2 to 5-accused.}

¶41

D,ARR,J CtlR( No/tl6ol2 16

¶42

¶43

Learned connsel fbr the revision^{petitioner-complainant}

¶44

submitted that no rcasons rverc^{gtr en by the courlsbelorv for rejecting the} evidence of PWs.l to 5 arrd PW.7.^{no prcjudice wouldbe caused by taking} the evidence of doctor into^{considcration, the coufts below ought to have} believed the evidence^{and ought to have irriposed atleast fine. The counter} case f1led by the accused^{u'as also disrnisscd. No appeal was preferred} against it and^{prayed to allorv thc r*'ision.}

¶45

g. The learned coltttsel fbr Lhe^{rcspondents 2 to 5, on the other} hand, submitted that the^{cot.tcr-tt'rentfrndings of the courts below in} acquitting the respondents-accu^{secl could not be disturbedby this courtin} the revision. This Courl could^{r-rotappreciate the evidencein the manner} as the trial and appellate courts^{wel'erequiredto do and reliedupon the} judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Courl in Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of N.C.T. of Delhi) and anotherr, Manju^Ram Kalita^v. State of Assam2 and of the^{Higli Courtof Allahabadin Satya Narainv.} State of U.P. and othersr.

¶46

),'

¶47

The Hon'ble Apex Coufi in Ravi^{Sharma's case (1 supra)} while deciding the criminal appeal against the order of acquittal by the

¶48

'^Crl.A.Nos.4t 0-411/201S dared 11.0i.2022

¶49

'z^{(2009) 13 SCC} 330

¶50

! Crl-Revision No.J88 ot 200,t dated 22.0i.201q.

¶51

¶52

t,^(,RRJ att R.a^{Nottn./ :t)ln}

¶53

¶54

DistrictandSessionsJudge,North.EastDistrict,KarkordoomaCourt Delhi,aDivisionBcncl.roftheDelhiHighCourtoverturnedthesaid

¶55

judgment, observed that

¶56

"ll. Bclirrc r.ctlttttini: itlto thc^{tnct'its ol thc case'wc rvouldlikc kl} rcrlcrltc thc ,.,rp.^{,,i t".11,1n -i78 oI thc Codc ol Crirrrinal Procccltrrc} (lbr short '( r.l'.i .')^{rvlrile ilcciding an apl.rcalby thc- High Coult'as} ,1," p,,a,,,u,, trl'Iltrv^{is lrrthcr scttlcd Wc u'ouldlike to qrrotethe} rclcvant ltortitrn^{ol a lcccnt} .irrtlgrncnt^{of thisCol.lt1} -in^Jafal'udhccn and Othcrs^{r'. State of Kclah (2022SCC Onlinc SC 495)as} tirllou s:

¶57

"15. \/hilc tlcitlirrg^{rvith an a1;pcalagainstacquittalby} irtr'okitrLl^{Scctiorli7S ol tlrc Cr'PC' thc Ap1;cllatcCoLttt} Iras to iotrsitlcl^{rl'ltcthcttltc Trial Courl's vierv catr bc} tclnrctl as a^{pt,ssilrlc olrc. particularly whcu evidctrccotl} rce,rrtr.l hits ltccrl^{iLttall'z-cd 'fhc reason is that an orclol ol'} actlLrittll atltls^{Lip t() tho} llrcsulnption^{of iunocencetn} I'atoLrr ol lhc^{ire cltsccl 'l'hus,the Appcllate Courthas to hc} lclativclv slorl^{itt tcvctsitrg thc oldcrof tl.rc TrialCoLtt't} lcntlclin-u ilc(luittal.^{l llctclorc,thcprcsurnption-in favour} ol thc aectrsccl^{tlocst.tttt gct rvcakened but only} stlcttgthcrtctl.^{Suclra tltrublc} l.rlcsurnption^{tltat cnrtros in} IiruoLr'r' t,l' tltc^{accuscd has to bc distulbed onlyby} thrrtotrglt setrttitll^{otl tllc acceptedlcgalparanreters"}

