A.anitha

1

SC.No.458 of 2023, Dt: 09.04.2025

IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER

THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT

(POCSO ACT), GUNTUR.

Present: Smt. A.Anitha,

Judge,

Special Court for Speedy Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, Guntur

Wednesday, this the 9th day of April, 2025

SESSIONS CASE No. 458 of 2023

(Crime No.158/2023 of Nallapadu P.S.)

Between:

State : Sub-Inspector of police,

Nallapadu P.S.... Complainant

And

Katari Hrudaya Raju @ Raju, S/o.Joseph, 56 years, Vangipuram village, Prathipadu mandal, Now SC colony, Vengalaipalem village, Guntur Rural mandal. … Accused

This Sessions Case having come up for final hearing on 08.04.2025 before me in the presence of the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Incharge) for the State/complainant and Sri I.Madhubabu, deputy legal aid defence counsel for the accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Nallapadu Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for the sake of brevity and section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, hereinafter referred as ‘POCSO Act’, for the sake of brevity, in Crime

No.158/2023.

2

SC.No.458 of 2023, Dt: 09.04.2025

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

(i) L.W.1-Mahankali Sravani is the defacto-complainant and L.W.2- xyz is her daughter (as L.W.2 is the victim and not to disclose the name/identity of the victim, the victim shall be referred by pseudonymous name ‘xyz’). On 23.02.2023, L.W.1-Mahankali Sravani approached the complainant P.S and presented a report alleging that,

L.W.2-xyz/victim is studying 7th class, on 22.02.2023 at about 5.00 PM, while L.W.1-Mahankali Sravani along with her parents and sister were returning home after completion of her work, having heard

L.W.2-xyz/victim was weeping loudly, they rushed there and at that time, the accused held the hand of L.W.2-xyz/victim and was pulling her and on seeing them, the accused ran away, when L.W.1-Mahankali

Sravani enquired L.W.2-xyz/victim, L.W.2-xyz/victim narrated that the accused caught hold her hand and pulled her towards fields and due to fear L.W.2-xyz/victim raised cries and requested to take appropriate action against the accused.

(ii) On that, L.W.10-the then Sub-Inspector of police, registered the report presented by L.W.1-Mahankali Sravani as FIR in Cr.No.158/2023 for the offences under section 354-A of the IPC and section 12 of the

POCSO Act and took up investigation, in the course of which, he examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.1 and 3-Mahankali

Sravani and Mahankali Sivaiah respectively, he got recorded the statement of L.W.2-xyz/victim by L.W.7-Woman Sub-Inspector of police, he proceeded to the scene of offence i.e., the road next to the house of

L.W.1-Mahankali Sravani, observed the same and prepared the rough sketch and there he examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.4 to 6-Mahankali Marthamma, Kuntala Sandhya and Mahankali Thirupathi

Rao respectively, he filed requisition before the concerned court for recording the statement of L.W.2-xyz/victim under section 164 Cr.P.C, 3

SC.No.458 of 2023, Dt: 09.04.2025

on 10.03.2023 he served section 41-A of Cr.P.C notice to the accused, on 24.02.2023 he obtained the study certificate of L.W.2-xyz/victim from

L.W.8-the Headmaster, RCM Primary School, Vengalayapalem and the same discloses the date of birth of L.W.2-xyz/victim as 29.02.2012 and after completion of his investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under section 354-A of the IPC and section 12 of the POCSO Act.

3.After filing of charge sheet, this court took cognizance of the offences under section 354-A of the IPC and section 10 of the POCSO Act, against the accused and registered the case as S.C.458/2023.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies are furnished to the accused and the accused is examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C, explaining the charges framed against him for the offences punishable under sections 354-A and 376-AB r/w 511 of the IPC and sections 10 and 6 r/w 18 of the POCSO

Act, in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked the Exs.P1 to P10. As the prime witnesses i.e., the victim, her parents and paternal aunt did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned

Special Public Prosecutor is permitted to give up the examination of L.Ws.4 and 7 to 9-Mahankali Marthamma, Mahankali Thirupathaiah, K.Rojalatha,

Woman SI of police, P.Balaswamy, Headmaster of RCM Primary School,

Vengalaipalem village and the then learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Guntur respectively.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence against him, to which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

4

SC.No.458 of 2023, Dt: 09.04.2025

7.Heard arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, and perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on record.

8.Now the points for determination are as follows :

1. Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

accused for the offences punishable under sections 354-

A and 376-AB r/w 511 of the IPC and sections 10 and 6

r/w 18 of the POCSO Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. To what result ?

9.Point No.1:

The prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined

P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked the Exs.P1 to P10. The first amongst them is

P.W.1, the defacto-complainant. P.W.1 admitting of her relationship with

P.Ws.2 to 4 and her Ex.P1 thumb impression on the Ex.P7 report, deposed that she does not know the accused, that she does not know anything about this case, that she never gave any report to the police against the accused, that she had put the Ex.P1 on the Ex.P7 at the instance of police and that she was never examined by the police.

10.Next to her, P.W.2/victim deposed in tune with P.W.1, that she does not know the accused, that the accused never caught hold of her hand and subjected her to any sexual harassment at any point of time, that she never gave any statement to the police, that she was never examined by the police and that she gave her Ex.P4 statement before the learned Magistrate, but for at the instance of police. Further, the father of P.W.2/victim is examined as

P.W.3 and he deposed that at about one year ago, after he returned home from fields, he was informed that the accused caught hold the hand of

P.W.2/victim and pulled her towards the fields and on that P.W.2/victim raised cries and the same is reported to the police. In the course of his cross 5

SC.No.458 of 2023, Dt: 09.04.2025

examination, P.W.3 stated that the police did not record his statement and they only noted their names. The suggestion put to P.W.3 neither denies what he deposed in his examination-in-chief nor discredits his testimony.

Despite that, the fact that remains is that the testimony of P.W.3 is only hearsay. Further, P.W.4 deposed alike P.Ws.1 and 2, that she does not know the accused, that she does not know anything about this case and that she was never examined by the police. P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 when suggested that they are examined by the police and they stated as in the Exs.P2 to P6 respectively, and that they are deposing false due to compromise with the accused, they all unanimously denied.

11.At last, the Investigating Officer is examined as P.W.5, who deposed that on 23.02.2023, at about 8.30 PM, P.W.1 presented the Ex.P7 and he registered the same as the Ex.P8 and he took up investigation, in the course of which, he examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 3, that he got recorded the statement of P.W.2/victim, that he proceeded to the scene of offence i.e., the road next to the house of P.W.1 and prepared the Ex.P9, that on 23.02.2023, he filed requisition before the concerned court for recording the statement of P.W.2/victim under section 164 Cr.P.C, that on 10.03.2023, he served section 41-A of Cr.P.C notice to the accused, that on 24.02.2023, he obtained the Ex.P10 study certificate of P.W.2/victim and as per the

Ex.P10, the date of birth of P.W.2/victim is 29.02.2012 and that after completion of his investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

In the course of his cross-examination, P.W.5 when suggested that P.W.1 never presented the Ex.P7, that he did not examine any of the witnesses or visited the scene of offence and that having conducted table investigation, is deposing false, P.W.5 denied the same.

