Sri B.Rajesh

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KADAPA

Monday, this the 14th day of October, 2019.

Present: Sri B.Rajesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge – cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kadapa.

C.C.No.08/2017

Between: State represented by Inspector of Police, RIMS U/G P.S. …. Complainant

And

1. Shaik Mohammad Ali, S/o KhasiMiah, Age 24 years, kaedapa District. President for All India Majilis E Itthehadul Muslimeen, D.No.8/1226-1, Agadi street, Kadap City.

2.Kathi Seenu, S/o Venkatesh, Aged 40 years, D.No.2/150/102A, Tarakarama Nagar, Kadapa City (Died). (The case against A2 is abatted)

3. Veluthurla Ravi Sankar Reddy, S/o Anki Reddy, Age 28 years, D.NO.20/1033, R.K.Nagar, kadapa City.

4. Pothuganti Peeraiah, S/o Hussanaiah, Age 53 years, D.NO.6/142, Ravindra Nagar, Kadapa City.

5. Ganta kannamma @ Muntaz Begu, Age 40 years, W/o Shabir, Saibaba nagar, Kadapa City.

6. Chippagiri Meenakshi, W/o Sreenivasulu, 37 years, D.No.16/923, Masapet, Kadapa.

7. Mallur Eliyas @ Elia Babu, S/o Sundaram, Age 38 years, D.NO.9/259, R.K.nagar, Chinnachowk, kadapa

….. Accused No.1 to 7

This case coming before me for final hearing on 14-10-2019. in presence of

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri K.Vijaykrishna, Advocate for

Accused no.1 and of Sri G.S.Murthy, Advocate for Accused No.2 to 7, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court has delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, RIMS P.S., has filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 to 7 in Cr.No.70/2013, for the offence punishable Under section 447 r.w. 34 of IPC and section 5(B) of AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition

Act), 1982.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge sheet are that Karnati Vijaykumar was working as a Deputy Tahsildar in- charge to Tahsildar office, Kadapa for six months, there is a government lands to an extent of Ac.55-00 acres in Sy.No.204 to 207 and 134 situated at Putlampalli village fields in Kadapa Mandal of Kadapa District.

K.Vijaykumar, Deputy Tahsildar gave requisition to the Superintendent of

Police, Kadapa on 12.3.2013 to provide police Bandhubost for eviction of encroachment at Putlampalli village near RIMS hospital. K.Vijaykumar,

Deputy Tahsildar instructed the K.Sivareddy, Village Revenue Inspector to visit the said land and gave his report to him. He visited the said land on 15.3.2013, as per the instructions of Deputy Tahsildar and gave his report to him. K.Vijaykumar, Deputy Tahsildar visited the said land along with his staff, basing on the report of K.Sivareddy, Village Revenue Inspector and found nearly 1500 to 2000 temporary huts were erected in the land to an extent of AC.55.00 in Sy.No.204 to 207 and 134 which is situated at

Putlampalli village, Kadapa Mandal of Kadapa District. The said K.Vijay kumar, Deputy Tahsildar observed one written board as Basavataraka nagar and flags of TDP fixed on huts and on enquiry learnt that A1 to A7 were present on the spot and trespassed into the government land without the prior permission and grabbed the government lands by erecting temporary huts 2000 in number with the flags of their parties, they abetted the people who have gathered and erected the huts in the government land. Bukke

Chandra naik and Mathangi Kadiraiah witnessed the incident. Later, K.Vijay kumar, Deputy Tahsildar and in-charge Tahsildar of Kadapa gave a report to 3

N.Narayannappa, Inspector of Police, RIMS P.S., basing on it he registered a case in Cr.No.70/13, for the offence under section 447 r.w. 34 IPC and under section 5(B) of AP Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982 and took up investigation.

3. During the course of investigation N.Narayanappa, Inspector of

Police, RIMS P.S., examined Karnati Vijay Kumar, in-charge Tahsildar,

Kadapa, K.Sivareddy, Village Revenue Inspector, P.Ravi Sankar, Village

Revenue Inspector. N.Pavankumar, Village Survant, Konda Rajanna, Village

Servant, Putlampalli M.Jayaraju, Village servant, V.Chandra naik and

Mathangi Kadiraiah and recorded their statements, besides inspecting the scene of offence. G.Ghouse Ahamad, Sub Inspector of Police, RIMS P.S., arrested A5 on 18.4.2013 in the police station at 1-30 pm and produced her

before the Hon'ble court for remand and he also arrested A6 at 1-15 pm in

the police station on 22.4.13 and produced before the Hon'ble court for remand. A2 to A4 and A7 were got Anticipatory bail vide

Crl.M.P.No.623/2013, dt:22.4.2013 from the Hon'ble Principal District and

Sessions Judge's Court Court, Kadapa A1 got Anticipatory bail vide

Crl.M.P.No.655/2013, dt:30-4-2013 from the Hon'ble Principal District and

Sessions Judge's Court, Kadapa. N. Narayanappa , Inspector of police,

RIMS P.S., has laid charge sheet before the Hon'ble court after completion of the investigation. Hence the charge sheet.

4. This case was taken on file by taking cognizance for the offence punishable Under section 447 r.w.34 of IPC and under section 5(B) of AP

Land Grabbing (Prohibition Act)1982 and on appearance of them, the case copies were furnished to them as contemplated Under section .207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C, the charge for the offence Under section 447 r.w. 34 of IPC and under section 5(B) of

AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition Act) 1982 framed against them, read over 4 and explained to them in Telugu for the accusation of the offence for which they denied the offence and pleaded not guilty.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P4.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. for which they denied the incriminating material appearing against them in their evidence and pleaded false implication. They did not choose to examine and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is that:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt or not?

