-

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE;VIZIANAGARAM

Present:- Smt. M.G.Priyadarshini, I Addl.District and sessions Judge

Thursday, this the 28th day of August, 2014.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.142 of 2012

From what court the appeal Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the is preferred First Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Vizianagaram No.of the case in that court C.C.No.261/2012 Name and description of theKankipati Nageswara Rao, s/o late Pothu AppellantRaju, aged 48 years, Srinivasanagar, Plot No.85, PSR Colony, Vizianagaram.

Name and description of the 1. State of A.P. reptd by the Addl. Public respondents Prosecutor, Vizianagaram.

2. Narayana Chalamayya, s/o late Laxmana Murthy, 40 years, D.no.20-20-7, Surya Nagar, Vizianagaram.

Sentence and Law under whichThe accused is convicted u/Sec.255 (2) the appellant is convicted. Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for SIX MONTHS and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, i.d.s.i. for one month for the offence u/s.138 of N.I.Act. The remand period, if any, undergone by the accused, shall be set off u/Sec. 428 Cr.P.C.

Whether confirmed, modified CONFIRMED or The appeal is dismissed, reversed and if modified, the confirming the conviction imposed by modification. the learned Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, (Special Mobile Court,) Vizianagaram in C.C.No. 261/2012 dt.12.9.2012fortheoffence punishable under section 138 N.I.Act, againsttheappellant/accused. However,thesentenceof imprisonmenti.e..,Rigorous imprisonment for six months is modified and converted into fine of Rs.5,000/-. The appellant/accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. (The appellant/accused has already paid the fine amount in the trial court; hence, he need not pay any amount). Date of: Presentation05.10.2012 Filing08.10.2012 Notice issued by court to 08.10.2012 appear Bail bond if appellant have On bail been Let out on bail. Appellant ordered to appear 08.11.2012 2 Crl.A.142/2012

Hearing 25.08.2014 Judgment28.08.2014

This appeal coming on 25-08-2014 for final hearing before me, upon perusing the petition of appeal and the record of the evidence and proceedings and upon duly considering the same and after hearing Sri A.Harish, Advocate for the appellant and of the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State and Sri V.Demudu, Advocate for 2nd respondent, I do adjudge and pass the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused against the calendar and judgment dated 12.9.2012 in C.C.No.261/2012 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate of the I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Vizianagaram convicted the appellant/accused for the offence punishable u/sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “N.I.Act”) and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

The appellant will be referred to as the accused hereinafter.

2.The brief facts of the case, as set out in the complaint, are as follows:-

The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant on 20.6.2009 for his family expenses and executed a promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a.

Subsequently, after repeated demands made by him, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.109597, dt.30.1.2011 for Rs.50,000/- in his name drawn on Bank of India, Vizianagaram, towards part payment. When the complainant presented the said cheque for collection on 31.1.2011 through his banker i.e., Sate Bank of India, Bazar Branch, Vizianagaram, the said cheque was returned unpaid on 1.2.2011, with an endorsement, 3 Crl.A.142/2012 “INSUFFICIENT FUNDS”. Thereupon, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 12.2.2011 to the accused demanding him to pay the cheque amount and the accused received the said notice on 14.2.2011 but neither gave any reply nor paid the debt amount, which persisted the complainant to file the present complaint against the accused, for the offence punishable under sec.138 of N.I.Act.

3.Onfilingthecomplaint,thelearned

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of the I Class, Vizianagaram has taken the case on file under Sec.138 r/w 142 of the N.I.Act against the accused and numbered the complaint as C.C.No.327/2011. Subsequently, as per the orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, the said case was transferred to the

Court of Judicial Magistrate of the I Class (Special Mobile Court), Vizianagram and renumbered as C.C.No.261/2012.

4. On appearance of the accused before the trial court, he was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C., explaining to him the sum and substance of the allegations made in the complaint, which he denied and claimed to be tried.

5.During the trial, before the trial court, to prove his case, the complainant himself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to

P.5 documents. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

6.On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty for the offence u/s.138 of the N.I.Act convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.

