Sri A.Ramesh

1 C.C.490/25

XI AJFCM, AKP

IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: ANAKAPALLI

Present: Sri A.Ramesh,

XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Anakapalli.

Thursday, this the 26th day of March, 2026

Calendar Case No.490/2025

Between:

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Anakapalli Town Police Station, Anakapalli.

... Complainant

And:

Sri Badampudi Appa rao, S/o late Sanyasi Naidu, aged 72 years, R/o NTR Hospital, Balajiraopeta, Anakapalli. … Accused

This case coming before me on 23.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant/State and of Sri K Sai ram, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The state represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Anakapalli Town Police Station, Anakapalli filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.05/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act of Town Police Station, Anakapalli

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

(a)On 04-01-2025 at about 10.00 hours LW4 along with

LW1 and 2 on credible information regarding illegal possession of liquor bottles at Gandhi Market, Anakapalli, on seeing the police the accused tried to escape from the spot along with one bag. On that, they caught 2 C.C.490/25

XI AJFCM, AKP

hold the accused and that on verification of the silver color gunny bag it is as found 35 liquor bottles ie.,1) 10 bottles of Banglore whiskey each 180 ml each bottle, that on enquiry the accused stated that he purchased the liquor bottles from Govt. wine shops with a view to sell the same at higher prices for his pecuniary gain. Then, L.W.4 arrested the accused and seized the contraband under the cover of occurrence report and sent the samples for analysis. Basing on the occurrence report, he registered a case in Cr.No.05/2025 under Sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act. After due analysis the Chemical Examiner has opined that the samples sent in Cr.

No.05/2025 are Indian liquor. On the basis of the analysis report, the SI of police filed charge sheet.

3. The case is taken on file U/Sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

4. On appearance of the accused case copies were furnished to the accused as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The accused were examined under Section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code and charge U/Sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 and 2 and got marked exhibits P.1 to P.3 documents and M.O1 and 2.

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, for which, he denied the incriminating evidence made out against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

3 C.C.490/25

XI AJFCM, AKP

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 34(a) of

AP Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 2 are corroborating with each other with regard to the offence committed by the accused. He further argued that there are no inconsistencies in the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2. As such the

Prosecution successfully established the case against the accused.

Hence prayed to convict the accused.

11. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the defence submitted that no independent mediator was examined by the prosecution, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution, as such the

Prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the accused.

Hence he prayed to acquit the accused.

12. It is the case of the Prosecution that on 04.01.2025 at about 10.00 hours LW4 along with LWs 1 and 2 on credible information regarding illegal possession of liquor bottles at Gandhi Market, Anakapalli they reached same, that on seeing the raid party, one male person who is having in the possession of one bag tried to escape from them, immediately they caught hold the accused and on verification of the said bag, it was found 10 liquor bottles ie., Bangalore whiskey each 180 ml each and that on enquiry, the accused stated that he purchased those 4 C.C.490/25

XI AJFCM, AKP

liquor bottles from government wine shops with a view to sell them at higher price for their pecuniary gain without having any license or permission. Then, PW2 drawn sample from the above seized contraband for chemical analysis, arrested the accused and sent the sample for analysis under the cover of an occurrence report. After due analysis the

Chemical Examiner has opined that the sample sent in Cr. No.05/2025 is

Indian liquor.

13. To substantiate the case of the Prosecution, the Head Constable of

Anakapalli Town Police Station was examined as P.W.1. In his evidence, on credible information regarding illegal possession of liquor bottles at

Gandhi Market, Anakapalli, himself long with LWs 1 and 2 reached the same and they caught hold the accused while he is in possession of one bag and on verification of the said bag, it was found 10 liquor bottles of

Bangalore whiskey each 180 ml and that accused further confessed that he purchased the said liquor bottles from government wine shops with a view to sell the same at higher prices and then they seized the above contraband and took the accused into their custody under the cover of occurrence report. In his cross-examination he deposed that the scene of offence is a busy locality. There is no mentioned in occurrence report that to whom they requested to act as mediators in this case. He further admitted that he did not issue any notice to the VRO, VRA or sarpanch of

Gandhi Market, Anakapalli. There is no mention in the occurrence report about the batch numbers of the seized contraband.

