A.thousheed Hussain

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge

II Addl JCJ Court, Sattenapalli · Guntur · Andhra Pradesh

A.THOUSHEED HUSSAIN, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, is posted at II Addl JCJ Court, Sattenapalli, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2,970 court orders on record since 2020. 33 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, CC, EP cases.

2,970

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/648/2022

Mandava Srinivasa Rao vs Kambhala Lakshmi

30 Jul 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):: SATTENAPALLI.

Present : A. Thousheed Hussain,

Prl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli.

Wednes day, this the 30th day of July, 2025.

O.S.No.648/2022.

Between :-

Mandava Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Krishna, 43 years, Cultivation, R/o. D.No.1-44C, Kandrika Village, Phirangipuram Mandal, Guntur District, Sattenapalli PJCJ. …. Plaintiff. AND

1. Kambhala Lakshmi, W/o. Late Srinivasa Rao, 45 years, House wife, R/o. Kandrika Village, Phirangipuram Mandal, Guntur District, Sattenapalli PJCJ.

2. Kambhala Srikanth, S/o. Late Srinivasa Rao, 22 years, house wife, R/o. Kandrika Village, Phirangipuram Mandal, Guntur District, Sattenapalli PJCJ.

3. Koya Anusha, W/o. Swamy, D/o. Late Srinivasa Rao, 21 years, house wife, R/o. Bayyavaram Village, Krosuru Mandal, Palnadu District,

Sattenapalli PJCJC. ....Defendants.

This suit coming on 24.07.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri. M.Linga Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri. K.Lakshman, Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1)The plaintiff filed the suit against the estate of deceased late Kambhala Srinivasa

Rao, who is the husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,52,334/- with costs and interest at the rate of 24% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- basing on the promissory note dated 26.05.2020 executed by Late Kambhala Srinivasa Rao.

2.The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint as follows :-

The 1st defendant is wife and 2nd defendant is son and 3rd defendant is daughter of late Kambhala Srinivasa Rao. The said Kambhala Srinivasa Rao was died on 12.06.2021.

While he was alive the said Kambhala Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Krishna resident of Kandrika

Village, Phirangipuram Mandal borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 26.05.2020 for his agricultural expenses and agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand and executed a promissory note with his own hand in favour of the plaintiff on the same day at Kandrika Village,

Phirangipuram Mandal, Guntur District. On demand of the plaintiff in the life time of

Kambhala Srinivasa Rao, he postponed the same from time to time for repayment of promissory note debt. Subsequently the said Kambhala Srinivasa Rao died intestate on 12.06.2021 leaving behind the defendants are legal heirs. After the death of Kambhala

Srinivasa Rao the plaintiff approached the defendants 1 to 3 requested personally and through mediators to discharge the above promissory note debt. The defendants requested the plaintiff that they will discharge the same within short period, the plaintiff believed the words of defendants and kept quite till today. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants 1 to 3 are postponing the same from time to time with delay tactics. So, the defendants 1 to 3 are liable to discharge the above said debt. The defendants are known fully well about the financial transactions between the plaintiff and

Kambhala Srinivasa Rao. The defendants are only Legal Representatives of late

Kambhala Srinivasa Rao and enjoying the estate of late Kambhala Srinivasa Rao. The debt borrowed by Kambhala Srinivasa Rao for the benefit of defendants. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through elders defendants are 3 postponing the same from time to time and the plaintiff got issued registered notice to the defendants to call upon the promissory note debt on 26.07.2022, but in vain. The defendants jointly and severally liable to discharge the debt. Hence the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of promissory note debt with interest.

3.After receiving the summons, the defendant filed the written statement, denied the averments of the plaint and submitted that all the averments in the plaint are false, untrue and untenable and submitted that the husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3 by name Kambhala Srinivasa Rao borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 26.04.2019 and Rs.50,000/- on 15.05.2019 from the plaintiff and executed promissory notes respectively in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, on 26.05.2020 the said

Kambhala Srinivasa Rao paid the interest amount to the plaintiff on the above said promissory notes for a tune of Rs.13,000/- + Rs.12,360 = Rs.25,360/- on the above said two promissory notes. On the same day the plaintiff obtained a separate promissory note from the Kambhala Srinivasa Rao for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards renewal of above said promissory notes. The Kambhala Srinivasa Rao never received consideration under the suit promissory note. On the date of execution of promissory note the plaintiff has given the photostat copy of promissory note, dated 26.05.2020 to Kambhala Srinivasa

Rao executed by him. On the date of execution of promissory note nobody was signed on the promissory note as attestors. The said Kambhala srinviasa Rao was committed suicide and died on 12.06.2021. The 2nd defendant also gave a report to the Phirangipuram police about the suicide and death of his father Kambhala Srinivasa Rao due to loss in cultivation of leased lands. The Phirangipuram police also registered a case in crime No.156/2021 4 under section 174 of CRPC. The Government doctors also conducted postmortem to the deceased Kambhala Srinivasa Rao. Subsequently, the defendants applied compensation of farmers death to the Government and the Government given compensation for

Rs.7,00,000/-. The defendants also get insurance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and in total the defendants get Rs.9,00,000/- towards compensation and insurance of deceased

Kambhala Srinivasa Rao. The defendants expended an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the expenses of ceremony of deceased Kambhala Srinivasa rao. The remaining amount of

Rs.8,00,000/- with the defendants after the death of Srinivasa Rao and the defendants are intend to discharge the debts of deceased and the defendants called creditors and requested to receive the amount available with them on ratio. All the creditors except father plaintiff are agreed to take the amount on ratio and accordingly all the creditors received the amounts except the plaintiff. At that time all the creditors also requested the plaintiff to take the amount among them. But the plaintiff did not agreed to take the amount and got issued registered notice through his counsel on 03.08..2021. Even after issuing of notice also the defendants are agreed to pay the amount paid among all the creditors. But the plaintiff refused the same. The defendants discharged the all the debts to the creditors for the amount fo deceased Srinivasa Rao. The plaintiff refused to take the amount on ratio among all the creditors. The plaintiff with an intention to harass the defendants only got filed this false suit by obtaining signatures of attestors before filing of suit. In fact the attestors are not present on the date of execution of promissory note by the Kambhala

Srinivasa Rao and thus prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues have been framed for trial:

1. Whether the suit pro note, dt.26.05.2020 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and supported with consideration ?

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

3. To what relief ?

5. On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to

A3 on his behalf. He also examined the attester of Ex.A1 suit promissory note by name

Jetti Ravi as PW.2. On the other hand, in spite of ample opportunity granted by this court, defendants failed to adduce their evidence and failed to cross examine PW.1 and

PW.2, so cross examination of Pw.1 and PW.2 is treated as nil. Hence the defendants evidence was closed.

6.Heard the plaintiff. Defendants called absent, no representation, hence the arguments on behalf of defendants was treated as heard.

7.ISSUE No. 1 :

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the late Kambhala Srinivasa Rao borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 26.05.2020 and executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note and died intestate on 12.06.2021, defendants are the legal heirs of late

Kambhala Srinivasa Rao and they failed to discharge the debt so plaintiff filed the suit.

Whereas, it is the contention of the defendants is that Ex.A1 is the renewal promissory note for the earlier promissory notes and there is no cash consideration passed under

Ex.A1, so prays to dismiss the suit. Since the defendant is denying the allegations of 6 plaintiff, initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the late Kambhala Srinivasa Rao received the amount from him and executed Ex. A1 in his favour and he did not paid any amount to him. To prove the contention of the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1. PW1 categorically stated that late Kambhala Srinivasa Rao borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- on 26.05.2020 from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to him or to his order on demand. After the death of late Kambhala Srinivasa Rao, in spite of repeated demands made by him the defendants who are the legal heirs of late Kambhala Srinivasa

Rao failed to discharge the said promissory note debt. So he filed this suit. In support to his contention he also examined the attester of Ex.A1 suit promissory note as PW.2 and he categorically stated that late Kambhala Srinivasa Rao who is the husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3 borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 26.05.2020 for his agricultural expenses and executed promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. In his presence the late Kambhala

Srinivasa Rao received amount from the plaintiff and signed on Ex.A1 and later he signed as attester on Ex.A1 suit promissory note. In spite of ample opportunity granted by this court, defendants failed to adduce their evidence and failed to cross examine PW.1 and

PW.2, so cross examination of Pw.1 and PW.2 is treated as nil.

8.On other hand to prove the contention of defendants, they did not adduce any evidence. The main contention of the defendants is that Ex.A1 is the renewal promissory note for the earlier promissory notes and there is no cash consideration passed under 7

Ex.A1, so prays to dismiss the suit. If really Ex.A1 is executed for renewal of earlier debt then the same would be mentioned in Ex.A1 that it was executed for renewal purpose but on perusal of Ex.A1 there is no recital in Ex.A1 that it was executed for renewal purpose. If really their contention is true, then certainly they would come forward and adduce the evidence to show that Ex.A1 is renewal promissory note but they did not do so.

Furthermore,when once the execution of Ex.A.1 is proved, the presumption U/s.118 of

Negotiable Instrument Act has to be drawn as to the existence of consideration under

Ex.A1 until contra is proved. It is rebuttal presumption, except the defendants stating that no consideration was passed under Ex.A1, they did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. So, by taking the presumption and by the direct evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and

Ex.A1 it can be safely held that Ex.A1 is executed by the late Kambhala Srinivasa Rao having received the consideration under it. So the defendants failed to disprove the non passing of consideration under Ex.A1. On the above grounds, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff proved the execution as well as passing of consideration under Ex.A1 suit promissory note. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.

9. ISSUE NO.2 :

As stated supra in issue No.1 the plaintiff proved the execution of Ex.A1 suit promissory note by the late Kambhala Srinivasa Rao, when once the Ex.A1 has proved by the plaintiff certainly he is entitled to recover the suit promissory note amount from the defendants. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.