10. POINT: In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to establish that accused were criminally trespassed into the government land without the prior permission and grabbed the government lands by erecting the temporary huts 2000 in the government land with the flags of their parties.

11. The evidence available on record is the evidence of Pws.1 to 6.

12. To establish the said fact, the prosecution has placed the ocular evidence of Pws.1 to 6.

Now let us examine whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused with the aid of PWs.1 to 6.

13. PW.1 is the Deputy Tahsildar, in-charge Tahsildar of Kadapa city categorically stated that he received information from the village servants on 11.3.13, that some persons were occupying the government land to an extent of Ac.55.00 cents in Sy.No.204 to 207 and 134 situated at

Putlampalli village fields. He gave requisition to the Superintendent of

Police, Kadapa on 12.3.13 requesting him to provide Bandhubost for evicting of encroachment in the above said survey numbers. He further 5 stated that he gave instructions to K.Sivareddy, Village Revenue Inspector to enquire the matter and submit a report to him, in which the said

K.Sivareddy enquired and gave a report to him on 15.3.2013 that the TDP party leaders name K.Sreenu, Ravisankar Reddy, Veeraiah, Kannamma,

Meenakshi, Elia Babu and one MIM party person by name Mohammed Ali, they instigated innocent people and erected the temporary huts 1500 to 2000 in the said land and fixed the TDP party flags on it. PW.1 further stated that K.Sivareddy stated to him that they have written a board as

Basavataraka nagar. Then, PW.1 visited the scene of offence along with his staff and stated to the public that it is a government land to vacate the said land, but they did not vacate the said land. Then, he gave report to the Inspector of police, RIMS P.S. on 18.3.2013 and requested him to take action against the abettors who instigated the public for erecting the temporary huts in the government land. PW.1 further stated that he got protection from the police on 19.3.13 and evict them from the government land. Ex.P1 is the report.

14. PW.2 is Village Revenue Inspector who conducted the enquiry and submitted report to the PW.1 categorically stated that PW.1 has given oral instructions to him on 15.3.13 to visit the land to an extent of AC.55-00 in

Sy.No.204 to 207 and 134 which is situated at Putlampalli village which is government land and it is classified as tank land. He further stated that he visited the scene of offence along with P.Ravisankar, Village Revenue

Officer, N.Pavankumar, Village servant, K.Rajanna, Village Servant and M.

Jayaraju, village servant to the scene offence wherein found that the temporary huts were erected TDP party activities namely A2, A3, A5 and A6 were present on the spot. PW.2 stated to them that it was a government land to remove the temporary huts in the said land, but they did not hear his words and informed the same to the PW.1. PW.2 further stated that

PW.1 gave a report to the RIMS P.S., against them. N.Pavankumar, 6

K.Rajanna, M.Jayaraju and PW.2 were visited the scene of offence along with the police and removed the huts in the government land.

15. PW.3 is the Village Revenue Officer, categorically stated that as per the instructions of PW.1, PW.2 N.Pavankumar, K.Rajanna, M. Jayaraju and PW.3 visited the land to an extent of AC.0-55 cents in Sy.No.204 to 207 and 134 which is situated at Putlampalli village on 15.3.2013. TDP party activities and some of the persons erected the temporary huts nearly 2000

A1 to A3, A6, A7 and two others were present on the spot, when they visited the scene of offence. PW.2, PW.3 and others stated to them that it was a government land to remove the temporary huts in it, but they did not remove the huts in the said land and they informed the same to the PW.1 and PW.1 took the police aid for removing the huts in the said land on 19.3.13.

16. PW.4 is eye witness to this incident categorically stated that he does not know A1, A3 to A7 who are present before the court, he does not know anything about this case. Police did not examine him in connection with the case. Coming to the cross examination of PW.4 by learned APP, as

PW.4 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. The learned APP has given suggestion to the PW.4 as in Ex.P2 i.e., 161 Cr.P.C.

statement alleged to have been given by him to the police.

17. PW.5 is the Investigating officer categorically stated that he received Ex.P1 from PW.1 at 4-00 pm on 19.3.13, basing on it he registered a case in Cr.No.70/13, under section 447 r.w. 34 of IPC and under section 5(B)of AP Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982 and issued FIR, Ex.P3 is the

FIR. He visited the PW.1 office on 20.3.13, examined and recorded the statements of PW.1 to PW.4 , N.Pavankumar, Village Servant. K.Rajanna,

Village Servant, M.Jayaraju, Village servant and M.Khadiraiah. He further stated that he visited the scene of offence which is located at Putlampalli village and wherein he prepared the rough sketch at the scene of offence 7

Ex.P4 is the rough sketch. PW.6 has arrested A5 and A6 as per his instructions. He further stated that A1 to A4 and A7 obtained the

Anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge

Court, Kadapa. Later, he laid charge sheet before the Hon'ble court after completion of the investigation. He further stated that he has not sent the proposals to the District Collector, Kadapa for obtaining sanction order from him under the AP Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982.

18. PW.6 is Sub Inspector of Police, RIMS, PS., who arrested A5 and A6 categorically stated that while he was in police station as a SHO at 1-00 pm, A5 voluntarily surrendered before him in the police station and confessed the offence in this crime, he arrested her as per the orders of

PW.5 on 18.4.2013 and after completion of legal formalities he produced her before the Hon'ble court for remand. He further stated that while he was in P.S., at 12.45 pm, on 22.4.13 A6 voluntarily surrendered before him and confessed the offence in this crime, he arrested A6 at 1.15 pm, as per the instructions of PW.5 and after completion of the legal formalities he produced her before the Hon'ble court for remand on 22.4.13.