14. The then SI of police, Anakapalli Town Police Station, Anakapalli is examined as P.W.2. In his evidence, he deposed that on receipt of Ex.P1 occurrence report, he registered a case in Cr.No.05/25 under Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act vide Ex.P.2 FIR and sent the sample for analysis.

5 C.C.490/25

XI AJFCM, AKP

Ex.P.3 is the analysis report. he also issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused. After receipt of ExP3 Analysis report, Mos 1 and 2 marked through him, he filed charge sheet against the accused. In his cross- examination he deposed that except filing of charge sheet he does not know any thing about this case and he did not participate in the raid.

15.The Prosecution examined only the official witnesses. In their evidence they deposed that they did not secure mediators from the scene of offence. The prosecution did not examine any independent mediators to prove the case of the Prosecution. PW1 clearly admitted in his cross examination that the scene of offence is a busy locality. There is no mention in the occurrence report that to whom they requested to act as mediator.

16.As per Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. while police or other Excise officials making search or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or any other locality, if no inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. In this case, the police even did not try to secure any person requesting to act as a mediator. Moreover,

P.W1 in his cross examination clearly admitted that he did not mention in occurrence report as to whom he deputed to secure mediators. They did not mention the batch numbers or the name of the manufacturer in their occurrence report. This is contrary to procedure laid down under section 100(4) of Cr.P.C.

6 C.C.490/25

XI AJFCM, AKP

17. As per judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad in 2010(1) ALT Crl.33, their Lordships held that when the police conducting search in a colony or at a place where there is a possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the Excise officials of Prohibition Officials are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable persons that is mandate under section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. The

Excise Officials also authorize to issue an order in writing, asking them to act as mediators under sub section 4 of section 100 Cr.P.C. The object of

Section 100 Cr.P.C. is to ensure the confidence in the neighbours and in the general public that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found out. In our given case, the scene of offence is a busy locality but the police did not secure any witness nor issued any notice by ordering any person to stand as a witness in order to secure any VRO or VRA of the said locality. In such a case, it is not possible to believe the version of the prosecution and the evidence of Official witnesses who are interested from outcome of this case that the accused was in the possession of the liquor and the same was seized by the police from out of the possession of the accused.

18. Further, the material on record reveals that the Investigation officer collected samples from the seized liquor on 04.01.2025. As seen from the Ex.P.3 it manifests that the Investigation officer sent the liquor for chemical analysis after lapse of 28 days from the date of collection.

Therefore, there is a delay more or less 28 days in sending samples for analysis. There is no whisper or explanation about the said delay either in charge sheet or in the version of P.W.1 and P.W.2. There is no evidence to show that the samples were kept in proper custody without giving scope for tampering.

7 C.C.490/25

XI AJFCM, AKP

19. In the case of Ratanlal and Brindavanam Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh reported in 2004(1) ALT Crl.9220, our Hon’ble High

Court at Hyderabad, held that the delay in sending sample is always fatal to the case of the Prosecution where no explanation is offered for such delay.

20. In our present case also approximately there is delay of 28 days but there is no explanation from the Prosecution for delay in sending the samples for chemical analysis.

21. In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence

U/Sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act and accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time as contemplated U/Sec. 437-A of

Cr.P.C. M.O 1 and 2 the case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court , this the 26 th day of March, 2026.

sd/-A.Ramesh

XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anakapalli.

Appendix of evidence

No. of witnesses examined for

Prosecution:Defence:

P.W.1 …A Srinivasa Rao None

P.W.2 … A Venkateswara Rao 8 C.C.490/25

XI AJFCM, AKP

No. of exhibits marked for

Prosecution:Defence: Nil

Ex.P.1 … Occurrence report Ex.P.2 … FIR Ex.P.3 … Analysis report No. of material objects marked

M.O1 … Sample bottle

M.O2… Other seized contraband.

sd/-A.Ramesh

XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anakapalli.