7.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused preferred the present appeal, assailing the judgment under appeal among other grounds contending that the trial court has not 4 Crl.A.142/2012 properly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at a wrong conclusion which resulted in miscarriage of justice.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the points for consideration are

(i) Whether there is any legally enforceable debt existed in between P.W.1 and the accused ; and

(ii) Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court in C.C.No.261/2012 dated 12.9.2012 ?

10.P O I N Ts 1 and 2:- (i) The learned trial court judge, having found the accused guilty of the offence punishable u/sec.138 of

N.I.Act, convicted and sentenced the accused for the said offence.

(ii)Section 138 of the N.I. Act is as follows:

Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

5 Crl.A.142/2012

The explanation appended to Section 138 explains the meaning of the expression debt or other liability for the purpose of

Section 138. This expression means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. Section 138 treats dishonoured cheque as an offence, if the cheque has been issued in discharge of any debt or other liability. The explanation leaves no manner of doubt that to attract an offence under Section 138, there should be legally enforceable debt or other liability subsisting on the date of drawal of the cheque. In other words, drawal of the cheque in discharge of existing or past adjudicated liability is sine qua non for bringing an offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

11. The learned Counsel for the respondent, while vehemently contending that the appeal has no merit or substance, submitted that the complainant has successfully discharged the initial burden cast on him, as such the onus shifts on to the accused to rebut the presumption under the Section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act and the accused/appellant having failed to discharge the same, in the instant case, the Trial Judge rightly convicted the accused. Thus contending the learned counsel for the respondent prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

12.It is settled principle of Law in so far as the cases based on Negotiable Instruments Act are concerned, that the initial burden to prove the execution lies on the Drawee of the Negotiable Instrument, that the instrument was issued/executed for consideration and in discharge of debt. When once the initial burden is discharged by the Drawee, the onus shifts on to the maker of the instrument and if the maker of the instrument fails to discharge the said burden he/she is liable for the legal consequences.

6 Crl.A.142/2012

13.In light of the above, this Court has carefully perused the evidence of P.W.1. To prove the case of the complainant, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and deposedthat on 20.6.2009 the accused approached and borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- for his family expenses and executed Ex.P.5 promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. His evidence also reveals that inspite of repeated demands made by him, the accused issued Ex.P.1 cheque bearing

No.109597, dt.30.1.2011 for Rs.50,000/- in his name drawn on Bank of India,

Vizianagaram, towards part payment and when the complainant presented the said cheque for collection on 31.1.2011 through his banker i.e., Sate

Bank o f India, Bazar Branch, Vizianagaram, the said cheque was returned unpaid on 1.2.2011, with Ex.P.2 memo “INSUFFICIENT FUNDS”. Thereupon, the complainant got issued Ex.P.3 legal notice on 12.2.2011 to the accused demanding him to pay the cheque amount and the accused received the said notice on 14.2.2011 under Ex.P.4 acknowledgement but neither gave any reply nor paid the debt amount, which persisted P.W.1 to file the complaint before the court.

14.In this context, reliance can be placed in the

Judgment reported in 2001 Cri.L.J. 4745 in a case between K.N.BEENA

VS. MUNIYAPPAN AND ANOTHER, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, observed that “u/sec.118 of the N.I.Act, unless contrary is proved, it is to be presumed that the negotiable instrument, including a cheque, had drawn for consideration and under Sec.139 of the Act, the court has to presume that unless contrary is proved, the holder of the cheque received the cheque for discharge in whole, or, in part of debt, or, liability. Thus, in a complaint u/sec.138 of the Act, the court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt, or, liability. However, this presumption is rebuttable and 7 Crl.A.142/2012 the burden of proving that a cheque had not been issued for a debt or liability is on the accused.

15.In another decision reported in 2004 Cri.L.J.3170 in a case between B.V.RANGAM VS. B.GOVINDA REDDY AND ANOTHER, wherein our Hon’ble High Court observed that “Once the cheque is in possession of a complainant, it must be deemed that he had discharged the initial burden as to legally enforceable debt and as such, it is for the accused to prove that the said cheque was not issued for the purpose of any legally enforceable debt or liability”.