12.Upon reading together the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 5, it is glaring that except the testimony of P.W.5, the Investigating Officer, neither the 6

SC.No.458 of 2023, Dt: 09.04.2025

P.W.2/victim nor P.Ws.1 and 4 supported the case of prosecution, for the reason of which, their statements and also the report presented by P.W.1 are marked as the Exs.P2, P6 and P7. Indeed, the reason for the approach of

P.Ws.1 to 4 in abandoning the case of the prosecution is explicit from their admissions that they compromised with the accused, which ofcourse is not legally permissible. Despite that, the Exs.P2, P6 and P7 scarcely prove any of the acts alleged to has been committed by the accused, bringing home the guilt of the accused. Further, no doubt the statement of P.W.2/victim recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C is marked as the Ex.P4, in the course of her examination by the learned Special Public Prosecutor under section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the fact that remains is that P.W.2/victim retracted from the contents of the Ex.P4 stating that she deposed as such at the instance of police. And, though P.W.3 came forward to fortify the case of prosecution, the testimony of P.W.3 is not a substantive piece of evidence, but only corroborative. Hence, neither the Ex.P4 nor the testimony of P.W.3 can form the sole basis to arrive at an affirmative finding on the charges levelled against the accused, without corroboration from P.W.2/victim or P.Ws.1 and 4.

13.Therefore, in the light of above reasoning, the court is of the finding that the isolated oral testimony of P.W.5, coupled with the Exs.P1 to P10, scarcely prove the guilt of the accused to has committed any of the alleged acts against P.W.2/victim, attracting the alleged offences punishable under sections 354-A and 376-AB r/w 511 of the IPC and sections 10 and 6 r/w 18 of the POCSO Act, for which the accused is charged. Hence, the only finding that can be arrived at is that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences punishable under sections 354-A and 376-

AB r/w 511 of the IPC and sections 10 and 6 r/w 18 of the POCSO Act.

Accordingly, this point is determined.

7

SC.No.458 of 2023, Dt: 09.04.2025

14. Point No.2:

In the light of the finding of the court on point No.1, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 354-A and 376-AB r/w 511 of the IPC and sections 10 and 6 r/w 18 of the POCSO Act, and is accordingly, acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The unmarked non-valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 9th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- A.Anitha

Judge,

Special Court for Speedy Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 :Mahankali Sravani.None. P.W.2 :xyz/victim. P.W.3 : Mahankali Sivaiah. P.W.4 : Mahankali Sandhya. P.W.5 : M.Rosaiah (Investigation Officer).

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : 23.02.2023 - Thumb impression of P.W.1 on the report.

Ex.P2 : 23.02.2023 - Statement of P.W.1 under section 161 Cr.P.C.

Ex.P3 :--Signature of P.W.2 on the victim statement.

8

SC.No.458 of 2023, Dt: 09.04.2025

Ex.P4 : 27.02.2023 - Statement of P.W.2 under section 164 Cr.P.C.

Ex.P5 :--Victim statement.

Ex.P6 : 23.02.2023 - Statement of P.W.4 under section 161 Cr.P.C.

Ex.P7 : 23.02.2023 - Report.

Ex.P8 : 23.02.2023 - First Information Report.

Ex.P9 :--Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Ex.P10 :--Study certificate of P.W.2.

For Defence:NIL

M.Os Marked

- NIL -

Sd/- A.Anitha

Judge,

Special Court for Speedy Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, Guntur.

9

SC.No.458 of 2023, Dt: 09.04.2025

IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER

THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT

(POCSO ACT), GUNTUR.

Present: Smt. A.Anitha,

Judge,

Special Court for Speedy Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, Guntur

Wednesday, this the 9th day of April, 2025

SESSIONS CASE No. 458 of 2023

(Crime No.158/2023 of Nallapadu P.S.)

Name & Description of the: State : Sub-Inspector of police, Complainant Nallapadu P.S.

Name & Description of the: Katari Hrudaya Raju @ Raju, Accused S/o.Joseph, 56 years, Vangipuram village, Prathipadu mandal, Now SC colony, Vengalaipalem village, Guntur Rural mandal.

Date of Offence: 22.02.2023 Committal: --- Apprehension of accused: 10.03.2023 Commencement of trial: 19.03.2025 Closure of trial: 04.04.2025 Judgment: 09.04.2025

Nature of offence(s) : under sections 354-A and 376-AB r/w 511 of the IPC and sections 10 and 6 r/w 18 of the POCSO Act.

Plea of the accused: Not guilty

Finding of the court: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order :

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 354-A and 376-AB r/w 511 of the IPC and sections 10 and 6 r/w 18 of the POCSO Act, and is accordingly, acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused shall be released forthwith, if he is not 10

SC.No.458 of 2023, Dt: 09.04.2025

required in any other case. The unmarked non-valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Explanation for delay: This case was taken on file on 03.08.2023 and the accused appeared before the court on 26.12.2023. This case was posted from time to time due to NBW pending against the accused till 23.12.2024. On 23.12.2024 the accused was produced before this court on execution of NBW and posted for furnishing copies. On 24.01.2025 copies furnished to the accused. On 05.02.205 charges under sections 354-A and 376-AB r/w 511 of the IPC and sections 10 and 6 r/w 18 of the POCSO Act, have been framed against accused. On 05.03.2025 trial schedule was fixed.

On 19.03.2025, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked the Exs.P1 to P5.

On 20.03.2025, P.W.4 was examined and got marked the Ex.P6. On 02.04.2025 P.W.5 was examined and got marked the Exs.P7 to P10 and on the same day, prosecution side evidence closed and posted for examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. On 04.04.2025, accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C and reported no defence evidence and posted for arguments. On 08.04.2025 heard arguments of both sides and posted for judgment. On 09.04.2025, Judgment pronounced. Hence, there is no avoidable delay in this case.

Sd/- A.Anitha

Judge,

Special Court for Speedy Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, Guntur.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.),

Hon’ble High Court of A.P.,

Amaravathi at Nelapadu, through compact disk.

1

SC.No.163 of 2021, Dt: 11.04.2025

IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER

THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT

(POCSO ACT), GUNTUR.

Present: Smt. A.Anitha,

Judge,

Special Court for Speedy Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, Guntur

Friday, this the 11th day of April, 2025

SESSIONS CASE No. 163 of 2021

(Crime No.749/2020 of Mangalagiri Town P.S.)

Between:

State : Sub-Inspector of police, Mangalagiri Town P.S.,

Guntur Urban District.... Complainant

And

Kota Gopi @ Rajesh, S/o.Bhaskar, 19 years, RR center, Rajupalem village and mandal, Guntur District.… Accused

This Sessions Case having come up for final hearing on 10.04.2025 before me in the presence of the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Incharge) for the State/complainant and Sri I.Madhubabu, deputy legal aid defence counsel for the accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Mangalagiri Town P.S., filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under section 363 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860, hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for the sake of brevity and section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, hereinafter referred as ‘POCSO Act’, for the sake of brevity, in Crime

No.749/2020.