19. The evidence of PW.1 goes to show that he received information from the Village servants on 11.3.2013. Some persons were occupying the

Government land to an extent of Ac.55.00 cents in Sy.No.204 to 207 and 134 which is situated at Putlampalli village. He gave instructions to the

PW.2 to enquire the matter and to submit a report to him. Pw.2 gave report to him on 15.3.2013 that TDP party leaders namely K.Sreenu (A2),

Ravisankar Reddy (A3), Veeraiah, Kannamma(A5), Meenakshi ( A6), Elia babu(A7) and one MIM party leader namely Mohammad Ali (A1). The evidence of PW.1 further goes to show that they have instigated the innocent people and erected the temporary huts 1500 to 2000 in the government land and fixed the TDP party flags in the said land. PW.1 visited the scene of offence along with PW.2 , Pw.3 N.Pavankumar/ LW.4, 8

K.Rajanna / LW.6 and M.Jayaraju/LW.7 and stated to them that it is a government land to vacate the said land, but they did not vacate the land.

Then Pw.1 gave requisition to the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa on 12.3.2013, requesting him to provide police bandhobust for eviction of the encroachment land in the said survey numbers.

20. The evidence of PW.2 goes to show that PW.1 gave oral instructions to him on 15.3.2013 to visit the Sy.No.204 to 207 and 134 to an extent of Ac.0-55 cents which is located at Putlampalli village which is government land and it is classified as tank land. The evidence of PW.2 and

PW.3 goes to show that as per the instructions of PW.1, they have visited the land to an extent of Ac.0-55 cents in Sy.No.204 to 207 and 134 which is situated at Putlampalli village on 15.3.2013. But where as Ex.P1 reveals that the land to an extent of Ac.55.00 acres in Sy.No.204 to 207 and 134 which is situated at Putlampalli village and erected the temporary huts 1500 to 2000 in the said area. But the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 does not support the Ex.P1 with regard to the extent of encroached land in Sy.No.204 to 207 and 134 of Putlampalli village. The evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 goes to show that to an extent of AC.0-55 cents in Sy.No.204 to 207 and 134 of

Putlampalli village. The evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 does not support with the Ex.P1 with regard to the extent of encroached land in Sy.No.204 to 207 and 134 of Putlampalli village.

21. PW.1 to PW.3 has not filed any document before this court that

Sy.No.204 to 207 and 134 to an extent of Ac.55-00 acres which is located

Putlampalli village belongs to government land. Presumed for a movement, if it is government land PW.1 has to follow the procedure to evict them from the government land in due process of law. There is no evidence to show that who were erected the temporary huts 1500 to 2000 in the alleged encroached government land.

9

22. Be it noted, during the cross examination of PW.1 stated that he has not filed any record before this court that the land belongs to government land. He has not handed over any document to the PW.5 that the land belongs to the government land. He cannot say exact extent of land in each survey number. If he can't see the record. He further stated that there are no permanent structures in the alleged land and door numbers are not assigned to them. PW.1 categorically stated that he has not mentioned in Ex.P1 about the specific encroachment of each person and he has not specifically mentioned in Ex.P1, the specific date, time of the alleged encroachment of the persons. He categorically admitted that the revenue records pertaining to Sy.No.204 to 207 and 134 kept in his custody.

23. Be it noted, during the cross examination of PW.2 stated that

PW.1 has not given any written instructions to him to visit the survey number 204 to 207 and 134 which is located at Putlampalli village. He has not recorded the statements of anybody at the scene of offence, he categorically admitted that Sy.Nos.204 to 207 and 134 to an extent of Ac.0- 55 cents. The temporary huts have already raised when he visited the scene of offence. PW.2 categorically stated that the police have not conducted test identification parade to identify the accused. The surveyor has not accompanied with him to the encroach land. PW.2 categorically stated that he has not produced any document to show that the land belongs to government. PW.2 has not received any complaint from the public that the land grabbing activity was going on at the alleged scene of offence. He categorically stated that there are no structures alleged scene of offence at present. He further stated that he has not fixed the board in

Sy.No.204 to 207 and 134 that the land belongs to government.

24. Be it noted, during the cross examination of PW.3 stated that he has not submitted any document to the police or to this court showing that 10 in Sy.No.204 to 207 and 134 the land to an extent of Ac.55.00 acres, but his superior officials might have submitted the documents to the police or to the court. He further stated that he cannot say how much extent of land was encroached by the each person in which survey number. He cannot say the extent of each survey number.

25. PW.5 is the investigating officer who deposed the registration of crime and prepared the Ex.P4 rough sketch at the scene of offence. PW.5 categorically stated that PW.1 has not mentioned the date and time of the alleged encroach under Ex.P1. He further stated that PW.1 has not handed over any document relating to the alleged encroachment to him. He has not seized any document relating to the Sy.No.204 to 207 and 134 of

Putlampalli village. PW.5 categorically stated that he has not filed any document before this court showing that Sy.Nos.204 to 207 and 134 of

Putlampalli village lands belongs to the government land. He categorically stated that he has not received any written complaint from the public except from PW.1. He has not examined the independent witnesses in surrounding people. PW.5 further stated that he has not examined the government employees or private persons who are available near by the scene of offence locality.

