B.Kiran Kumar

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1st CLASS: RAYADURG

ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT , ANDHRA PRADESH.

Thursday, the 25th day of April,2019.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C.C.No.159/2018

PRESENT : SRI.B.KIRAN KUMAR, JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Between:- State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, D.Hirehal P.S …. Complainant

Vs

Boya Gidda Eranna, S/o: Kenchanapalli Chinna Hanumanthappa, Aged 30 years, Native of Kalyam village , D.Hirehal Mandal. … Accused ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri.C.Nagaraju and Sri.S.Raghavendra, Advocates for the accused and upon perusing the material on record, having heard both side counsel and the case stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following :- // J U D G M E N T //

1.The averments of final report in brief as follows :-

The case of prosecution is that there are ill feelings existed and cropped between PW.1 and accused in connection with rastha disputes. Due to disputes accused been restrained PW.1. In this regard his village elders conducted panchayath with accused and complainant and declared rastha to

PW.1. But accused has been quarrel with PW.1 family members and threatening to them. While so on 09-05-2018 night at about about 9-00 PM while PW.1, Balaraju and K.Eranna/LWS.3 and 4 proceeding by walk at the same time accused went near to them and restrained them and try to assault to PW.1, then PW.1 run into his house due to fear of accused , but accused followed PW.1 and criminally tress passed into his house , abused him “ Yemi raa gaddi vaamiki poyeeki daari vadalanu ani yenni sarlu cheppali raa neeku, mee anthu chustaa” and tried to beat him with stick (Bandi Gutamu).

Meantime PW.1 wife Sankaramma/LW.2 and Eranna/LW.4 rescued PW.1, then 2 accused went away from there. After some time again accused came near to

PW.1 house with hunting sickle and threaten to PW.1 with sickle and try to beat him. Then his son ie., Balaraju/LW.3 catch accused and PW.1 brother

Eswarappa/LW.5 pulled out hunting sickle from accused. On 10-05-2018 at night again accused went to the house of PW.1 and threaten to PW.1 and his son Balaraju/LW.3.

Basing on the complaint of PW.1, K.Venkata ramana Sub-Inspector of Police registered the same as Cr.No.48/2018 U/s.452, 341, 506 IPC. During the course of investigation, K.Venkata ramana Sub Inspector of police examined 06 witnesses and recorded their statements and also visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch. During the course of investigation, on 13-5-2018 Sub-Inspector Police got served sec.41 (1) Cr.P.C notice to the accused with instruction to appear before the Hon’ble court when summons received and released him on self surety. After completion of investigation

K.Venkata ramana Sub Inspector of police filed charge sheet against accused .

2.This case is taken cognizance for the offence U/s.452, 341, 506

IPC against accused.

3.The Defacto complainant is examined as PW.1 and turned has hos- tile and Exs.P1 and P2 are marked and learned APP has given up the evi- dence of LWS.2 to 7 there is no incriminating evidence against accused and the examination U/s.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with . The accused have neither chosen to examine any defence witness nor exhibit any documents on their behalf.

4.On behalf of the prosecution PW.1 is examined and Exs.P1 , P2 are marked.

5.Heard both sides

Now the point for determination is :- “ Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.452, 341, 506 IPC against accused beyond all reasonable doubts ?”

POINT:

6.PW.1 categorically deposed that he does not know the contents of complaint. Police did not examine him. PW.1 is declared hostile by 3 prosecution and he did not whisper a single word against or adverse to the accused , so as to establish that on 9-5-2018 night at about 9-00 PM while

PW.1, Balaraju and K.Eranna/LWS.3 and 4 proceeding by walk at the same time accused went near to them and restrained them and try to assault to

PW.1, then PW.1 run into his house due to fear of accused , but accused followed PW.1 and criminally treass passed into his house , abused him and tried to beat him with stick (Bandi Gutamu). Meantime PW.1 wife

Sankaramma/LW.2 and Eranna/LW.4 rescued PW.1, then accused went away from there. After some time again accused came near to PW.1 house with hunting sickle and threaten to PW.1 with sickle and try to beat him. Then

Balaraju/LW.3 catch accused and PW.1 brother Eswarappa/LW.5 pulled out hunting sickle from accused. On 10-05-2018 at night again accused went to the house of PW.1 and threaten to PW.1 and his son Balaraju/LW.3. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LWS.2 to 7 rightly , in view of hostile evidence of PW.1. Therefore , the prosecution case is not established against the accused and the charge framed U/s.452, 341, 506 IPC against the accused are not proved. Thus, absolutely there is no single piece of evidence against the accused to establish the guilt of the accused.