2

SC.No.163 of 2021, Dt: 11.04.2025

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

(i) L.W.1-Maganti Venkata Srinivasa Rao is the defacto-complainant and L.W.5-xyz is his daughter (as L.W.5 is the victim and not to disclose the name/identity of the victim, the victim shall be referred by pseudonymous name ‘xyz’). On 24.11.2020, L.W.1-Maganti Venkata

Srinivasa Rao approached the complainant P.S and presented a report alleging that, on 21.11.2020 at about 5.30 AM, L.W.5-xyz/victim went for bathing, but she did not turn up and they searched for L.W.5-xyz/victim, but invain and they suspect the accused in missing of L.W.5-xyz/victim and requested to take appropriate action.

(ii) On that, L.W.11-the then Sub-Inspector of police registered the report presented by L.W.1-Maganti Venkata Srinivasa Rao as FIR in

Cr.No.749/2020 under the head of girl missing and took up investigation, in the course of which, he examined and recorded the statement of L.W.1-Maganti Venkata Srinivasa Rao, he proceeded to the scene of offence i.e., the house of P.W.1 situated at 7th lane,

Mangalagiri, observed the same and prepared the rough sketch and there he examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.2 to 4-Maganti

Siva Naga Lakshmi, Maganti Madhavi and Mandru Venkayamma respectively, on 27.11.2020 L.W.5-xyz/victim is brought to the police station by her parents and on that, he got recorded the statement of

L.W.5-xyz/victim by L.W.8-Woman PC-5472. L.W.5-xyz/victim narrated in her statement that prior to 21.11.2020, the accused followed and harassed L.W.5-xyz/victim in the name of love and marriage, on 21.11.2020 at about 5.30 AM, the accused kidnapped L.W.5-xyz/victim by saying deceitful words and took her to Guntur and from there the accused took her to Macherla and Nagarjuna Sagar. Basing on the statement of L.W.5-xyz/victim, L.W.11-the then Sub-Inspector of police, altered the section of law as 363 of IPC and section 12 of the POCSO 3

SC.No.163 of 2021, Dt: 11.04.2025

Act vide the alteration memo, he re-examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.1 to 3, 6 and 7-Maganti Venkata Srinivasa Rao,

Maganti Siva Naga Lakshmi and Maganti Madhavi, Thupakula Subba

Rayudu and Kurra Karthik respectively and at the time of recording the statement of L.W.5-xyz/victim, he obtained the copy of SSC marks list of L.W.5-xyz/victim, on 27.11.2020, in furtherance to receipt of credible information, he along with his staff proceeded to Midde centre at

Mangalagiri town, arrested the accused and caused the production of accused before the concerned court for judicial remand, on 29.11.2020 he examined and recorded the statement of L.W.9-Pamisetty

Balaswamy, he filed requisition before the concerned court for recording the statement of L.W.5-xyz/victim under section 164 Cr.P.C and after completion of his investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under section 363 of the IPC and section 12 of the POCSO Act.

3.After filing of charge sheet, this court took cognizance of the offences under sections 354-D and 366 of the IPC and section 12 of the POCSO Act, against the accused and registered the case as S.C.163/2021.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies are furnished to the accused and the accused is examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C, explaining the charges framed against him for the offences punishable under sections 354-D and 363 of the IPC and section 12 of the POCSO Act, in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked the Exs.P1 to P12. The learned Special Public Prosecutor is permitted to give up the examination of L.Ws.2 to 4 and 6 to 10, Maganti Siva

Nagalakshmi, Maganti Madhavi, Mandru Venkayamma, Thupakula Subba

Rayudu, Kurra Karthik, K.Durga Bhavani, Woman PC-5472, Pamisetty 4

SC.No.163 of 2021, Dt: 11.04.2025

Balaswamy and the then learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for

Prohibition and Excise, Guntur respectively.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence against him, to which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, and perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on record.

8.Now the points for determination are as follows :

1. Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

accused for the offences punishable under section 354-D

and 363 of the IPC and section 12 of the POCSO Act,

beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. To what result ?

9.Point No.1:

The prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined

P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked the Exs.P1 to P10. The first amongst them is

P.W.1, the defacto-complainant. P.W.1 admitting of his relationship with

P.W.2/victim and his Ex.P1 signature on the Ex.P7 report, deposed that he does not know the accused, that he does not know anything about this case, that he never gave any report to the police, that he had put the Ex.P1 on a white paper at the instance of police and that he was never examined by the police.

10.Next to him, P.W.2/victim deposed in tune with P.W.1, that she does not know the accused, that the accused never harassed her to love him or stalked her or kidnapped her or subjected her to sexual harassment at any point of time, that she never gave any statement to the police, that she was never examined by the police and that she gave statement before the learned 5

SC.No.163 of 2021, Dt: 11.04.2025

Magistrate, but for at the instance of police. P.Ws.1 and 2 when suggested

that they are examined by the police and they stated as in the Exs.P2, P3 and

P5 respectively, and that they are deposing false due to compromise with the accused, they all unanimously denied.

11.At last, the Investigating Officer is examined as P.W.3, who deposed that on 24.11.2020, at about 5.15 PM, P.W.1 presented the Ex.P7 and he registered the same as the Ex.P8 and he took up investigation, in the course of which, he examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1, that he proceeded to the scene of offence i.e., the house of P.W.1 situated at 7th lane,

Mangalagiri and prepared the Ex.P9, that on 27.11.2020 P.W.2/victim is brought to the police station by her parents and on that, he got recorded the

Ex.P10 statement of P.W.2/victim, that basing on the Ex.P10, he altered the section of law as 363 of IPC and section 12 of the POCSO Act vide the

Ex.P11, that he reexamined and recorded the statements of P.W.1 and other witnesses and at the time of recording the Ex.P10, he obtained the Ex.P12 copy of SSC marks list of P.W.2/victim, that on 27.11.2020, in furtherance to receipt of credible information, he along with his staff proceeded to Midde centre at Mangalagiri town, arrested the accused and caused the production of accused before the concerned court for judicial remand, that on 02.12.2020 he filed requisition before the concerned court for recording the statement of

P.W.2/victim under section 164 Cr.P.C and after completion of his investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. In the course of his cross-examination, P.W.3 when suggested that P.W.1 never presented the

Ex.P7, that he did not examine any of the witnesses or visited the scene of offence and that having conducted table investigation, is deposing false,

P.W.5 denied the same.

12.Upon reading together the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3, it is glaring that except the testimony of P.W.3, the Investigating Officer, neither the

P.W.2/victim nor P.W.1, supported the case of prosecution, for the reason of 6

SC.No.163 of 2021, Dt: 11.04.2025

which, their statements and also the report presented by P.W.1 are marked as the Exs.P2, P3, P5 and P7. Although the reason for the approach of P.Ws.1 and 2 in abandoning the case of the prosecution is patent from their admissions that they compromised with the accused, which though not legally permissible, the Exs.P2, P3, P5 and P7 scarcely prove any of the acts alleged to have been committed by the accused, bringing home the guilt of the accused. Further, no doubt the statement of P.W.2/victim recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C is marked as the Ex.P6, in the course of her examination by the learned Special Public Prosecutor under section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the fact that remains is that P.W.2/victim retracted from the contents of the Ex.P6 stating that she deposed as such at the instance of police. When so, the Ex.P6 cannot form the sole basis to arrive at an affirmative finding on the charges levelled against the accused, without corroboration from P.W.2/victim or P.W.1.