26. PW.5 categorically stated that he has not obtained any sanction order from the District Collector, Kadapa. He has not conducted any Test

Identification Parade to identify the accused in this case. He categorically stated that PW.1 has not produced any record relating to the Sy.Nos.204 to 207 and 134 of Putlampalli village. PW.5 further stated that he has not taken any Assistance from the Mandal Surveyor for locating the Sy.Nos. 204 to 207 and 134, where the temporary constructions were raised. He categorically stated that no person was available at the scene of offence, when he visited the scene of offence.

11

27. There is no direct witness of the occurrence of the offence, Pw.2 visited the scene of offence as per the oral instructions of the PW.1 and submitted report to the PW.1. Basing on the report of PW.2, PW.1 attended the Ex.P1 in the police station before the PW.5. PW.1 to PW.3 have not seen who erected the temporary huts 1500 to 2000, but they visited the scene of offence subsequently. There is no documentary evidence to show that

Sy.No.204 to 207 and 134 to an extent of Ac.55-00 acres which is located

Putlampalli village belongs to government land. PW.5 has not made any attempt to examine the Mandal Surveyor or District Surveyor to fix where the Sy.Nos.204 to 207 and 134 to an extent of Ac.55-00 acres located in

Putlampalli village.

28. There is no whisper in Ex.P1, the date of alleged offence and time of offence, the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 does not reveal the date of alleged offence and time of alleged offence in their evidence. The prosecution has not placed any peace of document before this court that the alleged encroached land belongs to government land. PW.5 has not seized the flags fixed on the huts and non seizure of the flags fixed on the huts is fatal to the case of the prosecution. PW.5 has not seized any incriminating material at the alleged scene of offence to strengthen the case of the prosecution. PW.4 is the independent witness did not support the case of the prosecution and he turned hostile. PW.1 to PW.3 are not direct witnesses to the occurrence of the offence, they are hearsay witnesses.

29. The prosecution has not obtained any prior permission from the concerned authorities under section 12 of Land Grabbing Act, 1982 for registering the case against the accused. PW.5 has categorically stated that he has not sent any proposals to the District Collector, Kadapa for obtaining the any sanction order from the District Collector, Kadapa for prosecuting the case against the accused under AP Land Grabbing 12

Prohibition Act, 1982. The prosecution shall obtain permission from the concerned authorities prior to registering the case against them, but the prosecution did not obtain prior permission to register the case against them from the concerned authorities which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has to establish that A1 to A7 are land grabbers through ocular and documentary evidence. But the prosecution failed to establish that A1 to A7 are Land Grabbers.

30. On careful consideration of the entire evidence that of PW.1 to PW.6 and coupled with Ex.P1 to P4, this court feels that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence they are entitled for benefit of doubt.

In the result, the accused no.1, 3 to 7 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 447 r.w. 34 of IPC and Section 5(B) of AP Land Grabbing

Prohibition Act of 1982 and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1, A3 to A7 shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of judgment under section 437(a) of Cr.P.C. and thereafter shall stand cancelled.

As there is no property seized and produced before this court, no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer to the Stenographer

Grade - III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 14th day of October, 2019.

Sd/- Sri. B.Rajesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge –

CUM – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined for )

For Prosecution: For Defence : NIL

PW.1: K.Vijaykumar, Deputy MRO, Kadapa PW.2: K.Sivareddy PW.3: P.Ravi sankar PW.4: B.Chandra naik PW.5: N.Narayanappa PW.6: G.Ghouse Ahamed.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

13

For Prosecution: For Defence : NIL

Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C.Statement Ex.P3: FIR Ex.P4: Rough sketch.

Material Object Marked: NIL

I/d.B.Rajesh, P.J.C.J-cum-J.F.C.M, KDP.

// TRUE COPY //

Principal Junior Civil Judge – CUM –

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

14 15

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by Principal Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judl. Magistrate of I Class :: Kadapa.

DATE OF

Offence ReportApprehensionRelease onCommencementClose ofJudgment of accusedbailof trial trial A1:Anticipat ory Bail on 30-4-13 A2 to A4 and A7 were got Anticipatory bail on A5:18-4-1322.4.13 15.3.201319.3.2013A6:22.4.135-7-201914.10.2019 .10.2019

Calender and Judgment in C.C.No:08/2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge – cum – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa. COMPLAINANT: The SHO of RIMS U/G P.S.

Name of the accused with father's Age Religion Residence

Name. 1234 1.Shaik Mohammad Ali S/o Khasu 24 yearsMuslimD.No.8/1226-1, Agadi Street, Miah, Kadapa city. 2.Kathi Seenu (Died ) s/o Venkatesh40 yearsHinduD.No.2/150/102A, Tarakarama nagar, Kadapa city. 3.Veluthurla Ravi Sankar Reddy,28 yearsHinduD.No.20/1033,R.K.Nagar, S/o Anki ReddyKadapa city 4.PothugantiPeeraiah,S/o53 yearsDudekulD.No.6/142, Ravindra nagar, Hussaniah,aKadapa city 5.Ganta Kannamma @ Muntaz40 yearsMuslimSaibaba Nagar, Kadapa city Begum, W/o Shabir 6.ChippagiriMeenakshi,W/o37 yearsHinduD.No.16/923, Masapet, Kadapa Sreenivasulu, 7.Mallur Eliyas @ Elia Babu, S/o38 years,Christian D.No.9/259,R.K.Nagar, SundaramChinnachowk, Kadapa

Offence : U/Sec.447 r.w.34 of IPC and sec.5(B) of Land Grabbing Act Finding : Accused No.1, 3 to 7 are found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.447 r.w. 34 of IPC and sec.5(B) of AP Land Grabbing Prohibition Act,1982 Sentence: In the result, the accused no.1, 3 to 7 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 447 r.w. 34 of IPC and Section 5(B) of AP Land Grabbing Prohibition Act of 1982 and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1, A3 to A7 shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of judgment under section 437(a) of Cr.P.C. and thereafter shall stands cancelled. As there is no property seized and produced before this court, no property order is passed.

