Ms. A. Manjulatha

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

GURAZALA.

Present:- Ms. Manjulatha Araveti,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

Thursday, this the 20th day of March, 2023

C.C.No.737/2022

Between:- State: Enforcement Sub-Inspector, SEB Station, Gurazala. . . . Complainant

And

Phatan Hasan, S/o.Mastan, 66 Years, Muslim, R/o.Cherlagudipadu Village, Gurazala Mandal. . . . Accused

This case is coming before me on 04-04-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.Prasada Rao, learned Advocate for the Accused and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01. The Enforcement Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Gurazala has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.23/2020 of

SEB Station, Gurazala for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act.

02. The brief averments of the prosecution case is that:-

On 27-02-2020 while L.Ws.1 and 2 were conducting patrolling for P &

E offences, reached the place of offence i.e., near auto stand,

Cherlagudipadu Village of Gurazala Mandal, at about 11.45 A.M., noticed the accused standing there by holding a white polythene bag in his right hand and on seeing the excise officials in uniform the accused got perturbed and tried to skulk away. Having observed the same, on suspicion

L.W.2 got detained the accused with the help of staff and on enquiry, the accused admitted possession of liquor bottles in the bag. In order to verify the bag in the presence of mediators, L.W.2 sent L.W.1 to bring mediators, after some time L.W.1 returned and reported that the village revenue officials were not available and none of the village elders came forward to act as mediators. L.W.2 decided to proceed under special report and on enquiry the accused furnished his name and address particulars. On verification of the bag, found it contain 10-180 M.L., Any Time Fine

Whisky bottles. On further enquiry the accused did not reply properly about the liquor bottles and on further enquiry, the accused replied that he 2 was not possessed any license or permit or receipt pertaining to the liquor bottles. L.W.2 had taken one bottle from seized brand as sample for analysis, kept the remaining bottles in the same bag, tied the same, sealed and affixed identity slips to the sample bottles, bag, seized the same and arrested the accused after explaining the reasons for his arrest and got incorporated all the observations that took place at the place of offence under special report. After completion of proceedings, L.W.2 reached the

SEB Station, Gurazala registered the special report as a case in

Cr.No.23/2020 of SEB Station, Gurazala under Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and submitted FIR to all concerned, L.W.2 served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. After receipt of analysis report and on completion of investigation L.W.3 submitted charge sheet.

03. Cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise

Act was taken against the Accused and issued Summons.

04. On appearance of the accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

05. Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C and charge for the offence under Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1.

07. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material placed against the accused, for which he denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

08. Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

09. Now the Point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act, beyond all reasonable doubt? Point:

10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of

P.W.1 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.3, M.O.1 goes to show that the accused 3 has committed the offence and the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused.

11. The defence counsel argued that no mediators were secured at the time of detecting the offence, the entire case is depending upon the Special

Report which is infirmities. Hence, prays to acquit the accused on the ground of benefit of doubt.

12. The evidence of P.W.1 is nothing but replica of contents of charge sheet and who deposed as per the record. P.W.1 during his further chief- examination stated as to the procedural aspect as to registering the case, sending the sample to the Chemical Examiner for analysis, receiving of analysis report and filing of charge sheet by L.W.3.

13. During the course of cross-examination P.W.1 admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality and he did not examine the local inhabitants at the scene of offence and he did not mention the serial and batch number of the seized contraband in Ex.P.1. P.W.1 further admitted that he is the complainant and investigating officer in this case. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that the accused is no way concerned with this case and no property was seized from the possession of accused and crime was registered for statistical purpose, being the investigating officer, he is deposing false in support of prosecution case and deposing false.

14. As per the case record, there are no independent witnesses for the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 is the Excise officials, and therefore the evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. Undoubtedly P.W.1 who is excise official bestowed with the duty and responsibility of maintaining law and order and he cannot be expected to falsely implicate any person for statistical purpose. However, at the same time it cannot be ignored that the testimony of an investigating officer should not be considered as a gospel truth in the absence of corroboration in light of independent evidence.

15. As per the evidence of P.W.1, it is evident that the P.W.1 did not make any effort to secure the presence of any independent witness or

Village Sarpanch, Ward Members, or V.R.O. to act as mediators. It should not be forgotten that the scene of offence is busy locality. Despite having sufficient time, P.W.1 did not secure independent witnesses as mediators.