13.Therefore, in the light of above reasoning, the court is of the finding that the isolated oral testimony of P.W.3, coupled with the Exs.P1 to P12, scarcely prove the guilt of the accused to has committed any of the alleged acts against P.W.2/victim, attracting the alleged offences punishable under sections 354-D and 363 of the IPC and section 12 of the POCSO Act, for which the accused is charged. Hence, the only finding that can be arrived at is that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences punishable under sections 354-D and 363 of the IPC and section 12 of the POCSO Act. Accordingly, this point is determined.

14. Point No.2:

In the light of the finding of the court on point No.1, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 354-D and 363 of the IPC and section 12 of the

POCSO Act, and is accordingly, acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

7

SC.No.163 of 2021, Dt: 11.04.2025

The accused shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The unmarked non-valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 11th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- A.Anitha

Judge,

Special Court for Speedy Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 :Maganti Venkata Srinivasarao.None. P.W.2 :xyz/victim. P.W.3 : J.Srinivasa Rao (Investigation Officer).

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : 24.11.2020 - Signature of P.W.1 on the report.

Ex.P2 : 24.11.2020 - Statement of P.W.1 under section 161 Cr.P.C.

Ex.P3 : 24.11.2020 - Statement of P.W.1 under section 161 Cr.P.C.

Ex.P4 :--Signature of P.W.2 on the victim statement.

Ex.P5 : 27.11.2020 - Statement of P.W.2 under section 161 Cr.P.C.

Ex.P6 : 16.12.2020 - Statement of P.W.2 under section 164 Cr.P.C.

Ex.P7 : 24.11.2020 - Report.

Ex.P8 : 24.11.2020 - First Information Report.

Ex.P9 : 24.11.2020 - Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Ex.P10 :--Victim statement.

Ex.P11 : 27.11.2020 - Section alteration memo.

Ex.P12 :--Copy of SSC marks list.

8

SC.No.163 of 2021, Dt: 11.04.2025

For Defence:NIL

M.Os Marked

- NIL -

Sd/- A.Anitha

Judge,

Special Court for Speedy Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, Guntur.

9

SC.No.163 of 2021, Dt: 11.04.2025

IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER

THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT

(POCSO ACT), GUNTUR.

Present: Smt. A.Anitha,

Judge,

Special Court for Speedy Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, Guntur

Friday, this the 11th day of April, 2025

SESSIONS CASE No. 163 of 2021

(Crime No.749/2020 of Mangalagiri Town P.S.)

Name & Description of the: State : Sub-Inspector of police, Complainant Mangalagiri Town P.S., Guntur Urban District.

Name & Description of the: Kota Gopi @ Rajesh, Accused S/o.Bhaskar, 19 years, RR center, Rajupalem village and mandal, Guntur District.

Date of Offence: 21.11.2020 Committal: --- Apprehension of accused: 27.11.2020 Commencement of trial: 04.04.2025 Closure of trial: 10.04.2025 Judgment: 11.04.2025

Nature of offence(s) : under sections 354-D and 363 of the IPC and section 12 of the POCSO Act.

Plea of the accused: Not guilty

Finding of the court: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order :

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 354-D and 363 of the IPC and section 12 of the POCSO Act, and is accordingly, acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The unmarked non-valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

10

SC.No.163 of 2021, Dt: 11.04.2025

Explanation for delay: This case was taken on file on 06.03.2021 and the accused appeared before the court on 25.03.2022. This case was posted from time to time for furnishing copies to the accused till 23.01.2024. On 23.01.2024 copies furnished to the accused and posted from time to time for framing of charges till 08.11.2024. On 08.11.2024 charges under sections 354-D and 363 of the IPC and section 12 of the POCSO Act, have been framed against accused and on the same day, the trial schedule was fixed.

On 04.04.2025, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked the Exs.P1 to

P6. On 09.04.2025 P.W.3 was examined and got marked the Exs.P7 to P12 and on the same day, prosecution side evidence closed and posted for examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. On 10.04.2025, accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C and reported no defence evidence and on the same day, heard arguments of both sides and posted for judgment. On 11.04.2025, Judgment pronounced. Hence, there is no avoidable delay in this case.

Sd/- A.Anitha

Judge,

Special Court for Speedy Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, Guntur.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.),

Hon’ble High Court of A.P.,

Amaravathi at Nelapadu, through compact disk.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

Present:Smt. A. Anitha,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur.

Thursday, this the 24th day of October, 2024.

S.O.P.No.37/2024

Between:

1.Shaik Azezunnisa W/o.Late Shaik Bayazeed, Muslim, Aged about 73 years, Housewife, R/o.11-18, Pedakakani Village, Guntur District.

2.Shaik Ayasha W/o.Basheed, D/o.Shaik Bayazeed, Muslim, Aged about 45 years, Housewife, R/o.Door No.11-118/A, Musleem Palem,

Guntur-522009. ... Petitioners.

And

1.The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Pedakakani Branch, Nagalaxmi Bidg., Near Junction, Main Road, Guntur.

2.Mohammad Inaitullah S/o.Late Shaik Bayazeed, Muslim, Aged about 47 years, Document Writer, R/o.Door No.4-417, Besides Sri Siva Surya Medical Shop, Near New Indian Primary School, Sivalayam Road, Pathuru, Pedakakani,

Guntur-522509....Respondents 1 and 2

This petition having come on 22-10-2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Ch.Satya Sai Babu, counsel for the petitioners, Sri.C.Narendra Babu, counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri.M.V.Subba Reddy counsel for the 2nd respondent and upon hearing the arguments and perusing the evidence on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 under Section 372 of the

Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking for grant of succession certificate in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2 and the 2nd respondent to receive the petition schedule amount, lying in the account standing in the name of the deceased Shaik

Bayazeed, in the 1st respondent bank by allotting 1/8th share to the 1st petitioner and the remaining amount to be divided into three shares and out of three shares, one share to be allotted to the 2nd petitioner and other two shares to the 2nd respondent as per Muslim Personal Law.

2

2.The averments of the petition in brief are that the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of late Shaik Bayazeed, herein after referred as ‘the deceased’ for the sake of brevity, that the 2nd petitioner and the 2nd respondent are daughter and son respectively of the 1st petitioner and the deceased, that the deceased is a retired Government Librarian and during his lifetime, saved some amount and kept the same in his accounts bearing Nos.1311101017957 and 131110100442 in the 1st respondent bank, that the deceased died intestate on 02-05-2021 leaving behind the petitioners 1 and 2 and the 2nd respondent as legal heirs, and the petition schedule amount lying in the 1st respondent bank, that after the death of the deceased, the petitioners requested the 2nd respondent to co-operate with them to receive their respective shares in the petition schedule amount as per

Muslim Personal Law, but the 2nd respondent did not cooperate and mediations through elders proved futile, that thereafter, when the petitioners approached the 1st respondent bank to allow them to withdraw their respective share amount from the account of the deceased, the 1st respondent did not accept and advised the petitioners to file the succession certificate and hence, the petitioners are constrained to file this petition and pray the court to allow the petition for grant of succession certificate in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2 to receive their respective share in the petition schedule amount lying in the 1st respondent bank in the account standing in the name of the deceased.