Sd/- Sri. B.Rajesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

– cum -Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa. Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa. Dis. No. Dt. // TRUE COPY //

Principal Junior Civil Judge – CUM –

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa 16

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KADAPA

Wednesday, this the 09th day of October, 2019.

Present: Sri B.Rajesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge – cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kadapa.

C.C.No.05/2017

Between: State represented by Inspector of Police, RIMS U/G P.S. …. Complainant

And

Velpula Venkatesh @ Bahujan Venkatesh, Age 38 years, S/o Sreeramulu, D.No.38/926, Bahujan Nagar, Chinna Chowk village, Kadapa City, caste by Yadava, Occupation

Business. ….. Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 09 -10-2019. in presence of

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri K.Venkateswara Reddy

Advocate for Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court has delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, RIMS P.S., has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.125/2012, for the offence punishable Under sec.447, 506 of IPC and Under section 5(B) of AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition Act), 1982.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge sheet are that on the accused was in habit of grabbing the government land and also issued fake possession certificates to the innocent people by collecting the amounts. The accused is intentionally trying to grab the 2 government land in Sy.No.1130/4 and Sy.No.434/2 of Chinnachowk village under the guise of fake certificates. The accused was trying to construct the houses on 1.9.12 under the guise of fake possession certificates in

Sy.No.1139/3 and in Sy.No.1130/4 situated at Chinnachowk village and which is classified as vanka porambokuland, which is highly objectionable encroachment. A.Srinivas, Tahsildar cum Mandal Executing Magistrate,

Kadapa visited the spot and stopped the construction activities and he came to know that the accused is abetting the innocent persons and forcing them to occupy the land by giving them forged possession certificates, by collection the huge amounts of money from the innocent people. Jarapati Rangamma/LW.2, Shaik Shamshad Begum/LW.3 approached him, in order to get DKT house site from the government. Then he informed to them that the government did not issue DKT pattas and already issued DKT pattas to the others and further informed to them that he will arrange the DKT pattas on their names. Later, the accused issued possession certificates to them in Sy.No.1129/2013 to an extent of Ac.0.03 cents with an intend to grab the land and claiming the possession over the land in Sy.No.1130/4, but they are not residing at Ravindra Nagar in Kadapa and the accused is trying to grab the land in Sy.No.1130/4 which is classified as vanka poramboku of chinnachowk village. He is grabbing the government land by producing fectitious document, cheating the public in the area. Previously, the RIMS police register the case in Cr.No.95/2011,

Under sec.420, 506 of IPC against the accused and others on 4.11.2011 at 6-00 pm. A.Srinivas, Tahsildar- cum – Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadapa lodged a complaint before G.Ghouse Ahamad, SI of police, RIMS PS., on receipt of it, he registered a case in Cr.No.125/13, under section 447, 506 of

IPC and Under sec.5(B) of AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition Act) 1982.

3. During the course of investigation G.Ghouse Ahamad, Sub

Inspector of police RIMS police secured the presence of A.Srinivas and 3 recorded his statement. He arrested the accused on 8.3.2013 and producing before the Hon'ble court for remand to judicial custody. He handed over the CD file to the D.Mohammad Basha , Inspector of Police,

RIMS P.S. During the course of investigation he secured presence of Jarapati

Rangamma, Shaik Shadha begum and recorded their statements. Then, he handed over the CD file to N. Narayana/LW.6, Inspector of Police, RIMS

P.S. and he verified the investigation done by the D.Mahaboob Basha and found correct. Thereafter, he laid the charge sheet to the Hon'ble court after completion of the investigation. Hence the charge sheet.

4. This case was taken on file by taking cognizance for the offence punishable Under section 447, 506 IPC and under section 5(B) of AP Land

Grabbing (Prohibition Act)1982 and on appearance of him, the case copies were furnished to him as contemplated U.sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C, the charge for the offence Under section 447, 506 IPC and under section 5(B) of AP Land

Grabbing (Prohibition Act) 1982 framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu for the accusation of the offence for which he denied the offence and pleaded not guilty.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P6.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined

U.sec.313 of Cr.P.C. for which he denied the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence and pleaded false implication. He did not choose to examine any evidence in defence.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is that:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt or not?

4

10. POINT: In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to establish that accused is intentionally trying to grab the government land in Sy.NO.1130/4 and 434/2 of Chinnachowk village and under the guise of issuing fake possession certificates to the innocent people and cheating the public at chinnachowk village.

11. The evidence available on record is the evidence of Pws.1 to 6.

12. To establish the said fact, the prosecution has placed the ocular evidence of Pws.1 to 6.

Now let us examine whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused with the aid of PWs.1 to PW.6.

13. PW.1 is the Tahsildar – cum – Mandal Executive Magistrate,

Kadapa categorically stated that the accused was intentionally trying to grab the government land in Sy.No.1130/4 and in Sy.No.434/2 of

Chinnachowk village under the guise of fake possession certificate. He further stated that previously, the same matter was referred to the

Inspector of Police, RIMS PS., by his office reference no.B/1896/2011, dt:

29.10.2011 and another dt:28.12.2011 and reference No.B/1200/2011,

dt:3.7.2012, inspite of several complaints made against him. But he has

not stopped the land grabbing activities under the guise of fake possession certificate in Sy.No.1129/2 of chinnachowk village which is classified as assessed waste land. PW.1 further stated that the accused has issued the possession certificate to the J.Rangamma and Shaik Shamshad Begum in which they stated that they do not know for issuance of possession certificate bearing No.4202/1417 and 4203/1417 in Sy.No.1129/3 of

Chinnachowk village. PW.1 requested the Inspector of Police RIMS PS to register the case against him in Ex.P1 report. PW.1 has enclosed the statement given by J.Rangamma and Shaik Shamshad begum.

14. PW.2 has approached the accused for issuing house patta in the government land to her categorically stated that she knows the Shaik 5

Shamshad begum. She does not know anything about this case, police did not examine her in connection with the case. Coming to the cross examination of the PW.2 by the learned APP as PW.2 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The learned APP has given suggestion to the PW.2 as in Ex.P2 i.e., 161 Cr.P.C., statement alleged to have given by her to the police.

15. PW.3 has approached the accused for issuing house patta in the government land to her categorically stated that she knows PW.2. she does not know anything about this case, police did not examine her in connection with the case. Coming to the cross examination of PW.3 by the learned APP as PW.3 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The learned APP has given suggestion to the PW.3 as in Ex.P3 i.e., 161 Cr.p.C. statement alleged to have given by her to the police.

16. PW.4 is the SI of Police, RIMS PS, who investigated the case categorically stated that while he was in police station, PW.1 came to the

PS at 8-00 pm, on 16.12.2012 and gave Ex.P1. PW.4 registered the case in

Cr.No.125/2012 for the offence Under section 447, 506 of IPC and under section 5(B) of AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition Act ) 1982. Ex.P5 is the FIR.

He furnished the FIR copies to all concerned officials. PW.4 further stated that he examined and recorded the statement of PW.1 in the police station.

Thereafter, he visited the scene of offence which is located at Bahujan

Nagar inSy.NO.1130/4 and Sy.No.1129/3, wherein he prepared the rough sketch at the scene of offence, Ex.P6 is the rough sketch. He arrested the accused on 18.3.2013 at Ramanjaneyapuram in Kadapa and completion of the legal formalities and he produced him before the Hon'ble court for remand. Thereafter, he handed over the CD file to the Mahaboob Basha.

17. PW.5 is the then Inspector of Police, RIMS police, Kadapa categorically stated that he took up the investigation from PW.4 on 17.12.2012 and verified the investigation of PW.4 and found correct lines.

6

Thereafter, he visited the PW.1 office in Kadapa and examined him and he deposed the same lines and as such, he did not record his 161 Cr.P.C.

statement. He further stated that he went to the Muradiya nagar and secured PW.2 and PW.3 and examined them and recorded their statements.

He further stated that he submitted the requisition to the PW.1 for enquiry report, later he transferred and his successor took up investigation in this case. He further stated that PW.2 and PW.3 stated before him as mentioned in Ex.P2 and P3.

18. PW.6 is the Inspector of Police, RIMS PS., Kadapa who laid charge

before the court categorically stated that he received the CD file from the

PW.5 and verified the investigation done by the PW.5 and found correct.

Later, he laid charge sheet before the Hon'ble court on 15.4.2013. He further stated that he has not sent the proposals to the District Collector, kadapa for obtaining sanction order from him under A.P. land grabbing prohibition act, 1982.

19. The evidence of PW.1 goes to show that he addressed a letter to the PW.6 for taking action against the accused who was intentionally committed the land grabbing of government land in Sy.No.1130/4 and 434 which is located at Chinnachowk village and the accused has issued fake possession certificates to the innocent people and he instigated them to occupy the government land by giving forgery possession certificates to them. PW.1 further stated that the accused had issued the possession certificates to the PW.2 and PW.3 and they stated that they do not know regarding the issuance of possession certificates bearing NO.4202/1417 and 4203/1417 in Sy.No.1129/3 of Chinnachowk village. He further stated that the accused has committed land grabbing offences previously, PW.1 referred the matter to the PW.6 by his office reference No.B/1896/2011,

dt:29.10.2011 and another dt: 28.12.2011 and ref.no.B/1200/2011,

dt:3.7.2012, inspite of several complaints against him. He has not stopped

7 the land grabbing activities under the guize of possession certificates in

Sy.No.1129/3 of Chinnachowk village. The evidence of PW.1 further goes to show that he has also enclosed the statements of PW.2 and PW.3 along with Ex.P1 to the PW.6.

20. Be it noted, during the cross examination of PW.1 categorically stated that he has not made any attempt to receive any document from the accused in Sy.No.1130/4 in which he encroached the land. As per the government records Sy.NO.1130/2004 does not stands in the name of accused, Ex.P1 does not reveal the name of the persons who gave complaint to the PW.1 against the accused. PW.1 categorically admitted that he has not filed any document before this court with regard to the possession certificate no.4202/1417, 4203/1417 in Sy.No.1129/4. He categorically admitted that he has not sent the fake possession certificates for verification.

21. PW.2 and PW.3 are crucial witnesses in this case, Pw.1 has recorded the statements of Pw.2 and PW.3 and gave the statements of PW.2 and PW.3 at the time of attending Ex.P1 in the police station. PW.2 and

PW.3 are crucial independent witnesses, they did not support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile without supporting the case of the prosecution. But Ex.P2 and P3 are marked through them.

22. The evidence of PW.1 supports the Ex.P1, Ex.P1 reveals that the accused was trying to construct the houses under the guise of fake possession certificates in Sy.No. 1129/3 and 1130/4 of Chinnachowk village.