16.In the instant case, the accused has not come into the witness box nor adduced any evidence to rebut the contention of the complainant and inspite of receiving Ex.A.3 legal notice, he did not choose to reply to the same nor paid any amount which amounts to admission of legally enforceable debt. Therefore, the accused has miserably failed to prove that there is no legally enforceable debt and Ex.P.1 was not issued in connection with any debt. Therefore, a perusal of the entire material on record clearly discloses that the accused has approached PW1 and obtained loan of Rs.50,000/- for his family necessities and in discharge of the same inspite of repeated demands, has issued Ex.P.1 cheque to PW1 and when

PW1 presented the same for collection, it was returned by the banker under

Ex.P.2 memo with an endorsement “insufficient funds” in the account of accused. Thereupon P.W.1 has issued Ex.P.3 notice and the same received by the accused under Ex.P.4 acknowledgement and the accused did not gave any reply nor paid the debt amount. Hence, the complainant by placing cogent material proved that there is legally enforceable debt existing between himself and accused and in discharge of the same, the accused has issued Ex.P.1 cheque.

8 Crl.A.142/2012 . A perusal of the judgment of the trial court, discloses that the trial Judgment has rightly came to the conclusion that there is legally enforceable debt and the accused issued Ex.P.1 cheque in discharge of the said debt, which ultimately not honoured and hence, found the accused guilty for the offence under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act, and I see no grounds to interfere with the said finding of the trial court.

17.However, coming to the sentence aspect, during the course of hearing of the appeal, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that he and the complainant have compromised the matter outside the court and prayed to take lenient view in imposing punishment. The complainant who was also present in the court conceded for the same. However, Counsel for both parties have submitted the arguments. Coming to the sentence aspect, the trial court sentenced the appellant/accused to undergo R.I for six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. In view of the above submissions, I am of the considered opinion that the justice would suffice, if the sentence of imprisonment is modified and converted into fine. I answered the points accordingly.

18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, (Special

Mobile Court,) Vizianagaram in C.C.No.261/2012 dt.12.9.2012 for the offence punishable under section 138 N.I.Act, against the appellant/accused.

However, the sentence of imprisonment i.e.., Rigorous imprisonment for six months is modified and converted into fine of Rs.5,000/-. The appellant/accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. (The appellant/accused has already paid the fine amount in the trial court; hence, he need not pay any amount).

9 Crl.A.142/2012

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th day of August, 2014.

Sd/ MG Priyadarsini

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

VIZIANAGARAM.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT VIZIANAGARAM

Present:- Sri K.V. Ramanaji Rao,

Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & sTs (POA) Act,

Cum-IV Additional District Judge, ,

FAC I Addl. Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram

Friday, this the 24th day of April, 2015.

SESSIONS CASE No. of 201

P.O.C.S.O. 33 4

Name of the ComplainantState, represented by the

Sub Inspector of Police, II Town P.S., Vizianagaram.

Name of the accused Gandaboyina Shiva Prasad son of Apparao, 35 years, Setti Balija by caste, Auto driver, resident of D.No.15- 13-24B, Kamma Veedhi, Vizianagaram.

Charges Under sections 354-A and 506 IPC and under section 10(1) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Plea of the accusedAccused plead not guilty Finding of the Judge Accused found not guilty Sentence of order The accused is found not guilty for the offences 354-A and 506 IPC and under section 10(1) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and he is acquitted u/sec.232 Cr.P.C., for the said offences. Unmarked property if any in this case shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Accused is ordered to continue on bail for about 6 months and ordered to appear before the appellate Court as and when received notices from the appellate court and further directed to execute self bond for Rs.10,000/- under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Prosecution conducted byAddl.Public Prosecutor, Vizianagaram.

Defence conducted bySri U.V. Rajesh, Advocate for accused.

