B Hv Lakshmi Kumari

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TEKKALI

Present :: Smt. B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari,

Junior Civil Judge, Tekkali.

Wednesday, on this 24th day of July, 2019

O.S.No.32/ 2014

Between :

1)Urlana Nagamma, W/o Neelakantu, Aged 42 Years, Hindu, Household Duties, R/o.D.No.150-1, B.C. Colony, Pedda Padmapuram Village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P.

...Plaintiff.

A n d :

1)Ratti Chandrasekharam, S/o.Late Lakshminarayana @ Savarayya Aged 40 Years, Hindu, R/o Thotaveedhi, Pedda Padmapuram Village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P.

2)Kottakota Trinadhu, S/o.Surayya, Aged 60 Years, Cultivation, resident of Matta veedhi Pedda Padmapuram Village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P.

3)Savara Adinarayana, S/o late Venkayya, Aged 33 years, cultivation, R/o SC colony, Pedda Padmapuram Village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P.

...Defendants/D1 to D3.

This suit coming on 19.06.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Laxminaryana, Learned Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri S. Dharmaraju, the Learned Counsel for Defendants/D1 & D2 and upon hearing and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff, praying the Court, to pass a Decree and Judgment, in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants/D1 to D3 restraining the Defendants, their men, agents, servants, workmen and their henchmen, from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

Plaintiff, over the plaint schedule property.

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

- 2 -

THAT the property morefully described in the plaint schedule annexed to this plaint. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, inorder to assign the Government land to poor eligible persons belonging to S.C ., S.T and backward class community. The plaintiff belongs to poor backward class community. The

Government of Andhra Pradesh had identified the plaintiff as eligible for assignment and accordingly has assigned the plaint schedule items No.1 to 3 under D.form patta vide RC.No.425/05 dt:21.07.2005 and delivered physical possession of the said property. The plaintiff got the same claims and made fit for cultivation.

3.The plaintiff averred that, defendant No.3 has said item No.4 of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for Rs.12,000/- under a Registered Sale Deed

dt:22nd June, 2006 and delivered possession and enjoyment of the same to the

plaintiff. Item No.5 of Plaint Schedule Property is her ancestral property. The

Government of Andhra Pradesh in recognition of title to exclusive and possession over the plaint schedule properties, his issued pattadaar pass book and title deed in favour of the plaintiff. The Plaint Schedule Properties were incorporate in 1-B

Register maintained by the Government under ROR Act in the name of plaintiff.

The Plaintiff was assigned patta No.864 for all the plaint schedule properties in

Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed under ROR Act. The land assigned by the

Government was subdivided by the Survey Department as per the enjoyment and the same was shown in the statement of Sub-division by the Government. The plaintiff has been paying land revenue to the Plaint Schedule properties under patta No.864 of Pedda Padmapuram. Thus the plaintiff has been in exclusive, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties to the knowledge of all including the cultivation Adangals. The plaintiff has obtained loan from the State Bank of India Branch Pathapatnam and the Title Deed is deposited with them, as such Xerox copy of the same is filed. The plaintiff undertakes to produce the Original Title Deed at the time of trial. The plaintiff has thus got title to and exclusive, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule

- 3 -

properties and on the other hand they admit the title and passion of plaintiff over the same.

4.The plaintiff averred that, she contested as M.P.T.C of Pedda Padmapuram,

Territorial Constituently in Meliaputti Mandal. The defendants are staunch supporters/followers of Rajeswari the opponent of the plaintiff. The defendants and their supporters pressurized the plaintiff to withdraw from the contest from which she has not agreed. They therefore, bore grudge against the plaintiff and began to threaten and proclaim that they would forcibly dispossess the plaintiff there from and occupy the same, without any manner of right whatsoever, over the same. The defendants have no respect for low and order. They have got power and pelf in the village. The defendants are capable of translating their threats into action. The plaintiff being weaker vessel in the society, can not resist the threatened invasion of the defendants into plaint schedule properties except by way redressal through Court of Law. Hence, the plaintiff files the suit praying the

Hon’ble Court for grant of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their

relatives, servants, agents and workmen from over interfering in any manner with the plaintiff’s peaceful exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties and other allied reliefs. Hence, this suit.

5)The 1st and 2nd Defendants filed Written Statement denying the contents of plaint averments:

6)The 1st and 2nd Defendants submitted that one Savara alias Guden

Garalu, is the mother of the above said Defendant No.3 i.e., Adinarayana and the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property namely Ac.0.15cents belongs to the

Government and there are teak and other trees lying in it since long. About 16 years back i.e., long back the said land has been given assigned to the above said family of the above said Garalu and her son Adinarayana and hence, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the said land since long. AND HENCE it is respectfully submitted that the allegations alleged in Sub-Para No.(b) of Para No.III of the plaint namely that the defendant No.3 i.e., Adinarayana sold the said

- 4 -

property to the plaintiff on dt:33.06.2006 is nothing but FAKE, FALSE, NOMINAL,

NOT VALID AS PER LAW AND CREATED BY THE PLAINTIFF only for the purpose of the suit, WHICH FACT CAN FURTHER BE CLEARLY SEEN BY THE alleged mentioning in the said alleged Sale Deed in Line No.2 in Para No.2 stating that “THE SAID

PROPERTY IS THE PITHRAJITHAMAINA” which has been filed by the Plaintiff as

Document No.2 in the plaint list of the documents.

7)The 1st and 2nd Defendants further averred that in the lines 5 and 6 in sub- para No.(b) in para No.III of the plaint, it is alleged by the plaintiff that the ITEM

NO.5 of the plaint schedule property namely Ac.0-16 cents covered in Survey

No.236/5 situated at Peddapadmapuram village IS THE ANCESTRAL PROPERTY OF

THE SAID PLAINTIFF. But in I-B, R.O.R Register i.e., Serial No.3 in the plaint list of documents “IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED AS GOVERNMENT LAND’’ and in the

Computerized Adangal copy, dt:04.03.2013 for the Fasali 1422 i.e., Serial No.4 in the Plaint list of documents IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED AS “D” PATTA LAND which are filed by the plaintiff.

8)The 1st and 2nd Defendants further averred that the above said alleged suit documents as alleged in the list of documents mentioned in the plaint are nothing but FAKE, FORGED, NOMINAL, CREATED, CONCOCTED, FALSE AND INVENTED by the plaintiff for the purpose of this suit by using her power, pelf, richness and political influence and as such they are invalid in the eye of law.

9)The 1st and 2nd Defendants further averred that the schedule, much less boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule are nothing but SELF STYLED,

HYPOTHETICAL IN NATURE, INVENTED, CREATED, FALSE, NOT IN EXISTANCE

PHYSICALLY ON GROUND AND NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE filed by the plaintiff i.e., covered under the above said documents filed/mentioned in the list of documents of the plaint.

10)The 1st and 2nd Defendants further averred that the plaintiff belongs to “Turpu Kapu” Community/ Caste(i.e., B.C-D) and there are as many as S.Cs and

S.Ts and other B.Cs in and around the locality of that village i.e.,

- 5 -

Peddapadmapuram and by reasons best known to the Revenue Department, all the above said alleged documents as alleged/mentioned in the plaint have been

IN A MOST HURRIED MANNER/AT ONCE/ AT A GLANCE. Issued by the said department in favour of the plaintiff alone illegally/ arbitrarily without following any rules, regulations and procedure and also, by not considering the above said other caste people and at this juncture, it is further respectfully submitted that one Urlana Gopalarao who is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff (i.e., brother of the husband of the plaintiff) is a Government employee and the said families are getting all the Governmental benefits to their families only though they are legally not entitled for the said Governmental benefits in any manner and in token of it, the said alleged documents have been created by the plaintiff and her family members relating to the plaint schedule properties against to the cannons of law which is nothing but unconstitutional.