3.The counter of the 1st respondent is filed stating that there are amounts as mentioned in the petition i.e., Rs.70,572/- in account bearing No.1311101017957 and balance amount of Rs.6,98,722/- in account bearing No.131110100442, that all the legal heirs did not collectively approach the 1st respondent bank and hence, the 1st respondent did not permit to withdraw the amount and that the 1st respondent has no objection to permit the petitioners to withdraw the same, prays the Court to pass appropriate orders.

4.The counter of the 2nd respondent is filed refuting the material allegations in the petition, but for admitting his relationship with the petitioners and contending that the 2nd petitioner is a litigant person and the one created unnecessary disputes between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent, that inspite of repeated requests, the petitioners did not cooperate with him to withdraw the petition schedule amount from the 1st respondent bank, that this petition is filed with malafide intention to cover up lacunae and misdeeds by the petitioners against the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent has no objection to grant succession certificate in favour the 2nd respondent and the petitioners 1 and 2, 3 prays the Court to pass appropriate orders.

5.In the course of enquiry, P.W.1 is examined and the Exs.P1 to P6 are marked on behalf of the petitioners. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent reported no evidence, while the 2nd respondent got examined himself as R.W.1 and no document is marked on his behalf.

6.Now the points for consideration are as follows:

1) Whether the petitioners 1 and 2 and the 2nd respondent are entitled for issue of succession certificate with respect to the petition schedule amount, standing in the name of the deceased Shaik Bayazeed, as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

7.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents and perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on record.

8.Point No.1:

To substantiate the claim of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner got examined herself as P.W.1 and got exhibited the Exs.P1 to P6. P.W.1 testified that she is wife and the 2nd petitioner and R.W.1 are children of the deceased, that the deceased was retired librarian and during his life time, opened accounts bearing

Nos.1311101017957 and 1311101004442 in the 1st respondent bank, that the deceased died on 02-05-2021, leaving behind P.W.1, the 2nd petitioner and R.W.1 as his legal heirs and they being so, are entitled for the petition schedule amount lying in the account of the deceased in the respondent bank, as per Muslim Law.

The testimony of P.W.1 and the credibility of the Exs.P1 to P6 remained totally unchallenged. Indeed, the relationship of P.W.1, the 2nd petitioner and R.W.1 with the deceased and the death of the deceased leaving behind P.W.1, the 2nd petitioner and R.W.1 as his legal heirs and the petition schedule amount is an admitted fact. Further, P.W.1 categorically admitted in the course of her cross- examination that R.W.1 is also entitled for a share in the petition schedule amount.

9.Adding to the above, is the testimony of R.W.1, which remained unquestioned. Further, R.W.1 in his cross-examination, reiterating pleading, stated that he has no objection for issue of succession certificate in favour of

P.W.1, the 2nd petitioner and himself as prayed by the petitioners. Hence, the 4 testimony of P.W.1, substantially corroborated with the Ex.P1 to P6, which remained consistent and coherent, overwhelmingly establish that P.W.1, the 2nd petitioner and R.W.1 are wife and children of the deceased, who during his life time had accounts bearing Nos.1311101017957 and 1311101004442 in the 1st respondent bank and died intestate on 02-05-2021, leaving behind P.W.1, the 2nd petitioner and R.W.1 as his only legal heirs of his estate i.e., the petition schedule amount.

10.Now as to the entitlement of P.W.1, the 2nd petitioner and R.W.1 to the petition schedule amount, from the description of P.W.1, the 2nd petitioner and

R.W.1 in the long cause title of the petition as Muslims, it can be said that it is the

Muslim Law of inheritance that is applicable to the parties and as P.W.1, the 2nd petitioner and R.W.1 are the sharers of the deceased, P.W.1 is entitled to 1/8th share in the petition schedule amount, while the 2nd petitioner and R.W.1 are entitled to one share and two shares respectively in the remaining 7/8th share in the petition schedule amount. Upon calculation of all the shares of P.W.1, the 2nd petitioner and R.W.1 in the petition schedule amount, it can be said that P.W.1, the 2nd petitioner and R.W.1 are entitled to 3/24, 7/24 and 14/24 shares respectively in the petition schedule amount. Therefore, the Court is of the finding that the petitioners 1 and 2 and the 2nd respondent are entitled for issue of succession certificate in their favour, entitling them to receive the petition schedule amount standing in the account standing in name of the deceased in the 1st respondent bank, as per their entitlement of 3/24, 7/24 and 14/24 shares respectively, prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered.

11. Point:No.2:

In the light of the finding of the Court on point No.1, this petition shall be allowed.

12.In the result, the petition is allowed ordering grant of succession certificate in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2 and the 2 nd respondent, i.e., 1)

Shaik Azezunnisa W/o.Late Shaik Bayazeed, 2) Shaik Ayasha W/o.Basheed

and D/o.Shaik Bayazeed and 3) Mohammad Inaitullah S/o.Late Shaik

Bayazeed, entitling them to receive the petition schedule amount standing

in the name of the deceased Shaik Bayazeed, in proportion to their share of

3/24, 7/24 and 14/24 respectively in the petition schedule amount. The petitioners and the 2nd respondent shall deposit requisite stamp duty amount in proportion to their respective shares in the petition schedule amount, for 5 engrossment of Succession Certificate. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation directly by the stenographer (Grade-III), corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24th day of October, 2024.

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

G U N T U R.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Petitioners:

P.W.1: Shaik Azezunnisa (The 1st petitioner).

For the 2nd Respondent:

R.W.1:Mohammad Inaitullah (The 2nd respondent)

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the Petitioners:

Ex.P1: 04-06-2021The death certificate of the deceased Shaik Bayazeed, issued by the Registrar (Birth and Death), Grama Panchayat, Pedakakani. Ex.P2: 22-09-2023The family members certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Pedakakani. Ex.P3: 03-10-2023The attested copy of the statement of account bearing No.1311101017957, standing in the name of the deceased Shaik Bayazeed in Canara Bank, Pedakakani. Ex.P4: 03-10-2023The attested copy of the statement of account bearing No.1311101004442, standing in the name of the deceased Shaik Bayazeed in Canara Bank, Pedakakani. Ex.P5: --The Aadhar card of the 1st petitioner.

Ex.P6: --The Aadhar card of the 2nd petitioner.

For the Respondents: Nil

P.S.C.J., Guntur.

6

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

Present:Smt. A. Anitha,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur.

Thursday, this the 24th day of October, 2024.

S.O.P.No.37/2024

Between:

1.Shaik Azezunnisa W/o.Late Shaik Bayazeed, Muslim, Aged about 73 years, Housewife, R/o.11-18, Pedakakani Village, Guntur District.