9 C.C.490/25

XI AJFCM, AKP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: ANAKAPALLI

C.C.No.490/2025

Date of Offence:: 04.01.2025 Date of complaint/report:: 04.01.2025 Date of release on bail:: 41-A Notice Date of taken on file:: 11.04.2025 Date of commencement of trial:: 09.10.2025 Date of closure of trial:: 18.03.2026 Date of sentence or order:: 26.03.2026 Reason for delay:: The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution. Name of the Complainant:: State represented by the Inspector of Police,Anakapalli Town Police Station, Anakapalli district Particulars of the accused:: Sri Badampudi Appa rao, S/o late Sanyasi Naidu, aged 72 years, R/o NTR Hospital, Balajiraopeta, Anakapalli .

Nature of offence:: U/Sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act

Finding of the court:: Found not guilty

Sentence of Order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence U/Sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act and accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time as contemplated U/Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O1 and 2 the case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

sd/-A.Ramesh

XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Anakapalli

1 C.C.69/2025

XI AJFCM, AKP

IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: ANAKAPALLI

Present: Sri A.Ramesh, XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anakapalli

Thursday, this the 26th day of March, 2026

Calendar Case No.69/2026

Between:

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Parawada Police Station … Complainant And:

A1. Katari Ramu S/o Chinna, 23 years, Caste Uppara R/o Rasalamma Colony, Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Cell 9391063459

A2. Golagani Rajesh S/o Nukaraju, Age 23 years, Yadava, R/o House No. 7-14 Pedamusadivada Government High School Backside, Paravada Mandal, Cell 8688543583

A3. Palla Nagaraju S/o Mutyalu, 34 years, Yadava R/o Pedamusidiwada, Paravada Mandal, Cell No. 7285933339

A4. Cheliboya Manikantha S/o Ramum, 33 years, Yadava R/o BC Colony, Pedamusidiwada, Paravada Mandal, Anakapalli, Cell 9014458153

…..Accused

This case coming before me on 25.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant/State and of Sri K.P Naidu, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The state represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Parawada Police Station filed charge sheet against the Accused No. 1 to 4 in Cr.No.282/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 305(a) & 317(2) of BNS.

2 C.C.69/2025

XI AJFCM, AKP

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

On 17.10.2025 at 11.00 hours, the defacto complainant/Iragala

Madhav Reddy reported that he is working as a site in-charge at the under-construction NTR Colony Buildings in Pedamusidiwada, Parawada

Mandal. He looks after all the construction work going on in the NTR colony. As part of work, they have placed centering sheets at the buildings in Sector-A for centering. The other day ie. on 15-10-2025 at 6.00pm, their work ended on the next day i.e. on 16-10-2025 at 06.00 am, when they checked at Sector-A, Plot Nos. 625, 626, 669, the centering metal sheets placed at them were not found. He along with site supervisor Pudi Ganesh, searched all around their site and the surrounding areas of Pedamusidiwada. But the sheets were not found.

Some thieves stole a total of 130 sheets. All those sheets weigh about 1300 kg. During the investigation LW 6 visited the scene of offence examined the same, examined 3 witnesses. LW6 arrested the accused on 30.10.2025 at 16.00 hours, in the presence of LW's 4 & 5 at

Lankelapalem junction, recorded their confession and seized 130 iron centering sheets costs about Rs.39,000/- and also seized the AP 39 TR 6090 Mini Van as the conveyance used for the theft. LW 6 served notices to the accused A1 to A4 u/s 35(3) BNSS and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused under sections 305(a) and 317(2) of BNS. Hence this charge.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offence under

Sections 305(a) and 317(2) of BNS against the Accused No. 1 to 4.

4.On appearance of accused persons, copies were furnished to him as required U/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused were examined

U/sec.239 Cr.P.C., and charge under Sections 305(a) and 317(2) of BNS was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, 3 C.C.69/2025

XI AJFCM, AKP

they denied the contents of charge framed, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5.In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No. 1 to 4 examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is put forth to them, for which, they stated as false and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

8. Now, the point that arises for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the

guilt of the accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offence

punishable under Sections 305(a) & 317 of BNS beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T:

9)The case of the prosecution in brief, is that the PW1 is working as a site in-charge at the under-construction NTR Colony

Buildings in Pedamusidiwada. As part of work, they have placed centering sheets at the buildings in Sector-A for centering. The other day ie. on 15.10.2025 at 6.00pm, their work ended on the next day i.e. on 16.10.2025 at 06.00 am, the centering metal sheets placed at them were not found. PW1 along with PW2, searched all around their site and the surrounding areas of Pedamusidiwada. But the sheets were not found.