4

16. This court relied on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in a case between "Kalpnath v. State (Through CBI) reported in 1997 (2)

A.L.D. Cri 805”, wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "Indeed, the evidence of the official (Police) witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the Police force and are, either interested in the investigation or the prosecuting agency, but prudence dictates that their evidence needs to be subjected to strict scrutiny and as far as possible corroboration of their evidence, in material particulars should be sought. Their desire to see the success of the case based on their investigation; requires greater care to appreciate their testimony.” The rule of prudence is that the testimony of a Police Official witness shall be corroborated, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence of P.W.1 failed to establish any cogent proof of the same. The evidence of P.W.1 that the Accused was found in possession of illicit arrack cannot be relied upon without any corroboration.

17. Even it was held by Hon'ble High Court in Botcha Raju v. State

Represented by Inspector of Police 1994 (2) A.L.T. 69 (A.P.) that the conviction could not be based on the sole evidence of Excise officials without corroboration by a disinterested witness. Even in Gyam Singh and

Ors v. State of U.P. 1995 Supp (4) SCC 658, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India observed that conviction could not be based on the uncorroborated testimony of an official witness.

18. Thus, it is undoubtedly clear that, if the excise official’s evidence is credible, it would be erroneous to conclude that the prosecution's version must be rejected because no independent witness was examined. However, despite having a chance of securing evidence in their support, the non- examination of the independent witness or even the presence of such a witness during the raid would cast an added duty on the Court to adopt greater care while scrutinizing the evidence of the excise officials, especially when the police failed to show any reasonable cause as to what prevented them in securing the presence of independent witnesses.

19. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the complainant and the investigation officer, in this case, are P.W.1 alone. Then again, it may be noted that the entire prosecution case rests solely on the testimony of 5 P.W.1, the police official. Indeed, the prosecution's version does not become vulnerable, and no doubt would be cast upon it merely because the complainant investigated the case because the matter has to be decided on a case to-case basis without any universal generalization. But, in view of the facts mentioned earlier, viz., failure to secure the presence of an independent witness though the police/excise officials had sufficient time, failure to bring the mediators before whom the unmarked case property was destroyed, onto the record, this court feels that the complainant being the investigation officer is an infirmity which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case. If a police/police official who registers a complainant is subsequently asked to investigate the matter, it would not be inappropriate to consider the possibility of a biased investigation, which could undermine the very foundation of a fair trial, thereafter, serves as an affront to the public conscience. Such a complainant, in charge of investigating a matter, could go to any extent to justify his complaint. A fair and just investigation should not only be carried out but must also manifestly be seen to be carried out. This is essential to maintain society's faith in the apparatus of criminal investigations.

20. It is a principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Search and seizure of contraband allegedly from the possession of accused is a major part of investigation.

Search and seizure conducted by the investigating agency is totally in contravention of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. and the search and seizure was not proved by examining any independent witnesses. Further, P.W.1 did not examine any independent witnesses. Therefore, this court finds no reliable evidence on record to believe the search and seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused. Hence, this court finds that the prosecution miserably failed to prove search and seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused. When prosecution failed to establish actual search and seizure of contraband from the possession of accused, to prove that the contents of contraband are Indian Liquor is inconsequential.

Though P.W.1 was examined to prove sending the sample to Chemical

Analyst for analysis and receipt of analysis report under Ex.P.3, is of no use to establish the guilt of accused for the offence charged. Hence, the 6 evidence with regard to Chemical Analyst report needs no consideration at this stage.

21. Taking into consideration of the overall circumstances of the case, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilty of accused with cogent and convincing evidence and therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offence charged against him. In the light of above discussion, I answered this point against the prosecution.

22. IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and thereby he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Ms.A.Manjulatha,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: P.W.1 D.Srinivasa Rao For Defence: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1 Special Report

Ex.P.2 FIR

Ex.P.3 Analysis Report For Defence: Nil Material Objects: M.O.1: Sample bottle

Sd/- Ms.A.Manjulatha,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

7

FORM No.72

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Guntur Calendar of case tried by the Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court :: Gurazala

C.C.No.737/2022

Date of: Date of Commence- Report of Apprehension remand/ Release on Closure of Sentence or Offence ment of

complainant of accused 41-A Cr.P.C bail trial order

trial Notice 27-02-2020 27-02-2020 - 27-02-2020 - 03-03-2023 03-03-2023 20-04-2023

Between:- State: Enforcement Sub-Inspector, SEB Station, Gurazala. . . . Complainant

And

Phatan Hasan, S/o.Mastan, 66 Years, Muslim, R/o.Cherlagudipadu Village, Gurazala Mandal. . . . Accused

Crime Number 23/2020 of SEB Station, Gurazala

Offence Under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act

Plea of Accused Not guilty

Finding of the Court Found not guilty

Reasons for delay Due to non production of witnesses

SENTENCE OR ORDER :- IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and thereby he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Ms.A.Manjulatha,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

Copy submitted to : 1)The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. Copy to:

2) The Excise Superintendent of Police for P & E, Narasaraopet.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

GURAZALA.

Present:- Ms. Manjulatha Araveti,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2023

C.C.No.104/2022

Between:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Dachepalli Police Station. . . . Complainant

And

Shaik Subhani, S/o.Nagula, 24 Years, Muslim, Mosque Centre, Rentachintala Village and Mandal.. . . Accused This case is coming before me on 04-04-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.Surya Raju, learned Advocate for the Accused and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. The S.I of Police, Dachepalli P.S has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.457/2020 for the offence punishable under Sec.188 of IPC and Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act.

02. The brief averments of the prosecution case is that:- On 17-08-2020 L.W.6 received information as to illegal transportation of contraband, on that L.W.6 along with his staff/L.Ws.1 to 5 were proceeded to the scene of offence situated at Border Check Post, Pondugula Village, while they are conducting vehicle checking, at about 8 P.M., they noticed that one person who is coming on a motor cycle bearing No.AP39BF 2956 HF

Deluxe which is coming from Telangana State towards Dachepalli, by seeing the police officials he turned his motor cycle and tried to ran away, however they apprehended him and on enquiry by L.W.6, he revealed his identity particulars who is accused herein and confessed that he used to sell the liquor bottles and also shown the carry bag containing the liquor bottles, on that he tried to secure the mediators for their proceedings, but nobody come forward and that he verified the contraband and found 38-180 M.L., Good

Day Prestige Whisky bottles; he enquired the accused as to license for the possession of said liquor bottles, for which the accused replied that he has no license for possession of the same and that he drawn samples from seized contraband and seized the remaining bottles under police proceedings.

L.W.6 registered the police proceedings as a case in Cr.No.457/2020 under 2 Sec.188 of IPC, Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act. During the course of investigation

L.W.6 secured the presence of L.Ws.1 to 5, examined and recorded their statements, arrested the accused, sent him to judicial custody for remand.

L.W.6 sent one bottle from to the chemical examiner for chemical analysis and on receipt of analysis report and on completion of investigation he submitted charge sheet against the accused for the said offences.

03. Cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act was taken against the Accused and issued Summons.

04. On appearance of the accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

05. Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C and charge for the offences under Sec.188 of IPC and Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 and M.O.1.

07. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material placed against the accused, for which he denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

08. Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

09. Now the Point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, beyond all reasonable doubt? Point:

10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of

P.W.1 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.5 and M.O.1 goes to show that the accused has committed the offence and the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused.

11. The defence counsel argued that no mediators were secured at the time of detecting the offence, the entire case is depending upon the police proceedings which is infirmities. Hence, prays to acquit the accused on the ground of benefit of doubt.

3

12. The evidence of P.W.1 is nothing but replica of contents of charge sheet and who deposed as per the record. P.W.1 during his further chief- examination stated as to the procedural aspect as to registering the case, drafting of rough sketch. P.W.1 during his evidence stated as to sending the sample to the Chemical Examiner for analysis and made request to confiscate the remaining liquor bottles and filing of charge sheet after completion of investigation by him.

13. During the course of cross-examination P.W.1 admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality, the Pondugula Village has revenue officials, but he did not serve any summons to them. P.W.1 further admitted that he is the complainant and investigating officer in this case and all the participants are police personnel and they did not make signature in Ex.P.1. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that Ex.P.1 was prepared in the police station and no contraband was seized from the possession of accused and he registered the same for statistical purpose.

14. As per the case record, there are no independent witnesses for the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 is the Police official and therefore the evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. Undoubtedly, P.W.1 who is police officer bestowed with the duty and responsibility of maintaining law and order and he cannot be expected to falsely implicate any person for statistical purpose. However, at the same time it cannot be ignored that the testimony of an investigating officer should not be considered as a gospel truth in the absence of corroboration in light of independent evidence.

15. As per the evidence of P.W.1, it is evident that the P.W.1 did not make any effort to secure the presence of any independent witness or Village

Sarpanch, Ward Members, or V.R.O. to act as mediators. It should not be forgotten that the scene of offence is busy locality, when possibly pedestrians would have been trekking on the road or a hawker moving around on the pavements. Despite having sufficient time, P.W.1 did not secure independent witnesses as mediators.

16. This court relied on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in a case between "Kalpnath v. State (Through CBI) reported in 1997 (2)

A.L.D. Cri 805”, wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "Indeed, the evidence of the official (Police) witnesses cannot be discarded 4 merely on the ground that they belong to the Police force and are, either interested in the investigation or the prosecuting agency, but prudence dictates that their evidence needs to be subjected to strict scrutiny and as far as possible corroboration of their evidence, in material particulars should be sought. Their desire to see the success of the case based on their investigation; requires greater care to appreciate their testimony.” The rule of prudence is that the testimony of a Police Official witness shall be corroborated, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence of P.W.1 failed to establish any cogent proof of the same. The evidence of P.W.1 that the Accused was found in possession of illicit arrack cannot be relied upon without any corroboration.

17. Even it was held by Hon'ble High Court in Botcha Raju v. State

Represented by Inspector of Police 1994 (2) A.L.T. 69 (A.P.) that the conviction could not be based on the sole evidence of Police officers without corroboration by a disinterested witness. Even in Gyam Singh and Ors v.

State of U.P. 1995 Supp (4) SCC 658, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that conviction could not be based on the uncorroborated testimony of an official witness.

18. Thus, it is undoubtedly clear that, if the police officer's evidence is credible, it would be erroneous to conclude that the prosecution's version must be rejected because no independent witness was examined. However, despite having a chance of securing evidence in their support, the non- examination of the independent witness or even the presence of such a witness during the raid would cast an added duty on the Court to adopt greater care while scrutinizing the evidence of the police officers, especially when the police failed to show any reasonable cause as to what prevented them in securing the presence of independent witnesses.

19. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the complainant and the investigation officer, in this case, are P.W.1 alone. Then again, it may be noted that the entire prosecution case rests solely on the testimony of

P.W.1, the police official. Indeed, the prosecution's version does not become vulnerable, and no doubt would be cast upon it merely because the complainant investigated the case because the matter has to be decided on a case to-case basis without any universal generalization. But, in view of the 5 facts mentioned earlier, viz., failure to secure the presence of an independent witness though the police/police officials had sufficient time, failure to bring the mediators before whom the unmarked case property was destroyed, onto the record, this court feels that the complainant being the investigation officer is an infirmity which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case. If a police/police official who registers a complainant is subsequently asked to investigate the matter, it would not be inappropriate to consider the possibility of a biased investigation, which could undermine the very foundation of a fair trial, thereafter, serves as an affront to the public conscience. Such a complainant, in charge of investigating a matter, could go to any extent to justify his complaint. A fair and just investigation should not only be carried out but must also manifestly be seen to be carried out. This is essential to maintain society's faith in the apparatus of criminal investigations.

20. It is a principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Search and seizure of contraband allegedly from the possession of accused is a major part of investigation.

Search and seizure conducted by the investigating agency is totally in contravention of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. and the search and seizure was not proved by examining any independent witnesses. Further, P.W.1 did not examine any independent witnesses. Therefore, this court finds no reliable evidence on record to believe the search and seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused. Hence, this court finds that the prosecution miserably failed to prove search and seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused. When prosecution failed to establish actual search and seizure of contraband from the possession of accused, to prove that the contents of contraband are Indian Liquor is inconsequential. Though P.W.1 was examined to prove sending the sample to Chemical Analyst for analysis and receipt of analysis report under Ex.P.4, is of no use to establish the guilt of accused for the offence charged. Hence, the evidence with regard to

Chemical Analyst report needs no consideration at this stage.

21. Taking into consideration of the overall circumstances of the case, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilty of accused with cogent and convincing evidence and therefore, the accused is entitled for 6 acquittal for the offence charged against him. In the light of above discussion, I answered this point against the prosecution.

22. IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.188 of IPC and Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and thereby he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Ms.A.Manjulatha,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: P.W.1 M.Raja For Defence: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1Police proceedings

Ex.P.2 FIR

Ex.P.3 Rough Sketch

Ex.P.4 Analysis Report

Ex.P.5 Confiscation Proceedings For Defence: Nil

Material Objects: M.O.1: Sample bottle

Sd/- Ms.A.Manjulatha,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

7

FORM No.72

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Guntur Calendar of case tried by the Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court :: Gurazala Calendar Case No.104/2022 Date of: Date of Report of Apprehension remand/ Release on Commence- Closure of Sentence or Offence

complainant of accused 41-A Cr.P.C bail ment of trial trial order

Notice 17-08-202017-08-202017-08-202018-08-202021-08-202007-03-202307-03-202320-04-2023

Between:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Dachepalli Police Station. . . . Complainant

And

Shaik Subhani, S/o.Nagula, 24 Years, Muslim, Mosque Centre, Rentachintala Village and Mandal.. . . Accused

Crime Number 457/2020 of Dachepalli P.S

Offence Under Sec.188 of IPC, Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act

Plea of Accused Not guilty

Finding of the Court Found not guilty

Reasons for delay Due to non production of witnesses

SENTENCE OR ORDER :- IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.188 of IPC and Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and thereby he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Ms.A.Manjulatha,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

Copy submitted to : 1)The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. Copy to:

2) The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural Police Station.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

GURAZALA.

Present:- Ms.Manjulatha Araveti, M.Com.,B.L., Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

Wednesday, this the 19 th day of APRIL, 2023

OS.No. 149/2022

Between:- Mullapati Srinivasa Rao. . .Plaintif

AND

Sk.Mahaboob Subhani. . .Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 12-04-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. J.C.Kesava Rao, Advocate on behalf of the Plaintiff and the defendant remained set exparte and upon filing the affidavit of the plaintiff, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of

Rs.1,97,800/- (Rupees One lakh ninty seven thousand and eight hundred only) being the principal and interest due on promissory note dt.12-05-2019 for Rs.1,15,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff with interest @24%p.a., for subsequent interest and costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

On 12-05-2019 the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,15,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. Thereafter the plaintiff made several oral demands against the defendant to re-pay the loan amount under the suit promissory note, on 29-03-2022 plaintiff got issued legal notice to defendant to repay the debt amount, but the defendant does not made any attempt to repay the loan amount and intentionally evading to discharge his liability under the promissory note. At last the plaintiff approached the court of law to recover the loan amount due under the promissory note against the defendant.

3.After registering the plaint this court issued summons to the defendant and the same was served on him and,

Sri Sk.Jani Basha advocate filed vakalath for defendant, when the matter is coming for filing written statement of defendant, on 27-03-2023 defendant called absent, no representation, statutory period is lapsed, Hence defendant is remained exparte.

Since then the defendant failed to take any steps to set aside the exparte order dated 27-03-2023.

4. Now the point for consideration is “whether the

plaintiff is entitled for decree of the suit as prayed for?”

5.To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to A3 got marked and the plaintiff filed his evidence in chief in lieu of chief examination affidavit as.

6.As the version of the plaintiff is not challenged by the defendant by appearing before the court and not adduced any evidence to disprove the version of the plaintiff. As Ex.A1 i.e. suit promissory note which comes under the definition of Sec.4 of N.I

Act. As per Sec.118 of Negotiable Instrument Act laid down certain presumptions apply to all Negotiable Instruments unless the contrary is proved. Every Negotiable Instrument presumed to be made, drawn, accepted, endorsed or negotiated or transfer should be for consideration. So after going through Ex.A.1 ie., promissory note the maker of the promissory note ie., the defendant accepted to pay the amount mentioned in the instrument, it is presumed that it was accepted within the reasonable time of its date and before its maturity to pay the amount. Upto this point the court has taken favorable presumption in favour of the plaintiff as to the execution of

Ex.A.1 and the said presumption was not rebutted by the defendant by appearing before the court.

7.Moreover, irrespective of the defendant side evidence the plaintiff’s version stands on its own strength.