¶58

ll By observing^{precedents of law in Babuv' State of Kerala}

¶59

t(2010)^{9 SCC 1891, it turther notedthat:}

¶60

¶61

"20.^'l'hc tindings ol^{thct rccorclerlby a court can be lrcld to bc} p"ru"rr" il the tindings^{hitvo bccnarr-ivcdat by ignoring or excluding} t'clol,antnlatcrialrrr[rytakingintocotrsidcl.ationin.clcvanV inadrnissiblcrrlatcrial',t.lctlrldingmayalsobesaidtobcpet.verscif it is "against^{thc rvcight o1'cvidence"'or if the {inding so outragcously} J"fi". ingi"^{as to sufi'cr fiomthc vice of irrationality"}

¶62

DI^(;RR- / (''lkl |aPlaol)t)16

¶63

12.^'l-he scope of revisjonal porvor of thc IIigh Court rvas

¶64

considered by the IJigh Court ol',,\llahabacl in Satl'a Narain's case (3 supla) by referring to various^juclgntents as fbllori,s

¶65

"5. Thc judicial rcvierv in ercrcisc of revisional .;ulisrliction is not likc an appeal. It is ir supcn'isorl,.julisdiction rvhich is crcrcisecl bv tlic Court to crltrect thc rnanilbst cr ror in thc ol.tlers o1'subordinatc cottrls but shor.rld nol bc crercisctl in a rlanncr so as to tltnr^{the Rcvisional} court into a Court of Appeal. l hc Jcgislaturc has tlilfercntly' made provisions for appcal lnd lcvision and thc tlistinctron of tu'o junsdictions has to bc traintaincil

¶66

Construing old Section 4.1() of^('nrninal Ptooetlurc^('oclc, 1898, pertaining to r-evisional junsdiction. thc Court in D. Stephcns Vs. Nosibolla, AII{ 195 I SC 196 -suid that ro'isionrtl lLrrisdictiort lurdct Scction^.139 ol the Code ought llot kr bc ercrcisecl Iightlv parlicularly whcn it is invokcd by prirrtc comp)ainaut ugainst an orclcr of acquittal which coulil havc bccn appcaled against b1 thc^{(:iovcnlrncnt} under Section 417. It could he erer-ciscd only in cxccptional oases whcre thc interests of public .;usticc requirc intcrlercncc fbr the correction of a rnanrf'est illegalitl. or thc prevcntion ol a^gross rniscarriage ofjustice. Ir.r olhcl *orrls, thc revisiortal .julisdrction of the High Court cannot bc inr okcd mcrcly becausc 1hc lou er cottrt has takcn a wrong vieu,o1 lau,or ruisappreciatcd thc cvidcncc on recold.

¶67

In K. Chinnasu,arny Rcdtl_,- Vs. Statc of Andhra Ptadesh, AIR 19(r2 SC l7ll8 it rvas held that revisional jurisdictron should be excrcised by the l-{igh Cour I in exccptional cascs only s,hen therc is some glaring dcfect in the proccdurc or a manifest error on a point of law resulting in flagrant nriscaniage of.;ustice. Ilorvever, this was also a case in whioh rcvisional jurisdiction was invoked against an order of acquittal. If thc C'ourt lacks juriscLction or has excluded evidcnce tvhich was admrssiblc or rclied on inadmissible evidence or material evidence has bcen oterlooked etc., thcn only this Court would be justified in exercising revisional porver and not othenvise.

¶68

The above view has bcen rciterated in Mahendra pratap Singh Vs. Sarju Singh, AIR 1968 SC 707; Khetrabasi San.ral Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1970 SC 272; Satyentlra Nath Dutta and another Vs. Ram Narain, AIR 1975 SC 580: Jagannath Choudhary and others Vs. Ramayan Singh and another. 2002(5) SCC 659; and, Johar and othe.s Vs. Mandal^prasad and another, 200d G.L.J.1627 fS Ctj. -

¶69

¶70

¶71

(itR' /r.t)RR / ^o|^a^{' 'in}

¶72

Lr Duri chand Vs. Deuli A,_J,,;,,;., -^,:^

¶73

courr rcmincrcd ru,, lrr,-".i1.i,,,111I:':11"r, re75(4) scc 64e rhe scvcrely r".,".rJ'jra']i':1:::.']^{ntgr: courr} in crirninrt revision is evidence wrrir" "...lrir" '.1illll "''b' . upott rcapprecialion of courl woutd b" j,;;;;;;':,':I:.':l'"',^jurisdiction in revision rhe derenninir:g "rr"ir,..",r,"^{:1,,::,1::iilll, rc-appteciate eviderrce ror} reamed Migisrrai".l,o ,i"i"li]ii:l _:Xr:::;.:i 4., *,"r,"j o"y