PW.2 and PW.3 are living at Ravindranagar, the statements of PW.2 and

PW.3 establishes that under the guise of possession certificates. He was trying to grab the land in Sy.No.1130/4 classified has vanka poramboke of chinnachowk village, but PW.2 and PW.3 are independent witnesses they did not support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile without supporting the case of the prosecution.

8

23. PW.4 is the investigating officer who deposed to the effect of the registration of the crime, arrest of the accused and prepared the Ex.P6 at the scene of offence. PW.4 categorically admitted that there is a delay of 2 ½ months for registering the Ex.P5 and he has not mentioned in Ex.P5 in column no.D about the reasons for delay of registering the case against the accused. He has not seized any record from the PW.1 in Sy.No.1129/3 and

Sy.No.1130/4. That the accused issued fake possession certificates. PW.4 has not examined anybody with regard to the fake possession certificate issued by the accused.

24. Be it noted, during the cross examination PW.5 stated that he has not seized the fake documents from the possession of PW.2 and PW.3 issued by the accused. PW.6 categorically admitted that he has not sent the proposal to the District Collector, Kadapa for obtaining the sanction order from him under the Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982.

25. There is no whisper in the evidence of PW.1 that the accused abused the PW.1 to PW.3 at what time in what date and in which place.

Ex.P1 reveals that the accused threatened the public for want of money for creating fabricated possession certificates. There is no whisper in the evidence of PW.1 that the accused threatened the public for want of money and creating the fabricated documents. PW.1 has categorically stated that he has not handed over any documents to the PW.6. PW.2 and PW.3 who are independent witnesses and they did not support the case of the prosecution turned hostile. NO independent witness support the case of the prosecution, except the evidence of PW.1. PW.4 to PW.6 are the police officials, naturally they supported the case of the prosecution, but their evidence cannot be discarded because of police officials, but their evidence can be weighed very carefully.

26. The prosecution has not obtained any prior permission from the concerned authorities under section 12 of AP Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 9 1982 for registering the case against the accused. PW.6 has categorically stated that he has not sent the proposals to the District Collector, kadapa for prosecuting the case against him under the Land Grabbing Prohibition

Act, 1982. The prosecution shall obtain permission from the concerned authority prior to registering the case against the accused, but the prosecution failed to obtain prior permission to registering the case against him from the concerned authority which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has to establish that the accused is a land grabber through ocular and documentary evidence. The prosecution failed the establish that the accused is a land grabber.

27. On careful consideration entire evidence that of PW.1 to PW.6 coupled with Ex.P1 to P6, this court feels that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence , the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U.sec.447, 506 IPC and U.sec.5(B) of Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. Therefore, he is acquitted U.sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of judgment U.sec.437(a) of Cr.P.C and thereafter shall stand cancelled. As there is no property seized and produced before this court, no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer to the Stenographer Grade - III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 09thday of October, 2019.

Sd/-Sri. B.Rajesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge –

CUM – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined for )

For Prosecution: For Defence : NIL

PW.1: A.Sreenivas PW.2: J.Rangamma PW.3: S.Shamshadh Begum PW.4: G.G.Ghouse Ahammad PW.5: D.Mahaboob Basha, PW.6: N.Narayana

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

For Prosecution: For Defence : NIL

Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C.Statement Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement Ex.P4: Statement Ex.P5: FIR Ex.P6: Rough sketch.

Material Object Marked: NIL

I/d. B.Rajesh, P.J.C.J-cum-J.F.C.M, KDP.

// TRUE COPY //

Principal Junior Civil Judge – CUM –

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

11

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by Principal Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judl. Magistrate of I Class :: Kadapa.

DATE OF

Offence ReportApprehensionRelease onCommencementClose ofJudgment of accusedbailof trial trial 20-3-13 16.12.201218-3-135-7-20194.10.2019 09.10.2019 1.09.2012

Calender and Judgment in C.C.No:05/2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge – cum – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

COMPLAINANT: The SHO of RIMS U/G P.S.

Name of the accused with Age Religion Residence

father's Name. Velpula Venkatesh @ Bahujan Venkatesh, Age 38 years, S/o Sreeramulu, D.No.38/926, Bahujan Nagar, Chinna Chowk village, Kadapa City, caste by Yadava, Occupation Business.

Offence : U/Sec.447, 506 of IPC and sec.5(B) of Land Grabbing Act, 1982.

Finding : Accused are found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.447 of IPC and sec.5(B) of Land Grabbing Act.

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U.sec.447, 506 IPC and U.sec.5(B) of Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. Therefore, he is acquitted U.sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of judgment U.sec.437(a) of Cr.P.C and thereafter shall stand cancelled. As there is no property seized and produced before this court, no property order is passed.

Sd/- Sri. B.Rajesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

– cum -Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa. Dis. No. Dt.

// TRUE COPY // 12

Principal Junior Civil Judge – CUM –

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : : KADAPA

Present: Sri B.Rajesh, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa,

Friday, this the 16nd day of August, 2019.

O.S.No.606/2019

Between: B.V.Narayana Reddy, S/o Veera Reddy, aged about 63 years, Hindu, Retired Employee, resident of D.No.101/236-3, Swamy Nagar, Buggavanka Project Road, Viswanathapuram, Kadapa City and District. ..… Plaintiff.

And

Injam Giridhar, S/o Munirathnam, aged about 40 years, Hindu,Software Engineer, resident of D.No.3/56, Krishna Samudram, Vijayapuram, Chithur District, Pin Code- 517586. ...… Defendant.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 16-08-2019. in presence of Sri G.Ramalinga Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant is set exparte and after having stood over for consideration till this day this Court has delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant for recovery sum of Rs.9,01,950/- with future interest and costs.