Some thieves stolen a total of 130 sheets. All those sheets weigh about 1300 kg.

10)To prove the case of the prosecution, the de-facto complainant is examined as P.W.1. He deposed in his evidence that he 4 C.C.69/2025

XI AJFCM, AKP

placed centring sheets at Pedamushidiwada for centring and that he found missing of those centring sheets on 16..10.2025. After that he lodged a report. The police did not examine him and he does not know contents of said report under Ex.P1. In his cross examination he denied the suggestion that police did not examine him and he stated to the police as in 161 Cr.P.c. statement. At this stage the Learned A.P.P sought permission from this Court to declare the PW1 as hostile.

11. The PW2 who is the site supervisor examined as PW2, he deposed in his evidence that on 15.10.2025 PW1 placed some centreing sheets at Pedamushidiwada for centering and that he found missing of those centreing sheets on 16.10.2025 after that he informed him. Police not examined him. In his cross examination he admitted that he does not know the accused and the police did not examine him.

12.The Pws 3 and 4 are the helpers of the said company, they are categorically deposed that they do not know any thing about this case and they did not support to the case of the prosecution.

13.The investigating officer is examined as P.W.5 and he deposed about the legal formalities done by him in this case. The evidence of PW5 shows that after receipt of report of PW1, he registered the same as a case in Cr. No.282/2025 for the offence under Section 305(a) and 317 of BNS and issued FIR, which is marked as Ex.P.5, Ex.P6 is the rough sketch and Ex.P7 is the confessional statement and he examined the witnesses and recoding of their statements. On 30.10.2025 on information, he along with mediators and his staff went to IOC, Petrol

Bunk, which is situated at Lankalapalem at about 4.00pm there they noticed one mini van which was coming from Lankelapalem and on suspicious they stopped the said van and found four persons ie., all the accused. The accused confessed that they committed theft of 130 5 C.C.69/2025

XI AJFCM, AKP

centering sheets. On that, he seized the said 130 centering sheets and mini van from the possession of A.1 to A.4 and he served Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C., notice to accused. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. In his cross examination he admitted that he has not mentioned in their confessional statement that how many vehicles they verified and they do not mentioned the color of the alleged van seized in this case. He further admitted that he did not mention in their occurrence report that who drove the said alleged mini van and he did not seize license of A1. He further admitted that such type of centreing sheets are available in the open market. Except the report the PW1 did not submit any other material so as to identify that those 130 centreing sheets are belongs to the PW1.

14.As seen from the evidence of Pws 1, it is evident that PW1 who is the defacto complainant had deposed that the police did not examine him and he does not know the contents of said report and not stated any incriminating evidence against the accused. In such case the evidence of P.W.5 who is the investigating officer will not gain any importance to prove the case of prosecution. During cross examination of

PW1 admitted that he does not know the accused. There is no incriminating evidence deposed by P.W.1 against the accused No. 1 to 4 to prove that accused have committed theft from the site of PW1. Further the mediators in whose presence the material were seized not support to the case of the prosecution and they categorically deposed that they do not know any thing about this case. Absolutely there is no material to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence punishable under

Section 305(a) and 317 of BNS, accordingly the accused are entitled for acquittal.

6 C.C.69/2025

XI AJFCM, AKP

15.In the result, the accused No. 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 305(a) and 317 of BNS, and they are acquitted U/sec.248 BNSS, for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six (6) months as contemplated under section 437(A) of Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter stands canceled. No M.Os are filed and hence, no order to that effect. The unmarked property shall be given to the

PW.1 on proper identification and acknowledgment.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 26 th day of March, 2026.

sd/-A.Ramesh

XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anakapalli.

Appendix of evidence No. of witnesses examined for Prosecution:Defence: P.W.1 … Sri Iragala Madhava reddyNone P.W.2 … Sri V Ganesh PW 3 …. Sri Rai Sai Avinash P.W.4 ….Sri Narapalli Santhosh P.W 5…. Sri R mallikarjuna rao No. of exhibits marked for Prosecution:Defence

Ex.P.1 … is the Signature in report Nil Ex.P.2 … is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.3 … is the Signature on confessional statement of PW3 Ex.P.4 … is the Signature on confessional statement of PW4 Ex.P5 … is the FIR Ex.P6 … is the rough sketch Ex.P7… is the confessional statement. No. of material objects marked

Nonesd/-A.Ramesh XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anakapalli.