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, II Police

Station, Vizianagaram, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 7 r/w 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, and under section 506(2) IPC, in Crime No. 190/2014 of II Town Police

Station, Vizianagaram, alleging that the Prosecutrix is aged 14 years, studying 8th class. The mother of the victim girl was married with Sri 2 POCSO SC 33/2014

Bandaru Bhaskararao, about 15 years and at the age of 4 years to

Prosecutrix, i.e., victim girl, her mother eloped with the accused and they are living together in the same house. The victim girl attained puberty in the year 2013. From then the accused used to watch the Prosecutrix clandestinely while she was taking bath and exchanging her dress in the house and misbehaved vulgarly by touching her secret parts and she narrated the same to her mother on several times, but there is no change in the abusive attitude of accused towards the victim girl. He also used to keep his hands on her breast and pressing it and touch her thighs with sexual intent and on raising her cries he fled away by leaving her. So many requests are made by her mother. The accused did not change his scandalous act towards the victim, besides that he threatened her with dire consequences. On the basis of the report given by Prosecutrix, the S.I. of

Police, II Town P.S., Vizianagaram, registered a case in crime No. 190/2014 under section 7 r/w 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under section 506 of IPC and took up investigation, during investigation, inspected the scene of offence, examined the witnesses, recorded their detailed statements and arrested the accused on 5.8.2014 and forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial custody and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.This being a Special Court, the case was taken cognizance by my learned predecessor for the offence under Section 7 read with 8 of

The Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act, since the Prosecutrix is a minor girl, aged 14 years, which falls under Special Act “The Protection Of

Children from Sexual Offences Act (Act 24 of 2012, w.e.f. 14.11.2012), against the accused.

4.After apprehension of the accused and upon consideration, a charge is framed by my learned predecessor, against the accused under

Section 10(1) of The Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act and under sections 354-A and 506(2) of I.P.C. Accused abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.

5.To substantiate the accusation, the prosecution in all, examined P.Ws.1 to 3, witnesses and Exs.P.1 to P.5, documents were marked. The evidence of L.Ws.3 to 5 vz., Doddi Bhudevi, P. Ravi,

Bheempalli Laxmi, were given up by learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., and the accused denied the prosecution evidence.

6.Heard arguments from both sides.

7. Now the points for determination in this case is ; 3 POCSO SC 33/2014

Whether the accused outraged the modesty of the

Prosecutrix by touching her secret parts and

exploited her sexually and threatened to kill the

Prosecutrix and committed sexual assault on the

minor who is Prosecutrix and thus committed any

offence ?

8.POINT: In the present case on hand, the Prosecutrix is examined as P.W.1, who deposed in her evidence that she is aged 15 years and she was born on 5.3.2001 and she studied 7th class. She deposed before the court although she was examined in Camera by following the procedure as contemplated under sections 33, 36, 37 and 40 of Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and even then she deposed that the accused is her father and her father beat her mother about eight months back and therefore, her mother took her to the police station and lodged a report through her with false allegations against the accused, so that he will change his behavior. P.W.1 who is Prosecutrix also deposed that she did not give any report to the police and she never gave any statement to the police and she do not know whether the accused is her step father and she did not speak anything against the accused.

9.The mother of Prosecutrix is examined as P.W.2, who deposed that P.W.1 is her daughter born through her husband Sri

B.Bhaskararao and accused and herself are living together and P.w.1 was brought up as their own child and her husband beat her due to disputes with outsiders and then she took P.W.1 to police station and did not give any report to the police or police never recorded her statement.

10. Therefore, both P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are the main and material witnesses turned hostile did not support the case of prosecution.

11The learned A.P.P., has given up all the other independent witnesses. The investigating officer is examined as P.W.3 who is S.I. of Police who registered Ex.P.3 report as a case in Crime No. 190/2014 and investigated into the case and he also obtained the study and conduct certificate of P.W.1, by examining the Head Master of the School where PW1 studied, which is Ex.P.5 and as per ex.P.5 the date of birth of Prosecutrix is 5.3.2001. Therefore, the Prosecutrix is aged 13 years by the time of alleged offence.