11.The 1st and 2nd Defendants further averred that the husband of the plaintiff namely Urlana Neelakantam alongwith others illegally and unlawfully cut and carried away the teak and other valuable trees lying in the said suit schedule property and as such the Station House Officer, Meliaputti filed a Criminal Case against the said persons in Crime No.56/2014 i.e., C.C.No.191/2014 wherein the defendant No.1 alongwith others figured as witnesses and as such the said Urlana

Neelakantam bore grudge against the defendants and as a result of which, he got filed this suit with false allegations/averments as a counter blast and besides this, the Tahsildar, Meliaputti has also issued a Show Cause Notice on dt:04.09.2014 to the above said Plaintiff wherein he questioned about the above said alleged transaction of the above said item No.4 of the suit schedule property and after the receipt of the said Notice only, to camouflage her latches, the plaintiff filed this suit only to give a false colour that the suit is pending before the Hon’ble Court.

12)The 1st and 2nd Defendants further averred that the plaintiff’s family against law/statute, engaged the above said defendant No.3 as a bounded labourer and when the said defendant No.3 asked/questioned about the said

Atrocious Act/s, only to wreck vengeance and also to make the defendants to run

- 6 -

from pillar to post unnecessarily for no fault of themselves. This suit has been filed.

13)The 1st and 2nd Defendants further averred that only to grab the said alleged suit schedule property somehow or other, under some pretext or other, this suit has been foisted by the plaintiff basing on the above said alleged false/created and numerically more in number documents.

14)The defendants totally deny all the rights, title, possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property of the plaintiff and her family members as alleged in the plaint muchless at any point of time.

15)The 3rd Defendant filed his adoption memo adopting the written statement of the 1st and 2nd Defendants.

16)Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:

1.Whether the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, by the time of filing of suit or not ?

2.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for Permanent Injunction over the plaint schedule property or not ?

3.To what relief?

17)During the course of trial, the plaintiff herself examined as PW.s1/

U.Nagamma, PW2/ T.Sampathirao, PW3/ S.Satyam and PW4/ N.Sai Ram and got marked Exs.A.1 to A20.

18)Heard both sides.

Issues No.1

19)To prove the case of the Plaintiff, she got examined herself as PW.1 and got exhibited Ex.A1/Original Patta issued by the Tahasildar, in her favour, dt.21.07.2005 and as per the said Patta, the land in Sy.No.236-4, of an extent of

Ac.0.17cents, the land in Sy.Bno.236-13 of an extent of Ac.0.20cents and the land in Sy.No.236-1P, of an extent of Ac.0.60cents was allotted to the plaintiff. To substantiate the plaintiff had got marked Ex.A3/Mee-Seva copy of I-B R.O.R, and

- 7 -

the Ex.A5/Mee-Seva copy of Adangal for the land in Sy.No.236-4, Ex.A6/Mee-Seva copy of Adangal for the land in Sy.No.236-13 and the Ex.A9/Mee-seva copy of

Adangal for the land in Sy.No.236-1P. The plaintiff had also got marked

Ex.A10/Original Pattadar passbook issued in favour in which the land in Sy.No.236- 4, 236-13, and 236-1P are entered. The plaintiff had submitted the Ex.A1, Ex.A3,

Ex.A4, Ex.A6 and Ex.A9 along with the suit to substantiate her case, and to proved her possession over the item No.s1 to 3 of the plaint schedule.

20)The Learned Counsel for the Defendants, had in detail cross-examined the PW.1 and her cross-examination reveals that the M.R.O had issued Ex.A1/D-

Patta in favour of the plaintiff as they are small farmers, and denied the suggestion that, due to the influence of her brother-in-law Urlana Gopalarao who is a Govt.Employee she got created Ex.A1/D-patta and filed the present suit with false allegations only with an intentions to grab the property. The learned counsel for the defendants had pleaded that, C.C.191/2014 on the file of this Court, was filed against the husband of the plaintiff and subsequent to receiving summons in the said criminal case, the plaintiff had filed the present suit, with false allegations. But, the same was totally denied by the PW1, and the Pws2 & 3 had also supported the case of the plaintiff and deposed that, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 3.

21.The plaintiff got marked Ex.A2/Original Registered Sale Deed,

dt:22.06.2006, pertaining to land in Sy.No.236/1 (later, sub divided as 236/1/11)

of an extent of Ac.0.15cents, and the substantiate the same she got marked

Ex.A3/Mee-seeva copy of 1-B R.O.R, and Ex.A8/Mee-Seva copy of Adangal for land in Sy.No.236-11. Basing on that, Ex.A2/Original Registered Sale Deed, the relevant entries were made in the Ex.A10/Pattadar Pass book which was issued in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had also got filed Ex.A18/Encumbrance certificate pertaining to the land in Sy.No.236/1, to show that the plaintiff had purchased the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property, from one Savara Adinarayana and that she is in possession and enjoyment of the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property.

- 8 -

21)The Learned Counsel for Defendants, had pleaded that the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property, on ground is only Ac.0.12cents and the same is mentioned in Ex.A8/Mee-seva copy of Adangal and Ex.A3/Mee-Seva copy of I-B

R.O.R. But as per the pleadings of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had purchased of

Ac.0.15cents of land, from one Savara Adinarayana under Ex.A2/Registered Sale

Deed, and there is no dispute with regard to the same, and as per the

Ex.A18/Encumbrance certificate also the extent of the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property is shown as Ac.0.15cents, and the Ex.A10/Pattadar Passbook also clearly shows that, the extent of the property is Ac.0.15cents. Basing on the

Ex.A2 /Registered Sale Deed, coupled with Ex.A10/Original Pattadar Passbook and

Ex.A18/Encumbrance certificate it is clear that the extent of the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property is Ac.0.15cents and the entries made in Ex.A3/Mee-seva copy of I-B. R.O.R, and Ex.A8/.Mee-Seva copy of Adangal may be wrongly entered.

The Pws2 & 3 had also supported the version of PW1, and deposed that, the PW1 had purchased the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property from one Savara

Adinarayana and plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same and though, the learned counsel for the defendants had in detailed cross examined the Pws1 to 3 he could not elicit anything in favour of the defendants.

22.The plaintiff had also field present suit with regard to item No.5, for land in Sy.No.236-5 for an extent of Ac.0.16cents, and to substantiate the same, she got filed the Ex.A3/Mee-seva copy of I-B R.O.R, Ex.A4/Mee-seva copy of

Adangal for land in Sy.No.236-5, and Ex.A10/Original Pattadar passbook in which the relevant entries were made by the Revenue Authorities. As per the case of the plaintiff originally the item No.5 of the plaint schedule property of land in

Sy.No.236-5, of an extent of Ac.0.16cents was given to the mother-in-law of the plaintiff, and as on the date of filing of the present suit the mother-in-law of the plaintiff was alive but, subsequently she expired and the mother in law of the plaintiff and plaintiff were in possession of the item No.5 of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the present suit.

23.The learned counsel for the defendants had pleaded that, the mother

- 9 -

in law of the plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of the item No.5 of the plaint schedule property and Pattadar passbook and title deed were not issued in the name of the mother in law of the plaintiff at any point of time, nor, the plaintiff was in possession of the same.

24.The plaintiff to prove that, she is having right, possession over the plaint schedule property item No.1 to 5 she got examined PW4/N.Sai Ram,

Assistant Manager, State Bank of India, Pathapatnam, by summoning the witness and the PW4 had categorically deposed that, the PW1 had deposited the original

Title Deed, in their bank and obtained the loan and the plaintiff had got marked

Ex.A20/Attested copy of original Title Deed. Though, the learned counsel for the defendants had in detailed cross examined the PW1, he failed to anything in favour of the defendants.

25.The plaintiff had also got marked Exs.A11 to A17 land Tax receipts from the year 2006 to 2013 to show that she is regularly paying the taxes to the

Government pertaining to the plaint schedule properties item No.s1 to 5 which were mentioned in Ex.A10/Original Pattadar pass book and Ex.A20/Attested copy of the Title Deed vide Patta No.864.

26.The learned counsel for the plaintiff had reported a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble High Court, of Andhra Pradesh, in 2008(6) ALT 199,

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Chennai and another vs. Srinivasa

Transport, Visakhapatnam. In which their lordships had held that, though the averments made in the plaint had been denied in the written statement, no evidence had been adduced at all by the defendants and when a party to the suit does not appear in to the witness box and states his own case, on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set by him is not correct and the same was held in a series of decisions passed by the various High Courts.