¶74

In pathulnrna and anothe Li,::1,1r,,r,"^{ur,o,"'","u"|i";l^Y:rif:,rmad.re86(2) sccs85} lhe High cgurl woutd ;;; ;"",),]]:'X satd thal in rcvisionatj unsdicrion that ora Magisrra;:;;,",;:i[l'jt9d^{trt substituting} ir. o*n view ror

¶75

I l. In Munna De v i Vs (r"+- .. U:f ,fr" Clr.i #r r vs. state of Rajasthan and another, 2001(9) SCC

¶76

,.The revision powcr procedurc .;,;;,,,i';:.':,i":L: ill" ."0: or criminar marner. While cr"r";r,,.:^:'",'^{trr a rouhne} and casual no aurhoriry'i;;;;::l:i':::^{powcrs rhe} High coua has evidence in lhe manner as rrre rrrai and ,,," "^^-lll,l," courls are required ro do. Revisional pr"r, Ij.i,'1"',-t Dc exerciscd only when it is thc showrr crirninar that irr"r. pio'c""n",,lll'' i. "'iJ"l, -'1 against lhe conlinuance of ru.r, u. .rur"j ;;',;: ;;:: YL["-':1,,,,]g^{or charge} or rhe arc takcn ., ,rr" rii"'rril inronna(ror)^Reportevcn if they ao no, .on.,ii,,r";" "ll-:: lfd.^{,..1ury in rheir} cntirely b"e,, trrr ()rrcnce lor which lhe accused has "har-g"i':"""

¶77

h Ram Briksh Sineh and, 2004(7) sca ;;;, il'?'n1l,x":'T::]/:^{A.mbiIa Yadav} and anonrer, ,.ao r -,r, "," " ;,;, i r#:: iiil ln"i!" J,i *f#,J$"ffi ;ij

¶78

"4. Sections 397 to 401 of the Code are group of sections ::jl:Iil*^{higher andsuperi()r couns a sort ofsupervisory} Junsdrclton. Thcsc powers are rcquired ,o f" "*"Jr"i :purinply .Though^{ttrejurisdicrion *d";} i;";;;;i ::td cannot^*t; be invoked to^-# onlv co IdH;t:^#T:',i.I H',,llIljT:',"1^"j courl of appeal hut at the sarne time, lt i, tt " autr-.iir.I courl to corrccl manifesr illegality ,".rli;";-i; ;;r; miscariage ofjustice.,,

¶79

D'.GRRJ (tlR t' 'o \E( ol l0t6

¶80

¶81

l-l f'he Hon'ble^{Apex Courl in ManjuRam Kalita's case (2}

¶82

supra),^{held that:}

¶83

,, It is scttled legcl proptr:itio thut if thl'- cornts^belorvhave recorded^{the hncling'ol'futt' tl'e qucstion of rc-appreciation of} evidcnce^{by the thircl} "nttn^{ao"t not arise unless it is ibur.rclto be} totally^{pcrlerse ff'" f igf'"t co''''t cloes.notsit asar-egLllar court ol} appeal. lt's^{tunction is to cllsure that law is beingllroperly} administered^{Su"f' o to"lt cannot embark uPon f'nritlesstask of} d",",-iri,.tg^{the issues by re-appr:cciating the evidcuce"}

¶84

On^{perusalof the jtrdgn.rent of the trial court'it woulddisclose} that al1^{the witnesses; PW'1-de facto complainant stated about tl.re incident} and the injuries^{sustainedby him PW 2-driver of PW 1 also deposed that} he tried to rescue^{PW.1, he was also beaten by the accused, 43 gavea hst} blow on his right^{eye causing bleeding injuriesand other accusecl beat him} indiscriminately^{all overhis body. PWs.3,4 and5, who r,vere also tenants} in the dispute<l shops stated about^{the accusedaskingtl.rcm to close the} shutters, and they infomed the same^{to PW.l and PW.l camethere and} asked them to open the shutters,^{someexchangeof words took place} between PW.1 and the accused and the accused beat PW.1 with hands and accused also bet PW.2