7.For the reasons stated above, the prosecution did not prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.452, 341, 506 IPC. Accordingly, the point is answered.

8.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.452, 341, 506 IPC and accordingly accused is acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.PC. The bail bonds of accused shall be remain in force for a period of 6 months U/s.437-A

Cr.PC and thereafter stands cancelled.

Directly typed to my dictation , corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 18thday of April,2019.

Sd/- B.Kiran Kumar

Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Rayadurg.

There is no property produced in this case, hence no order is passed in respect of property. Sd/- B.Kiran Kumar

Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Rayadurg.

4

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for For Prosecution For Defence PW.1 :- K.Siddappa None

Documents Marked For Prosecution Ex.P-1 : Signature on the Complaint of PW.1 Ex.P-2 : Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.1

Id/- B.K.K Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Rayadurg.

5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : RAYADURG

C.C.No.159/2018

DATE OFAPPREHENSION RELEASED COMMENCEMENT CLOSURE

OFFENCE REPORTRESULT

OF ACCUSEDON BAILOF TRIALOF TRIAL

10/05/18 11/05/18 13/05/18 13/05/1825/04/1925/04/1925/04/19

COMPLAINANT: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, D.Hirehal PS. Cr.No.48/2018.

ACCUSED:

Boya Gidda Eranna, S/o: Kenchanapalli Chinna Hanumanthappa, Aged 30 years, Native of Kalyam village , D.Hirehal Mandal.

OFFENCE: U/s.452, 341, 506 IPC

FINDING: Accused found not guilty

SENTENCE OR ORDER:

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.452, 341, 506

IPC and accordingly accused is acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.PC. The bail bonds of accused shall be remain in force for a period of 6 months U/s.437-A Cr.PC and thereafter stands cancelled.

There is no property produced in this case, hence no order is passed in respect of property.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY: Accused were apprehended on 13-5-2018 and case is taken on file against accused on 18-08-2018. Charges were framed on 08-10-2018. The trial was commenced on 25-04-2019 and the trial closed on 25-04-2019.

SD/- B.Kiran Kumar

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAYADURG.

Copy submitted to: THE HON'BLE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

ANANTAPURAMU.

1

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. Div.) AT RAYADURG,

ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT , ANDHRA PRADESH.

Thursday, the 18th day of April, 2019.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O.S.No.16/2019

PRESENT : SRI.B.KIRAN KUMAR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Between:- V.Prabhudas, S/o:V.Mallappa, Aged 54 years, converted christian, L.I.C agent, Resident of D.No.10-2-194/18, Church area, Rayadurg Town, Anantapuramu District.

…. Plaintiff

Vs

Mangali Nagaraju, S/o: M.Venkatesulu, Aged 50 years, Hindu, Business, Resident of D.No.15-1-115, Obulachari Road, ( Near Saraswathi Sisumandir), Rayadurg Town, Anantapuramu District. …. Defendant ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This suit coming on 18-04-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.G.Lokananda and Sri.A.Anjineyulu, Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri J.Abdul Vahab Rehman, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :- // J U D G M E N T //

This is suit filed for recovery of Rs.85,000/- ( Rupees Eighty

Five thousand only ) being the principal together with interest due under the suit pronote executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dated 17-12-2015 with subsequent interest thereon @ 24% p.a., and for costs there on.

The pleadings of plaintiff as per plaint in nut-shell as follows :-

1.That the defendant borrowed a sum Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) on 17-12-2015 from the plaintiff for his financial and family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24 % per annum either to the plaintiff or by his order on demand and duly executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Inspite of repeated demands, made by plaintiff. The defendant have not paid any amount towards the suit Promissory note debt. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to 2 file this suit against the defendant, to recover the suit amount, due under the suit promissory note.