10.ISSUE No.3 :

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the estate of deceased late Kambhala Srinivasa Rao, now which is in the hands of defendants

No.1 to 3 for Rs.1,52,334/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Two Thousand Three Hundred and

Thirty Four Only) together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12%per annum from the date of the institution of the suit, till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree, till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Only).

Directly typed to dictation on Computer by the Stenographer, PJCJ Court corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30 th day of July, 2025.

Sd/- A. Thousheed Hussain

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT :- PW.1 : Mandava Srinivasa Rao. NONE PW.2 : Jetti Ravi

Exhibits marked for

PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 : Promissory note, dt.26.05.2020. Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice, dt.26.07.2022. Ex.A3 : Three postal receipts.

DEFENDANT: - Nil-

Sd/- A. Thousheed Hussain

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

CC/337/2024 Acquitted

SHO Atchampet PS vs Shaik Nagul

27 Dec 2024

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

CALENDAR CASE No.337/2024

1. Date of Offence : 26-08-2024

2. Date of Complaint or report : 26-08-2024

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : ---

4. Date of release on bail : ---

5. Date of commencement of trial : 11-12-2024

6. Date of close of trial : 24-12-2024

7. Date of Sentence or Order : 27-12-2024

8. Explanation of delay if any : No delay

COMPLAINANT: State Rep by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Atchampeta Police station

ACCUSED:

1. Shaik Nagul, S/o. Karimullah, 34 years, R/o. Chinthapalli village, Atchampeta Mandal. (Driver of tractor bearing No. AP 20 TB 6641)

2. Pilli Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Raja Ratnam, 32 years, R/o. Dokiparru village, Medikonduru Mandal. (Driver of tractor bearing No. AP 39 UG 9416 and truck No. AP 07 TH 6763)

3. Gopisetty Narendra, S/o. Venkateswarlu, 24 years, R/o. Chigurupadu village, Atchampeta Mandal. (Driver of JCB bearing No. AP 39 HT 2105)

4. Palem Suresh, S/o. Dora Swamy, 28 years, R/o. New Prasanth Nagar, Jangalapalli Post, Chithoor Rural District. (Driver cum owner of JCB AP 03 CD 6896)

5. Kukatlapalli Veeranjaneyulu, S/o. Butharaju, 33 years, R/o. Kothapalli village, Atchampeta Mandal.

Section of Law : U/sec.303 (2) of BNS

Finding of Court : Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence/ Order: In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.303(2) of BNS and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.271(1) of BNSS. Bail bonds of the accused if any shall be in force for six months u/Sec. 480(a) of BNSS. The case property i.e, 1) Tractor bearing registration No. AP 20 TB 6641 was already handed over to its owner vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.3093/2024 dt.06.09.2024 2) Tractor bearing registration No. AP 39 UG 9416 along with its truck bearing registration No. AP 07 TH 6763 was already handed over to its owner vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.3096/2024 dt.09.09.2024, 3) JCB bearing No. AP 39 HT 2105 was already handed over to its owner vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.3095/2024 dt.09.09.2024, 4) JCB bearing No. AP 03 CD 6896 was already handed over to its owner vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.3092/2024 dt.06.09.2024 and the said orders shall become absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

FACIADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

Copy submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur District.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI

PRESENT:-Sri A.Thousheed Hussain,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli.

FAC I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli. Friday, this the 27th day of December, 2024 CALENDAR CASE No.337/2024 Between: State Rep by its Inspector of Police, Atchampeta Police station. …. Complainant. -And-

1. Shaik Nagul, S/o. Karimullah, 34 years, R/o. Chinthapalli village, Atchampeta Mandal. (Driver of tractor bearing No. AP 20 TB 6641)

2. Pilli Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Raja Ratnam, 32 years, R/o. Dokiparru village, Medikonduru Mandal. (Driver of tractor bearing No. AP 39 UG 9416 and truck No. AP 07 TH 6763)

3. Gopisetty Narendra, S/o. Venkateswarlu, 24 years, R/o. Chigurupadu village, Atchampeta Mandal. (Driver of JCB bearing No. AP 39 HT 2105)

4. Palem Suresh, S/o. Dora Swamy, 28 years, R/o. New Prasanth Nagar, Jangalapalli Post, Chithoor Rural District. (Driver cum owner of JCB AP 03 CD 6896)

5. Kukatlapalli Veeranjaneyulu, S/o. Butharaju, 33 years, R/o. Kothapalli village, Atchampeta Mandal.

... Accused.

This case is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of learned APP for complainant and Sri K.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for A1 to A4 and Sri.G.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for A5 having stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following:-

J U D G E M E N T

1. State represented by Inspector of Police, Atchampeta Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.150/2024 of Atchampeta P.S for the offence punishable U/s.303 (2) of BNS and U/s.21(1) of MMDAR Act .