2.Shaik Ayasha W/o.Basheed, D/o.Shaik Bayazeed, Muslim, Aged about 45 years, Housewife, R/o.Door No.11-118/A, Musleem Palem,

Guntur-522009. ... Petitioners.

And

1.The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Pedakakani Branch, Nagalaxmi Bidg., Near Junction, Main Road, Guntur.

2.Mohammad Inaitullah S/o.Late Shaik Bayazeed, Muslim, Aged about 47 years, Document Writer, R/o.Door No.4-417, Besides Sri Siva Surya Medical Shop, Near New Indian Primary School, Sivalayam Road, Pathuru, Pedakakani,

Guntur-522509....Respondents 1 and 2

This petition is filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking for grant of succession certificate in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2 and the 2nd respondent to receive the petition schedule amount, lying in the account standing in the name of the deceased Shaik Bayazeed, in the 1st respondent bank by allotting 1/8th share to the 1st petitioner and the remaining amount to be divided into three shares and out of three shares, one share to be allotted to the 2nd petitioner and other two shares to the 2nd respondent as per Muslim Personal Law.

Petition presented on: 19-10-2023Petition filed on: 20-10-2023

Valuation:

This being an application filed under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, a fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Schedule II Article 11 (i) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act, 1956.

Value of the petition as per the schedule is Rs.7,69,294/-.

This petition having come on 22-10-2024 before me for final hearing in the 7 presence of Sri.Ch.Satya Sai Babu, counsel for the petitioners, Sri.C.Narendra Babu, counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri.M.V.Subba Reddy counsel for the 2nd respondent and upon hearing the arguments and perusing the evidence on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows:-

i)that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed; ii) that the ordering grant of succession certificate in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2 and the 2nd respondent, i.e., 1) Shaik Azezunnisa W/o.Late Shaik Bayazeed, 2) Shaik Ayasha W/o.Basheed and D/o.Shaik Bayazeed and 3) Mohammad Inaitullah S/o.Late Shaik Bayazeed, entitling them to receive the petition schedule amount standing in the name of the deceased Shaik Bayazeed, in proportion to their share of 3/24, 7/24 and 14/24 respectively in the petition schedule amount; iii)that the petitioners and the 2nd respondent shall deposit requisite stamp duty amount in proportion to their respective shares in the petition schedule amount, for engrossment of Succession Certificate and iv) that in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 24th day of October, 2024.

Sd/-A.Anitha.

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Guntur.

Table of Costs -Nil - (CM & FC not filed on either side)

Sd/-A.Anitha.

P.C.J., (S.D),

Guntur.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Smt A. ANITHA,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur.

Thursday, this the 24th day of October, 2024

Original Suit No.184/2023

Between:

Tavva Venkateswarlu, S/o.China Rama Kotaiah, Hindu, Aged about 53 years, Business, R/o.Door No.3-29-78, 1st Lane, Krishna Nagar, Guntur,

Guntur City, Guntur District....Plaintiff.

And

Surjeet Singh Maini, S/o.Late Maini Baldev Singh, Sikh,Aged about 45 years, Business, R/o.Flat No.342, GF D-3 Block, Penta Home Society VIP Road,

Punjab-140603. ...Defendant.

This suit having come for final hearing on 23-10-2024 before me in the presence of Sri.C.Venkata Ramaiah, counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte, and upon perusing all the evidence papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.26,88,750/- on the foot of the suit promissory note dated 10-10-2018 for

Rs.15,00,000/-, together with suit costs.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that on 10-10-2018, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiff to meet his family expenses and executed the suit promissory note on even date in favour of the plaintiff at Guntur, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. After repeated demands made by the plaintiff for discharge of the said debt, the defendant issued cheque dated 18-12-2019, bearing No.080170 for

Rs.19,27,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Limited, Guntur-1 Branch, towards part payment of the due amount. The plaintiff presented the said cheque on the same day i.e., on 18-12-2019 in Co-operative urban Bank limited, Brodipet Branch,

Guntur for collection. But, the same was returned on 20-12-2019 by the collection bank, along with cheque return memo dated 19-12-2019 by the drawee bank as dishonoured for the reason “funds insufficient” in the account of the defendant.

Then the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice dated 21-12-2019 to the correct address of the defendant, but the defendant managed to return the same.

As the defendant did not claim the legal notice within reasonable period, the legal notice is deemed to has been served upon the defendant and the defendant did not choose to discharge the debt. On that, the plaintiff filed C.C.882/2020 on the file of the V. Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur, against the defendant under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act and the same is pending. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of the amount due under the suit promissory note, together with accrued interest and suit costs.

3.As the defendant did not choose to come forward despite service of suit summon, the defendant is set exparte as per docket order dated 15-10-2024.

4.In the course of exparte plaintiff evidence, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the Exs.A1 to A3 on his behalf.

5.Now the points for consideration are:

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit claim on the basis of the suit promissory note dated 10-10-2018, as prayed for?

ii) To what relief?

6.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on record.

7.Point No.1:

To prove the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and testified that on 10-10-2018, the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.15,00,000/- to meet his family expenses and agreeing to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., executed the Ex.A1 on the even date, that after repeated demands made by P.W.1 for discharge of the said debt, the defendant issued a cheque towards discharge of the said liability, but on its presentation for correction, the same was dishonoured for the reason “funds insufficient”, and that despite issue of the Ex.A2 legal notice, the defendant got managed to return the same and did not choose to liquidate the liability and consequently, P.W.1 filed CC.882/2020 on the file of the V. Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur, under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act and this suit for recovery of the amount due under the Ex.A1.

8.The testimony of P.W.1, coupled with the Exs.A1 to A3, remained totally unchallenged, consistent and coherent, inspires the confidence of the Court.

Hence, the Court is of the finding that the evidence on record proves the execution of the Ex.A1 by the defendant in favour of P.W.1. When once the execution of the Ex.A1 is proved, Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instrument Act comes into play favouring a rebuttable presumption that the execution of the

Ex.A1 by the defendant is for due consideration amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as mentioned in the Ex.A1. And, as the testimony of P.W.1 remained incontrovertible as to passage of consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- under the Ex.A1, the court is of the finding that the presumption drawn under section 118(a) of the Negotiable

Instrument Act stands unrebutted. Thus, the evidence on record establish that the execution of the Ex.A1 promissory note is for due amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as mentioned there under.

9.It is apposite to refer to the submissions by the learned counsel for plaintiff that in the light of the order dated 10-01-2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition

No.03/2020 on the file of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein the period of limitation for institution of suits from 15-03-2020 to 28-02-2022 is excluded and the balance period of limitation shall commence to run from 01-03-2022, the filing of this suit on 06-03-2023 is with in the period of limitation of three years only. As rightly submitted, in the light of order dated 10-01-2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition

No.03/2020 on the file of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, upon computation of the period of limitation with respect to the Ex.A1, which commenced from 10-10-2018, on exclusion of the period of limitation from 15-03-2020 to 28-02-2022, the institution of this suit on 06-03-2023 is well within the limitation period of three years. So, it can be held that the claim of P.W.1 on the foot of the

Ex.A1 is within the period of limitation only.

10.Therefore, as the evidence on record proves that the defendant executed the Ex.A1 and the liability there under is not discharged despite issue of the

Ex.A2 notice and the claim of P.W.1 is with in the period of limitation, the court is of the finding that P.W.1 is entitled for recovery of the total amount due under the

Ex.A1, together with accrued interest and costs. Accordingly, this point is decided.

11. Point No.2:

In the light of the finding of the court on point No.1, the suit shall be decreed, as prayed for.

12.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for Rs.26,88,750/- and the plaintiff is entitled for interest, pendente lite and future, on the principal amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court this the day of 24th day of October, 2024.

Sd/-A.Anitha.

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For the Plaintiff:

P.W.1: Tavva Venkateswarlu (The Plaintiff)

Document Marked

For the Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: 10-10-2018The suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.15,00,000/-.

Ex.A2 21-12-2019The office copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff’s counsel to the defendant.

Ex.A3 --The unserved postal cover with acknowledgment due standing in the name of the defendant.

Sd/-A.Anitha.

P.C.J. (S.D),

GUNTUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Smt A. ANITHA,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur.

Thursday, this the 24th day of October, 2024

Original Suit No.184/2023

Between:

Tavva Venkateswarlu, S/o.China Rama Kotaiah, Hindu, Aged about 53 years, Business, R/o.Door No.3-29-78, 1st Lane, Krishna Nagar, Guntur,

Guntur City, Guntur District....Plaintiff.

And

Surjeet Singh Maini, S/o.Late Maini Baldev Singh, Sikh,Aged about 45 years, Business, R/o.Flat No.342, GF D-3 Block, Penta Home Society VIP Road,

Punjab-140603. ...Defendant.

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.26,88,750/- on the foot of the suit promissory note dated 10-10-2018 for Rs.15,00,000/-, together with suit costs.

Plaint filed on :06-03-2023.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 10-10-2018 when the defendant borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- for his family expenses and to evidence the borrowing, the defendant executed promissory note in his own hand stipulating to repay the borrowed amount with interest at 18% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand, and subsequently on 18-12-2019 when the defendant issued a cheque bearing No.080170 towads discharge of the liability and thus acknowledged the liability and subsequently when the cheque was bounded necessitating the plaintiff to file CC No.882/2020 on the file of the V. Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur which is pending and subsequently when the defendant failed to discharge the liability under promissory note inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff both oral and legal notice dated 21-12-2019 which was managed by the defendant to return the same and kept quiet and from 15- 03-2020 till 28-02-2022 the period of limitation was excluded by virtue of the orders fo the Hon’ble Apex Court in suo motu WP No.3/2020, MA.No.665/2021 and MA.No.21/2022 dated 10-01-2022 covering 716 days which has to be added from 01-03-2022 to arrive at the limitation period which comes to 15-02-2024 from 01-03-2022 to arrive at the limitation period which comes to 15-02-2024 and as the suit is being filed much in advance, it is within time at Guntur where the suit transaction took place, the plaintiff resides and borrowing took place within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court.

Particulars of Valuation:-

Amount borrowed on 10-10-2018 is Rs.15,00,000-00

Interest on it @ 18% per annum from 10-10-2018 to 05-03-2023Rs. 11,88,750-00 ---------------------- Total:Rs.26,88,750-00 ----------------------

Value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction of Rs.26,88,750/-.

On which a court fee of Rs.29,426/- is paid under Section 20 of APCF and SV Act,1956.

This suit having come for final hearing on 23-10-2024 before me in the presence of Sri.C.Venkata Ramaiah, counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte, and upon perusing all the evidence papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows:-

i)that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed; ii)that the defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.26,88,750/-and the plaintiff is entitled for interest, pendente lite and future, on the principle amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization; iii)that the defendant do also pay a sum of Rs.29,428/- to the plaintiff towards (institution costs) costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil. (CM & FC not filed by either side);

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 22nd day of October, 2024.

Sd/-A.Anitha.

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

Table of Costs

for Plaintiff:- for Defendant:- (CM and FC not filed) (CM and FC not filed)

Stamp on vakalat 2-00 -- Stamp on plaint 29,426–00 -- Stamp on process -- – Advocate fee -- – Typing charges -- – Writing charges -- –

--------------------------

Total 29,428-00 Nil

--------------------------

Sd/-A.Anitha.

P.C.J. (S.D)

Guntur.

I N THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

Present:- Smt. A. Anitha,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur.

Friday, this the 25th day of October, 2024.

Succession O.P.No.16/2024

Between:

1. Peddi Naga Siromani, W/o.Late Peddi Chalapathi Rao, Hindu, Aged about 69 years, Housewife, R/o.Door No.5-87-75/1, 2nd Lane, Lakshmipuram, Guntur-522007.

2. Borra Mani Bindu, D/o.Late Chalapathi Rao, W/o.Borra Madhu Sudhana Rao, Hindu, Aged about 49 years, R/o.Door No.5-87-75, 2nd Lane, Lakshmipuram, Guntur-522007.

3. Peddi Kiranmai, D/o.Late Chalapathi Rao, Hindu, Aged about 46 years, C/o.Kosaraju Surendranadh, R/o.Door No.5-87-75/1, 2nd Lane, Lakshmipuram, Guntur-522007.

4. Peddi Manibhushan, S/o.Late Peddi Chalapathi Rao, Hindu, Aged about 43 years, R/o.Door No.5-87-75/1, 2nd Lane, Lakshmipuram, Guntur-522007. … Petitioners.

And

Link Intime India Private Limited, Represented by its Authorized Officer, CIN:U67190MH118368, Link Intimate India Private Limited, CIN:U67190MH1999PTC118368, B Tower, 102, B And 103, 1st Floor, Shangrila Complex, Opp.HDFC Bank, Near Radha Krishna Char Rasta, Akota, Vadodara-390020, Gujarat. … Respondent.

This petition having come on 22-10-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Ch.Satya Sai Babu, counsel for the petitioners 1 to 4 and the respondent did not choose to appear despite service of notice and sent its version through Post, and upon hearing the arguments and upon perusing the evidence on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for issue of succession certificate in favour of the petitioners 1 to 4, for transfer of the petition schedule shares, standing in the name of the deceased Peddi

Chalapathi Rao, in favour of the 1st petitioner.

2.The averments of the petition in brief are that the 1st petitioner is the wife, while the petitioners 2 and 3 are daughters and the 4th petitioner is the son of

Peddi Chalapathi Rao, herein after referred as 'the deceased' for the sake of brevity. The deceased during his life time purchased the petition schedule shares i.e., 600 shares from 606923 to 607522 vide certificate No.466 with Folio

No.C00835 of Poshak Limited for valid sale consideration. Subsequently, the deceased died intestate on 03-01-2017, leaving behind the petitioners 1 to 4 as his legal heirs and the petition schedule shares. Thereafter, the petitioners obtained family member certificate and the death certificate of the deceased and when contacted the respondent company for changing the petition schedule shares in the name of the 1st petitioner as the petitioners 2 to 4 are willing to forgo their rights and have no objection for transfer of the petition schedule shares in the name of their mother i.e., the 1st petitioner. But, the respondent did not transfer the shares even after several requests made by the petitioners and postponed the same. Under those circumstances, the petitioners got issued registered legal notice dated 21-11-2022 to the respondent and the same was received by the respondent on 25-11-2022, but kept quite. Later, when the petitioners approached the respondent company, the petitioners are advised to produce succession certificate. Hence, the petitioners are constrained to file this petition seeking for issue of succession certificate in favour of the 1st petitioner, enabling her to transmit the petition schedule shares standing in the name of the deceased and the petitioners 2 to 4 have no objection for issue of succession certificate in favour of the 1st petitioner.