- 10 -

Section 114 of Evidence Act.

114. Court may presume existence of certain facts. The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

Illustrations;-

The Court may presume—

(a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession;

(b) that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars;

(c) that a bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed, was accepted or endorsed for good consideration;

(d) that a thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence within a period shorter than that within which such things or states of things usually cease to exist, is still in existence;

(e) that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed;

(f) that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases;

(g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be in favourable to the person who withholds it;

(h) that if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled to answer by law, the answer, if given, would be unfavourable to him;

(i) that when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the obligor, the obligation has been discharged.

27) Thus, the plaintiff had filed Ex.A1 to A18 and got marked Ex.A19 and

A20 through PW4, to prove that she is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, item Nos.1 to 5 as on the date of filing of the present suit.

Issue No.2:

28)As the plaintiff had proved her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property, item Nos.1 to 5 she is entitled for the relief of

Permanent Injunction against the Defendants/D1 to D3.

- 11 -

Issue No.3:

29)In the result, the suit is Decreed WITH COSTS. In favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants1 to 3 by granting Permanent Injunction, restraining the defendants, their relatives, agents, servants and workmen from ever interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule properties.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this 24th day of July, 2019.

Junior Civil Judge, Tekkali.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff :

PW.1:U.Nagamma PW.2:T.Sampathirao PW.3:S.Satyam PW4: N. Sairam

For Defendants : Nil

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A.1: Original D-Form Patta, vide R.C.No.425/2005. Ex.A.2: Original Registered Sale Deed, dt:22.06.2006. Ex.A.3: Meeseva copy of 1-B Register, dt:20.09.2014. Ex.A.4: Meeseva copy of Adangal, for land in Sy.No.236-5, dt:04.03.2013. Ex.A.5: Meeseva copy of Adangal, for land in Sy.No.236-4, dt:15.02.2014. Ex.A.6: Meeseva copy of Adangal, for land in Sy.No.236-13, dt:15.02.2014. Ex.A.7: Meeseva copy of Adangal, for land in Sy.No.236-20, dt:04.03.2013. Ex.A.8: Meeseva copy of Adangal, for land in Sy.No.236-11, dt:15.02.2014. Ex.A.9: Meeseva copy of Adangal, for land in Sy.No.236-1/P, dt:04.03.2013. Ex.A.10 : Original Pattadar Passbook, issued in favour of Plaintiff. Ex.A11: Land Tax Receipt, dt:07.02.2006. Ex.A12: Land Tax Receipt, dt:21.01.2007. Ex.A13: Land Tax Receipt, dt:01.02.2008. Ex.A14: Land Tax Receipt, dt:02.03.2010. Ex.A15: Land Tax Receipt, dt:08.08.2011. Ex.A16: Land Tax Receipt, dt:05.11.2001. Ex.A17: Land Tax Receipt, dt:27.02.2013. Ex.A18; Encumbrance Certificate, dt:22.09.2014. Ex.A19: Authorization Letter, dt: 02.03.2019. Ex.A20: Attested Copy of Original Title Deed.

For Defendants : nil

Junior Civil Judge, Tekkali.

- 12 -

Date of Presentation : 26.09.2014 Date of Filing : 26.09.2014.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TEKKALI

Present :: Smt. B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari, Junior Civil Judge, Tekkali.

Wednesday, on this 24th day of July, 2019

O.S.No.32/ 2014

Between :

1)Urlana Nagamma, W/o Neelakantu, Aged 42 Years, Hindu, Household Duties, R/o.D.No.150-1, B.C. Colony, Pedda Padmapuram Village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P.

...Plaintiff.

A n d :

1)Ratti Chandrasekharam, S/o.Late Lakshminarayana @ Savarayya Aged 40 Years, Hindu, R/o Thotaveedhi, Pedda Padmapuram Village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P.

2)Kottakota Trinadhu, S/o.Surayya,

- 13 -

Aged 60 Years, Cultivation, resident of Matta veedhi Pedda Padmapuram Village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P.

3)Savara Adinarayana, S/o late Venkayya, Aged 33 years, cultivation, R/o SC colony, Pedda Padmapuram Village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P.

...Defendants/D1 to D3.

This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff, praying the Court, to pass a Decree and Judgment, in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants/D1 to D3 restraining the Defendants, their men, agents, servants, workmen and their henchmen, from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

Plaintiff, over the plaint schedule property.

DECREE

The suit is notionally valued at Rs.10,000/- for the purpose of Court Fee and Jurisdiction.

Court Fee of Rs.786/- is paid Under Section 26© of A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act is deposited in State Bank of India, Tekkali.

This suit coming on 19.06.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Laxminaryana, Learned Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri S. Dharmaraju, the Learned Counsel for Defendants/D1 & D2 and upon hearing and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth Order and DECREE as follows :-

i)that the suit be and the same is hereby Decreed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants/D.1 to D.3, restraining the Defendants, their agents, associates, servants and workmen from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff, over the Plaint schedule property; and ii)that the defendants do pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,923/- (Rupees Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Three only) towards costs of the suit; (Copy of Plaint schedule and Valuation Slip are herewith attached)

Given Under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 24th day of July, 2019.

Junior Civil Judge, Tekkali.

- 14 -

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS.

For Plaintiffs : For Defendants

Rs. Ps. No Costs memo filed

Stamp on Vakalat : 2-00

Stamp on Plaint : 786-00

Stamp on Process : 125-00

Stamp on Petitions : 10-00

Advocate Fee : 2000-00 ----------------

Costs Allowed : 2,923-00 -----------------

The Decree properly prepared

C.M.OJunior Civil Judge, Tekkali

Note : The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits, which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of Decree & Order.

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TEKKALI

Present :: Smt. B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari,

Junior Civil Judge, Tekkali.

Wednesday, on this 24th day of July, 2019

O.S.No.32/ 2014

Between :

1)Urlana Nagamma, W/o Neelakantu, Aged 42 Years, Hindu, Household Duties, R/o.D.No.150-1, B.C. Colony, Pedda Padmapuram Village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P.

...Plaintiff.

A n d :

1)Ratti Chandrasekharam, S/o.Late Lakshminarayana @ Savarayya Aged 40 Years, Hindu, R/o Thotaveedhi, Pedda Padmapuram Village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P.

2)Kottakota Trinadhu, S/o.Surayya, Aged 60 Years, Cultivation, resident of Matta veedhi Pedda Padmapuram Village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P.

3)Savara Adinarayana, S/o late Venkayya, Aged 33 years, cultivation, R/o SC colony, Pedda Padmapuram Village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P.

...Defendants/D1 to D3.

This suit coming on 19.06.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Laxminaryana, Learned Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri S. Dharmaraju, the Learned Counsel for Defendants/D1 & D2 and upon hearing and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff, praying the Court, to pass a Decree and Judgment, in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants/D1 to D3 restraining the Defendants, their men, agents, servants, workmen and their henchmen, from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

Plaintiff, over the plaint schedule property.

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

- 2 -

THAT the property morefully described in the plaint schedule annexed to this plaint. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, inorder to assign the Government land to poor eligible persons belonging to S.C ., S.T and backward class community. The plaintiff belongs to poor backward class community. The

Government of Andhra Pradesh had identified the plaintiff as eligible for assignment and accordingly has assigned the plaint schedule items No.1 to 3 under D.form patta vide RC.No.425/05 dt:21.07.2005 and delivered physical possession of the said property. The plaintiff got the same claims and made fit for cultivation.

3.The plaintiff averred that, defendant No.3 has said item No.4 of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for Rs.12,000/- under a Registered Sale Deed

dt:22nd June, 2006 and delivered possession and enjoyment of the same to the

plaintiff. Item No.5 of Plaint Schedule Property is her ancestral property. The

Government of Andhra Pradesh in recognition of title to exclusive and possession over the plaint schedule properties, his issued pattadaar pass book and title deed in favour of the plaintiff. The Plaint Schedule Properties were incorporate in 1-B

Register maintained by the Government under ROR Act in the name of plaintiff.