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case were as follows:

On 26.08.2024 LW1/M.Amar Krishna/Head constable received credible information about illegal transportation of sand. On that with the assistance of his staff i.e, LWs2 to 5 secured LW9/Shaik John Saida, LW10/Busani Nageswara Rao as mediators. Thereafter LWs1 to 5 and LWs9, 10 went to Chinthapalli village. There they 3 saw five persons along with sand loaded vehicles and on seeing them they tried to skulk away. Then with assistance of his staff, LW1 caught hold of five persons, who disclosed their identity as A1 to A5. On A1 to A5 confessed that they loaded sand from Krishna river and they do not have any receipts pertaining to the said sand. On that LW1 seized sand loaded vehicles from A1 to A5 under the mediator report. Thereafter the LW1/Head constable brought seized property and accused to the police station. Basing on the mediator report the LW11/CI of police registered a case in Cr.No.150/2024 for the offence U/s.303(2) of BNS and U/s.21(1) of MMDAR Act. Thereafter the LW11/CI of police examined witnesses and recorded their detailed statements and on the same day he went to the scene of offence place, inspected it and drew rough sketch. Thereafter

LW11 served 35(3) of BNSS notice to A2 and A3. The LW11/CI of police handed over seized tractor to its absolute owner basing on the orders of the Hon’ble court. After completion of investigation, LW11/CI of police filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3. This case was taken on file for the offence U/s.303(2) of BNS.

4. On appearance of the accused the case papers were served to the accused as contemplated u/sec.230 of BNSS.

5. A1 to A5 were examined u/Sec.262 of BNSS and charge for the offence

U/s.303(2) of BNS against the accused was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial of this case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. The learned APP gave up the evidence of remaining witnesses.

7. A1 to A5 were examined u/sec.351 of BNSS with the incriminating material available in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same and did not adduce any defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and counsel for accused.

Perused the record.

9. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of A1 to A5 for the offence punishable U/s.303(2) of BNS beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10. Point: In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4.

11. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.08.2024 LW11/Inspector of police along with PW1 and mediators i.e, LW9 and PW2 went to Chinthapalli village and there they found A1 to A5 along with sand loaded vehicles. On that LW1 seized sand loaded vehicles from the possession of A1 to A5 under the cover of mediator report.

12. It is the evidence of PW1 that on 26.08.2024 at about 04.00 A.M,

LW1/M.Amar Krishna/Head constable received credible information about illegal transportation of sand. On that with their assistance LW1 secured LW9/Shaik John

Saida, LW10/Busani Nageswara Rao as mediators. Thereafter himself along with other staff and LW1 along with mediators went to Chinthapalli village. There they saw five persons along with sand loaded vehicles and on seeing them they tried to skulk away.

Then with their assistance LW1 caught hold of the said persons, who disclosed their identity as A1 to A5. On enquiry A1 to A5 confessed that they loaded sand from Krishna river and they do not have any receipts pertaining to the said sand. On that LW1 seized sand loaded vehicles from the possession of A1 to A5 under the mediator report.

13. PW2 who is said to be acted as mediator deposed that on 26.08.2024 at about 04.00 A.M one police constable came to him and requested him to act as mediator in this case. Then he along with police personnel went near to Krishna river of

Chinthapalli village and in their presence police caught hold of five persons who were transporting sand loaded vehicles. Then Head constable enquired about bills pertaining to sand and accused confessed that they do not have any bills pertaining to sand. On that Head constable seized sand loaded vehicles in their presence under the cover of mediator report.

14. As seen the evidence of PW3 who is the Investigating officer, he deposed that basing on the mediator report he registered a case in Cr.No.150/2024 for the offence U/s.303(2) of BNS and U/s.21(1) of MMDAR Act. Thereafter he examined witness and recorded their statements. Thereafter he served 35(3) BNSS notice to A1 to A5 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

15. During cross examination P.Ws.1, 3 admitted that scene of offence is a busy locality and they did not issue any written summons to local inhabitants to act as mediators in this case. The PW1 also admitted that he did not issue any written summons to LW9 and PW2 to act as mediator in this case.

16. It is an apparent fact that the alleged seizure took place near Chinthapalli village and it is also an admitted fact that scene of offence is a busy locality. When general public are readily available in the scene of offence, why the PW1 did not take pain to join the local inhabitants as mediators is not explained by the prosecution. Even no written summons were issued to LW9 and PW2. If really the PW1 requested LW9 and PW2 to act as mediator in this case, the PW1 is expected to give written summons to LW9 and PW2. So, the presence of PW2 with regard to alleged seizure becomes doubtful.

17. Moreover, according to Section 103(4), BNSS “Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer 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 of any other locality if no such 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.” Thus, it is clear that

Section 103(4), BNSS has mandated that seizure must be witnessed by at least 2 (two) independent witnesses. But PW3 failed to secure local inhabitants to act as mediators at the time of seizure of alleged sand loaded vehicles from the possession of accused.

Hence contents of Ex.P1 mediator report remain unproved.

18. So there is no other independent evidence brought on record to prove the accusation levelled against accused. Even PWs1 and 3 failed take photographs pertaining to the tractor as well as sand. The PW3 also failed to join the person to whom he handed over alleged sand and who issued Ex.P4/receipt to him. P.Ws.1 and 3 are interested witnesses and without any independent evidence on record, it is not safe to rely on their evidence.