12. It is pertinent to state that the Protection Of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 defines a child as any person below the age of 18 years and provides protection to all children under the age of 18 years from the offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography. These offences have been clearly defined for the first time in law. The Act provides 4 POCSO SC 33/2014 for stringent punishments, which have been graded as per the gravity of the offence and the burden of proof is on the accused in any case of child abuse.

However, in this case there is no incriminating evidence against the accused that the accused committed the alleged offences punishable under Special

Act or under I.P.C.

13Since the main and material witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution, and the Prosecutrix did not depose anything against the accused. There is no incriminating evidence in the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2, put together against the accused. Therefore, there is no iota of evidence against the accused to link him to the alleged offences, and as such, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 10 of The Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act and under sections 354-A and 506(2) of I.P.C. , for which offences charges are leveled against him, hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, the point is answered. .

14IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under section 10(1) of The Protection Of Children from Sexual

Offences Act and under sections 354-A and 506(2) of I.P.C., and accordingly he is acquitted u/sec.232 Cr.P.C., for the said offences.

Unmarked property if any in this case shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Accused is ordered to continue on bail for about 6 months and ordered to appear before the appellate Court as and when he received notices from the appellate court and further directed to execute self bond for Rs.10,000/- under section 437-A of Cr.P.C

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 24th day of April, 2015.

Sd/- K.V. Ramanaji Rao

Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs &

sTs (POA) Act,Cum-IV Additional District

Judge, ,

FAC I Addl. Sessions Judge,

Vizianagaram .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For defence:- NONE P.W.1 : xxxxx PW2: G. Nagamani PW3: Sri Y.K. Kishore Kumar, SI.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P.1: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of prosecutrix dt.4.8.2014. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2, dt.4.8.2014. Ex.P.3: Report given to Police dt.4.8.2014.

5 POCSO SC 33/2014

Ex.P.4: FIR in crime No. 190/2014 of II Town P.S., Vizianagaram Ex.P.5: Study certificate of P.W.1.

For defence: NIL M.Os Marked NIL

Sd/- K.V. Ramanaji Rao

Special Judge for trial of cases under

SCs & sTs (POA) Act, Cum-IV Additional District Judge , FAC I Addl. Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram

Copy to the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad by way of C.D.

Copy communicated to :

1. The Director of Prosecutions, D.G. & I.G.Office Complex, Hyderabad.

2. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Vizianagaram.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram.

4. The District Collector, Vizianagaram.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE : AT VIZIANAGARAM)

Present:- Smt. M.G.Priyadarshini, I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. Tuesday, this the 5th day of August, 2014 ORIGINAL SUIT NO.27 OF 2010

Between:-

Baddam Manohar Reddy, s/o late Balvanth Reddy, 38 years, Business, D.No.38-40-42, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam-18. …Plaintiff.

And:-

1. Dhukka Thaviti Naidu, s/o late Appayya, 59 years, r/o Natavalasa village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

2. Dhukka Swamy, s/o late Appayya, 55 years, Rest ditto.

3. Dhukka Ganga, s/o late Appayya, 53 years, Rest ditto. …Defendants

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff praying the Hon’ble Court to pass a decree in his favour and against the defendants (a) directing the defendants to execute registered sale deed with respect to the plaint schedule mentioned property in favour of the plaintiff after receipt of the balance sale consideration and also to hand over the vacant possession of the plaint schedule mentioned to the plaintiff, failing which the honourable Court may be pleased to execute register sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on behalf of the defendants and to hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff; (b) alternatively, if the Hon’ble Court feels that the specific performance of the contract is not possible, directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.8,59,016/- towards the advance sale consideration and interest thereon with subsequent interest @ 24% thereon from the date of filing of the suit to till the date of realization; and (c) for costs of the suit;

This suit coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri B.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the plaintiff, and of Sri I.Ramesh, Advocate for defendants and at this state, plaintiff called absent, no presentation and hence this court passed the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Costs not paid. Plaintiff called absent. No representation for the plaintiff inspite of opportunity given to the plaintiff, he did not choose to adduce evidence, hence this suit is dismissed, for default.