8.In the Result, the suit is decreed with costs in-favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to pay a sum of

Rs.1,97,800/- with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and further interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.1,15,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this, 19 th day of APRIL, 2023.

Sd/- A.Manjulatha,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge,Gurazala. FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: P.W.1:M.Srinvasa Rao

FOR DEFENDANT: None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Suit promissory note dt.12-05-2019 executed by the Ex.A.1 defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2Office copy of legal notice dt. 29-3-2022

Ex.A3Returned unserved Postal Cover

FOR DEFENDANT:NIL.

Ild/- A.M.L.

AJCJ, GZL.

FAC PJCJ, GZL.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GURAZALA.

Present:- Ms. Manjulatha Araveti,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

Friday, this the 21st day of April, 2023

P.R.C.No.03/2023

Between:- State: Inspector of Police, Dachepalli P.S.. . . Complainant

And

1. Banavath Jeevla Naik, S/o.China Mantru Naik, 64 Years, Sugali, Kothuru Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Palnadu District.

2. Banavath Saida Naik, S/o.Jeevla Naik, 28 Years, Sugali, Kothuru Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Palnadu District.

3. Banavath Manjula Bai, W/o.Jeevla Naik, 50 Years, Sugali, Kothuru Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Palnadu District.

4. Banavath Sambrajyam, W/o.Saida Naik, 26 Years, Sugali, Kothuru Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Palnadu District.

5. Banavath Sanka Naik, S/o.China Mantru Naik, 52 Years, Sugali, Kothuru Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Palnadu District.

6. Banavath Naresh Naik, S/o.Sanka Naik, 26 Years, Sugali, Kothuru Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Palnadu District.

7. Banavath Santhosha, W/o.Naresh Naik, 22 Years, Sugali, Kothuru Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Palnadu District.

8. Banavath Ramesh, S/o.Sanka Naik, 30 Years, Sugali, Sugali, Kothuru Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Palnadu District.

9. Banavath Nagamani, W/o.Ramesh, 26 Years, Sugali, Kothuru Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Palnadu District.

10. Banavath Srinu Naik, S/o.China Mantru Naik, 50 Years, Sugali, Kothuru Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Palnadu District.

11. Banavath Padma, W/o.Srinu Naik, 47 Years, Sugali, Kothuru Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Palnadu District.

12. Banavath Pandu Naik, S/o.Srinu Naik, 25 Years, Sugali, Kothuru Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Palnadu District.

13. Banavath Lavanya, D/o.Srinu Naik, 20 Years, Sugali, Kothuru Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Palnadu District.

. . . Accused This case has come before me on this day for committal in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri G.V.Naik and Sri K.Manideep, Advocates for the Accused and upon consideration, this court delivered the following:

COMMITTAL ORDER

01.The Inspector of Police, Dachepalli has laid Charge Sheet in Cr.No.158/2022 of

Dachepalli Police Station for the offences under Secs.302, 324, 323 and 509 r/w.34 of

IPC against the accused.

02.This case is taken on file for the offences punishable under Secs.302, 324, 323 and 509 r/w.34 of IPC against the accused.

03.On appearance of accused, case copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

04. There is a prima-facie case made out against the accused for the offences pun- ishable under Secs.302, 324, 323 and 509 r/w.34 of IPC against the accused. Since the offence under Sec.302 r/w.34 of IPC is being exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions, this case is committed to the Hon'ble District and Sessions Judge, Guntur for

trial under Sec.209(a) of Cr.P.C.

05.Accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 6 and 10 were enlarged on bail as per the Orders of

Hon’ble X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala vide Crl.M.P.No.550/2022,

dated: 30-09-2022, A.8 was enlarged on bail as per the orders of the Hon’ble X

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala vide Crl.M.P.No.549/2022, dated: 30-

09-2022, A.12 was enlarged on bail as per the orders of the Hon’ble X Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala vide Crl.M.P.No.548/2022, dated: 30-09- 2022, Accused Nos.3, 4, 7, 9, 11 and 13 were enlarged on bail as per the Orders of

Hon’ble X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala vide Crl.M.P.No.55/2023,

dated: 07-02-2023 and the accused are continued to be on bail during and until the

conclusion of trial under Sec.209(b) of Cr.P.C.

06. The office is directed to submit entire case record along with case property, if any, which are to be produced in evidence to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Guntur under Sec.209(c) of Cr.P.C.