The Plaintiff was assigned patta No.864 for all the plaint schedule properties in

Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed under ROR Act. The land assigned by the

Government was subdivided by the Survey Department as per the enjoyment and the same was shown in the statement of Sub-division by the Government. The plaintiff has been paying land revenue to the Plaint Schedule properties under patta No.864 of Pedda Padmapuram. Thus the plaintiff has been in exclusive, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties to the knowledge of all including the cultivation Adangals. The plaintiff has obtained loan from the State Bank of India Branch Pathapatnam and the Title Deed is deposited with them, as such Xerox copy of the same is filed. The plaintiff undertakes to produce the Original Title Deed at the time of trial. The plaintiff has thus got title to and exclusive, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule

- 3 -

properties and on the other hand they admit the title and passion of plaintiff over the same.

4.The plaintiff averred that, she contested as M.P.T.C of Pedda Padmapuram,

Territorial Constituently in Meliaputti Mandal. The defendants are staunch supporters/followers of Rajeswari the opponent of the plaintiff. The defendants and their supporters pressurized the plaintiff to withdraw from the contest from which she has not agreed. They therefore, bore grudge against the plaintiff and began to threaten and proclaim that they would forcibly dispossess the plaintiff there from and occupy the same, without any manner of right whatsoever, over the same. The defendants have no respect for low and order. They have got power and pelf in the village. The defendants are capable of translating their threats into action. The plaintiff being weaker vessel in the society, can not resist the threatened invasion of the defendants into plaint schedule properties except by way redressal through Court of Law. Hence, the plaintiff files the suit praying the

Hon’ble Court for grant of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their

relatives, servants, agents and workmen from over interfering in any manner with the plaintiff’s peaceful exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties and other allied reliefs. Hence, this suit.

5)The 1st and 2nd Defendants filed Written Statement denying the contents of plaint averments:

6)The 1st and 2nd Defendants submitted that one Savara alias Guden

Garalu, is the mother of the above said Defendant No.3 i.e., Adinarayana and the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property namely Ac.0.15cents belongs to the

Government and there are teak and other trees lying in it since long. About 16 years back i.e., long back the said land has been given assigned to the above said family of the above said Garalu and her son Adinarayana and hence, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the said land since long. AND HENCE it is respectfully submitted that the allegations alleged in Sub-Para No.(b) of Para No.III of the plaint namely that the defendant No.3 i.e., Adinarayana sold the said

- 4 -

property to the plaintiff on dt:33.06.2006 is nothing but FAKE, FALSE, NOMINAL,

NOT VALID AS PER LAW AND CREATED BY THE PLAINTIFF only for the purpose of the suit, WHICH FACT CAN FURTHER BE CLEARLY SEEN BY THE alleged mentioning in the said alleged Sale Deed in Line No.2 in Para No.2 stating that “THE SAID

PROPERTY IS THE PITHRAJITHAMAINA” which has been filed by the Plaintiff as

Document No.2 in the plaint list of the documents.

7)The 1st and 2nd Defendants further averred that in the lines 5 and 6 in sub- para No.(b) in para No.III of the plaint, it is alleged by the plaintiff that the ITEM

NO.5 of the plaint schedule property namely Ac.0-16 cents covered in Survey

No.236/5 situated at Peddapadmapuram village IS THE ANCESTRAL PROPERTY OF

THE SAID PLAINTIFF. But in I-B, R.O.R Register i.e., Serial No.3 in the plaint list of documents “IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED AS GOVERNMENT LAND’’ and in the

Computerized Adangal copy, dt:04.03.2013 for the Fasali 1422 i.e., Serial No.4 in the Plaint list of documents IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED AS “D” PATTA LAND which are filed by the plaintiff.

8)The 1st and 2nd Defendants further averred that the above said alleged suit documents as alleged in the list of documents mentioned in the plaint are nothing but FAKE, FORGED, NOMINAL, CREATED, CONCOCTED, FALSE AND INVENTED by the plaintiff for the purpose of this suit by using her power, pelf, richness and political influence and as such they are invalid in the eye of law.

9)The 1st and 2nd Defendants further averred that the schedule, much less boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule are nothing but SELF STYLED,

HYPOTHETICAL IN NATURE, INVENTED, CREATED, FALSE, NOT IN EXISTANCE

PHYSICALLY ON GROUND AND NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE filed by the plaintiff i.e., covered under the above said documents filed/mentioned in the list of documents of the plaint.

10)The 1st and 2nd Defendants further averred that the plaintiff belongs to “Turpu Kapu” Community/ Caste(i.e., B.C-D) and there are as many as S.Cs and

S.Ts and other B.Cs in and around the locality of that village i.e.,

- 5 -

Peddapadmapuram and by reasons best known to the Revenue Department, all the above said alleged documents as alleged/mentioned in the plaint have been

IN A MOST HURRIED MANNER/AT ONCE/ AT A GLANCE. Issued by the said department in favour of the plaintiff alone illegally/ arbitrarily without following any rules, regulations and procedure and also, by not considering the above said other caste people and at this juncture, it is further respectfully submitted that one Urlana Gopalarao who is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff (i.e., brother of the husband of the plaintiff) is a Government employee and the said families are getting all the Governmental benefits to their families only though they are legally not entitled for the said Governmental benefits in any manner and in token of it, the said alleged documents have been created by the plaintiff and her family members relating to the plaint schedule properties against to the cannons of law which is nothing but unconstitutional.

11.The 1st and 2nd Defendants further averred that the husband of the plaintiff namely Urlana Neelakantam alongwith others illegally and unlawfully cut and carried away the teak and other valuable trees lying in the said suit schedule property and as such the Station House Officer, Meliaputti filed a Criminal Case against the said persons in Crime No.56/2014 i.e., C.C.No.191/2014 wherein the defendant No.1 alongwith others figured as witnesses and as such the said Urlana

Neelakantam bore grudge against the defendants and as a result of which, he got filed this suit with false allegations/averments as a counter blast and besides this, the Tahsildar, Meliaputti has also issued a Show Cause Notice on dt:04.09.2014 to the above said Plaintiff wherein he questioned about the above said alleged transaction of the above said item No.4 of the suit schedule property and after the receipt of the said Notice only, to camouflage her latches, the plaintiff filed this suit only to give a false colour that the suit is pending before the Hon’ble Court.

12)The 1st and 2nd Defendants further averred that the plaintiff’s family against law/statute, engaged the above said defendant No.3 as a bounded labourer and when the said defendant No.3 asked/questioned about the said

Atrocious Act/s, only to wreck vengeance and also to make the defendants to run

- 6 -

from pillar to post unnecessarily for no fault of themselves. This suit has been filed.

13)The 1st and 2nd Defendants further averred that only to grab the said alleged suit schedule property somehow or other, under some pretext or other, this suit has been foisted by the plaintiff basing on the above said alleged false/created and numerically more in number documents.

14)The defendants totally deny all the rights, title, possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property of the plaintiff and her family members as alleged in the plaint muchless at any point of time.

15)The 3rd Defendant filed his adoption memo adopting the written statement of the 1st and 2nd Defendants.

16)Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:

1.Whether the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, by the time of filing of suit or not ?

2.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for Permanent Injunction over the plaint schedule property or not ?

3.To what relief?

17)During the course of trial, the plaintiff herself examined as PW.s1/

U.Nagamma, PW2/ T.Sampathirao, PW3/ S.Satyam and PW4/ N.Sai Ram and got marked Exs.A.1 to A20.

18)Heard both sides.

Issues No.1

19)To prove the case of the Plaintiff, she got examined herself as PW.1 and got exhibited Ex.A1/Original Patta issued by the Tahasildar, in her favour, dt.21.07.2005 and as per the said Patta, the land in Sy.No.236-4, of an extent of

Ac.0.17cents, the land in Sy.Bno.236-13 of an extent of Ac.0.20cents and the land in Sy.No.236-1P, of an extent of Ac.0.60cents was allotted to the plaintiff. To substantiate the plaintiff had got marked Ex.A3/Mee-Seva copy of I-B R.O.R, and

- 7 -

the Ex.A5/Mee-Seva copy of Adangal for the land in Sy.No.236-4, Ex.A6/Mee-Seva copy of Adangal for the land in Sy.No.236-13 and the Ex.A9/Mee-seva copy of

Adangal for the land in Sy.No.236-1P. The plaintiff had also got marked

Ex.A10/Original Pattadar passbook issued in favour in which the land in Sy.No.236- 4, 236-13, and 236-1P are entered. The plaintiff had submitted the Ex.A1, Ex.A3,

Ex.A4, Ex.A6 and Ex.A9 along with the suit to substantiate her case, and to proved her possession over the item No.s1 to 3 of the plaint schedule.

20)The Learned Counsel for the Defendants, had in detail cross-examined the PW.1 and her cross-examination reveals that the M.R.O had issued Ex.A1/D-

Patta in favour of the plaintiff as they are small farmers, and denied the suggestion that, due to the influence of her brother-in-law Urlana Gopalarao who is a Govt.Employee she got created Ex.A1/D-patta and filed the present suit with false allegations only with an intentions to grab the property. The learned counsel for the defendants had pleaded that, C.C.191/2014 on the file of this Court, was filed against the husband of the plaintiff and subsequent to receiving summons in the said criminal case, the plaintiff had filed the present suit, with false allegations. But, the same was totally denied by the PW1, and the Pws2 & 3 had also supported the case of the plaintiff and deposed that, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 3.

21.The plaintiff got marked Ex.A2/Original Registered Sale Deed,

dt:22.06.2006, pertaining to land in Sy.No.236/1 (later, sub divided as 236/1/11)

of an extent of Ac.0.15cents, and the substantiate the same she got marked

Ex.A3/Mee-seeva copy of 1-B R.O.R, and Ex.A8/Mee-Seva copy of Adangal for land in Sy.No.236-11. Basing on that, Ex.A2/Original Registered Sale Deed, the relevant entries were made in the Ex.A10/Pattadar Pass book which was issued in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had also got filed Ex.A18/Encumbrance certificate pertaining to the land in Sy.No.236/1, to show that the plaintiff had purchased the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property, from one Savara Adinarayana and that she is in possession and enjoyment of the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property.

- 8 -

21)The Learned Counsel for Defendants, had pleaded that the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property, on ground is only Ac.0.12cents and the same is mentioned in Ex.A8/Mee-seva copy of Adangal and Ex.A3/Mee-Seva copy of I-B

R.O.R. But as per the pleadings of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had purchased of

Ac.0.15cents of land, from one Savara Adinarayana under Ex.A2/Registered Sale

Deed, and there is no dispute with regard to the same, and as per the

Ex.A18/Encumbrance certificate also the extent of the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property is shown as Ac.0.15cents, and the Ex.A10/Pattadar Passbook also clearly shows that, the extent of the property is Ac.0.15cents. Basing on the

Ex.A2 /Registered Sale Deed, coupled with Ex.A10/Original Pattadar Passbook and

Ex.A18/Encumbrance certificate it is clear that the extent of the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property is Ac.0.15cents and the entries made in Ex.A3/Mee-seva copy of I-B. R.O.R, and Ex.A8/.Mee-Seva copy of Adangal may be wrongly entered.

The Pws2 & 3 had also supported the version of PW1, and deposed that, the PW1 had purchased the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property from one Savara

Adinarayana and plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same and though, the learned counsel for the defendants had in detailed cross examined the Pws1 to 3 he could not elicit anything in favour of the defendants.

22.The plaintiff had also field present suit with regard to item No.5, for land in Sy.No.236-5 for an extent of Ac.0.16cents, and to substantiate the same, she got filed the Ex.A3/Mee-seva copy of I-B R.O.R, Ex.A4/Mee-seva copy of

Adangal for land in Sy.No.236-5, and Ex.A10/Original Pattadar passbook in which the relevant entries were made by the Revenue Authorities. As per the case of the plaintiff originally the item No.5 of the plaint schedule property of land in

Sy.No.236-5, of an extent of Ac.0.16cents was given to the mother-in-law of the plaintiff, and as on the date of filing of the present suit the mother-in-law of the plaintiff was alive but, subsequently she expired and the mother in law of the plaintiff and plaintiff were in possession of the item No.5 of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the present suit.

23.The learned counsel for the defendants had pleaded that, the mother

- 9 -

in law of the plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of the item No.5 of the plaint schedule property and Pattadar passbook and title deed were not issued in the name of the mother in law of the plaintiff at any point of time, nor, the plaintiff was in possession of the same.

24.The plaintiff to prove that, she is having right, possession over the plaint schedule property item No.1 to 5 she got examined PW4/N.Sai Ram,

Assistant Manager, State Bank of India, Pathapatnam, by summoning the witness and the PW4 had categorically deposed that, the PW1 had deposited the original

Title Deed, in their bank and obtained the loan and the plaintiff had got marked

Ex.A20/Attested copy of original Title Deed. Though, the learned counsel for the defendants had in detailed cross examined the PW1, he failed to anything in favour of the defendants.

25.The plaintiff had also got marked Exs.A11 to A17 land Tax receipts from the year 2006 to 2013 to show that she is regularly paying the taxes to the

Government pertaining to the plaint schedule properties item No.s1 to 5 which were mentioned in Ex.A10/Original Pattadar pass book and Ex.A20/Attested copy of the Title Deed vide Patta No.864.

26.The learned counsel for the plaintiff had reported a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble High Court, of Andhra Pradesh, in 2008(6) ALT 199,

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Chennai and another vs. Srinivasa

Transport, Visakhapatnam. In which their lordships had held that, though the averments made in the plaint had been denied in the written statement, no evidence had been adduced at all by the defendants and when a party to the suit does not appear in to the witness box and states his own case, on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set by him is not correct and the same was held in a series of decisions passed by the various High Courts.

- 10 -

Section 114 of Evidence Act.

114. Court may presume existence of certain facts. The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

Illustrations;-

The Court may presume—

(a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession;

(b) that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars;

(c) that a bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed, was accepted or endorsed for good consideration;

(d) that a thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence within a period shorter than that within which such things or states of things usually cease to exist, is still in existence;

(e) that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed;

(f) that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases;

(g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be in favourable to the person who withholds it;

(h) that if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled to answer by law, the answer, if given, would be unfavourable to him;

(i) that when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the obligor, the obligation has been discharged.

27) Thus, the plaintiff had filed Ex.A1 to A18 and got marked Ex.A19 and

A20 through PW4, to prove that she is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, item Nos.1 to 5 as on the date of filing of the present suit.

Issue No.2:

28)As the plaintiff had proved her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property, item Nos.1 to 5 she is entitled for the relief of

Permanent Injunction against the Defendants/D1 to D3.

- 11 -

Issue No.3:

29)In the result, the suit is Decreed WITH COSTS. In favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants1 to 3 by granting Permanent Injunction, restraining the defendants, their relatives, agents, servants and workmen from ever interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule properties.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this 24th day of July, 2019.

Junior Civil Judge, Tekkali.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff :

PW.1:U.Nagamma PW.2:T.Sampathirao PW.3:S.Satyam PW4: N. Sairam

For Defendants : Nil

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A.1: Original D-Form Patta, vide R.C.No.425/2005. Ex.A.2: Original Registered Sale Deed, dt:22.06.2006. Ex.A.3: Meeseva copy of 1-B Register, dt:20.09.2014. Ex.A.4: Meeseva copy of Adangal, for land in Sy.No.236-5, dt:04.03.2013. Ex.A.5: Meeseva copy of Adangal, for land in Sy.No.236-4, dt:15.02.2014. Ex.A.6: Meeseva copy of Adangal, for land in Sy.No.236-13, dt:15.02.2014. Ex.A.7: Meeseva copy of Adangal, for land in Sy.No.236-20, dt:04.03.2013. Ex.A.8: Meeseva copy of Adangal, for land in Sy.No.236-11, dt:15.02.2014. Ex.A.9: Meeseva copy of Adangal, for land in Sy.No.236-1/P, dt:04.03.2013. Ex.A.10 : Original Pattadar Passbook, issued in favour of Plaintiff. Ex.A11: Land Tax Receipt, dt:07.02.2006. Ex.A12: Land Tax Receipt, dt:21.01.2007. Ex.A13: Land Tax Receipt, dt:01.02.2008. Ex.A14: Land Tax Receipt, dt:02.03.2010. Ex.A15: Land Tax Receipt, dt:08.08.2011. Ex.A16: Land Tax Receipt, dt:05.11.2001. Ex.A17: Land Tax Receipt, dt:27.02.2013. Ex.A18; Encumbrance Certificate, dt:22.09.2014. Ex.A19: Authorization Letter, dt: 02.03.2019. Ex.A20: Attested Copy of Original Title Deed.