3.General notice and publication is ordered and is complied, to which no objector came forward. The respondent did not choose to appear despite service of notice and sent his version vide letters dated 24-04-2024 and 13-09-2024 through Post, with a request to consider the same as its submission in this case.

4.In the course of petitioners’ evidence, P.Ws.1 to 3 are examined and the

Exs.P1 to P5 are marked. On behalf of the respondent, neither oral nor documentary evidence is adduced.

5.Now the points for consideration are:

1)Whether the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Peddi Chalapathi Rao and if so, whether entitled for issue of succession certificate in favour of the 1st petitioner with respect to the petition schedule shares standing in the name of the deceased Peddi Chalapathi Rao, as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on record.

7.Point:No.1 :

To substantiate the claim of the petitioners, the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 got examined themselves as P.Ws.1 to 3 respectively and got exhibited the Exs.P1 to

P5. P.Ws.1 to 3 unanimously testified that P.W.1 is wife and P.Ws.2 and 3 and the 2nd petitioner are children of the deceased, that the deceased during his lifetime purchased the petition schedule shares vide the Ex.P3 share certificate and died intestate on 03-01-2017, leaving behind P.Ws.1 to 3 and the 2nd petitioner as his legal heirs and the petition schedule shares, that despite issue of the Ex.P4 legal notice, the respondent did not choose to comply the appeal of the petitioners and that P.Ws.2 and 3 and the 2nd petitioner have no objection for issue of succession certificate in favour of P.W.1.

8.The testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3, substantially corroborated with the Exs.P1 to P5, which remained totally unchallenged, consistent and coherent, inspire the confidence of the Court, to conclude affirmatively that P.Ws.1 to 3 and the 2nd petitioner are wife and children of the deceased, who during his life time purchased the petition schedule shares in his name and died intestate on 03-01-2017, leaving behind P.Ws.1 to 3 and the 2nd petitioner as his only legal heirs and P.Ws.2 and 3 and the 2nd petitioner have no objection for issue of the succession certificate with respect to the petition schedule shares in favour of

P.W.1. Hence, the Court is of the finding that the 1st petitioner is entitled for issue of succession certificate with respect to the petition schedule shares standing in the name of the deceased Peddi Chalapathi Rao, as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered.

9.Point:No.2:

In the light of the finding of the Court on point No.1, this petition shall be allowed in favour of the 1st petitioner.

10.In the result, the petition is allowed ordering grant of Succession

Certificate in favour of the 1st petitioner i.e., Peddi Naga Siromani W/o. Peddi

Chalapathi Rao, entitling the 1st petitioner to the petition schedule shares standing in the name of the deceased Peddi Chalapathi Rao. The 1st petitioner shall deposit requisite stamp duty amount in proportion to the petition schedule shares standing in the name of Peddi Chalapathi Rao, for engrossment of succession certificate. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation directly by the stenographer (Grade-III), corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 25th day of October, 2024.

Sd/-A.Anitha

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Petitioners:-

P.W.1 : Peddi Nagasiromani (The 1st petitioner) P.W.2 : Peddi Kiranmai (The 3rd petitioner) P.W.3 : Peddi ManiBhushan (The 4th petitioner)

Documents Marked

For Petitioners:-

Ex.P1: 24-01-2017 The death certificate of the Peddi Chalapathi Rao Ex.P2: 10-03-2017 The family members certificate of the deceased Peddi Chalapathi Rao issued by the Tahsildar, Guntur. Ex.P3: 05-11-2005The original share certificate of Paushak Limited, standing in the name of the deceased Peddi Chalapathi Rao. Ex.P4: 21-11-2022The office copy of legal notice along with postal receipt Ex.P5: 19-12-2022 The reply notice from the respondent company.

Sd/-A.Anitha

PCJ (S.D),

GNT.

I N THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

Present:- Smt. A. Anitha,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur.

Friday, this the 25th day of October, 2024.

Succession O.P.No.16/2024

Between:

1. Peddi Naga Siromani, W/o.Late Peddi Chalapathi Rao, Hindu, Aged about 69 years, Housewife, R/o.Door No.5-87-75/1, 2nd Lane, Lakshmipuram, Guntur-522007.

2. Borra Mani Bindu, D/o.Late Chalapathi Rao, W/o.Borra Madhu Sudhana Rao, Hindu, Aged about 49 years, R/o.Door No.5-87-75, 2nd Lane, Lakshmipuram, Guntur-522007.

3. Peddi Kiranmai, D/o.Late Chalapathi Rao, Hindu, Aged about 46 years, C/o.Kosaraju Surendranadh, R/o.Door No.5-87-75/1, 2nd Lane, Lakshmipuram, Guntur-522007.

4. Peddi Manibhushan, S/o.Late Peddi Chalapathi Rao, Hindu, Aged about 43 years, R/o.Door No.5-87-75/1, 2nd Lane, Lakshmipuram, Guntur-522007. … Petitioners.

And

Link Intime India Private Limited, Represented by its Authorized Officer, CIN:U67190MH118368, Link Intimate India Private Limited, CIN:U67190MH1999PTC118368, B Tower, 102, B And 103, 1st Floor, Shangrila Complex, Opp.HDFC Bank, Near Radha Krishna Char Rasta, Akota, Vadodara-390020, Gujarat. … Respondent.

This petition is filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for issue of succession certificate in favour of the petitioners 1 to 4, for transfer of the petition schedule shares, standing in the name of the deceased Peddi Chalapathi Rao, in favour of the 1st petitioner.

Petition filed on: 25-01-2023.

Valuation:

This being an application filed under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, a fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Schedule II Article 11 (i) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act, 1956.

The schedule shares are valued at Rs.50,11,110/-

This petition having come on 22-10-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Ch.Satya Sai Babu, counsel for the petitioners 1 to 4 and the respondent did not choose to appear despite service of notice and sent its version through Post, and upon hearing the arguments and upon perusing the evidence on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows:-

i)that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed; ii) that the ordering grant of Succession Certificate in favour of the 1st petitioner i.e., Peddi Naga Siromani W/o. Peddi Chalapathi Rao, entitling the 1st petitioner to the petition schedule shares standing in the name of the deceased Peddi Chalapathi Rao; iii)that the 1st petitioner shall deposit requisite stamp duty amount in proportion to the petition schedule shares standing in the name of Peddi Chalapathi Rao, for engrossment of succession certificate and iv) that in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 24th day of October, 2024.

Sd/-A.Anitha

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Guntur.

Table of Costs -Nil - (CM & FC not filed on either side)

Sd/-A.Anitha

P.C.J., (S.D),

Guntur.