07.The factum of commitment shall be intimated to the Public Prosecutor, Guntur under Sec.209(d) of Cr.P.C. When the accused are questioned about the means, they stated that they have means to engage the counsel to defend their case before the

Hon’ble Court of Sessions in this case, on receipt of summons.

08.In the result, the case is committed to the Court of Sessions, Guntur under

Sec.209(a) of Cr.P.C. The accused are directed to appear before concerned Court on receipt of summons.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 21st day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Ms.A.Manjulatha,

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Gurazala.

Appendix of Evidence -Nil- Ild/- Ms.A.M.L.,

A.J.C.J, GURAZALA.

// True Copy //

AJCJ, GZL

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GURAZALA.

Present:- Ms. Manjulatha Araveti,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

Monday, this the 24th day of April, 2023

P.R.C.No.21/2022

Between:- State: Inspector of Police, Dachepalli P.S.. . . Complainant

And

1. Jogunuru Naresh, S/o.Sudhakara Rao, 26 Years, Madiga, R/o.Indiranagar Colony, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District.

2. Kodi Naveen, S/o.Bhavanarushi, 22 Years, Padmasali, R/o.Bangaru Gadda, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District.

3. Bathula Srikanth, S/o.Srinu, 26 Years, Madiga, R/o.Indiranagar Colony, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District.

4. Gottaparthi Venkatesh, S/o.Srinivas, 21 Years, Naibramhana, R/o.Seetharamapuram, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District.

5. Vallabai Naveen, S/o.Venkataiah, 25 Years, Yerukala, R/o.Chintapalli Colony, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District.

6. Mondikatti Lingaiah, S/o.Maraiah, 42 Years, Madiga, R/o.Venkatadripalem Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, now at Bapujinagar (Vaddera Colony), Miryalaguda Town.

7. Kandimalla Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.Narsimha Reddy, 45 Years, Reddy, R/o.Santhosh Nagar, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District. . . . Accused This case has come before me on this day for committal in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri K.Kota Srinivasa Rao and Sri K.Kumara Swamy, Advocates for the Accused and upon consideration, this court delivered the following:

COMMITTAL ORDER

01.The Inspector of Police, Dachepalli has laid Charge Sheet in Cr.No.285/2021 of

Dachepalli Police Station for the offences under Secs.395, 120(B) and 324 r/w.34 of

IPC against the accused.

02.This case is taken on file for the offences punishable under Secs.395, 120(B) and 324 r/w.34 of IPC against the accused.

03.On appearance of accused, case copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

04. There is a prima-facie case made out against the accused for the offences pun- ishable under Secs.395, 120(B) and 324 r/w.34 of IPC against the accused. Since the offences under Sec.395, 120(B) r/w.34 of IPC is being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, this case is committed to the Hon'ble District and Sessions Judge, Guntur for trial under Sec.209(a) of Cr.P.C.

05.Accused Nos.6 and 7 were enlarged on bail as per the Orders of Hon’ble IV

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur vide Crl.M.P.No.1392/2021, dated: 17-

08-2021, Accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 were enlarged on bail as per the Orders of Hon’ble IV

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur vide Crl.M.P.No.1543/2021, dated: 13-

09-2021 and A.2 was enlarged on bail as per the Orders of Hon’ble IV Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Guntur vide Crl.M.P.No.1542/2021, dated: 13-09-2021 and the accused are continued to be on bail during and until the conclusion of trial under Sec.209(b) of Cr.P.C.

06. The office is directed to submit entire case record along with case property, if any, which are to be produced in evidence to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Guntur under Sec.209(c) of Cr.P.C.

07.The factum of commitment shall be intimated to the Public Prosecutor, Guntur under Sec.209(d) of Cr.P.C. When the accused are questioned about the means, they stated that they have means to engage the counsel to defend their case before the

Hon’ble Court of Sessions in this case, on receipt of summons.

08.In the result, the case is committed to the Court of Sessions, Guntur under

Sec.209(a) of Cr.P.C. The accused are directed to appear before concerned Court on receipt of summons.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 24th day of April, 2023.

Ms. Manjulatha Araveti

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Gurazala. Appendix of Evidence -Nil- Ms. Manjulatha Araveti

A.J.C.J, GURAZALA.

//True Copy//

AJCJ, GZL