19. Therefore, in view of the evidence let in by the prosecution, this court opines that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/sec.303(2) of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

20. In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec.303(2) of BNS and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.271(1) of BNSS.

Bail bonds of the accused if any shall be in force for six months u/Sec. 480(a) of BNSS.

The case property i.e, 1) Tractor bearing registration No. AP 20 TB 6641 was already handed over to its owner vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.3093/2024 dt.06.09.2024 2) Tractor bearing registration No. AP 39 UG 9416 along with its truck bearing registration No. AP 07 TH 6763 was already handed over to its owner vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.3096/2024 dt.09.09.2024, 3) JCB bearing No. AP 39 HT 2105 was already handed over to its owner vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.3095/2024 dt.09.09.2024, 4) JCB bearing No. AP 03 CD 6896 was already handed over to its owner vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.3092/2024 dt.06.09.2024 and the said orders shall become absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this day of 27 th day of December, 2024.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

FACIADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For prosecution: For Defence: - None- P.W.1 Rambabu/Police constable P.W.2 B.Nageswara Rao/VRO P.W.3 K.Venkata Prasad/Inspector of police 7

Exhibits Marked. For Prosecution: For Defence: -Nil- Ex.P1 is the mediator report Ex.P2 is the FIR. Ex.P3 is the rough sketch Ex.P4 is the receipt Material objects marked-Nil -NIL-

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

FACIADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

CC/669/2022 Acquitted

SHo, Sattenapalli Town P.S. vs Kanjula Gopi Reddy and another

17 Jan 2024

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SATTENAPALLI.

CALENDAR CASE No.669/2022

1. Date of Offence : 14-06-2021

2. Date of Complaint or report : 14-06-2021

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : ---

4. Date of release on bail : ---

5. Date of commencement of trial : 26-09-2023

6. Date of close of trial : 31-10-2023

7. Date of Sentence or Order : 17-01-2024

8. Explanation of delay if any : No delay

COMPLAINANT: State Rep by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli Town Police station

ACCUSED:

1. Kanjula Gopi Reddy, S/o. Koti Reddy, 24 years,

2. Bokka Mariya Dasu, S/o. Mastan, 36 years, …Both the accused are R/o. Sattenapalli Town.

Section of Law : 420 and 379 of IPC

Finding of Court : Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence/ Order: In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/secs.420 and 379 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under

Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The lorry tractor registration No. AP 26 AD 1888 was already handed over to its owner vide order in Crl.M.P.No.187/2021 dt.09.07.2021 and the said order shall become absolute after expiry of appeal time.

I A DDL . J UNIOR C IVIL J UDGE ,

S ATTENAPALLI .

Copy submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur District.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SATTENAPALLI

PRESENT:-Sri.A.Thousheed Hussain,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.

Wednesday, this the 17 th day of January, 2024

CALENDAR CASE No.669/2022

Between : State Rep by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli Town Police station. …. Complainant -And-

1. Kanjula Gopi Reddy, S/o. Koti Reddy, 24 years,

2. Bokka Mariya Dasu, S/o. Mastan, 36 years, …Both the accused are R/o. Sattenapalli Town.

... Accused.

This case is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of learned APP for complainant and Sri.M.Linga Reddy, learned counsel for accused having stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following:-

J U D G E M E N T

1. State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli Town Police

Station filed a charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.226/2021 of Sattenapalli Town police station for the offence punishable U/secs.420, 379 of IPC and U/s.21(1) of

MMDAR Act.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case were as follows:

On 14.06.2021 LW1-M.Gangadaha Rao/Head constable along with his staff was on patrolling and at about 03.00 P.M while LWs1, 2 were conducting vehicle checking at dumping yard situated on the Narasaraopet-Sattenapalli Road, there they found one tractor bearing No. AP 26 AD 1888. On seeing police persons, two persons from the said tractor tried to skulk away. On suspicion the LW1 caught hold of them and on enquiry two persons disclosed their identities as A1 and A2. The LW1 asked A1 and A2 about bills to transport the sand. Then the accused showed the bills and on verification by LW1, it is found that the accused were not loading sand at proper addresses and they are illegally transporting the same to sell at other places inorder to gain money. Basing on the confession of A1 and A2, the LW1 seized the tractor along with sand load under the cover of police proceedings. Basing on the special report, the LW3/SI of police registered a case in Cr.No.226/2021 U/secs.420, 379 of IPC and 21(1) of MMDAR Act. Later LW3 examined LWs1, 2 and recorded 3 their detailed statements. Thereafter the LW3 served notice U/s.41(a) of Cr.P.C to A1 and A2 and after completion of investigation LW3/SI of police filed charge sheet

before court.

3. This case was taken on file for the offence U/secs.420, 379 of IPC.

4. On appearance of the accused the case papers were served to the accused as contemplated u/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5. A1 and A2 were examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C and charge leveled against

A1 and A2 for the offence U/secs.420 and 379r/w.34 of IPCwere framed, read over and explained to themin Telugu. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial of this case, the prosecution has examined

P.Ws1, 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material available in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same and they did not adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and counsel for accused.

Perused the record.

9. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of A1 and A2 U/secs.420, 379 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10. Point:

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws1, 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4.

11. It is the case of prosecution that on 14.06.2021, the PW1 found A1 and

A2 transporting sand illegally inorder to gain money.

12. As seen the evidence of PW1, he deposed that on 14.06.2021 at 03.00

P.M, himself and LW2 went near to dumping yard of Sattenapalli and there they found tractor loaded with sand. Then he with caught hold of accused and verified the bills and stated that they have to go as per bill route. Thereafter he seized tractor 4 loaded with sand under the cover of police proceedings.

13. The investigating officer/A.Raghupathi Rao/SI of police was examined as PW2 and he deposed that, basing on the police proceedings, he registered a case in

Cr.No.226/2021. Later he examined PW1, LW2 and recorded their detailed statements. Thereafter he handed over sand at stock yard and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet before court.

14. When the evidences of PW1 and PW2 is read in toto, nowhere it was testified by them that A1 and A2 induced someone to deliver anything to them or in any way alter or destroy anything in connection with collection of the said sand. In such circumstances it can be said that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring any material to substantiate the allegation under section 420 of IPC. Accordingly, the offence of cheating is not established against A1 and A2.

15. In addition to that, according to Section 100(4), CrPC “Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer 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 of any other locality if no such 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.” Thus, it is clear that Section 100(4), CrPC has mandated that seizure must be witnessed by at least 2 (two) independent witnesses and if no such inhabitants of the locality are willing to be a witness to the search, the officer may issue an order in writing or any of them so it to do. But PW1 failed to secure local inhabitants to act as mediators at the time of seizure of alleged sand from the possession of accused. Hence contents of Ex.P1/police proceedings remain unproved.

16. On this point, this court feels it appropriate to remember a decision of the Honourable Apex court rendered in between Matajog Dobey Vs H.C. Bhari reported in 1955 (2) SCR 925, wherein it was held that:

5 “When a power is conferred or a duty imposed by statute or otherwise, and there is nothing said expressly inhibiting the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty by any limitations or restrictions, it is reasonable to hold that it carries with it the power of doing all such acts or employing such means as are reasonably necessary for such execution, because it is a rule that when the law commands a thing to do done, it authorizes the performance of whatever may be necessary for executing its command.”

17. In the light of the above legal principle, it is clear that when the law required a particular thing to be done in a particular way it must be done in that way only and not otherwise. If any violation of the statutory provision makes the act of investigation officer doubtful when it is bereft of proper explanation as to what made him impossible for complying with the said statutory provisions. Here in this case, the PW1 did not offer convincing explanation and failed to explain the circumstances which made it impossible for him to conduct seizure proceedings in the presence of respectable inhabitants of the vicinity as contemplated under Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C. It appears that PW.1 did not make any effort to secure the immediate neighbours of the said locality, but said to have proceeded to the village for securing village officials and in vain, which version deposed by PW1 appears to be not believable. Hence, the testimonies of PWs1, 2 cannot be said to be credible, reliable and trustworthy to believe the prosecution case and as a consequence, the alleged seizure proceedings carried by the police personnel has to be seen with suspicion. As far as the alleged seizure of sand along with tipper lorry from the accused is concerned, except the evidence of PWs1, 2, there is no other independent evidence brought on record to prove the accusation leveled against accused. The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the prosecution and it has to be established by the prosecution that the required procedure as contemplated under Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C for seizure is duly followed by the police personnel during the search and seizure. But the explanation offered by the police personnel for non-securing of mediators from the vicinity is vague and stereo type explanation, as such, it does not inspire the confidence of the court. Unless there is legally acceptable, cogent and convincing evidence brought on 6 record, it cannot be said that the prosecution had substantiated its charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

18. In the case on hand the PW1/Head constable police did not take any steps to accompany some independent mediators to the place of occurrence. The investigating officer must have shown a genuine attempt has been made to join the public witnesses in the search and seizure proceedings carried by them. A stereo type statements of non-availability of public witnesses or respectable inhabitants of the locality will not inspire the confidence of the court, when at the relevant point of time, it was not difficult to procure the services of independent witnesses, No doubt, when search and seizure is in open place, there is no mandatory requirement to secure the independent mediators of the locality.

19. Regarding the credibility and reliability of the prosecution witnesses, our Honourable High Court in Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32, held that:-“The evidence let in by the prosecution must create confidence and must be reliable.” In Botcha Raju Vs.State Rep.by the Inspector

of Police, Vizianagaram Rural Circle reported in 1994 (2) A.L.T.(Crl.) P.69

(A.P.), it was held by the Hon’ble High court of AP that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officers without corroboration by disinterested witnesses.

20. Therefore, in view of the evidence let in by the prosecution, this court opines that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused was transporting sand in his tipper lorry without having any valid license and thereby cheated the public beyond all reasonable doubt. For the reasons stated supra the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, point is answered against the prosecution.

21. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/secs.420 and 379 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of

Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The lorry tractor registration No. AP 26 AD 1888 was already 7 handed over to its owner vide order in Crl.M.P.No.187/2021 dt.09.07.2021 and the said order shall become absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer on Computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this day of 17 th day of January, 2024.

I A DDL . J UNIOR C IVIL J UDGE ,

S ATTENAPALLI .

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For prosecution: For Defence: - None- P.W.1 M.Gangadhara Rao/Head constable P.W.2 A.Raghupathi Rao/SI of police

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: -Nil- Ex.P1 Police proceedings Ex.P2 FIR Ex.P3 Rough sketch Ex.P4 Receipt

Material objects marked. Nil -

-I A DDL . J UNIOR C IVIL J UDGE ,

S ATTENAPALLI .

CC/323/2024 Acquitted

Muppalla PS vs Tammisetty Gopi

04 Dec 2024

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

CALENDAR CASE No.323/2024

1. Date of Offence : 05-10-2024

2. Date of Complaint or report : 05-10-2024

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : ---

4. Date of release on bail : ---

5. Date of commencement of trial : 22-11-2024

6. Date of close of trial : 25-11-2024

7. Date of Sentence or Order : 04-12-2024

8. Explanation of delay if any : No delay

COMPLAINANT: State Rep by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Atchampeta Police station

ACCUSED:

1. Prathipati Vasudeva Murthy @ Vasu, S/o. Krishna, 25 years R/o. Didugu village of Amarvathi Mandal. (Driver of tractor bearing registration No. AP 39 UT 3412 along with trailer bearing No.AP 39 VE 5542),

2. Yallacheruvu Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Koteswara Rao, 41 years, R/o. Dharanikota village of Amaravathi Mandal. (Driver of tractor bearing registration No. AP 07 TE 8434 along with trailer bearing No. AP 07 TF 0274),

3. Gudeti Meri Babu, S/o. Swami, 34 years, R/o. Malladi village of Amaravathi Mandal. (Driver of F/R tractor with engine No. ZPD2GCA6005)

Section of Law : U/sec.303 (2) of BNS

Finding of Court : Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence/ Order: In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.303(2) of BNS and accordingly, they is are acquitted under Sec.271(1) of BNSS. Bail bonds of the accused if any shall be in force for six months u/Sec. 480(a) of BNSS. The case property i.e, 1) Tractor bearing registration No. AP 07 TE 8434 along with its trailer bearing registration No. AP 07 TF 0274 was already handed over to its owner vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.4026/2024 dt.21.10.2024 2) Tractor bearing No. TO824AP2391BK was already handed over to its owner vide orders in

Crl.M.P.No.4024/2024 dt.21.10.2024, 3) Tractor bearing registration No. AP 39 UT 3412

along with its trailer bearing registration No. AP 39 VE 5542 was already handed over to its owner vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.4025/2024 dt.21.10.2024 and the said orders shall become absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

FACIADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

Copy submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur District.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), SATTENAPALLI

PRESENT:-Sri A.Thousheed Hussain,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli.

FAC I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli. Wednesday, this the 04th day of December, 2024 CALENDAR CASE No.323/2024 Between: State Rep by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Atchampeta Police station. …. Complainant. -And-

3. Gudeti Meri Babu, S/o. Swami, 34 years, R/o. Malladi village of Amaravathi Mandal.

(Driver of F/R tractor with engine No. ZPD2GCA6005) ... Accused.

This case is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of learned APP for complainant and Sri K.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for accused having stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following:-

J U D G E M E N T

1. State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Atchampeta Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.178/2024 of Atchampeta P.S for the offence punishable U/s.303 (2) of BNS and U/s.21(1) of MMDAR Act .

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case were as follows:

On 05.10.2024 at about 05.00 A.M the LW1/D.Venkateswarlu/SI of police along with his constables i.e, LWs2, 3 were on night beat duty and when they reached road situated in between Kogantivaripalem-Chigurupadu villages, there they found A1 to A3 transporting sand by way of tractors. On seeing the police persons, the accused tried to skulk away. But with the assistance of his staff LW1/SI of police caught hold of accused. On enquiry the accused that inorder to gain money they were transporting 3 sand illegally. On that the LW1/SI of police seized sand loaded tractors under the cover of police proceedings. Thereafter the LW1/SI of police brought seized property and accused to the police station. Basing on the police proceedings the LW4/SI of police registered a case in Cr.No.178/2024 for the offence U/s.303(2) of BNS and U/s.21(1) of

MMDAR Act. Thereafter the LW4/SI of police examined witnesses and recorded their detailed statements and on the same day he went to the scene of offence place, inspected it and drew rough sketch. Thereafter he served 35(3) of BNSS notice to accused. The LW4/SI of police handed over seized tractor to the accused basing on the orders of the Hon’ble court. After completion of investigation, LW4/SI of police filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3. This case was taken on file for the offence U/s.303(2) of BNS.

4. On appearance of the accused the case papers were served to the accused as contemplated u/sec.230 of BNSS.

5. A1 to A3 were examined u/Sec.262 of BNSS and charge for the offence

U/s.303(2) of BNS against the accused was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial of this case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. The learned APP gave up the evidence of remaining witnesses.

7. A1 to A3 were examined u/sec.351 of BNSS with the incriminating material available in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same and did not adduce any defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and counsel for accused.

Perused the record.

9. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/s.303(2) of BNS beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10. Point:

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4.

11. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.10.2024 LW1/SI of police along with PW1, LW3 were on night beat and when they reached road situated in between

Kogantivaripalem-Chigurupadu village, they found A1 to A3 transporting sand illegally with their tractors.

12. It is the evidence of PW1 that on 05.10.2024 he along with LW1/SI of police,

LW3 were on night beat and at about 05.00 A.M, when they reached road situated in between Kogantivaripalem-Chigurupadu village, they found three tractors coming with sand load. Then they caught hold of A1 to A3. On enquiry by LW1/SI of police the accused confessed that he brought sand from Krishna river in order to sell the same for higher prices. Then LW1/SI of police enquired accused about license to transport sand, for which the accused stated that he did not has any license. On that they seized the tractor of accused along with sand under the cover of police proceedings.

13. As seen the evidence of PW2 who is the Investigating officer, he deposed that basing on the police proceedings he registered a case in Cr.No.178/2024 for the offence U/s.303(2) of BNS and U/s.21(1) of MMDAR Act. Thereafter he examined witness and recorded their statements. Thereafter he served 35(3) BNSS notice to accused and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

14. During cross examination P.Ws.1 and 2 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and they did not issue any written summons to any local inhabitant to act as mediator. The PWs1, 2 also admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and no photographs were taken at the time of seizure and arrest.

15. It is clearly established from the evidence on record that the LW1/SI of police simply drafted police proceedings and he did not even try to secure the mediators for arrest of accused and seizure of tractor from the possession of accused. From the evidence of P.W1 and P.W2, it is clear that the scene of offence is not an isolated place 5 and there is every opportunity to L.W.1 to secure the independent respectable persons as mediators for arrest of the accused and seizure of sand loaded tractor. Moreover, the prosecution did not explain any cogent reason for non-securing of mediators at the time of recording the confession of the accused and seizure of sand loaded tractors from the possession of A1 to A3.

16. Generally in villages, there will be all village level officers and the officials of all Departments of the Government. So, the police officials may approach any official of any Department of Government or local body other than VRO or Sarpanch, to act as mediator. In the present case, the police officials did not try to secure any of those officials as mediators. Except the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 there is no evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. At this juncture it is relevant to note a decision made in 1994 (2) ALT (Crl. P.69 (AP) Botcha Raju VS State Rep. By the Inspector of Police,

Vizianagaram Rural Circle. Where in it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officer without corroboration by disinterested witnesses. In the present case on hand, except the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 i.e., police officials, there is no evidence on behalf of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, which is not believable.

17. Moreover, PWs1, 2 are police officers and the confession recorded by police in their presence is inadmissible and the same is hit by sec.23 of the Bhartiya

Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. It is well settled principle of law and the same is reiterated by our Hon’ble High Court in Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of A.P reported in 2002(1) ALT (Crl) 437 it was held that “no confession made to police officer shall be proved as against the person of accused of any offence and thereby the alleged confession made by the accused in the presence of excise officials is hit by sec.23 of the Bhartiya Sakshya

Adhiniyam, 2023 and shall not be proved against him”. As far as the alleged seizure of sand loaded tractor from the accused is concerned, except the evidence of PWs1, 2, there is no other independent evidence brought on record to prove the accusation 6 levelled against accused. The seizure of sand loaded tractors by Investigating officer vitiates entire seizure aspect as per the provision contemplated U/s. 103(4) of BNSS.

On this point this court relies upon on the decision reported in S.BabuSaheb @ Babu

Vs State of A.P 2010(1) ALT(crl) 32 (A.P).P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the interested witnesses and without any independent evidence on record, it is not safe to rely on their evidence.

18. Therefore, in view of the evidence let in by the prosecution, this court opines that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/sec.303(2) of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

19. In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec.303(2) of BNS and accordingly, they is are acquitted under Sec.271(1) of BNSS.

Bail bonds of the accused if any shall be in force for six months u/Sec. 480(a) of BNSS.

The case property i.e, 1) Tractor bearing registration No. AP 07 TE 8434 along with its trailer bearing registration No. AP 07 TF 0274 was already handed over to its owner vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.4026/2024 dt.21.10.2024 2) Tractor bearing No.

TO824AP2391BK was already handed over to its owner vide orders in

Crl.M.P.No.4024/2024 dt.21.10.2024, 3) Tractor bearing registration No. AP 39 UT 3412

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer on Computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this day of 04 th day of December, 2024.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

FACIADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For prosecution: For Defence: - None- P.W.1 Y.Suresh/Police constable P.W.2 K.Venkata Prasad/SI of police 7

Exhibits Marked. For Prosecution: For Defence: -Nil- Ex.P1 is the police proceedings Ex.P2 is the FIR. Ex.P3 is the rough sketch Ex.P4 is the receipt Material objects marked-Nil -NIL-

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

FACIADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

CC/328/2024 Acquitted

Atchampeta PS vs Prathipati Vasudeva Murthy, Vasu