7 C.C.69/2025

XI AJFCM, AKP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: ANAKAPALLI

C.C.No.69/2025

Date of Offence::15.10.2025

Date of complaint/report::16.10.2015

Date of release on bail::41-A Cr.PC

Date of taken on file::21.01.2026

Date of commencement of trial::16.03.2026

Date of closure of trial::25.03.2026

Date of sentence or order::26.03.2026

Reason for delay::The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Name of the Complainant::State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Parawada Police Station Particulars of the accused:

1. A1. Katari Ramu S/o Chinna, 23 years, Caste Uppara R/o Rasalamma Colony, Kurmannapalem, Accused Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Cell 9391063459

2. A2. Golagani Rajesh S/o Nukaraju, Age 23 years, Yadava, R/o House No. 7-14 Pedamusadivada Government High School Backside, Paravada Mandal, Cell 8688543583

3. A3. Palla Nagaraju S/o Mutyalu, 34 years, Yadava R/o Pedamusidiwada, Paravada Mandal, Cell No. 7285933339

4. A4. Cheliboya Manikantha S/o Ramum, 33 years, Yadava R/o BC Colony, Pedamusidiwada, Paravada Mandal, Anakapalli, Cell 9014458153

Nature of offence305(a) and 317 of BNS

Found not guilty Finding of the court 8 C.C.69/2025

XI AJFCM, AKP

Sentence of Order : In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 305(a) and 317 of BNS, and they are acquitted U/sec.248 BNSS, for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six (6) months as contemplated under section 437(A) of Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter stands canceled. No M.Os are filed and hence, no order to that effect.The unmarked property shall be given to the PW.1 on proper identification and acknowledgment.

sd/-A.Ramesh

XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anakapalli.

1 //Fair// ORIGINAL SUIT No.105/2025

In the Court of the I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Anakapalli

Present: Sri A. Ramesh I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Anakapalli

Thursday, this the 26 th day of March, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT No.105/2025

Between:

Smt Mummini Mani wife of Tirumala Rao, aged 44 years, resident of D.No.9-66/1, Sarada nagar, Kothuru village, Anakapalle, Anakapalle District …Plaintiff

And

1) Sri Gorli Shyam Son of late Pydiraju, aged 29 years, H.No.8-6-28/1, Bheemunigummam street, Anakapalle, Anakapalle District.

2) Smt Duppada Rohini wife of Apparao, aged 27 years, H.No.8-19-6, Near Maridimamba temple, Kotni Street, Anakapalle, Anakapalle District.

...Defendants

This suit coming on 20.03.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. BSV Rajagopalam and Sri K Santhosh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff and the defendant remained ex-parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.This Suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the defendants as the estate of Deceased Gorle Diwakar basing on a Mortgage Deed dated 25.07.2022, praying this Court to pass a preliminary decree in favour of the Plaintiff for recovery of the Suit Amount of Rs.8,58,375/- by awarding subsequent interest at @ 24% and fix a date for redemption by directing 2 //Fair// ORIGINAL SUIT No.105/2025 the Defendant to redeem the plaint schedule property within the period stipulated by the court and also for costs.

02.The brief averments of the plaint is that the 1st defendant is brother and 2nd defendant is sister of deceased Gorli Diwakar Son of late Pydiraju, they all are children of Gorli Pydiraju, during the life time of the said Gorli

Diwakar has borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from plaintiff on Dt.25-07- 2022, for the purpose of discharge of his family debts and executed a

Regd mortgage deed on Dt.25.07.2022, vide Doct No.9270/2022, on the file of SRO Sabbavaram, in favour of plaintiff for the suit schedule property by keeping possession with him, with a condition to repay the same with an interest at 24% per annum, he further agreed to pay penal interest for the default interest at Rs.2.25.Ps, per hundred and he further agreed to redeem mortgage within three years. The plaintiff further submit that, those in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the said Diwakar has not paid any amount towards interest or principal but postponing the same on one pretext or other, in the meanwhile the said

Diwakar died on Dt.11.03.2024, by leaving both the defendants as his only legal representatives. The plaintiff further submits that, the deceased Diwakar died without marriage, his parents are also pre deceased to him, the defendants are sister and brother respectively, the estate of the deceased devolved on the defendants only, as such the plaintiff personally approached both the defendants and requested them to pay the default interest along with principal as the estate of the 3 //Fair// ORIGINAL SUIT No.105/2025 deceased Diwakar was devolved on them, the defendants are also agreed to pay the same, but postponing the event of payment on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff further submits that, recently the plaintiff came to know that without discharging the amount due under the mortgage deed, the defendants are trying to alienate the suit schedule property to the third parties. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendants on 13-02-2025, with a demand to repay the entire amount covered under suit mortgage deed as per its terms, the notice addressed to the 1st defendant returned with an endorsement not claimed, the 2nd defendant received the notice and kept silent. Hence this suit.

03.In this suit although the summons were served on defendants through court personally and they were called absent. No representation on behalf of defendant. Hence, they were set exparte.

04.In the Plaintiff’s ex parte evidence, the Plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A5. In support of his case two third parties examined as Pws 2 and 3.

05.Heard the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff and perused the record.

06. Now the point for determination is;

1. Whether the suit mortgage deed is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount?

3. To what relief ?

4 //Fair// ORIGINAL SUIT No.105/2025

07. Point No.1 & 2:

It is the contention of the Plaintiff that 1st defendant is brother and 2nd defendant is sister of deceased Gorli Diwakar, during his life time, he has borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 25-07-2022, for the purpose of discharge of his family debts and executed a Regd mortgage deed on 25-07-2022, vide Doc No.9270/2022 under Ex.A1 and repay the same with an interest at 24% per annum, he further agreed to pay penal interest for the default interest at Rs.2.25.Ps, per hundred and he further agreed to redeem mortgage within three years. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the said Diwakar has not paid any amount towards interest or principal but postponing the same on one pretext or other. The said Diwakar died on 11-03-2024, by leaving both the defendants 1 and 2 as his only legal representatives, as such the plaintiff personally approached both the defendants, they are also agreed to pay the same, but postponing the same. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendants on 13-02-2025, with a demand to repay the entire amount covered under suit mortgage deed as per its terms, the notice addressed to the 1st defendant returned with an endorsement not claimed, the 2nd defendant received the notice and kept silent.

08.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and he filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in- chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such chief affidavit 5 //Fair// ORIGINAL SUIT No.105/2025 of P.W.1 is nothing but a replica of the plaint. In addition to that, P.W.1 got marked Ex.A.1 to A5. Ex.A1 is the Original registered Mortgage deed executed by the deceased Diwakar in favour of the plaintiff, Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice got issued by the plaintiff defendants, along with postal receipts, Ex.A3 is the original returned unserved cover, Ex.A4 is the downloaded copy of track consignment details obtained the official website of postal department and Ex.A5 is the downloaded copy of

Encumbrance certificate obtained official Website of IGRS.

09. Ex. A1 is the registered mortgage deed dated 25.07.2022. On perusal of Ex.A1, it reveals that that a registered mortgage deed was executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A2 is the legal notice dt.13.02.2025, Ex.A3 is the Original returned cover, Ex.A4 is the downloaded copy of track consignment details obtained the official website of postal department and Ex.A5 is the downloaded copy of

Encumbrance certificate obtained official Website of IGRS. The plaintiff also got examined scribe and attestor as PW.2 and 3 to support the case of the plaintiff. They also deposed in the lines of PW.1. As the defendant failed to appear before the court to contest the suit an adverse inference is drawn against the defendants. Since, the defendants failed to appear

before this court the contest of the plaintiff is remained unchallenged.

Therefore, it is considered that the defendants are liable to repay the suit amount along with interest to plaintiff. Accordingly, this point is answered.

6 //Fair// ORIGINAL SUIT No.105/2025

10. Point No.3:

In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed with costs as follows:

1.The defendants 1 and 2 jointly shall pay an amount of

Rs.8,58,375/- (Rupees eight lakhs fifty eight thousand three hundred and seventy five only) to the plaintiff from the out of the estate of deceased

Gorli Diwakar (who is the brother of defendants No. 1 and 2) with future interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filling of this suit and till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only). The redemption period is 6 months.