Pronounced in open court, this the 5th day of August, 2014.

Sd/- M.G.Priyadarshini

I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM

Present:- Smt. M.G. Priyadarsini, M.A. (Triple) M.L., I Addl. Sessions Judge

Thursday, this the 28th day of August, 2014

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.15 OF 2007 Between:-

1. Siva Srinivasa Automobiles, authorized hero Honda Show room, N.C.S. Road, Vizianagaram.

2. B.V. Krishna Rao, Managing Partner Sri Siva Srinivasa Automobiles, NCS Road, Vizianagaram. …Appellants And:-

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd by the Public Prosecutor, Vizianagaram.

2. Smt. T. Vijaya Rama Laxmi, w/o Venkata Krishna Apparao, Aged 27 years, Proprietrix, Venkata Vijaya Motors, Vizianagaram Road, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District. …Respondents.

The Criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (3) (a) of Criminal Procedure Code against the conviction and sentence made in C.C.No.118/2004 dt.22.12.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of

I Class, Kothavalasa.

This appeal coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.V.Ganesh, Advocate for the appellants, and of the Addl.

Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State, and Sri Ch.Rambabu,

Advocate for the 2nd respondent, at this stage appellant/accused reported died, hence this court passed the following:-

O R D E R

At this stage, it is represented by the counsel for the respondent that the appellant/accused died. Further the S.H.O. I Town Police

Station has filed memo along with the death certificate stating that the appellant/accused has died and they came to know about the same while executing the NBW against the accused. Memo is recorded. In view of the death certificate and money receipt issued by the Vizianagaram Rotary

Swargadhamam Society, this Court is satisfied with the above documents, as they have proved that the appellant/accused died. Hence this appeal is dismissed, as abated.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of August,

2014.

Sd/- M.G.Priyadarshini

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

VIZIANAGARAM.

Copy communicated to the Judl.Magistrate of 1st Class, Kothavalasa along with L.C. record.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE : AT VIZIANAGARAM)

Present:- Smt. M.G.Priyadarshini, I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. Wednesday, this the 13th day of August, 2014 ORIGINAL SUIT NO.40 OF 2013

Between:-

1. Thatikonda Venkata Rao, s/o late Venkateswarlu, Aged 40 years, Business, S.R.A.S.Sai Nagar, Door No.4-3, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam.

2. Yerra Sombabu, s/o late Demudu, aged 48 Years, Business, Mogilipuram village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. …Plaintiffs.

And:-

1. Gottumukkala Rama Raju, s/o Veeraraju, Aged 35 years, Business, D.No.7-62/1, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.

2. Penumathsa Venkata Ramana Raju, s/o late Narasimha Raju, aged 51 years, Door No.6-3-712/128, Panjagutta Colony, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. …Defendants

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs praying the Hon’ble Court to pass a decree in their favour and against the defendants (a) directing the 1st defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs as he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract by got issuing telegraphic notice dt.02.05.2013; and (b) for costs of the suit.

This suit coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri N.Srinivasa Rao, Sri P.Suresh Babu, K.Demullu, P.Y.Kumar and K.Bueela Rani, Advocates for the plaintiffs, and of Sri B.John Mohan and Sri K.B.Parameswara Rao, Advocates for D.1 and 2nd defendant set exparte and at this state, counsel for plaintiffs filed memo and hence this court passed the following:-

J U D G M E N T

As per Order in I.A.9/14 and 10/14, the exparte order dt.27.1.13 against D.1 is set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has filed memo stating that the matter is settled out of Court. Plaintiff is present before this Court and filed identity proof. Memo recorded and in view of the memo, this suit is dismissed, as not-pressed.

Pronounced in open court, this the 13th day of August, 2014.

Sd/- M.G.Priyadarshini

I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram