Sri A. Krishna Prasad

C.C.No. 1172 of 2023 II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge’s Court, DOJ: 11.02.2025 (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram. 1 of 10

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JFCM-CUM-II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION) ::RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM::

PRESENT: SRI Dr. A. KRISHNA PRASAD,

II ADDL JFCM-CUM-II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Tuesday, the 11th day of February, 2025.

C.C.No. 1172 of 2023

(Cr.No.463/2022 of I Town L&O P.S. of Rajamahendravaram)

Complainant:Sub Inspector of Police, I Town L&O P.S., Rajamahendravaram.

Represented by:Learned In-charge A.P.P.

Accused:1Kalla Krishnarao, S/o F. Kumar, 33 years, D.No.16-47, Rajeev Nagar Colony, Payakaraopet, Anakapalli Dist.

(Driver of RTC Bus bearing No. AP 05 TF 0344)

Represented by:Sri P. Madanmohana Rao, Advocate for accused

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 11.02.2025 in the presence of Learned Incharge Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P. Madanmohan Rao, Advocate for accused and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Crime No.463/2022, the Sub Inspector of Police,

I Town L&O P.S., Rajamahendravaram registered against the accused for the offence under Section 304 (A) of Indian Penal Code (Here in after referred as

IPC) on the basis of report of L.W.1-Appari Suresh Krishna.

The Case of the Prosecution is as follows:

2.On 13.12.2022 while the deceased viz., Durga Varaprasad Babu after completing his medication, boarded RTC bus bearing No. AP 05 TF 0344 to travel from GSL Hospital to Rajamahendravaram; and while he was getting down from the bus, he fell down on the road on backward direction; and due to which the head of deceased hitted to the road and fainted on spot; and that the deceased was shifted to Surksha Hospital and later, he was shifted to R.S.

Neuro, Danavaipeta and while undergoing treatment the deceased was died in

C.C.No. 1172 of 2023 II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge’s Court, DOJ: 11.02.2025 (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram. 2 of 10

Raju Neuro Hospital on 28.12.2022 at 5.04 P.M. Basing on initial report of

L.W.1-Appari Suresh Krishna, L.W.16-S. Venkaiah, S.I. of Police registered it as a case in Cr.No.463/2022 U/Sec.337 IPC and after receiving death intimation of deceased, the section of law was altered from 337 to 304-A IPC.

3.During course of investigation, L.W.16-S.I. of Police visited scene of offence, examined and recorded the statement of L.W.1-Appari Suresh

Krishna and L.Ws.2 to 10 and prepared rough sketch. On 29.12.2022, L.W.16-

S.I. of Police held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of

Panchayatdars and blood relatives at Government Hospital,

Rajamahendravaram, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses.

On 10.02.2023, accused surrendered before him and served notice

U/Sec.41(a) Cr.P.C. L.W.14-Dr. Ch. Teja Srinivas, Medical officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased issued P.M. Report in which he was opined that “Head injury due to cause brain with injury to vital organ like brain”. L.W.15-Ch. Sampath Kumar, Motor Vehicle Inspector,

Rajamahendravaram who inspected RTC bus bearing No. AP 05 TF 0344 issued MVI Report in which it was opined that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

4.Upon perusal of the record, Cognizance was taken for the offence under

Section 304(A) of I.P.C.

5.After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., to the accused, he is examined as per

Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., for the offence under Section 304(A) of I.P.C., and the substance of accusation for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of I.P.C., was read over and explained to the accused in his vernacular for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to 10 witnesses and also got marked Exs.P1 to P10 documents.

C.C.No. 1172 of 2023 II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge’s Court, DOJ: 11.02.2025 (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram. 3 of 10

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution as envisaged under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he denied the same and reported no defence evidence and no documents are marked on his behalf.

8.Heard the learned In-charge Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

9.Based on the oral testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 10 witnesses coupled with documentary evidence i.e., Exs.P1 to P10 documents, the learned In charge

APP argued that accused drove the RTC Bus bearing No. AP 05 TF 0344 in rash or negligent manner and caused accident due to which deceased Durga

Prasad Babu fell down and deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries on his head and while undergoing treatment he died and the said accident has been proved by the prosecution with the help of prosecution witnesses which was not at all disproved by accused or no doubtful circumstances have been elicited in cross examination of any of the prosecution witnesses. He further argued that the death of deceased in accident was not disputed by the accused and the same has been proved by the prosecution with oral evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e., P.W.1, P.W.2 son and wife of deceased, with medical evidence of P.W.4 who conducted P.M. Examination over the dead body of deceased and with documentary evidence of Ex.P3 inquest report and

Ex.P9 P.M. Certificate and also proved with the evidence of Investigating officer P.W.8 who stated about the death of the deceased in the accident occurred on 13.12.2022 and that he sought to convict the accused for the charged offence.

10.On the other hand in refuting the contention of the prosecution, the learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that there is no direct evidence to say that the accident was occurred due to rash or negligent act of accused and the alleged sole eye witness i.e., P.W.5 turned hostile. Even

P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not depose in their evidence that the accident was occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the accused and they deposed that

C.C.No. 1172 of 2023 II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge’s Court, DOJ: 11.02.2025 (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram. 4 of 10 the deceased after getting treatment at hospital while he was returning and boarding bus and while he was getting down, he fell down would not amounts to rash or negligent driving on the part of the accused. He also argued that though P.W.6 deposed in his chief examination that he witnessed the accident in his cross examination, he categorically stated that since it was closing time he was picking up of his belongings in his shop and said evidence of P.W.6 shows that there is no possibility for him to witness the accident but, he was planted as eye witness though he really he did not see the accident.

Moreover, if really P.W.6 witnessed the accident, he would have identified the driver of the crime vehicle as well but, the evidence of P.W.6 in his chief examination itself is that he did not observe the driver of the crime vehicle and this admission of P.W.6 crystal clear that prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as such accused is entitled to claim benefit of doubt and acquittal. Hence, he sought to acquit the accused.

11.After having heard the rival contentions of learned In charge APP for the state and learned counsel for the accused the points that arises for determination are:

1. Whether deceased A. Durga Vara Prasad Babu sustained grievous injuries and died in the accident occurred on 13.12.2022 at 06.45 P.M., opposite to Alluramalingayya

Homeo Medical College, Rajamahendravaram?

2. Whether accident was occurred due to rash or negligent act

on the part of driver of the crime vehicle viz., RTC Bus

bearing No. AP 05 TF 0344?

3. Whether accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident?

4. Whether prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.304-A of I.P.C.?

12.Earnest consideration has been given to submissions made by both the counsels and perused the record thoroughly and answered the above noted point as follows:

Point No.1:-

13.In order to prove that deceased A. Durga Vara Prasad Babu died due to injuries sustained in the road accident occurred on 13.12.2022 at about 4.00

C.C.No. 1172 of 2023 II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge’s Court, DOJ: 11.02.2025 (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram. 5 of 10

P.M., prosecution relied upon the evidence of the P.Ws.1 to 3 who stated in their chief examination that on 13.12.2022 at about 7.45 P.M., they came to know about the accident through phone calls and that they rushed to the place of accident and found deceased was in unconscious manner and that they shifted him to hospital. To prove the factum of death prosecution further relied upon documentary evidence of Ex.P1 report, Ex.P3 Inquest report, Ex.P9 P.M.

Examination Certificate and in which it was mentioned that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident. As seen from the above evidence of

P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6 and Ex.P1, P2, P3, P7 and P9 documents it is establishes deceased died in the road accident on 13.12.2022 at about 6.45 P.M., opposite to Allu Ramalingayya Homeo Hospital,

Rajamahendravaram. P.W.8 Investigating Officer further stated that on receipt of Ex.P7 death intimation report, he altered Section of Law from 337 to

Sec.304(A) of IPC and issued Ex.P8 altered FIR and on 29.12.2022 after securing panchmediators he conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased at GGH, Rajamahendravaram and Ex.P4 Inquest Report and in the said Inquest all the inequestdars opined that deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident. Even the death of deceased has not been denied by defence that he died otherwise than in the accident. Hence, it can be categorically held that deceased viz., A. Durga Vara prasad Babu died in the road accident on 13.12.2022 at about 4.00 P.M., at opposite Allu Ramalingayya

Homeo Hospital, Rajamahendravaram. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of prosecution and against the accused.

Point No.2:-

14.To prove the factum of rash or negligent act on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident, prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.6 only as rest of the witnesses are came to know witnesses and other eye witness i.e, P.W.5 completely turned hostile. Prosecution further got examined evidence of P.W.8 Investigating Officer to prove rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle as he visited scene of offence, prepared Ex.P6 rough sketch of the scene in explaining the manner in which accident has taken place. Therefore, at this juncture, the evidence of

P.Ws.6 and 8 has to be examined with great care and caution in deciding the rash and negligent act on the part of driver of crime vehicle at the time of

C.C.No. 1172 of 2023 II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge’s Court, DOJ: 11.02.2025 (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram. 6 of 10 accident. The evidence of P.W.6 as he being eye witness to the accident is that he has been running welding shop at Y Junction, Rajamahendravaram and on 13.12.2022 at about 7.00 to 7.30 P.M., while he was in his welding shop which is situated at Y Junction, Rajamahendravaram one RTC Bus was getting slow and at that time one male person aged around 50 to 60 years fell down from the bus and sustained bleeding injury on the back side of his head and immediately ambulance came there and shifted to hospital and he did not observe the driver of the RTC Bus and the bus was started in speed before the said person getting down completely.

15.P.W.8-S. Venkayya, Investigating Officer stated in his evidence that he visited scene of offence on the date of accident at Y Junction,

Rajamahendravaram opposite to Allu Ramalingayya Homeo Hospital,

Rajamahendravaram wherein he examined scene and prepared Ex.P6 rough sketch. As per the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 8 it is crystal clear that the accident has taken place near Y Junction, opposite to Allu Ramalingayya Homeo

Hospital, Rajamahendravaram. Ex.P6 rough sketch also indicates that accident has taken place at opposite to Allu Ramalingayya Homeo Hospital,

Rajamahendravaram. But P.W.6 stated in his cross examination that since it is a closing time, he is picking up his belongings from his shop. The said evidence of P.W.6 clearly establishes that by the time of accident, he was busy in picking up his belongings from his shop as it was closing time. If the really

PW..6 witnessed the accident, he would not have stated in his cross examination that since it was a closing time, he is picking his belongings in his shop and that the evidence of P.W.6 is certainly creates reasonable doubt about the manner of the accident.

16. Since it is a RTC bus to prove the factum of rash and negligent act on the part of driver of the crime vehicle the best persons who can speak are the passengers who were traveling in the said bus at the time of accident. But in this case Investigating Officer did not take any such steps to examine the fellow passengers in RTC bus who were present in it by the time of accident.

As such non examination of passengers in RTC bus to prove the manner of accident is certainly fatal to the case of prosecution. Moreover, P.W.6 stated in his chief examination itself that one RTC bus was getting slow and at that time

C.C.No. 1172 of 2023 II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge’s Court, DOJ: 11.02.2025 (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram. 7 of 10 one male person aged around 50 to 60 years fell down from the bus and sustained bleeding injuries. As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 the deceased

A. Vara Prasad Babu is an old man of nearly about above 60 years and he went to GSL hospital for treatment and he alone traveled in the RTC Bus. If deceased is an old man and not feeling well and visited hospital, certainly some other person must assist him in boarding as well as getting down from the RTC bus. But in this case P.W.1 assisted the deceased in boarding the bus at GSL hospital, but no person assisted the deceased in getting down from the RTC bus. The evidence of P.W.6 itself shows that deceased got down from the bus while it was getting slow. The said evidence of P.W.6 in his chief examination clearly establishes that deceased might have attempted to get down from the bus even it was not stopped completely. Therefore, in that circumstances fault cannot attributed on the part of the driver of the bus saying that he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner. Since P.W.6 categorically stated in his cross examination that he was picking up his belongings in the shop as it was a closing time at the time of accident, his evidence that he observed the manner of accident cannot be believed at all.

Moreover, though he stated in subsequent lines of the chief examination that the said bus was started in high speed before the said person getting down completely, he did not state the same before the police and as such the evidence of P.W.6 is certainly said to have been exaggeration of the case of the prosecution. Hence, such inconsistent sole testimony of P.W.6 cannot be basis to convict the accused who is always entitled for benefit of doubt and offence must be proved against him beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, for the above mentioned reasons, the sole inconsistent testimony of P.W.6 cannot be said to believe the case of the prosecution in holding that the driver of the crime vehicle drove the same in rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. Accordingly, this point is answered against prosecution and in favour of accused.

Point No.3:

17.In order to establish the identity of accused as he was driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident, prosecution must prove with the help of oral as well as documentary evidence that accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. In this case the evidence of sole eye witness i.e.,

C.C.No. 1172 of 2023 II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge’s Court, DOJ: 11.02.2025 (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram. 8 of 10

P.W.6 as rest of the witnesses are came to know witnesses and other eye witness i.e., P.W.5 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution has played a vital role to believe the case of the prosecution and as such his evidence must corroborate the case of the prosecution in all aspects i.e., in proof of manner of accident and in proof of identification of accused at the time of accident. But, surprisingly, the sole eye witness i.e.,

P.W.6 categorically stated in chief examination itself that he did not observe the driver of the RTC Bus. Therefore, this admission of P.W.6 crystal clear that there is no evidence to prove the identity of accused as he was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Since, crime vehicle is RTC bus, duty cast upon the Investigating Officer to prove accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident by seizing trip sheet of the crime vehicle and also by examining concerned Manager of the particular Depot to which the bus is belongs. But unfortunately in this case P.W.8 Investigating Officer failed to do either of the said things. Since, P.W.8 failed to seize the trip sheet of the crime vehicle, it can be said that it is highly improbable to believe the case of the prosecution in holding that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.8 Investigating Officer is establishes that accused shown to have surrendered before him after three months of the accident and at that time he collected documents relating to crime vehicle and driving license of accused but, those documents have not been produced by Investigating Officer before this court at the time of investigation or even in filing of charge sheet before this court or at any subsequent stage. Therefore, for that reasons, it can be safely held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the identity of accused as he was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and certainly accused is entitled to claim benefit of doubt and acquittal. Accordingly, point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of accused.

Point No.4:-

18.Though the prosecution proved the cause of death of deceased A.

Durga Vara Prasad Babu that the same was caused in the road accident on 13.12.2022, it miserably failed to prove that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused as held while discussing point No.2 and since prosecution failed to prove identity of the accused at the time of the

C.C.No. 1172 of 2023 II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge’s Court, DOJ: 11.02.2025 (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram. 9 of 10 accident as held while discussing Point No.3 it is highly improbable to believe the case of the prosecution. Hence, it can be categorically held that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence

U/Sec.304 (A) I.P.C.,and that accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt and acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

19.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 304-A of I.P.C., and he is acquitted U/Sec. 255 (1) of the Criminal

Procedure Code of the said offence. The accused executed a bond

U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. undertaking him to appear before appellant court, if any appeal is preferred against this judgment.

Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Grade III Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 11th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- A. KRISHNA PRASAD

II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W.1A. Suresh KrishnaComplainant/son of deceased

P.W.2A. Sarojini DeviWife of deceased

P.W.3V. Satya KumarEye witness

P.W.4J. RamanjaneyuluEye witness

P.W.5I. ChinnaEye witness

P.W.6Sayyad BashaEye witness

P.W.7Dulam Gayathri DeviDaughter of deceased

P.W.8S. VenkayyaInvestigating Officer

P.W.9Dr. Ch. Teja SrinivasMedical Officer

P.W.10Ch. Sampath KumarMotor Vehicle Inspector

For Accused:None

C.C.No. 1172 of 2023 II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge’s Court, DOJ: 11.02.2025 (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram. 10 of 10

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

1Exhibit P-1/P.W.1Report given by P.W.1, dt.19.12.2022 2Exhibit P-2/P.W.1Statement given by P.W.1, dt.28.12.2022 3Exhibit P-3/P.W.4Inquest Report, dt.29.12.2022 4Exhibit P-4/P.W.5U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5, dt.29.12.2022 5Exhibit P-5/P.W.8FIR in Cr.No.463/2022 6Exhibit P-6/P.W.8Rough sketch of the scene (UNDATED) 7Exhibit P-7/P.W.8Death intimation report, dt.28.12.2022 8Exhibit P-8/P.W.8Altered FIR, dt.28.12.2022 9Exhibit P-9/P.W.9P.M. Report, dt.29.12.2022 10Exhibit P-10/P.W.10 M.V.I. Report

For Accused:NIL

Material Objects: NIL

Sd/- Dr. A. KRISHNA PRASAD

II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram.

// True copy //

II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram.

C.C.No. 1172 of 2023 II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge’s Court, DOJ: 11.02.2025 (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram. 11 of 10

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JFCM-CUM-II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION) ::RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM::

PRESENT: SRI Dr. A. KRISHNA PRASAD,

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-CUM-

II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Tuesday, the 11th day of February, 2025.

C.C.No. 1172 of 2023

(Cr.No.463/2022 of I Town L&O P.S. of Rajamahendravaram)

Complainant:Sub Inspector of Police, I Town L&O P.S., Rajamahendravaram.

Represented by:Learned In-charge A.P.P.

Accused:1Kalla Krishnarao, S/o F. Kumar, 33 years, D.No.16-47, Rajeev Nagar Colony, Payakaraopet, Anakapalli Dist.

(Driver of RTC Bus bearing No. AP 05 TF 0344)

Represented by:Sri P. Madanmohana Rao, Advocate for accused

Date of Offence:13.12.2022

Date of FIR:19.12.2022

Date of Charge Sheet:31.03.2023

Date of Framing of Charges:28.11.2023

Date of Commencement of evidence:15.04.2024

Date of which judgment is reserved: -----

Date of the Judgment:11.02.2025

Date of the Sentencing Order, if any: -----

Accused Details:

RanName of Accused Date of Date of OffencesWhether SentenPeriod of k of ArrestRelease charged Acquitted ce Detention the on Bailwithor imposeundergone Accconvicteddduring Trial usefor purpose dof section 428 Cr.P.C.

1Kalla Krishnarao--------U/Sec.Acquitted ---- ---- 304(A) of I.PC.

C.C.No. 1172 of 2023 II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge’s Court, DOJ: 11.02.2025 (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram. 12 of 10

Explanation for delay: Non production of witnesses

Plea of accused: Not guilty

Finding: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order :

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 304-A of I.P.C., and he is acquitted U/Sec. 255 (1) of the Criminal

Procedure Code of the said offence. The accused executed a bond

U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. undertaking him to appear before appellant court, if any appeal is preferred against this judgment.

Sd/- A. KRISHNA PRASAD

II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Prl. Senior

Civil Judge, Rajahmahendravaram.

// True copy //

II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram.

C.C.No. 2425 of 2022 II Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum-II Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 12.02.2025 (Junior Division) Rajamahendravaram 1 of 7

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JFCM-CUM-II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE:

(JUNIOR DIVISION) :: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present: Sri Dr. A. Krishna Prasad,

II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division)

Rajamahendravaram.

Wednesday, the 12 st day of February, 2025.

C.C.No. 2425 of 2022

Complainant:M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Branch at D.No.54-9-8, Opp. HP Petrol Bunk & Kodandaramalayam, 4th Floor, AVA Road, Rajamahendravaram rep by its Branch Collection Manager Cum GPA Vemparla Sivaram Tilak, S/o Bhaskar, 44 years, Rajamahendravaram.

Represented by:Sri R. Chittibabu and Sri R. Vijaykumar, Advocates for complainant

Accused:Indukuri Anantha Kumari, W/o viswanadhraju, 40 years, business, D.No.16-1-6/24, Sriram Nagar, 3rd street, Rajamahendravaram, E.G.Dt.

Represented by:Sri S. Suresh Babu, Advocate for accused

This case is coming on this day i.e., 05.02.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R. Chittibabu and Sri R. Vijayakumar, Advocates

for Complainant and of Sri S. Suresh Babu, Advocate for accused and upon

hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a private complaint filed U/Sec.200 Cr.P.C. by the complainant against accused for the offence punishable under Secs.138 r/w 142 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (herein after referred as N.I. Act).

The facts leading to the presentation of the complaint is that:

2.On 02.03.2019, accused approached complainant firm and entered into loan agreement No. RAJAHT903010003 and obtained loan for developing her business for a tune of Rs.5,50,000/- and executed agreement as a borrower and one Indukuri Viswanadharaju and Uma Devi Budharaju stood as guarantors for a total amount together with interest of Rs.9,13,930/- and purchased TATA SE 1613 TURBO FBT-T Modal 2007 bearing No. AP 29U- 9499 from complainant and accused agreed to repay the same in 60 monthly installments. Later, he committed default and became irregular in payments of monthly installments. After repeated demands made by complainant firm,

C.C.No. 2425 of 2022 II Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum-II Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 12.02.2025 (Junior Division) Rajamahendravaram 2 of 7 accused issued a cheque bearing No. 647301, dt:20.04.2022 to the complainant drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Danavaipeta Branch,

Rajamahendravaram for an amount of Rs.5,50,000/-. Complainant presented the said cheque for collection in its bank i.e., HDFC Bank, Danavaipeta, for collection on 21.04.2022 but the said cheque was dishonoured due to “Funds

Insufficient” and the same was intimated to it by its banker through a memo,

dt:22.04.2022. Thereon, complainant got issued a registered legal notice to

the accused on 06.05.2022 demanding accused for payment of the cheque amount but the same was intentionally avoided and returned the same but she neither paid amount nor issued reply. Hence, complainant presented the complaint to punish the accused for the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act.

3.On appearance of complainant before this court sworn affidavit was filed and cognizance was taken for the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act.

4.On appearance of accused, accused was furnished with the copies of the case documents as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., and She was examined under 251 Cr.P.C. and the substance of the accusation made against her for the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, was read over and explained to accused in her vernacular, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to substantiate the contention of the complainant, the complainant himself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 documents. After completion of complainant side evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material in the evidence of P.W.1 witness and Exs.P1 to P7 documents were put forth to accused, for which she stated all as false and she did not commit any offence and she reported no defense evidence and no documents were marked on her behalf.

6.Heard arguments of learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for accused and perused the record thoroughly.

7.Based on the oral testimonies of P.W.1 witness coupled with Exs.P1 to

P7 documents, learned counsel for complainant argued that accused borrowed vehicle loan from complainant for purchasing TATA SE 1613

C.C.No. 2425 of 2022 II Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum-II Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 12.02.2025 (Junior Division) Rajamahendravaram 3 of 7

TURBO FBT-T Modal 2007 bearing No. AP 29U-9499 for an amount of

Rs.5,50,000/- and agreed to pay the same with interest up to

Rs.9,13,930/- thereafter accused fell due and in discharge of her liability accused issued Ex.P2 cheque for an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- on 20.04.2022 but the same was dishonoured on presentation by the complainant in bank with an endorsement “Funds insufficient” hence, complainant got issued Ex.P4 legal notice and the same was returned.

In spite of that accused did not come forward to pay the amount due by her, hence, she is liable to punish U/Sec.128 of N.I. Act.

8.On the other hand based on elicitations and by filing written arguments, learned counsel for accused contended that complainant failed to deduct the amounts paid by accused and even it was not averred in the complaint whether complainant seized the loan vehicle and auctioned the same and even the amount fetched from auction was not shown in the complaint and as such complainant did not calculate the amount to be paid by the accused properly and whatever the amount mentioned in the cheque is higher than the amount to be paid by accused and even Ex.P7 Statement of account discloses that the amount to be paid by accused as on the date of issuance of cheque is only Rs.5,46,941/- but the alleged cheque shown to have issued for Rs.5,50,000/- which is more than the amount fell due by accused and as such Ex.P2 cheque was not shown to have issued towards legally enforceable debt and as such this complaint is not maintainable against accused. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.

9.Having considered the arguments submitted by both the learned counsels and having perusal of the record thoroughly the points that arises for consideration are:

1) Whether Ex.P.2 cheque issued by accused towards legally enforceable debt to complainant and thereby accused is liable to be convicted for the

offence U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?

2) Whether complainant has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable I nstruments Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

C.C.No. 2425 of 2022 II Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum-II Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 12.02.2025 (Junior Division) Rajamahendravaram 4 of 7

10.Earnest consideration has been given to submissions made by both the counsels and perused the record thoroughly and since the above noted points are interrelated to each other and depends upon same set of facts all the points are taken up together for discussion.

Points No.1 & 2 :-

11.In order to prove the above mentioned case of the complainant, the representative of the complainant is examined as P.W.1 by filing his chief affidavit which is nothing but reiteration of complaint averments and complainant got marked Exs.P1 to P7 documents on its behalf. Ex.P1-Attested copy of Certificate of incorporation issued by

Registrar of Companies, Tamilnadu, Ex.P2-Cheque bearing

No.647301 for Rs.5,50,000/- drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank,

Danavaipeta, Rajamahendravaram, dt:20.04.2022, Ex.P3-Cheque return memo issued by complainant bank, dt:20.04.2022, Ex.P4-Legal notice, dt:06.05.2022 along with postal receipt, dt:07.05.2022, Ex.P5-

Returned postal cover, dt:11.05.2022, Ex.P6-Power of Attorney of complainant, dt:02.03.2022 and Ex.P7-Statement of account copy of the accused.

12. Except sole testimony of P.W.1, complainant did not adduce any other supporting evidence. Whereas in denial of the case of complainant accused got elicited from the cross examination of P.W.1 and also by filing her written arguments that she borrowed vehicle loan for an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- for purchase of vehicle bearing No. AP 29 U 9499 and she paid some installments and later, she failed to pay some installments and subsequently, the vehicle was seized by complainant and filed this case to harass him.

13.As per the contention of accused that complainant failed to deduct the amounts repaid by the accused and the amount derived from auction of the loan vehicle P.W.1 categorically admitted in his cross examination that accused paid some amounts and balance amount as on 20.04.2022 is only Rs.5,46,941/-. If it is true, Ex.P7

C.C.No. 2425 of 2022 II Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum-II Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 12.02.2025 (Junior Division) Rajamahendravaram 5 of 7 statement of account must reflect all the amounts paid by accused to complainant. As per the version of accused, complainant seized the vehicle and auctioned but the details of auction did not mention in

Ex.P4 legal notice, in complaint and in his chief affidavit. P.W.1 categorically admitted that accused paid some amounts and amount payable by accused is only Rs.5,46,941/- as on 20.04.2022 i.e., as on the date of issuance of cheque. But contra to that testimony of P.W.1

Ex.P7 statement of account discloses some other facts which are not supported to the evidence of P.W.1 in his cross examination. If really complainant deducted the auction amount from claim under the disputed cheque, it ought to mentioned the auction details in complaint, chief affidavit of P.W.1 and Ex.P4 legal notice. But in none of them the auction amount was shown to have deducted. Non mentioning of auction details in complaint, chief affidavit of P.W.4 and legal notice is certainly fatal to the case of complainant.

14.Complainant/P.W.1 in his cross examination, he categorically admitted that as per the date of issuance of disputed cheque the amount payable by accused is of Rs.5,46,941/- i.e., as on 20.04.2022 but the alleged disputed cheque was given for Rs.5,50,000/-. In view of non denial of case of accused that the cheque amount is higher than the payable amount of accused itself establishes that complainant hiding some crucial facts regarding the details of loan and amount repaid by accused. Therefore, this suppression of crucial facts by complainant certainly creates reasonable doubt about the case of complainant and with the certain admissions in cross examination of

P.W.1, accused rightly raises his reasonable doubt about the case of complainant. Then it is the duty of complainant to remove such doubts. But, complainant failed to explain such crucial doubtful circumstances which eventually needs this court in believing the case of the complainant.

15.For a moment if we forget about the facts relating to amount, complainant must establish that there was a due of Rs.5,50,000/- as shown in disputed cheque by the accused to the complainant by the date of issuance of said cheque. To prove said fact the only basis available to complainant is only Ex.P7 statement of account. But, as

C.C.No. 2425 of 2022 II Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum-II Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 12.02.2025 (Junior Division) Rajamahendravaram 6 of 7 rightly admitted by P.W.1 in his cross examination as per statement of account the arrears amount to be paid by the accused is only

Rs.5,46,941/-. This evidence of P.W.1 is crystal clear that as per

Ex.P7 statement of account accused did not fell due of Rs.5,50,000/- as shown in Ex.P2 cheque. Then it is the duty of the complainant to aver details of depositing of amounts by auction purchaser in the complaint as well as in evidence of P.W.1 and complainant must file relevant proof for depositing of amounts by auction purchaser by producing documentary evidence. In this case complainant failed to either plead or depose evidence before this court how much amount fell due to complainant. Therefore, in that circumstances, the amount mentioned in Ex.P2 cheque is certainly excess than the amount fell due by accused to complainant. Once amount in disputed cheque is shown to have excess than the amount to be paid by accused certainly, the disputed cheque cannot be said to have issued towards legally enforceable debt. Once Ex.P2 cheque was not issued towards legally enforceable debt, prosecution case cannot lie against accused and on this ground alone accused is entitled for acquittal and the claim of the complainant under disputed cheque is not within the ambit of legally enforceable debt and as such this complaint is not maintainable

U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act. Since complainant failed to establish crucial facts the actual amounts repaid by the accused and details of auction of the loan vehicle certainly the case of the complainant can be said to be instituted by suppression of real facts which were remained unproved by the complainant though duty cast upon it. Hence, certainly complainant said to have failed to rebut the contention of accused who successfully established his probable defence and as such the case of the complainant is devoid of merits and accordingly, this complaint is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, with the above discussed circumstances, it can be categorically held that complainant failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal.

Accordingly, all the points are answered against complainant and in favour of complainant.

C.C.No. 2425 of 2022 II Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum-II Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 12.02.2025 (Junior Division) Rajamahendravaram 7 of 7

16.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and she is acquitted under

Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused executed a bond U/Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C. undertaking her to appear before appellant court, if any appeal is preferred against this judgment.

Typed to my dictation by the Grade III Stenographer directly

in Office computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me, in

the open Court, on this the 12 th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- Dr. A. Krishna Prasad

II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For complainant:

PW.1 : Vemparla Siva Ram TilakRepresentative of Complainant firm

For accused:NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For complainant:

1 Exhibit P-1/P.W.1 Attested copy of Certificate of incorporation issued by Registrar of Companies, Tamilnadu 2 Exhibit P-2/P.W.1 Cheque bearing No.647301 for Rs.5,50,000/- drawn on PunjabandSindBank,Danavaipeta, Rajamahendravaram, dt:20.04.2022 3 Exhibit P-3/P.W.1 Cheque return memo issued by complainant bank,

dt:20.04.2022

4 Exhibit P-4/P.W.1 Legal notice, dt:06.05.2022 along with postal receipt,

dt:07.05.2022

5 Exhibit P-5/P.W.1 Returned postal cover, dt:11.05.2022 6 Exhibit P-6/P.W.1 Power of Attorney of complainant, dt:02.03.2022 7 Exhibit P-7/P.W.1 Statement of account copy of the accused

For accused:- NIL

Sd/- Dr. A. Krishna Prasad

II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram.

C.C.No. 2425 of 2022 II Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum-II Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 12.02.2025 (Junior Division) Rajamahendravaram 8 of 7

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JFCM-CUM-II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE:

(JUNIOR DIVISION) :: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present: Sri Dr. A. Krishna Prasad,

II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division)

Rajamahendravaram.

Wednesday, the 12 st day of February, 2025.

C.C.No. 2425 of 2022

Complainant:M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Branch at D.No.54-9-8, Opp. HP Petrol Bunk & Kodandaramalayam, 4th Floor, AVA Road, Rajamahendravaram rep by its Branch Collection Manager Cum GPA Vemparla Sivaram Tilak, S/o Bhaskar, 44 years, Rajamahendravaram.

Represented by:Sri R. Chittibabu and Sri R. Vijaykumar, Advocates for complainant

Accused:Indukuri Anantha Kumari, W/o viswanadhraju, 40 years, business, D.No.16-1-6/24, Sriram Nagar, 3rd street, Rajamahendravaram, E.G.Dt.

Represented by:Sri S. Suresh Babu, Advocate for accused

Date of Offence:20.04.2022

Date of Complaint:12.06.2022

Date of apprehension of accused:----

Date of release of accused:----

Date of Commencement of evidence:02.07.2024

Date of closure of trial:29.01.2025

Date of the Judgment:12.02.2025

Date of the Sentencing Order, if any: -----

Accused Details: Rank Name of Accused Date of Date of Offences Whether Sentence Period of of the ArrestRelease on charged withAcquitted or imposedDetention AccusBailconvictedundergone edduring Trial for purpose of section 428 Cr.P.C.

U/Sec.138 1Indukuri Anantha Kumari------Acquitted---- of N.I. Act -----

C.C.No. 2425 of 2022 II Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum-II Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 12.02.2025 (Junior Division) Rajamahendravaram 9 of 7

Explanation for delay: Due to non production of witnesses

Offences: U/Sec. 138 of N.I. Act Plea of accused: Not guilty Finding: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order :

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and she is acquitted under

Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused executed a bond U/Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C. undertaking her to appear before appellant court, if any appeal is preferred against this judgment.

Sd/- Dr. A. Krishna Prasad

II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Prl. Senior Civil

Judge, Rajahmahendravaram.

// True copy //

II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS-CUM-I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM::

PRESENT: SRI Dr. A. KRISHNA PRASAD,

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

(FAC) I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Thursday, the 18th day of May, 2023

C.C.No. 1054 of 2023

Between:

State rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Gokavaram P.S., Rajamahendravaram.…Complainant.

And

1) Bathina Srinu, S/o.Suryarao, Age 36 yrs, C/Settibalija, Razole, Rajamahendravaram Rural, R/o.Itikayalapalli village, Gokavaram Mandal.

2) Velisetti Nagamani, W/o.Satyanarayana, Aged 40 years, C/SC Mala, Thantikonda village, Gokavaram Mandal.

....Accused

This case came up before me on 18.05.2023 for 313 Cr.P.C. Examination in the presence of learned A.P.P, for the complainant and Sri. Sri R.Nagaraju, Advocate

for accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivers

the following:

:: J U D G M E N T::

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gokavaram

Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, filed the charge sheet against accused for the offence under Sec.7(A) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act in Cr. No.

321/2023 of Gokavaram P.S Rajamahendravaram.

2. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is as follows:

On 04.10.2022 at 11.00 a.m., at outskirts of Itikayalapalli Village and

Gokavaram Mandal, the Sub Inspector of Police, Gokavaram P.S., LW.5-

V.Srinivasa Rao- ASI of Police conducted raid along with his staff and arrested

A.1 and A.2 as he was found in possession of 20 liters of ID Arrack, 2

Aluminum Vessels and seized the said ID arrack from the possession of accused two aluminum vessels destroyed 150 liters of FJ wash, one plastic drum and soil pot and under the cover of mediator report in the presence of

LW.5 and S.I. of Police (L.W.6) brought the A.1 and A.2 along with seized contraband i.e., 20 liters of ID arrack, 2 Aluminum Vessels and registered the 2 mediator report as a case in Cr.No. 321/2022 under Sec.7(B) r/w 8(A), 8(B) of

A.P. Prohibition Act and took up investigation. The LW.6 issued U/Sec. 41(a)

Cr.P.C. notice to A.1 and A.2 but as he did not comply the same, hence A.1 and A.2 were produced on 04.10.2022 before the Hon’ble Court for judicial remand. Later, the LW.6 received the chemical analysis report in respect of sample drawn by him from the Government Chemical Examiner, Prohibition &

Excise, Kakinada and after completion of investigation S.I. of Police filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence under Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(A), 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to her as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The A.1 and A.2 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C for the offence U/Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(A), 8(B) of A.P. P. Act and a charge U/Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(A), 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act-2020 was framed and the contents of the charge was read over and explained to her in telugu, and having understood the same, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the A.1 and A.2 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material against them from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which she denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point arises for determination is “whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A.1 and A.2 for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(A), 8(B) of the A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act-2020, beyond all reasonable doubt”?

3

POINT :

10.The case of the prosecution is that on 04.10.2022 at 11.00 a.m., on credible information about possession and selling of ID liquor illegally, the

P.W.3-AS.I. of Police along with his staff i.e., L.W.1-T.Mani Kumar PC-1802,

LW.2-D.Sathireddy, PC-3633 and PW.2 proceeded to outskirts of Itikayalapalli

Village and Gokavaram Mandal, wherein they found A.1 and A.2 are in possession of 20 liters of ID arrack, 2 Aluminum Vessals and destroyed two aluminum Vessals destroyed 150 liters of FJ wash one plastic drum and soil pot and seized the 20 liters of I.D arrack, two Aluminum Vesasls from the possession of A.1 and A.2 under the cover of an Mediator report (Ex.P.1).

On enquiry, the A.1 and A.2 revealed his identity particulars and also disclosed that they purchased the above said property from an unknown person and selling the same for higher prices and due to fear they tried to escape.

11. On that, the P.W.3 seized the said I.D arrack and also drawn 375 ml sample bottle under the cover of Ex.P1 mediator report. Then he arrested accused and brought her along with contraband to the Police Station and basing on the said mediator report registered a case in crime number.3210/2022 under Section 7 (B) r/w 8(A), 8(B) of A.P Prohibition (Amendment) Act, and Ex.P1 Analysis Report which discloses that the sample is illicitly distilled arrack unfit for human consumption and injurious to health,

Ex.P2 Mediator Report, Ex.P3 Original F.I.R. During the course of investigation, Ex.P4 Letter of advice, he forwarded the sample to chemical examiner at Kakinada. Later, he issued Section.41(a) Cr.P.C. notice to A.1 and A.2 but as A.1 and A.2 did not comply the same, hence A.1 and A.2 were arrested and produced before the court for judicial remand and after completion of entire investigation, the S.I. of Police filed the charge sheet.

12. To prove the case of prosecution the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 who is SI of Police, P.W.2-G.M.S.K. of Police and PW.3-ASI to the scene of offence. But P.W.2 failed to secure the presence of the persons of that locality at the time of search of the accused and seizure of the contraband. Moreover evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 is contradicting with each other as PW.3 stated in her cross examination that one contraband prepared Ex.P1 scene of offence, but PW.2 stated that she does not remember who prepared Ex.P1 that the about said evidence of PW.1. The 4 said contra testimonyh of Pws.1 and 2 itself is sufficient to disbelieve of prosecution.

13. It is also not the case of prosecution that they tried for securing the mediators by issuing notices. The prosecution also did not try to secure

Government officials to act as mediators at the time of search. When there is possibility to secure independent mediators as P.W.2 and P.W.3 stated that scene of offence formers and coolies would be there and without securing them the PW.3 inclined to continue to draft police proceedings. The reason mentioned in Ex.P1 mediator report, they tried for mediators but none came forward is not believable because P.W. and P.W.3 stated in their cross examination that they did not take any steps to seen mediator. The P.W.3 should have issued a notice to the inhabitants of the locality in written. The above circumstances go to show that the P.W.3 did not make any effort to secure the presence of witnesses of that locality or the Government officials at the time of search and seizure of the property. As per Sec.100(4)

Cr.P.C the search is to be done in the presence of two or more

independent or respectable inhabitants of the locality, in which the place to be searched is situated. As the search is not conducted in the presence of two or more independent respectable inhabitants of that locality, the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated.

14.It is also held in a case between Gajmker Narayana Vs. State of

A.P., 2005 (3) ALT (Crl.) 1 A.P. that where police fails in securing independent mediators at the scene of offence when there is possibility to secure them makes the search illegal for non compliance of Section 100(4) of

Cr.P.C.

15. As per the case of prosecution A.1 and A.2 alleged to have been found in possession of 20 liters of ID arrack, 2 Aluminum Vessals. The P.W.2 took sample 350 ml from the seized property, but he did not send sample liquor to the chemical analyst immediately which was seized property but the same is received by the chemical analyst on 22.10.2022 which is marked as Ex.P1 on 08.03.2023 A.2 obtained anticipatory bail orders from the Hon’ble High Court,

AP, Amaravathi and PW.1 Obtained sureties as epr the directions of the High

Court Court of AP and released the accused and sending the sample to the chemical analyst. There is no explanation from the prosecution for the said delay and the same is fatal to the case of prosecution.

5

16.There is no explanation from prosecution with regard to what happened to remaining ID liquor after taking 350 ml., sample out of 20 liters, 2 aluminum vessels. There is no document that prosecution produced remaining ID arrack before Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and obtained necessary orders. The prosecution did not comply provisions of

Section 13 of A.P. Prohibition Act which says the Investigation Officer who seized contraband shall without any unreasonable delay produce it before

Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise or Deputy Commissioner of

Special Enforcement or the Superintendent of Police or Executive Magistrate who has jurisdiction over the area. The non explanation of remaining liquor is another lacuna in this case.

17.In this case the P.W.3 A.S.I. of Police detected the offence, registered the crime and investigated the case. There is no hard and fast rule that a person who detects the case cannot register and investigate the case but the evidence of P.W.3 must be scrutinized with due care and caution. The P.W.2-

GMSK stated in his cross examination that police did not issue any written summons and hence her presence is doubtful at the time of seizure. In this case there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and PW.3 who are police officials from independent witnesses.

18.It is held in a case between T. Rambabu Bulli and Another Vs. The

State of A.P. (2009 (3) LS 340) that when the witnesses are police officials and if there is opportunity for them to secure independent mediators, if police fails to do so, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of police people.

19. In view of the above discussion, as the mandatory provision

U/Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C is not followed, the defacto-complainant and investigation officer is one and the same, there is inordinate delay in sending the sample bottles to the chemical analyst and non explanation of remaining arrack before this Court, hence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A.1 and A.2 for the offence U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(A) 8(B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act and she is entitled for acquittal.

20.In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(A), 8(B) of the Andhra Pradesh 6

Prohibition Act and consequently they are acquitted under Section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A.1 and A.2 and bond executed under Section 437-

A of Cr.P.C. shall be in force for a period of six months. M.O.1 i.e., sample bottle in CPR No.51/2023 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 18th day of May, 2023.

Sd/- Dr.A.Krishna Prasad,

II ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

FAC/I ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1: Dt.15.05.2023/U.V.S.Nagababu/SI of of police -NONE- P.W.2: Dt.15.05.2023/K.Annapurna Devi/GMSK P.W.3: Dt.17.05.2023/V.Srinivasu/ASI of police

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P.1:Dt.15.05.2023/ Chemical Analysis Report P.W.2: Dt.16.05.2023/Mediator Report - NIL - Ex.P.3 : Original FIR in Cr.No.321/2022 Ex.P3 : Letter of advise.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Sample bottle.

Sd/- Dr.A.Krishna Prasad,

II ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

FAC/I ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

7

C A L E N D A R

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE::RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: SRI Dr. A. KRISHNA PRASAD,

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

(FAC) I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No. 1054 of 2023

Thursday, the 18th day of May, 2023

Cr No.321/2022 of SHO Gokavaram Police Station.

BETWEEN: State: Sub Inspector of Police,

Gokavaram Police Station. ....COMPLAINANT

And

1) Bathina Srinu, S/o.Suryarao, Age 36 yrs, C/Settibalija, Razole, Rajamahendravaram Rural, R/o.Itikayalapalli village, Gokavaram Mandal.

2) Velisetti Nagamani, W/o.Satyanarayana, Aged 40 years, C/SC Mala,

Thantikonda village, Gokavaram Mandal. ....ACCUSED

Date of offence: 04.10.2022 Date of complaint: 04.10.2022 Apprehension of accused : 15.05.2023 Commencement of trial : 15-05.2023 Closure of trial: 18.05.2023 Sentence or order : 18.05.2023 Explanation for delay: --- Offence: U/Sec. Plea of the accused : Not Guilty Finding of the Judge: Not Guilty

Sentence or order:

In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(A), 8(B) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act and consequently they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A.1 and A.2 and bond executed under Section 437- A of Cr.P.C. shall be in force for a period of six months. M.O.1 i.e., sample bottle in CPR No.51/2023 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Dr.A.Krishna Prasad,

II Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, (FAC) I Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal

O.S.No.887 of 2023 II Addl. Civil Judge-Cum-II Addl. JFCM Court,

Dt:13.02.2025 (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JFCM-CUM-II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION):: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

PRESENT: SRI Dr. A. KRISHNA PRASAD, II Addl. JFCM-Cum-II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram

Thursday, the 13th day of February, 2025

O.S.No. 887 of 20 23

Between:

Katralapalli Nagamani, W/o Venkateswara Rao, 56 years, Housewife & Property Owner, R/o D.No.104-10-350, B-Block, Gowthaminagar, Hukkumpeta, Rajamahendravaram. …Plaintiff

And

Jami Mani, W/o Jami Ram Singh, 36 years, Housewife and Property Owner, R/o D.No.1-1-5, Sanjeevayya Nagar, Gajularega Post near, SDA Church Street, Vizianagaram. …Defendant

This suit having come on 12.02.2025 for cross of P.W.1 before me in the presence of Sri S.V.S. Krishna Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri P. Jaya Rama Krishna, Advocates for defendant and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.18,61,600/- being the principal and interest due under promissory note, dated 01.06.2021, together with subsequent interest, costs of the suit and for other reliefs.

The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

2.The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 01.06.2021 for her family expenses and construction of house and she executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day after receiving consideration by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand at Rajamahendravaram. Even after repeated demands made by the plaintiff, defendant did not pay single pie; on that plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice, dt:02.09.2023 and the same was received by the defendant. But she neither paid amount not issued reply.

Hence, plaintiff constrained to file this suit.

O.S.No.887 of 2023 II Addl. Civil Judge-Cum-II Addl. JFCM Court,

Dt:13.02.2025 (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram.

2

3.On the other hand defendant filed her written statement by denying the averments of the plaint by contending that the plaintiff is stranger to her and she never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and she never executed the alleged promissory note in favour of plaintiff. After receipt of legal notice and after made enquiry, defendant came to know that plaintiff has no capacity to lend such a huge amount. On that she placed the matter before elders and that plaintiff promised to withdraws the notice and will return the document which contains the signatures of defendant but in vain. There is no cause of action to file this suit.

Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the pleadings of both parties, this court framed the following issues for trial.

(1)Whether the suit Promissory note, dt:01.06.2021 is true, valid and supported by consideration and binding on the defendant?

(2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim, as prayed for?

(3)To what relief?

As the issue Nos.1 to 3 are interrelated to each other and depends upon same set of facts, the same are taken commonly for discussion.

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff herself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 and A2 documents. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendant.

6.Heard counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the material available on record.

Issue Nos.1 and 2 : -

7.In order to substantiate the contention of the plaintiff and to prove the suit promissory note, dt.01.06.2021 said to have been executed by the defendant in her favour, the plaintiff herself is examined as P.W.1 and also got marked Exs.A1 and A2 documents. Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note, dt:01.06.2021 for

Rs.12,00,000/- and Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice got issued by plaintiff,

dt:02.09.2023.

O.S.No.887 of 2023 II Addl. Civil Judge-Cum-II Addl. JFCM Court,

Dt:13.02.2025 (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram.

3

8. It is pertinent to mention even though several adjournments and opportunities were given to the defendant, but the defendant did not choose to cross examine P.W.1 hence, cross examination of P.W.1 was recorded as nil.

9.The defendant having filed written statement did not choose either to adduce evidence or to cross examine the P.W.1 and the counsel for defendant reported no information from the defendant, hence, the contents of chief affidavits of P.W.1 and the veracity of Exs.A1 and A2 became unchallenged.

The defendant did not choose to rebut the presumption by adducing independent evidence. There is a presumption U/Sec.118 of N.I. Act that every negotiable instrument is presumed for consideration unless the contrary is proved.

10.In a decision reported by the Hon'ble APEX Court in between “VIDHYADHAR VS. MANIKYARAO 1 ” wherein it was held that – “Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box

and state his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be

cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arises

that the case set up by him is not correct”.

The above decision is aptly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of this suit. Here in the present case also defendant neither examined herself as D.W nor examined any witness in support of her case, having filed written statement.

11.Therefore, in view of the non-cross examination of the P.W.1 and for non- entering into witness box by defendant to substantiate her plea by adducing any oral or documentary evidence that there is no creditor and debtor relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and the plaintiff forged her signatures and the suit promissory note is not genuine and not supported by consideration, this court is of the considered opinion and held that there is no hesitation to necessarily come to a conclusion that, the defendant has failed to discharge the onus, which rests on her. Hence, this court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has proved her case that the suit promissory note, dated 01.06.2021 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled for suit 1AIR 1999 SC 1441

O.S.No.887 of 2023 II Addl. Civil Judge-Cum-II Addl. JFCM Court,

Dt:13.02.2025 (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram.

4

amount with subsequent interest. Accordingly, Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No. 3 :To what relief?

12.In view of findings on issue Nos.1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff has to be decreed with costs and subsequent interest. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim of Rs.18,61,600/- with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., i.e., from the date of decree to till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.12,00,000/-. Accordingly, this issue No.3 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

13.In the result, suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.18,61,600/- (Rupees eighteen lakh sixty one thousand and six hundred only) with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit to till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum i.e., from the date of decree to till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakh only).