For Defendants : nil

Junior Civil Judge, Tekkali.

- 12 -

Date of Presentation : 26.09.2014 Date of Filing : 26.09.2014.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TEKKALI

Present :: Smt. B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari, Junior Civil Judge, Tekkali.

Wednesday, on this 24th day of July, 2019

O.S.No.32/ 2014

Between :

1)Urlana Nagamma, W/o Neelakantu, Aged 42 Years, Hindu, Household Duties, R/o.D.No.150-1, B.C. Colony, Pedda Padmapuram Village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P.

...Plaintiff.

A n d :

1)Ratti Chandrasekharam, S/o.Late Lakshminarayana @ Savarayya Aged 40 Years, Hindu, R/o Thotaveedhi, Pedda Padmapuram Village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P.

2)Kottakota Trinadhu, S/o.Surayya,

- 13 -

Aged 60 Years, Cultivation, resident of Matta veedhi Pedda Padmapuram Village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P.

3)Savara Adinarayana, S/o late Venkayya, Aged 33 years, cultivation, R/o SC colony, Pedda Padmapuram Village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P.

...Defendants/D1 to D3.

This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff, praying the Court, to pass a Decree and Judgment, in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants/D1 to D3 restraining the Defendants, their men, agents, servants, workmen and their henchmen, from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

Plaintiff, over the plaint schedule property.

DECREE

The suit is notionally valued at Rs.10,000/- for the purpose of Court Fee and Jurisdiction.

Court Fee of Rs.786/- is paid Under Section 26© of A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act is deposited in State Bank of India, Tekkali.

This suit coming on 19.06.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Laxminaryana, Learned Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri S. Dharmaraju, the Learned Counsel for Defendants/D1 & D2 and upon hearing and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth Order and DECREE as follows :-

i)that the suit be and the same is hereby Decreed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants/D.1 to D.3, restraining the Defendants, their agents, associates, servants and workmen from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff, over the Plaint schedule property; and ii)that the defendants do pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,923/- (Rupees Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Three only) towards costs of the suit; (Copy of Plaint schedule and Valuation Slip are herewith attached)

Given Under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 24th day of July, 2019.

Junior Civil Judge, Tekkali.

- 14 -

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS.

For Plaintiffs : For Defendants

Rs. Ps. No Costs memo filed

Stamp on Vakalat : 2-00

Stamp on Plaint : 786-00

Stamp on Process : 125-00

Stamp on Petitions : 10-00

Advocate Fee : 2000-00 ----------------

Costs Allowed : 2,923-00 -----------------

The Decree properly prepared

C.M.OJunior Civil Judge, Tekkali

Note : The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits, which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of Decree & Order.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I ST CLASS :: Tekkali

Present :: Smt. B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari,

Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Tekkali

Tuesday, the 23rd day of July, 2019

C.C. No.322/2016

Between :

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandigam Police Station,

...Complainant.

And :

A1 : Babula Panda S/o late Duryodhana Panda, 42 yrs, Oriyabrahmana, by caste, Korraigate, Ranganadhapuram (v), Mandasa Mandal.

A2: Hemalatha Panigrahi, W/o late Suryanarayana Panigrahi, 45 yrs, Oriyabrahmana, by caste, Korraigate, Ranganadhapuram (v), Mandasa Mandal.

Accused/A1 & A2

This case is coming on 12.07.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri B. Srinivasa Rao Advocate for the Accused/A1 & A2 and upon hearing their arguments and upon perusing the documents available on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

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

1.This is a case filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandigam

Police Station, against the Accused/A1 & A2 in Crime No.77/2016, for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961.

2. The Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

THAT, The victim /LW1/Savithri Panda is a resident of Kaviti-

Agraharam village of Nandigam Mandal. Her marriage was performed with the accused A1, by name Babula Panda, as per the caste customs among the village elders and family members ie., LW2/Nageswara Panda, LW3/Raghu

Chandra Panda and LW4/Baburao Panda. During the time her parents gave 3Lakhs money, 2.5Tulas gold and others as dowry. She gave birth to two 2 children. A1 lives by working as a priest at lord Shiva Temple of their village.

A2 is the sister of A1 . As he was addicted to bad habits A1 always harasses her in different ways and A2 supports him. Of about 2 years back when they were constructing a new house at Korrigate A1 demanded the complainant to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- she gave the amount as she was unable to bear their harassment, but again A1 with the support and encouragement of A2 demanded her to bring additional dowry for which she came to her parent’s house three months back along with her children.

LW5/Bommali Lakshminarayana, LW6/Davala Appalaswamy, LW7/Pandiri

Bairagi and LW8/Nalla Dhanesu who are the village elders conducted counseling to A1. He agreed among them to take the complainant and their children but refused to do so. On 04.09.2016 morning A1 came to Kaviti- agraharam and said the complainant that if she wants to go with him she has to bring additional money otherwise she has to be at their parents house with her children.

Basing on the report of LW.1, LW9/V.Nagaraju, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Nandigam P.S, registered a case in Crime No.77/2016 under Section 498-A of

IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and investigated into the matter and examined LWs.1 to 9 others and recorded their statements.

He also secured the presence of A1 & A2 and on their admission of offence, he issued Section 41-A of Cr.P.C notice to A1 & A2 and later A1 & A2 submitted their explanations regarding the offence. After completion of investigation, LW.10/V.Nagaraju, Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandigam P.S, filed charge sheet against A1 & A2, for the offences punishable u/Secs. 498-A of

IPC and Sections 3&4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Hence, the charge.

3. The case was taken on file against the Accused/A1 & A2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961.

3

4.On appearance of the Accused/A1 & A2 the copies of documents were furnished to them Under Section 207 Cr.P.C and they were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., for the charges framed under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, for which, the Accused/A1 & A2 denied the offence punishable pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the Pws.1 to 8 (PW.1/Savitri Panda, PW.2/Raghu Chandra Panda, PW.3/Baburao Panda,

PW4/Bommali Lakshmi Narayana, PW5/Davala Appalaswamy, PW6/Pandiri

Bairagi, PW7/Nalla Dhanesu, and PW8/V.Nagaraju, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Nandigam P.S) were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 The Learned

APP had given up the witness i.e. LW.2/Nageswara Panda.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused/A1 & A2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, with regard to incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard both the sides.

8.Now, the points for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the Accused/A1 & A2, beyond all reasonable doubt, for the offence under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, charged against the Accused/A1 & A2?

Point:-

9.It is the evidence of PW.1/Savitri Panda who is the wife of

Accused/A1 and she deposed her evidence reiterating the contents of

Ex.P1/Report. As per her evidence, corroborated with the evidence of

PW2/Raghuchandra Panda, PW3/Baburao Panda, PW4/B.Laxminarayana and

PW5/D. Appalaswamy it reveals that, after the marriage, the PW1 and A1 had lived happily for some period but, later, after 2 to 3 years of their marriage, disputes arose between them and A1 got addicted to vices and 4 used to come the house in the state of intoxication, and used to harass PW1.

The evidence of the prosecution witnesses further reveals that, due to the unbearable harassment caused by A1, towards PW1, the PW1 and her brothers PW2 and PW3 had put the matter before the elders PWs4 to 6 and as per the advise of the elders the PW1 and A1 had lived together for some more period but, again disputes arose between them and the elders had advised the PW1, to go to her parents house, and approach the police. On that, the PW1 had given Ex.P1/Report, against the A1 and A2.

10.PW.2/ Raghu Chandra Panda, and PW3/Baburao Panda who are the brothers of PW1, had deposed that, one week prior to the marriage of the PW1 and A1, the parents of A1, came to their house, and their father had handed over the dowry amount to them, but, the same was totally denied by the learned counsel for A1 & A2, and argued that, the A1 nor his parents had never demanded any dowry amount from the parents of PW1, nor the parents of PW1, had given any dowry and other lanchanams to the A1.

Except the evidence of the PWs1 to 3, no independent witnesses or marriage elders were examined by the prosecution, to prove that the father of PWs1 to 3 had given dowry and other lanchanams to the A1. The evidence of PWs1 to 3 further reveals that, in the year 2014, their father had given an amount of Rs.2Lakhs to the A1, for construction of her house, but the A1 and A2 are totally denying the same, and no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the same.

11.The learned counsel for the accused had in detailed cross- examined the PW1, and during his cross-examination, he suggested that, in the year 2015, the mother-in-law of PW1, came to their house, and the PW1 used to dispute with her mother in law on petty issues, and she was not interested to do service to her mother in law, on that, she used to dispute with A1, and the A1 had never harassed PW1 at any point of time, but the same was totally denied by PW1. The PW1 had denied the suggestion that, on 22.03.2017, the brothers PW1 had beat the accused and at that time, the 5

A1 had sustained injuries and as the PW1 tried to rescue A1, she sustained minor injuries, but the A1 had never beat PW1. The PW1 had totally denied the same, and the learned counsel for A1 & A2 had failed to prove the same.

12.The PW6/P.Bairagi who is the elder on behalf of the A1, had also supported the case of the prosecution, and spoken about arranging the meeting, with regard to the petty disputes between PW1 and A1, and the elders had advised them not to dispute with each other, which clearly shows that, the PWs4 to 6 are the elders, who tried to solve the dispute between PW1 and A1, and there used to be disputes between A1 and PW1.

Though, the prosecution had failed to prove about the giving of dowry and other Lanchanams and financial support of Rs.2Lakhs in the year 2014, as alleged, the evidence of PW1 corroborated with the evidence of PWs2 to 6 clearly proves that, there are disputes between A1 and PW1, and A1 used to harass PW1, and the matter was also put before elders for settlement and inspite of, the advise given by the elders, the A1 did not change his attitude and used to harass PW1.

13.The PW7/N.Danesh who is one of the elder with regard to the settlement of dispute between Pw1 and A1had turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, that the learned A.P.P declared the PW7 as hostile and got marked his section 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P2.

14.It is the evidence of PW.3/V. Nagaraju, Sub-Inspector of Police, who is the Investigation Officer that, he deposed his evidence by reiterating the contents of his investigation and Ex.P1/Report given by PW1 and

Ex.P3/FIR in Crime No.77/2016 Under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 and section 161 Cr.P.C statement of

PW7/N.Danesh as Ex.P2, are marked through him and during his cross- examination, the Learned counsel for the Accused/A1 & A2 had elicited that, the investigation of PW8, does not reveal as to who are residing at the house of the A1, and the investigating officer, had not examined the neighbours in

Kaviti Agraharam or Mandasa. But, the PW8 had examined the PWs4 & 5, in 6

Kavitiagraharam village, who acted as elders, and he also examined

PWs6 & 7, in Mandasa village, who are also the elders.

15.The PW8 during his cross-examination had deposed that, as per his investigation, the PW1 had voluntarily left her matrimonial home, but, as per the evidence of PWs1 to 6, it is clear that, the elders PWs4 to 6 had advised the PW1, to go to her parents house as the A1 had not changed his attitude and used to harass PW1, and there is life threat to PW1. Though the learned counsel for the A1 & A2 had suggested the investigating officer, that, only due to the ill-feelings between the PW1 and her mother in law disputes arose between A1 and PW1 and the PW1 had given a police report with false allegations, but the same was totally denied by the PW8. Though the PW1 had given police report against A1 & A2 alleging that, the A1 used to harass

PW1, on the instigation of A2, but, the investigation does not reveal about the alleged harassment and instigation caused by A2, towards PW1. Hence, the prosecution had failed to prove the alleged harassment caused by A2 towards PW1.

498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to

cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

16.In view of the facts and circumstances, in view of the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no cogent and convincing evidence on behalf of the prosecution, to prove the guilt of the Accused/A2 beyond all reasonable doubt, hence the Accused/ A2 is entitled for Benefit of doubt.

17.Point No.4:

In the result, the Accused/A2 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961. Hence, the Accused/A2 is ACQUITTED under Section 248(1) of 7

Cr.P.C, for the offence under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The bail bonds of the Accused/A2, if any, shall stand canceled after expiry of six months period as per section 437-A of

Cr.P.C.

The Accused/A1 is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Hence, the Accused/A1 isACQUITTED under

Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, for the offence under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961.

The Accused/A1 is found guilty for the offence under Sections 498-A of IPC. Hence, the Accused/A1 isCONVICTED under Section 248(2) of

Cr.P.C, for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 23rd day of July , 2019.

Judl. Magistrate of I st Class, Tekkali.

18.The Accused/A1 is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence. The Accused/A1 submitted that “he is innocent and he is having old age mother who is dependent on him and having responsibility to look after her and he is the sold bread earner of his family. If he is sentenced to jail, his family will be on the streets and nobody is there to look after her.

Hence, the Accused/A1 prayed to show mercy”.

19. Heard the Accused/A1, on quantum of sentence. The Accused/A1 is not entitled for invoking of the provisions, under Probation of Offenders

Act, keeping the representation of the Accused in mind. The Accused/A1 is convicted Under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C and the Accused/A1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Three months and pay of fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) for the offence under Sections 498-A of IPC and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo 8

Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. The remand period of accused/A1 if any, shall be set-off under section 428 of Cr.P.C.

20. The Accused/A1 convicted is explained about his right of appeal to the Hon’ble Sessions Court and free Legal Aid, if required. The copy of the judgment is ordered to be supplied to the Accused/A1 to convict forthwith.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 23rd day of July, 2019.

Judl. Magistrate of I st Class, Tekkali.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution : For Accused: PW1: Savitri Panda,-Nil- PW2: Raghu Chandra Panda PW3: Baburao Panda, PW4:Bommali Lakshmi Narayana, PW5:Davala Appalaswamy, PW6:Pandiri Bairagi, PW7:Nalla Dhanesu, PW8:V.Nagaraju, Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandigam P.S.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Report given to Police, dt.19.09.2016. Ex.P2: Section161Cr.P.C statement of PW.7, dt.19.09.2016. Ex.P3 : First Information Report, in Crime No.77/2016, dt. 19.09.2016.

For Accused: -Nil -

Judl. Magistrate of I st Class, Tekkali.

9

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT

Calendar Case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of the Ist Class,Tekkali.

Date of offence:19.09.2016 Date of report or complaint:19.09.2016 Date of apprehension of accused : 19.09.2016 Date of release on bail:19.09.2016 Date of commencement of trial:28.02.2019 Date of close of trial:09.05.2019 Date of Sentence or Order:23.07.2019 Place of offence : At Korraigate, Ranganadhapuram village of

Mandasa Mandal and Kaviti-Agraharam Village, Nandigam Mandal.

Explanation for delay and remarks : 1)Date of taken on File : 07.10.2016 2)Date of Copies Furnished : 21.12.2016

3) Date of Examination : 15.11.2018 4)Date of Trial :09.05.2019. Hence, the Delay.

Calendar Case No.322/2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the Ist Class, Tekkali.

Name of the Complainant: State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Tekkali Police Station in Crime No.77/2016.

Name of the Accused Age (years) Father’s Name

A1) Babula panda, 42S/o late Duryodhana Panda A2) Hemalatha Panigrahi,45W/o late Suryanarayana Panda

Religion Calling Village Mandalam

HinduCoolie RanganadhapuramMandasa HinduHouse Hold-dutiesRanganadhapuramMandasa

Nature of Offence:

Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty; Penalty for taking dowry: Penalty for demanding dowry for the offences punishable Under Sections 498-A IPC ; and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961.

Finding of the Court: Accused/A2 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Secs. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Finding of the Court: Accused/A1 is found guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, and he is found not guilty for the offence under sections 3 & 4 of 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Sentence or Order ::In the result, the Accused/A2 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Hence, the Accused/A2 is ACQUITTED under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, for the offence under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The bail bonds of the Accused/A2, if any, shall stand canceled after expiry of six months period as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

The Accused/A1 is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Hence, the Accused/A1 isACQUITTED under 10

Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, for the offence under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The Accused/A1 is found guilty for the offence under Sections 498-A of IPC. Hence, the Accused/A1 isCONVICTED under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C, for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

The Accused/A1 is convicted Under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C and the

Accused/A1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of Three months and pay of fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two

Thousand only) for the offence under Sections 498-A of IPC and in

default of payment of fine,the accused shall undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of one month. The remand period of accused/A1 if any, shall be set-off under section 428 of Cr.P.C.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF IstCLASS

TEKKALI.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Ist Addl. District and Sessions judge, Srikakulam.

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I st CLASS :: TEKKALI

Present: Smt. B.H.V. Lakshmi Kumari

Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Nandigam P.S..

Wednesday, the 24th day of July, 2019

Calendar Case No.116/2019

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Nandigam P.S.

...Complainant.

And:

Sakalabathula Srinivasa rao S/o.Sanyasi Rao, Aged 48 Years, Vysya by caste, Pandula street, Narsipuram village and Mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P.

...Accused.

This case coming on 18.07.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. B.Manmadha Rao and Sri. P.Madhubabu, Learned Advocates for the Accused and upon hearing both sides and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of police, Nandigam P.S., filed charge sheet against the accused, in Crime No.31/2019, for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

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

THAT on 08-03-2019, at about 07.30 pm LW.4/V. Venkateshwara rao, Probationary,

Sub-Inspector of police, Nandigam PS along with his Staff, on receiving information reached to the Pan shop of the Accused in Narsipuram village of

Nandigam Mandal, they found the accused in possession of one polythene bag and on seeing the raid party, the accused was perturbed. On suspicion, LW.4/V.

Venkateshwara Rao, Probationary, Sub-Inspector of police, Nandigam PS detained the accused with the assistance of staff and on questioning, the accused, in the presence of mediator, replied that the bag contained 24 IML bottles of Gold

Riband Whisky of 180 ml each. On interrogation, accused disclosed his name and identity and stated that he purchased said IML bottles from an unknown person with a view to sell the same, for his livelihood and he failed to produce any license

- 2 -

or permit. Then LW.4/V. Venkateshwara Rao, Probationary, Sub-Inspector of police, seized the property and drawn one bottle, towards sample for the purpose of chemical examination and sealed the same and affixed identification slips, under cover of Occurrence report. LW.4/V. Venkateshwara Rao, Probationary, Sub-

Inspector of police, brought the accused along with case property to Police station and LW.5/V. Satyanarayana, Sub-Inspector of police, Nandigam P.S., registered the same as a case in Crime No.31/2019 and sent the sample bottle along with letter of advice for chemical analysis and LW.6/K. Sirisha, Sub-Inspector of police,

Nandigam P.S. obtained the chemical analysis report and after receiving the

Orders of Destruction, from the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Srikakulam, for destruction and after completion of investigation, she filed charge sheet against the accused under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act,1968.

4.On appearance of the accused, the copies of case documents were furnished to him under Section 207 of Cr.P.C and he was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, for the charge framed under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, for which the accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PW.1/V.

Venkateshwara Rao, Probationary, Sub-Inspector of police, was examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and M0s.1 & 2, on behalf of the prosecution. The Learned

APP had given-up LW.1/N.Seshu-HeadConstable, LW.2/A.Santosh kumar-Constable,

LW.3/P.Sathiraju-Constable, LW.5/V. Satyanarayana, Sub-Inspector of police,

Nandigam P.S. and LW.6/K. Sirisha, Sub-Inspector of police, Nandigam P.S.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard.

- 3 -

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove to guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence charged under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 ? Point:-

9.As per the evidence of PW.1/V. Venkateshwara Rao, Probationary, Sub-

Inspector of police, Nandigam P.S., and his evidence is concerned on record, he deposed his evidence by reiterating the contents of Ex.P1/Occurrence report and seizure of the IML bottles and his investigation and basing on the Occurrence report, LW.5/V. Satyanarayana, Sub-Inspector of police, Nandigam P.S. registered

FIR (Ex.P2) in Crime No.31/2019 of Nandigam P.S. and served Section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused, and sent the sample (MO.1) for chemical analysis and during the cross-examination of PW1, the PW.1 deposed that the scene of offence is a busy locality, and seized property is a duty paid liquor and he had not prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence and not mentioned the boundaries of the scene of offence in the Occurrence report. Moreover the names of the persons whom the LW.1/N.Seshu-Constable had requested to act as mediators is not mentioned in the Occurrence report.

10.Furthermore, admittedly, PW.1 is the complainant, Investigation

Officer, LW.5/V. Satyanarayana, Sub-Inspector of police, Nandigam P.S. registered

Ex.P2/FIR and served a notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. (Amendment) Act to the accused, had sent the sample (MO.1), for chemical analysis and obtained the analyst report (Ex.P3) and after completion of investigation, he filed charge-sheet.

It is settled law that the Investigation Officer, who is complainant and

Investigation Officer, his evidence cannot be taken into consideration. Further,

PW.1 failed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. at the time of seizure of the property (M.Os1 & 2) and the sole testimony of the P.W.1 cannot be relied-on.

11.In State by Public Prosecutor Vs. Aruchamy in Crl.A.No.1041 of 1998 dt.10-02-2010, their Lordships had held that “not following the procedure laid down in Section 100 of Cr.P.C., is fatal to the case of prosecution”.

- 4 -

12.In view of the facts and circumstances and in view of the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

13.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. Hence, the accused is ACQUITTED under

Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The bail bonds of the Accused, if any, shall stand cancelled after expiry of

Six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 & 2 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 24th day of July, 2019.

Judl. Magistrate of I st Class, Tekkali.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution : PW.1 : V. Venkateshwara rao, Probationary, Inspector of police , For Defence :- -None-

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution : Ex.P.1: Occurrence report, dt.08-03-2019. Ex.P.2: First Information Report, Crime No.31/2019, dt.08-03-2019 Ex.P.3: Analysis Report, dt.29.03.2019.

For Defence :- -Nil-

Material Objects

MO.1: One sample bottle of Gold Riband Whisky of 180 ml. MO.2: 23 IML bottles of Gold Riband Whisky of 180 ml.

Judl. Magistrate of I st Class, Tekkali.

- 5 -

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT

Calendar Case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of the I st Class,

Tekkali.

Date of offence: 08.03.2019 Date of report or complaint: 08.03.2019 Date of apprehension of accused : 08.03.2019 Date of release on bail: 08.03.2019 Date of commencement of trial: 18.07.2019 Date of close of trial : 18.07.2019 Date of Sentence or Order : 24.07.2019

Place of Offence : At Narsipuram village, Nandigam Mandal,

Explanation for delay and remarks: 1)Date of taken on File : 04.06.2019 2)Date of Copies Furnished:20.06.2019 3)Date of Examination : 20.06.2019 4)Date of Close of Trial : 18.07.2019 Hence, the delay. Calendar C.C.No.116/2019 on the file of :The Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Tekkali.

Name of the Complainant: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Nandigam, in Crime No.31/2019.

Name of the Accused Age (years) Husband’s Name

Chennuri Shanmukharao38S/o late Varahalu Religion Calling Village Mandalam HinduPanshop Business Narsipuram Nandigam

Nature of Offence: under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968: Penalties for illegal import etc. imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant;

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order: In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. Hence, the accused is ACQUITTED under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The bail bonds of the Accused, if any, shall stand cancelled after expiry of Six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 & 2 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I st CLASS,

TEKKALI.

Copy submitted : The Hon’ble Ist Addl. District and Sessions judge, Srikakulam