2. The defendant filed a written statement denying the plaint aver- ments pleaded as follows:

That the suit is not maintainable either in law are on facts. The allegations made in the plaint that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 17-12-2015 from the Plaintiff for his financial and family necessities and agreed to repay the same with interest at 24 % per annum are specifically denied by this defendant.

It is stated that the plaintiff is created and concocted the suit

Promissory note for filing of this unjust suit against this defendant. Hence prays to dismiss the suit.

3.Basing on the above rival pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial :

1. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on this defendant ?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit debt as prayed for ?

3. To what relief ?

4. During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself is examined as

PW.1, and exhibited Ex.A1 was marked. The defendant himself is exam- ined as D.W.1 and no documents are marked on his behalf.

5. Perused material on record and heard both side counsels.

6.Issue Nos.1 and 2:

PW.1 deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.50,000/- for his financial and family necessities on 17-12-2015 and duly executed Ex.A1 Promissory note on the same day agreeing to repay with an interest at the rate of 24% pa., either to demand or order of PW.1 and In- spite of repeated demands, made by plaintiff, the defendant has not paid any amount towards the suit Promissory note debt. Hence PW.1 is con- strained to institute to present suit.

07.In the cross examination of PW.1, it is suggested the defendant did not borrow money from PW.1 and did execute Ex.A1 and the same is denied by PW.1. The defendant himself is examined as D.W.1, he denied 3 the contention of PW.1 and deposed that Ex.A1 is concocted and fabricated for the purpose of this suit illegally for wrongful gain. In the cross examination of DW.1, DW.1 categorically admitted that the signature in

Ex.A1 across the revenue stamp belongs to him and thus the contention of

DW.1 that Ex.A1 is fabricated cannot be believed. Once the signature is admitted by defendant the contents of Ex.A1 document are also deemed to be admitted when it is not contradicted through the evidence of either Dw.1 or other direct oral evidence on behalf of defendant.

08. The evidence of PW.1 corroborated in toto with Ex.A1 and his evidence is co.gent and convincing in view of established fact that the de- fendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- and duly executed Ex.A1 agree- ing to repay at the rate of 24% pa. As such the transaction is established and passing of consideration to the defendant is proved.

09.In view of foregoing discussion, it is held that the plaintiff has discharged the initial burden and proved the execution of Ex.A-1 by the defendant in respect of passing of consideration under Ex.A-1 suit pronote .

Therefore, the presumption under Sec.118 Negotiable Instrument Act operates in favour of the plaintiff and the same is unrebutted by the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount with costs and future interest from the defendant. Accordingly, issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant .

10. Issue No.3: To what relief ?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.85,000/- ( Rupees Eighty five thousand only ) with future interest at the rate 12% p.a., from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter, subsequent interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree until realization on the principle sum ie., Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) .

Directly typed to my dictation by typist , corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 18th day of April,2019.

Sd/- B.Kiran Kumar

CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. DIV),

RAYADURG.

4

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Plaintiff Defendant PW.1 :- V.PrabhudasDW.1: Mangali Nagaraju Exhibits marked for Plaintiff Defendant Ex.A-1 is Original Promissory note for Rs.50,000/- Nil. D/17-12-2015 Id/- B.K.K

CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. DIV),

RAYADURG.

1

COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. Div.) AT RAYADURG,

ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT , ANDHRA PRADESH.

Friday, the 26th day of April,2019.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O.S.No.118/2018

PRESENT : SRI.B.KIRAN KUMAR -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Between:- T.Kristaiah, S/o: T.Sanjeevappa, Aged 45 years, Hindu, Business, Resident of R.B.Vanka village , Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh. …. Plaintiff

Vs

B.Lokanatha, S/o: Channarayudu, Aged 40 years, Hindu, Resident of D.No.7-3-370/1, Maremmagudi veedhi, Rayadurg Town , Anantapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh.