Typed to my dictation by the Gr.III Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 13th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- A. KRISHNA PRASAD

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum- II Addl. JFCM, Rajamahendravaram.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff :For Defendant: None

P.W.1: Katralapalli Nagamani

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: NIL

Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note, dt:01.06.2021 for Rs.12,00,000/-

Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice got issued by plaintiff, dt:02.09.2023

Sd/- A. KRISHNA PRASAD

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum- II Addl. JFCM, Rajamahendravaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

PRESENT: SRI Dr. A. KRISHNA PRASAD, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram FAC I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram. Monday, the 7th day of August, 2023

O.S.No. 261 /2023

Between:

1.Karupolu Rambabu, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, 62 years, D.No.4-225, Uppara Colony, Dowleswaram, Rajamahendravaram Rural.

2.Karupolu Subba Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, 59 years, D.No.4-225, Uppara Colony, Dowleswaram, Rajamahendravaram Rural.

3.Nainala Leelavathi, W/o Venkata Durga Rao, Hindu, 49 years, D.No.23-32- 22, Paparaju Street, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada Urban, Krishna District.

4.Aggala Padmavathi, W/o Swamy Kumar, Hindu, 47 years, D.No.4-223, Uppara Colony, Dowleswaram, Rajamahendravaram Rural. …Plaintiffs

And

1.The District Collector, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.

2.The Tahasildar, Rajamahendravaram rural, Bommuru, E.G.Dt. …Defendants

This suit having come on 07.08.2023 for plaintiff’s exparte evidence before me in the presence of Sri J.B.S. Bapuji, Advocate for the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 called absent and set exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants 1 and 2 by declaring the father of the plaintiffs is no more as his whereabouts are not know since more than 7i years; for consequential relief of plaintiffs are entitled to obtain legal heirs certificate as legal heirs of Karupolu Suryanarayana and for costs.

The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

2. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are sons and plaintiffs 3 and 4 are daughters of Karupolu

Suryanarayana. Said Karupolu Suryanarayana is missed from 2014 and that plaintiffs gave a police report to SHO., Dowleswaram on 11.04.2014 under the man missing case and later Dowleswsaram police registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.64/2014 and investigated the matter and finally issued final report that “from 11.04.2014 to 6.00 p.m., that father of plaintiffs missing man left the house and since then his family members searching for him but in vain along with Dowleswalram police. After making hectic efforts more than 7 years after the registration of man missing case and later the said case was referred as Un-detected case and served a 2 final report on 30.04.2022. It is further averred that plaintiffs also made a paper publication in Eenadu Daily News Paper on 03.04.2014 and also affixed Pamphlets on the walls of public places like bus stands, railway stations and other busy localities in

East Godavri and West Godavari also but in vain and finally plaintiffs decided that their father is no more and it deems that their father deemed to be dead as he is not available whereabouts since more than 7 years. Except the plaintiffs there are no other dear and nearer legal representatives and they are the successors of the said

Karupolu Surayanarayana. Plaintiffs also got issued a statutory notice U/Sec.80 CPC on 13.01.2023 to the defendants 1 and 2 and the same was acknowledged by them but kept quiet. Hence, no other go plaintiffs constrained to file this suit.

3.Despite service of summons, defendants 1 and 2 were called absent and they were set exparte on 30.06.2023.

4.The 4th plaintiff filed her chief examination affidavit and she was examined as

P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 documents. Neighbour of P.W.1 is examined as

P.W.2.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the material documents on record.

6.Now the points for consideration are:

(i)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get relief of declare their father is no more and whereabouts are not know since more than 7 years?

(ii)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for consequential relief to obtain legal heirs certificate as legal heirs of Karupolu Suryanarayana, as prayed for?

POINTS:-

7. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs 4th plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and one 3rd party to the suit is examined as P.W.2. Plaintiffs got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 documents on their behalf. Ex.A1-FIR copy issued by SHO, Dowleshwaram P.S., in

Cr.No.64/2014 along with receipt, dt:11.04.2014, Ex.A2-Final Report, dt:30.04.2022,

Ex.A3-House hold card, Ex.A4-Copy of paper publication in Eenadu daily news paper,

dt:13.04.2014, Ex.A5-Office copy of legal notice, dt:13.01.2023 and Ex.A6-Copy of

postal acknowledgments from defendants 1 and 2.

3

8.Even though, the defendants were remained exparte the plaintiffs are not entitled for a decree automatically and the plaintiffs must establish their case and the 4th plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and one 3rd party tot he suit is examined as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 documents on their behalf. The evidence of P.W.1 and

P.W.2 is that father of plaintiffs viz., Karupolu Suryanarayana was found missing in the year 2014 and accordingly, they lodged report in Cr.No.64/64/2014 on the file of

Dowlaiswaram P.S., under eEx.A1 FIR and police filed Final Report under Ex.A2 wherein they categorically mentioned that the father of the plaintiffs viz., Karupolu

Suryanarayana was untraceable. Consequent to the Ex.A2 final report plaintiffs filed publication under Ex.A4 informing general public to intimate details of Karupolu

Suryanarayana if any found alive him. But in spite of publication the whereabouts of the father of the plaintiffs viz., Karupolu Suryanarayana are came to know to anybody including plaintiffs. In this case the father of plaintiffs viz., Karupolu Suryanarayana is found missing from the year 2014 i.e., for more than seven years. If any person found missing for more than 7years he is presumed to be dead U/Sec.108 of the

Indian Evidence Act. Since, father of plaintiffs viz., Karupolu Suryanarayana found missing for more than 7 years certainly, they are entitled to declare their father viz.,

Karupolu Suryanarayana is presumed to be dead. However, plaintiffs are not entitled fro consequent relief to obtain legal heir certificate as it has to be issued by the competent authority based on their guidelines. Once the father of the plaintiffs is presumed to be dead certainly, they are entitled to claim as they are the legal heirs to their father but subjected to rules framed by competent authority. Hence, plaintiffs are not entitled for 2nd relief. Accordingly, points are answered in favour of plaintiffs and against defendants.

9.In the result, suit is partly decreed without costs declaring that the father of the plaintiffs viz., Karupolu Suryanarayana is presumed to be dead. The plaintiffs are not entitled for the 2nd relief and accordingly claim of plaintiffs under 2nd relief is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Gr.III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 7th day of August, 2023.

Sd/- Dr. A. KRISHNA PRASAD

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) I A.J.C.J- Rajamahendravaram.

4

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiffs : P.W.1: Aggala Padmavathi P.W.2: Gadi Nagamani

For Defendants: -None-

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1-FIR copy issued by SHO, Dowleshwaram P.S., in Cr.No.64/2014 along with receipt, dt:11.04.2014

Ex.A2-Final Report, dt:30.04.2022

Ex.A3-House hold card

Ex.A4-Copy of paper publication in Eenadu daily news paper, dt:13.04.2014

Ex.A5-Office copy of legal notice, dt:13.01.2023

Ex.A6-Copy of postal acknowledgments from defendants 1 and 2

For Defendants: Nil

Sd/- Dr. A. KRISHNA PRASAD

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) I A.J.C.J- Rajamahendravaram.