¶85

¶86

The doctor, who wa^s examined aS , deposed that on 06.07.2012 at 11.00 AM examined ,:n'' c,ver chesr which was, ;,:::"o and found abrasnn 'tmpre injury and he ako'l examined pW.2

¶87

and

¶88

¶89

Dt.(;RR J otRC. notx6ot)016

¶90

found swelling on the right eyebrow, swelling on upper lip and the said injuries were possible by a fist blow and thc injuries^were fresh^{in nature} and deposed that PWs.l and 2 camc to thcm on their own accord and he issued the medical certificate marked as Ex.P.2. However, the trial court disbelieved their evidence obscrving lhat no ownership document of disputed shops was filed before the Cour1, electlicity bill in respect of the shops stood in the name of A3 and obscrved that it was a civil dispute and a criminal flavour was given to the sarne and acquitted the accused.

¶91

¶92

Though there miglrt be civil disputcs between the agnates with regard to sharing of rents from the tenants the cour1 cannot ignore the relevant material on record, which is sulficient to prove the charge under Section 323 lPC. When all the witnesses statcd about the manner of incident, identified the accused and stated that PWs. I and 2 were beaten by them and the evidence ofdoctor also corroborated with their evidence, the trial court observing that there were discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses as to which of the accused bet^{whom, the injured were not} referred by the police to the Hospital^{and the witnesses themselveswent on} their own accord and^{ignoring the evidenceof PW'7 is considered as} perverse.

t I I

I I

11 . The lorver appellate couft also suppolting the juclgrncnt of thc trial courl and making observalions that the witnesses \,erc itltcrcstcd and PWs.3 to 5 as the tellilnts in thc shops would naturally suppotl tltc plosecution case is considered as ir-nproper as there rvas uo nced lbr PWs 3 to 5 to appear befbre the Court and suppoft the evidence of PWs.I and 2. il' thcrc u,as no truth in it. I'hc lrial court, which is the lirundational cour1, committed error ir appreciating tl-re evidence on record by no1 taking into consideration thc cvidcnce rvhicl'r was admissiblc.^'l'hc appcllate cour1, which needed to col'rect thc rnistake of the trial couft. also comnritted thc same mistake and ignored the cvidence ou record.^'l'lie civil disputes bctrveen the parries or non-filing o1'ownership docurncnts o1'the disputed shops had no lelation to considel the proof of charge under Section 323 IPC. As such, lbr conection of the manifest illegality r.esulting in gross mis-carriage of^justice, it is considered fit^.to exercise the supervtsory jurisdiction of this court in con'ccting the error. As the evidence on rccord is ignored, it is considered ilt to set aside the judgments ol-the courts below and to convict thc accused fbr the oft-ence under Section 323 IpC.

¶98

r 8' In trre resurt, the ariminar Revision case is ailowed setting asidc rrre judgrne,t darecl 27.11.20r5 passed in criminal Appear No.7l4 0f 2013 on the tile of Aclditional Merropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy

¶99

Dt.GRR,./ l)lR( No.ur6olll)16

¶100

¶101

District at L.B.Nagar.^{The respondents2 to 5-accused ate convicted for the}

¶102

of'fence under Section^{323 IPC and they are sentencedto pay a hne of}

¶103

Rs.1,0001^{(Rupeesone thousandonly) each and in delhultofpaymentof}

¶104

fine to undergo simple^{imprisonment for a period of onemontheach'}

¶105

Pending miscellaneous^{petitions,il any,shallsland closed'}

¶106

SD/.A.V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA

¶107

DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/i vnrY SEC TION OFFICER

¶108

To 1. The Additional Metropolitan^{Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy} District at L.B.Nagar. Z. ifreⁱ Special^{Malistrate, Ranga ReddyD^istrictal-L B Na.gai} -. .^{. .} 5 iii" sldit""-Hous-e^{officer,up"pal potic-e Station, Ranga^Reddy District.} i. o"L cc t" Sri^{S. Ashok Anand Kumar,Advocate [oPUC]} 5. o;; cc to sri^{T. Raiinikanth Reddy, AdvocateloPUCl} o. r*o ccs^{to the pubiic Prosecutor, High courtfor the state ol lelangana ai} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶109