Adireddy Sangeeth Kumar v. The State Of A.P.,
ÐÏࡱá>þÿ WYþÿÿÿVÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ð¿HbjbjUU -`7|7|ÊC<ÿÿÿÿÿÿlzzzzzzzŽ 8> Z 4Ž,%pš ( "ä ä ä ¿v5$Y«$$$$$$$$œ& 1⁄4(-Ñ$zm¿¿mmÑ$Ózzä ä Ûæ$ÓÓÓm€zä zä «$Óm«$Ó^Ó1Ž[#hzz-$ä Ž «^èÀ ̈ÐŽx í<Ã#-$ü$0,%Ó#ÄR))aR)-$ÓŽŽzzzzÙTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELENGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY THIS THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Crl.A.M.P.No.666 of 2015 in Crl.A.No.760 of 2014 & CRIMINAL APPEAL No.760 of 2014 Between: Adireddy Sangeeth Kumar ..... APPELLANT AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad .....
RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Crl.A.M.P.No.666 of 2015 in Crl.A.No.760 of 2014 & CRIMINAL APPEAL No.760 of 2014 COMMON JUDGMENT: The Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 08.07.2014 in Sessions Case No.19 of 2014 of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 354(D) IPC (which has been inserted through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 (13 of 2013) w.e.f.03.02.2013) and 506 IPC. 2. Crl.A.M.P.No.666 of 2015 is filed under Section 389(1) r/w.Sec.482 Cr.P.C to enlarge the petitioner/appellant on bail on the ground that earlier on 04.02.2015 this Court had dismissed Crl.A.MP.No.1131/2014 seeking bail. 3.
Counsel for the petitioner/appellant would contend that the appellant had undergone substantial portion of sentence in the prison; ever since his remand he has been in bail; he had not applied for bail; and having regard to the said circumstances, the petitioner/appellant be enlarged on bail.
4. With the consent of the counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the appeal itself has been heard today. The case of the prosecution in brief is that; (i) the accused is a Sound Engineering student at Chennai and used to come to Visakhapatnam town; that he used to tease and mentally harass the complainant one Chukka Susmitha and her mother Chukka Satyavathi and also made life threats to the de facto complainant.
It is alleged that the complainant was studying Engineering Course in Vignan College at Duvvada, that the accused used to follow her and disturb her; and when she made a complaint to the Principal, the Principal initiated departmental action against the accused and debarred him; since then, the accused abused her in indecent and unparliamentary words and was harassing her; and when the matter was reported to Gajuwaka Police, the accused admitted his guilt and executed a letter to excuse him, but he did not change his attitude. ii) The complainant was studying MBA second year in Geetham University at Visakhapatnam and residing with her mother in D.No.
7-18-19/2 of MMTC colony, near Padmaja Hospital, Old Gajuwaka; that for 5 or 6 months before filing of the complaint, the accused harassed the complainant mentally by sending various messages, crossing near to her house, speaking over telephone in abusive and indecent language; that he also threatened the complainant that he fell in her love with her and if she denied it, he will kill her and her mother. The accused is alleged to have sent letters on 20.05.2013 and 21.05.2013 through registered post, stating that he will not leave the complainant, that he will not allow her to live peacefully and he would make her family unpopular; on 05.07.2013 he is alleged to have sent another letter also. iii) That on 17.07.2013 at 17.
00 hours when the complainant was alone in her house, it is alleged that the accused criminally trespassed into her room, behaved in indecent manner, placed his hands on her chest and threatened that none will save her from his act. He is alleged to have threatened to kill the complainant and her family by pouring acid. 6. On hearing the cries of the complainant, neighbours rushed to the place. By that time the accused went away threatening and insulting the complainant. 7. The complainant gave a complaint to the police requesting protection from the accused and basing on said complaint, PW 3 registered a case in Cr.No.360/2013 under Sections 354-B, 354-D, 326-B, 448 and 506 IPC. 8. He examined the de facto complainant, her mother and other three witnesses as LWs 1 to 5. 9.
The III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam took cognisance of the case against the accused under the above provisions of law, and later committed the same to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. It was later numbered as S.C.No.19/2014 and was forwarded it to the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam. 10. The said Court framed charges under Sections 354(B), 354(D), 326(B) and 506 IPC against the accused. 11. The charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. 12. The prosecution examined PW 1-de facto complainant, PW 2-her mother and PW 3-the Investigating Officer and marked Exs.P1 to P5. 13. After the evidence on behalf of prosecution was closed, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.
C and the incriminating material in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was put to the accused, but he denied the same. 14. By judgment dated 08.07.2014, the Court below convicted the accused under Sections 354(D) and 506 IPC, but acquitted him of the offences under Sections 354(B) and 326(B) IPC. 15. Challenging the same, this appeal is filed. 16. The only contention advanced by the counsel for the appellant is that Section 154 Cr.P.C had been amended by Act 13/2013, which came into effect from 03.02.2013; and the First Proviso introduced by the said amendment provided that if the information is given by a woman against whom an offence under Section 326-B, 354-B, 354-D IPC are alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer.
He contends that since this provision has not been adhered to and the information was recorded by PW 3 who is a male police officer and not a woman police officer, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. He further contended that even the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C is to be recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer by virtue of the same amendment. 17. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, refuted the said contention and submitted that no prejudice is caused to appellant on account of receiving of information by PW 3, a male police officer, that no failure of justice has occurred and on that ground the appellant is not entitled for acquittal. He also contended that the provisions of Sections 460, 461 and 465 Cr.P.
C would show that unless such failure of justice has been occasioned, the sentence imposed on the appellant cannot be reversed, merely because there is an error, omission or an irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant etc. He further pointed out that no objection of this nature has been raised in the Court below and therefore, the said objection is liable to be waived. He further contended that the evidence on record clearly establishes the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and therefore, the appeal be dismissed. 18. I have noted the submissions of both sides. 19. Admittedly, the incidents in question, on the basis of which the accused has been prosecuted, occurred from December 2012 onwards and ultimately culminated in the incident, which occurred allegedly on 17.07.2013.
There is no doubt that the complaint alleged to have given by the de facto complainant (PW 1) was registered by PW 3, a male police officer. 20. Section 154(1) Cr.P.C which was amended by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 (13 of 2013) w.e.f.03.02.
2013 states as follows: "Section 154: (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf: Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer: Provided further that- (a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person's choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be; (b) the recording of such information shall be videographed; (c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164 as soon as possible."
21. No doubt, the first proviso to Section 154 Cr.P.C indicates that if the information is given by a woman against whom for an offence punishable under sections 326(B), 354(B) and 354(D) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer. The said proviso to Section 154 Cr.P.C was introduced to make the police more gender sensitive and also with an intention to ensure that woman complainants would be treated more respectfully and sympathetically by woman police officers or woman officers. It is nobody's case that male police officers in all cases would not do so. So merely because PW 3, a male police officer, had received the complaint given by PW 1, it cannot be said that there is any prejudice caused to the accused.
It cannot also be said that there is any failure of justice occasioned by PW 3 receiving the complaint from PW 1.
22. Section 465 Cr.P.C states: "Section 465: Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error, omission irregularity. HYPERLINK "http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1977607/" (1) Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a
Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a Court of appeal, confirmation or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. HYPERLINK "http://indiankanoon.
org/doc/643938/" (2) In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in any proceeding under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings. 23. Thus, no finding or sentence passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction can be reversed or altered by this Court on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant etc, unless in the opinion of the Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. 24.
Sub-Section (2) of Section 465 further states that in determining whether any such error, omission or irregularity in any proceeding under this Code has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage of the proceedings. 25. In the present case, the appellant has been represented by a counsel in the open Court. The appellant therefore had an opportunity to raise this contention in the Sessions Court. Such contention was however not raised. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it is deemed to be waived. If really there was any failure of justice or prejudice caused to the appellant by PW 3 receiving complaint from PW 1, then, the appellant would have definitely raised it in the Court below.
Therefore, having regard to Section 465 Cr.P.C, I am of the opinion that the judgment of conviction passed by the Sessions Court is not liable to be reversed on the sole ground of the violation of the first proviso to Section 154 Cr.P.C by PW 3 receiving the complaint made by the de facto complainant-PW 1. 26. PW 1 has categorically deposed that after the accused was debarred from college, he sent messages to her cell; and after completing the Engineering Course, when she joined MBA in Geetham University, Visakhapatnam, the accused told to her relatives tales and asked them to perform marriage between herself and him; although he was told not to telephone her, he continued to telephone her and also sent messages.
She further deposed that in 2013 the accused secured the address of mother of PW 1 and met her mother, and her mother admonished him and sent him out; the police report was given on 15.05.2013 and when the police called the accused, the accused admitted his guilt and promised not to repeat the alleged acts. She also stated that the accused sent Exs.P1, P2 & P3 letters and misbehaved with PW 1 on 17.07.2013, as mentioned in Ex.P5 complaint. 27. The evidence of PW 1 was corroborated by PW 2, her mother.
PW 2 also deposed that since beginning the accused harassed PW 1 by sending messages and making telephone calls to her cell phone and also to the land phone; he was also telephoning the friends of PW 1 and sending messages to PW 1 stating that he would marry her; he threatened that if any one came forward to marry PW 1, he would spoil that alliance; PW 1 was crying in the house stating that all the harassment of the accused towards her was humiliating her; that PW 2 consoled her and whenever the accused telephoned, she told him not to interfere with their family and not to telephone them in such a way. She also deposed that on 17.05.
2013 the accused came to their house while she was alone in her house and behaved indecently; that she told him that she is an employee and not to behave in such a way; even then the accused did not heed her and continued the same; at last, she went to the police station and made a complaint against the accused; the accused admitted his guilt before the police and prayed for pardon and he was then released by the police. She further deposed that subsequently the accused addressed registered letters Exs.P1, P2 to P3 to PW 1, and on 17.07.2013 he came to their house when PW 1 alone in her house and created nuisance. 28. It was suggested to PWs 1 and 2 that no such incidents took place as alleged by them, but the said suggestion was denied by them. 29.
Although a plea was raised that the accused was simply called to the police station and beaten by PWs 1 and 2 and grandfather of PW 1 by name G.Sanyasirao, the Court below did not believe it and rejected the said plea. 30. The Court below held that PW 1's family are natives of Jami in Vizianagaram District; PW 2 is an employee in Revenue Department and residing in a house at old Gajuwaka; PW 1 completed Engineering Course and was doing MBA while staying with her mother in MMTC colony, near Padmaja Hospital, old Gajuwaka where the incident occurred. The Court below further held that there was no relationship between the accused family and PW 2 family at any time; and there was no acquaintance at all prior to the complaint and the accused joining in engineering course in Vignan Engineering College at Duvvada. 31.
The Court below also perused the letters Exs.P1, P2 and P3 and held that the contents thereof indicate a mad one-sided love from the side of the accused towards PW 1, which was not accepted by her. It found that as per the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the accused not only confessed love to the de facto complainant which was not reciprocated, but also harassed and threatened to kill her and her family by pouring acid. 32. The Court below, on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence, in my opinion, rightly concluded that the accused is guilty of offence of "stalking" punishable under Section 354-D IPC and also under section 506 IPC and I agree with its reasoning. 33.
The conclusion of the Court below appears to be reasonable conclusion and does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate powers under Section 374 Cr.P.C. 34. I therefore do not find any merit in the appeal; it is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, Crl.A.MP.No.666/2015 is also dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. ________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,J Date: 30.04.2015 Dsr PAGE PAGE 5 MSR,J Crl.A.760 of 2014 *e§ ̈°±2ÝÞß02:;ShilmÀÏÔñ02...-ž¦òû¶,!5!" " $ôèôáôáØÏáÅ»áôá2 ̈á2á2 ̈ášáÏ'»„wwwwmfOJQJ^J5OJQJ\^J6OJQJ]OJQJ5>*CJOJQJ\^JCJOJQJ^J5CJOJQJ\^JaJ5OJQJ\^JOJQJ^JaJ>*CJ ýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýñññññèý¤¤[$\$$¤¤[$\$a$--æÅï { a Ê jÞ<ž Šú°á1Þ y!
" $Ñ%ý÷÷÷÷ò÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷áá„ЄЄÐdh]„Ð^„Ð`„Ð &F„Ð`„Ð $$$$|%Î%Ñ%á%7)8)ý,Z-[--Ž-'-'-"-Å-Ç-Ñ-Ù-ã- .,.@.[..Ò.ê.õ.ú.v/Ó/Õ/Ö/0000 0Ò0X1Y1Z1Ù6á6uD}D„GžGöïåïÝïöïØÌÅÌ1⁄4Ì3ÅaÅaÅaÅaÅaÅaÅaÅaÅÌÅÌ1⁄4Ì3ÅaÅؕؕ؉5CJOJQJ^JaJ6OJQJ]B*CJOJQJaJph>*B*aJph0JB*a B*aJphjB*UaJphOJQJ>*OJQJ^J5OJQJ\^JOJQJ^J6OJQJ]^J2Ñ%é%Q(Ž(8)9)Ý,ý,ZÕ/Z1[1Œ2Ò3ô6U:Š?@ð@LCóDîÝÝÝÔÎÎÌ°°ÔÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎ$„ЄЄÐdh-DMÆ ÿÿÿÿ]„Ð^„Ð`„Ða$„Ð`„ЄÐdð`„ЄЄЄÐdh]„Ð^„Ð`„ЄЄЄÐdð] „Ð^„Ð`„ÐóDñE®F8G„G...
GžG ́GÅGÊGÌGÍGÏGÐGÒGÓGÕGÖGßGàGáGìGòGHHùùùùíííääââââââââÙ×âÙÒÒâ$a$„üÿ„&`#$¤¤[$\$$¤¤[$\$a$„Ð`„ОG±G ́GÄGÅGÉGÊGËGÍGÎGÐGÑGÓGÔGÖG×GÝGÞGßGáGâGèGéGêGëGìGHH÷ìàÒÆÁÁÁÁo·o·®©®Ÿ®©œCJ0JCJmHnHu0JCJj0JCJU0J j0JU jU5CJOJQJ\^J5CJOJQJ\^JaJ5CJOJQJ^JaJCJOJQJ^JaJCJOJQJ^JHHHýô¤¤[$\$+ 0&P1h/R °Ð/ °ÀN!°p"°p#À$ %° i8@ñÿ8NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH F@2F Heading 3¤d¤d@&[$\$5CJ\aJ>@B> Heading 4¤d¤d@&[$\$5\<A@òÿ¡<Default Paragraph FontFB@òF Body Text$dàa$OJQJ^JmH sH ,@,Header ÆàÀ!&)@¢&Page Number, ",Footer ÆàÀ!
626 Footnote TextCJaJ8&@¢A8Footnote ReferenceH*,U@¢Q, Hyperlink >*phÿ:þO¢a:apple-convertedspace>V@¢q>FollowedHyperlink>*B*ph€€dT@‚d Block Text „ЄЄÐdh]„Ð^„Ð`„ÐB*aJfHphqÊ ÿÿÿÿD`ÿÿÿÿ*e ̈©±2Þß12;SimŠ ̈ÀÐÑÒÓÔòóôõö÷øùúûüýþÿ12ce„...--æÅï{aÊ jÞ<ž Šú°á1Þy Ñ!é!Q$Ž$8%9%Ý(ý(Z)Õ+Z-[- Œ.Ò/ô2U6Š;<ð<L?ó@ñA®B8C„C...CžC ́CÅCÊCáCìCòCDD(0€€(0€€(0€€(0€€(0€€(0€€(0€€(0€€(0€€(0€€(0€€(0€€(0€€80€280€280€280€280€280€280€280€2 ̃0€Ð ̃0€Ð ̃0€Ð ̃0€ 0€„ ̃0€„ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€„ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ 0 ;;;;;> $žGH&+.Ó-Ñ%óDHH')*,-/H(Z))')Õ+,,DXÿŒXÿŒ >!•!
́ÿ•€ð8ð@ñÿÿÿ€€€÷ð'ðð0ð( ð ððB ðSð¿Ëÿ ?ðÿÿ _Hlt418247422 _Hlt418247423 _Hlt418247433 _Hlt418247434Z)Z)Z)Z)D@@@@')')')')D;CDLŠ,2«¬RZq{û Q Y ÿ g n } ... qy*‡w}8>ÈÎ1¿åé"EO€$Œ$i%o%Ÿ&¥&î(ô(è1î1¦2¬2¬333À3Í3¢;¥;w<z<£< ̄<,=0=4=@="=œ=>>>#>#?)A?H? =@@@¦B¬BÅCÈCÊCÊCÌCÌCÍCÍCÏCÐCÒCÓCÕCÖCDDY^ÀŬ2Ì Ò ý]ãD!I!í!ï!U$X$"$-$Ò/-01114<4U6"6+;2; ±C3CÊCÊCÌCÌCÍCÍCÏCÐCÒCÓCÕCÖCïCñCDD333333333333333333Ï Ó D H åé6%7%:%;%%‚% &&M&M&Á&Ç&Í&Ô&Þ&Þ&â&ç&ø&'â'ú'%(<(2( ́(Ý(Ý(Þ(ß(ý(þ(\-]-«-®-.Ž.Ó/Ô/õ2ö2ñ3ñ3€4... 4Ì5Ï5V6W6t9z9„9ˆ9Š;Œ;<<ñ<ò<Ä=È=Ä>Æ>ð>ð>? M? N?ô@õ@8AGA‚AƒA‹AŒAÎAíAòAóA ̄B°BÉCÊCÊCÌCÌCÍCÍCÏCÐCÒCÓCÕCÖCÞCáCëCìCDDÿÿDSR@X:\2015 onwards\2015 onwards\MSR,J\30.04.2015\Crl.A_760_2014.
docDSRHC:\Users\DSR\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Crl.asdDSRHC:\Users\DSR\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Crl.asdDSRHC:\Users\DSR\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Crl.asd.gqžèN]ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿðID8Ñrÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿâ@¢<Š¶2Ëÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿùk§=ÒòÀÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿûlCf:&$oÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿh„Є ̃þÆÐ^„Ð`„ ̃þ.h„ „ ̃þÆ ^„ `„ ̃þ.'h„p„LÿÆp^„p`„Lÿ.h„@„ ̃þÆ@^„@`„ ̃þ.h„„ ̃þÆ^„`„ ̃þ.'h„à„LÿÆà^„à`„Lÿ.h„°„ ̃ „Є ̃þÆÐ^„Ð`„ ̃þ‡hˆH)h „ „ ̃þÆ ^„ `„ ̃þ‡hˆH.'h „p„LÿÆp^„p`„Lÿ‡hˆH.h „@„ ̃þÆ@^„@`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.h „„ ̃þÆ^„`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.'h „à„LÿÆà^„à`„Lÿ‡hˆH.h „°„ ̃þÆ°^„°`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.h „€„ ̃þÆ€^„€`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.'h „P„LÿÆP^„P`„Lÿ‡hˆH.„8„ ̃þÆ8^„8`„ ̃þo(.
€„„ ̃þÆ^„`„ ̃þ.‚„Ø „LÿÆØ ^„Ø `„Lÿ.€„ ̈„ ̃þÆ ̈^„ ̈`„ ̃þ. €„x„ ̃þÆx^„x`„ ̃þ.‚„H„LÿÆH^„H`„Lÿ.€„„ ̃þÆ^„`„ ̃þ.€„è„ ̃þÆè^„è`„ ̃þ.‚„ ̧„LÿÆ ̧^„ ̧`„Lÿ.„ „0ý^„ `„0ýo(()€ „„ ̃þ^„`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.‚ „Ø „Lÿ^„Ø `„Lÿ‡hˆH.
„ ̈„ ̃þ^„ ̈`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.€ „x„ ̃þ^„x`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.‚ „H„Lÿ^„H`„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „„ ̃þ^„`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.€ „è„ ̃þ^„è`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.‚ „ ̧„Lÿ^„ ̧`„Lÿ‡hˆH.ðID8.gqâ@¢<ûlCfùk§=ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ xdbå ô›î- ÉCDÿ@€éé8"(ééD@@ÿÿUnknownÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿGï:àAxÀ ÿTimes New Roman5€Symbol3&ÿ:àCxÀ ÿArial5&ÿ>á[`À)ÿTahoma7‡ŸGeorgiaK,‡ŸBookman Old Style"1ˆðÐähðë4gЊ6gâÚ4'©_Î å7wô3l!ðpÀx ́‚‚0¤D<a2ƒQðÜÿýHPÿÿ/IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESHaphcDSRþÿà...ŸòùOh«'+'3Ù0 ̃ÐÜìø $ @LX dpx€ˆä0IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESHN TaphcE HphcNormal.dot DSR169Microsoft Word 9.0F@ú1⁄41@Lô ̄€Ð@üÞÄe‚Ð@\¢ãÀ ̈ÐÎ å7þÿÕÍÕœ."-+,ù®DÕÍÕœ."-+,ù®`hp€ˆ ̃ ̈° ̧ Àüäaphciw¤D 0IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESHTitleH 8@_PID_HLINKSäA9+$http://indiankanoon.org/doc/643938/%http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1977607/ !"#$%&'()*+,-./0þÿÿÿ23456789:; <=>?
@ABCDEþÿÿÿGHIJKLMþÿÿÿOPQRSTUþÿÿÿýÿÿÿXþÿÿÿþÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Entryÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÀF«^èÀ ̈ÐZ€1Tableÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ1R)WordDocumentÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ- `SummaryInformation(ÿÿÿÿFDocumentSummaryInformation8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿNCompObjÿÿÿÿjObjectPoolÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ«^èÀ ̈Ы^èÀ ̈Ðÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÀFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8ô92q