2. On failure, the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed against the plaint schedule property by filling a separate application.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 26th day of March, 2026.

sd/-A.Ramesh

I Additional Civil Judge, (JD) Anakapalli

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for:

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1: Smt Mummini Mani P.W.2: Sri Pentakota Ramesh -Nil- P.W.3: Sri Kendregula Laxminarayana 7 //Fair// ORIGINAL SUIT No.105/2025

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is the Original registered Mortgage deed executed by the de

Diwakar in favour of the plaintiff,

Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice got issued by the plaintiff defendants, along with postal receipts,

Ex.A3 is the original returned unserved cover,

Ex.A4 is the downloaded copy of track consignment details obtained the official website of postal department

Ex.A5 is the downloaded copy of Encumbrance certificate obtained official

Website of IGRS.

For Defendant:

- Nil-sd/-A.Ramesh I Additional Civil Judge, (JD) Anakapalli

//Fair// 1 O.S.326/2025 IACJ/AKP

In the Court of the I Addl Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anakapalli

Present: Sri A. Ramesh I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Anakapalli

Thursday, this the 26th day of March, 2026

O.S.No.326/2025

Between:

Sri Gorle Mutyalanaidu, S/o late Appala Naidu, aged 54 years, R/o D.No.1-16, Anakapalli Village and Post , Sabbavaram Mandal, Anakapalli. … Plaintiff And:

Sri Gali Mangaraju, S/o Yerukulu, aged 32 years, R/o Butchiyyapeta, H/o Duddupalem, Chodavaram mandal, Anakapalli.

… Defendant

This suit came up before me on 20.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch Michael and Sri K P Naidu, Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendant is set exparte and having considered the matter till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed to recover a sum of Rs.3,43,734/- (Rupees three lakhs forty three thousand seven hundred and thirty four only) being the balance of

principal and interest due on promissory note dt.08.10.2022 executed by the

defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2. The averments of the plaint are as follows:

2.1) it is the case of the plaintiff is that on 08-10-2022 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff by way of cash for his business purpose and the defendant executed a demand promissory note infavour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% PA to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further submit that the defendant not repaid the //Fair// 2 O.S.326/2025 IACJ/AKP borrowed amount. Inspite of several remainders/demand made by the plaintiff, the defendant intentionally avoiding to repay the borrowed amount to avoid the liability with malafide intention. On 22-01-2025 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to defendant and the same is received by the defendant, but he did not comply the demand. The defendant is not an agriculturist or an artisan and hence he is not entitled for any of the debt laws either under Act IV of 1938 or under Act VII of 1977. Hence the Suit.

3. Even service of summons to defendant, he was called absent. No representation. Hence the defendant is exaparte.

4. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined himself as

P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A3. In support of his case the 1st attestor of

Ex.A1 was examined as PW2.

5. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the record.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for ?

6. POINT:

To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as

P.W.1 and he filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the averments of the plaint and as such chief affidavit of PW.1 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. In addition to that P.W.1 exhibited Ex.A.1 to A3. To prove the transaction took place between the plaintiff and the defendant, P.W.1 exhibited Ex.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note executed by defendant in his favour for Rs.2,00,000/-, dt.08.10.2022. On perusal of Ex.A1 promissory note, it is seen that the same was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/- on 08.10.2022. Ex.A2 is the office copy of Legal Notice dated 22-01-2025 and Ex.A3 is the

Acknowledgment. The evidence of P.W.1 to that effect has been unrebutted and intact.

//Fair// 3 O.S.326/2025 IACJ/AKP

7. The oral evidence of Pw1 is stood unchallenged. The oral evidence of

Pw1 coupled with Ex.A.1 proved the borrowing transaction and execution of promissory note by defendant. When execution is duly proved, this Court is duty bound to invoke legal presumptions available under Section 118 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act. In this suit, the defendant did not contest or deny the suit claim. So also they did not rebut the presumptions against him. In the considered circumstances, this suit is entitled to be decreed.