… Defendant -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.G.Lokananda Advocate for plaintiff and the Defendant having been set exparte, this court delivered the following:- // J U D G M E N T //

1.This is suit filed for recovery of Rs.42,850/- ( Rupees Forty two thousand eight hundred and fifty only) being the principal together with interest due under the suit pronote executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dated 23-11-2015 with subsequent interest thereon 24% p.a., and for costs.

2.The plaint averments in nutshell as follows :- That the defendant on 23-11-2015 has borrowed a sum

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) from the plaintiff for his family necessities and agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % per annum either to the plaintiff or by him order on demand and duly executed 2 the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Further, inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit against the defendant, to recover the suit amount, due under the suit promissory note.

3.During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as

PW.1 and exhibited Ex.A1 document on his behalf. On the other hand, no witnesses were examined and no exhibits are marked on behalf of the defen- dant since the defendant is set exparte.

4.Perused material on record and heard plaintiff’s counsel.

5.Now the point that arise for determination are :-

1) Whether plaintiff is entitled recover Rs.42,850/- ie., suit claim as prayed far ?

2) To what relief ?

POINT NO:1 “ Whether plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?”

6.The plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and deposed by the way of chief affidavit that the defendant on 23-11-2015 has borrowed a sum

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) from the plaintiff for his family necessities and agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % per annum either to the plaintiff or by him order on demand and duly executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Further, inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff prays to pass decree in his favour for the suit amount.

The evidence of PW.1 is cogent and convincing coupled with

Ex.A-1 documentary evidence. Since the defendant is set ex-parte, the evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged.

7.In view of foregoing discussion, it is held that the plaintiff has discharged initial burden and proved the execution of Ex.A-1 by the defendant in respect of passing of consideration under Ex.A-1 suit pronote .

3

Therefore, the presumption under Sec.118 Negotiable Instrument Act operates in favour of the plaintiff and the same is not rebutted by the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount with costs and future interest from the defendant. Accordingly, point no.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

POINT NO: 2“ To what relief ?”

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.42,850/- ( Rupees Forty two thousand eight hundred and fifty only) with future interest at the rate 12% p.a., from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter, subsequent interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree until realization on the principle sum ie.,

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only).

Directly typed to my dictation by Typist , corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 26st day of April,2019.

Sd/- B.Kiran Kumar

CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. DIV),

RAYADURG.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Plaintiff Defendant PW.1 :- T.Kristaiah None

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff Defendant Ex.A-1 is Original Promissory note for Rs.25,000/-,D/23-11-2015. Nil

Id/- B.K.K

CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. DIV),

RAYADURG.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: RAYADURG.

Present : Sri.B.Kiran Kumar, Junior Civil Judge , Rayadurg

Thursday, the 18th day of April, 2019.

O.S.No.82 / 2017.

Between:-

K.Umapathi …. Plaintif

Vs

1) G.Nagabhushana

2) G.Bhojaraju

3) G.Sekhar

4) G.Paranda … Defendants

This is a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, followers, relatives, family members, henchmen , rowdy elements, political leaders , executants and assignees from interfering with the plaintif’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

This suit coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Venkata Reddy, advocate for the plaintif and Sri G.Lokananda, advocate for the defendant nos.1 to 3 and Defendant no.4 is set exparte, this court delivered the following:- // J U D G M E N T //

Plaintif called absent. Cost not paid. No represent. It is clear that plaintif is not interested inspite of sufficient time granted. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.

Pronounced in open court, this the 18th day of April, 2019.

Sd/- B.Kiran Kumar

Junior Civil Judge Rayadurg. Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Plaintif Defendants -Nil- -Nil-

Exhibits marked for Plaintif Defendants -Nil- -Nil-

ID/- B.K.K J.C.J

Case Historyhttp://172.17.43.194/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no.ph...

Back Daily Status

In the Court of :junior civil judge

Case No. :OS/0000154/2017 Govindawada Kamalamma Vs Harijana Kullayappa

Date : 26-04-2019

Business: Plaintiff called absent trial not commence inspite of direction to appearance and commence trial. Hence the suit is dismissed for default Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Date: 26-04-2019 junior civil judge 1 of 19/21/23, 3:38 PM