8. In the result, suit is decreed with costs for a sum Rs.3,43,734/- (Rupees three lakhs forty three thousand seven hundred and thirty four only) together with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 26 th day of March, 2026.

sd/-A.Ramesh

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anakapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of witnesses Examined for Plaintiff : Defendant: None P.W.1 : Sri Gorle Mutyalanaidu P.W.2 : Sri Gorle Demudu

No. of exhibits marked for : Plaintiff : Ex.A1 is the original promissory note executed by defendant in his favour for Rs.2,00,000/-, dt.08.10.2022, Ex.A2 is the Reg. Lawyers notice dt.22-01-2025 Ex.A3 is the acknowledgment from defendant. Defendant: Nil

sd/-A.Ramesh

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Anakapalle.

//Fair// 1 O.S.278/2025 IACJ/AKP

In the Court of the I Addl Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anakapalli

Present: Sri A. Ramesh I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Anakapalli

Thursday, this the 26th day of March, 2026

O.S.No.278/2025

Between:

Sri Boddapu Eswarao, S/o late Simhadri Naidu, aged 50 years, R/at D.No 3-34 Ompolu, Mungapaka mandalam, Anakapalle District, … Plaintiff And:

Sri Adi Surya Narayana S/o Narayana, aged 58 years, R/at Kondampudi Vilalge, Buchayyapeta, Anakapalle district.

… Defendant

This suit came up before me on 25.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Mrs. K.J.R (Jyothi), Sri K.Rajų, Sri S. Kishore and Ms. A.

Sukanya, Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendant is set exparte and having considered the matter till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed to recover a sum of Rs.10,58,200/- (Rupees ten lakhs fifty eight thousand and two hundred only) being the balance of principal and interest due on promissory note dt.18.08.2023 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.7,15,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs fifteen thousand only) agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2. The averments of the plaint are as follows:

2.1) it is the case of the plaintiff that on 18-03-2023 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.7,15,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs fifteen thousand //Fair// 2 O.S.278/2025 IACJ/AKP only) from the plaintiff by way of cash for his expenses and the defendant executed a demand promissory note infavour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% PA to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further submit that the defendant not repaid the borrowed amount. Inspite of several remainders/demand made by the plaintiff, the defendant intentionally avoiding to repay the borrowed amount to avoid the liability with malafide intention. The defendant is not an agriculturist or an artisan and hence he is not entitled for any of the debt laws either under Act IV of 1938 or under Act VII of 1977.

Hence the Suit.

3. The defendant was called present through his counsel. Written statement not filed within the statutory period of 90 days, hence defendants was set exparte.

4. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined himself as

P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1.

5. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the record.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for ?

6. POINT:

To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as

P.W.1 and he filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the averments of the plaint and as such chief affidavit of PW.1 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. In addition to that P.W.1 exhibited Ex.A.1.

To prove the transaction took place between the plaintiff and the defendant,

P.W.1 exhibited Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note executed by defendant in his favour for Rs.7,15,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs fifteen thousand only), dt.18.08.2023. On perusal of Ex.A1 promissory note, it is seen that the //Fair// 3 O.S.278/2025 IACJ/AKP same was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.7,15,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs fifteen thousand only) on 18.08.2023. The evidence of

P.W.1 to that effect has been unrebutted and intact.

7. The oral evidence of Pw1 is stood unchallenged. The oral evidence of

Pw1 coupled with Ex.A.1 proved the borrowing transaction and execution of promissory note by defendant. When execution is duly proved, this Court is duty bound to invoke legal presumptions available under Section 118 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act. In this suit, the defendant did not contest or deny the suit claim. So also they did not rebut the presumptions against him. In the considered circumstances, this suit is entitled to be decreed.

8. In the result, suit is decreed with costs for a sum Rs.10,58,200/- (Rupees ten lakhs fifty eight thousand and two hundred only) together with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.7,15,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs fifteen thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 26 th day of March, 2026.

sd/-A.Ramesh

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anakapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of witnesses Examined for Plaintiff : Defendant: None P.W.1 : Sri Boddapu Eswarao, No. of exhibits marked for : Plaintiff : Ex.A1 is the original promissory note executed by defendant in his favour for Rs.7,15,000/-, dt.18.08.2023, Defendant: Nilsd/-A.Ramesh I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Anakapalle.