2. The brief averements made in the plaint as set out in the plaintiff are that the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed sum of Rs.5,25,000/- from the plaintiff on 30-6-2016 and executed the suit promissory note infavour of the plaintiff and agreeing to repay the same at 24% per annum either to him or to his order on demand.

Plaintiff made several demands on him to discharge the amount covered under the suit promissory note and also personally demanding him to discharge the amount, but he did not pay the suit amount covered under suit promissory note. As such there is no option to him except to file the suit against the defendant for recovery of the suit amount.

Hence the suit.

4. The defendant is set exparte.

5. In order to prove the suit claim, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1 who reiterated the plaint averements in support of Ex.A1 is marked. Ex.A1 is the original suit promissory note executed by the defendant for sum of Rs.5,25,000/- infavour of PW.1, dt.30.6.2016.

6. The evidence of PW.1 goes to show that the defendant borrowed sum of

Rs.5,25,000/- from the PW.1 under Ex.A1 suit promissory note on 30-6-2016 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % p.a., either to him or to his order on demand and executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note infavour of PW.1. Later, he demanded the defendant several times to discharge the amount covered under Ex.A1 suit promissory note amount, but he did not choose to pay the amount to the PW.1. The defendant is set exparte. He did not choose to contest the matter. The evidence of PW.1 is unchallenged and unrebutted.

7. The evidence of PW.1 and coupled with Ex.A1 clinchingly goes to show that the defendant is due sum of Rs.9,01,950/- to the PW.1. The evidence of PW.1 is proved the suit claim through Ex.A1.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs infavour of the plaintiff against the defendant for sum of Rs.9,01,950/- with subsequent interest 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree on principal sum Rs.5,25,000/- and thereafter at 6% p.a., from the date of decree and till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer to the Stenographer Grade - III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 16th day of August, 2019.

Sd/- Sri. B. Rajesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINATION

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

Pw1:B.V.Narayana Reddy NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

EX.A1 : Original promissory note executed by the defendant for sum of Rs.5,25,000/- in her favour dt:30.6.2016. For Defendant : NIL

Sd/- B. Rajesh,

PJCJ, KDP.

Plaint presented on : 28.6.2019 Plaint filed on: 29.6.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KADAPA

Present: Sri B.Rajesh, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa,

Friday, this the 16nd day of August, 2019.

O.S.No.606/2019

Between: B.V.Narayana Reddy, S/o Veera Reddy, aged about 63 years, Hindu, Retired Employee, resident of D.No.101/236-3, Swamy Nagar, Buggavanka Project Road, Viswanathapuram, Kadapa City and District. ..… Plaintiff.

And

Injam Giridhar, S/o Munirathnam, aged about 40 years, Hindu,Software Engineer, resident of D.No.3/56, Krishna Samudram, Vijayapuram, Chithur District, Pin Code- 517586. ...… Defendant.

Suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,01,950/- being the principal and interest due on a pronote dt:30-6-2016 and executed by the defendant infavour of the Plaintiff for a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- respectively repayable with interest at 24% per annum with future interest and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit is Rs.9,01,950/- and a court fee of Rs.11,526/- to paid U/sec.20 of APCF and S.V. Act.

Suit coming on this day before me for disposal in the presence of Sri.

G.Ramalingareddy, Advocate for plaintiffand the defendant called absent and

remained set exparte, upon perusing the records and having stood over for

consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows:

1.that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.9,01,950/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum, on the principal sum of Rs.5,25,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree and till the realization; and

2. That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.26,007/- being the cost of suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 16th day of August,

2019.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kadapa.

Memorandum of Costs:

PlaintiffDefendant

Rs.Rs.

Stamps on Plaint (C.F.)11,526-00--

Vakalat2-00--

Stamps on B. Memos50-00(Costs memo not filed)

Publication charges----

Typing charges50-00--

Advocate’s fee14,379-00--

Total:Rs.26,007-00 NIL

PJCJ, KDP.

Note: The parties shall apply as soon as possible for return of all the documents which they may wish to preserve, as all the documents will be destroyed after three

years from the date of decree.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : : KADAPA

Present: Sri B.Rajesh, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa,

Friday, this the 16nd day of August, 2019.

O.S.No.402/2019

Between: Karanam Ramanaiah, S/o K.Rama Swamy, Hindu aged about 63 years, Business, residing at D.No. 1/14, Pothapi post, Nandalur Mandal,Kadapa District. ..… Plaintiff.

And

Kola Srinivasulu, S/o K.Radha Krishnaiah, Hindu, aged about 54 years, Business, residing at D.No.6/137-D, Bharathi Bar Street, Near Ramalayam Temple, Sankarapuram, Kadapa City and District. ..… Defendant.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 16-08-2019. in presence of Sri P.Subbarayudu, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant is set exparte and after having stood over for consideration till this day this Court has delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant for recovery sum of Rs.2,00,200/- with future interest and costs.

2. The brief averements made in the plaint as set out in the plaintiff are that the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed sum of Rs.1,30,000/- from the plaintiff on 21-4-2016 for his family necessities and he executed the suit promissory note infavour of the plaintiff and agreeing to repay the same at 18% per annum either to him or to his order on demand. Plaintiff made several demands on him to discharge the4 amount covered under the suit promissory note and also personally demanding him to discharge the amount, but he did not pay the suit amount covered under suit promissory note. As such there is no option to him except to file the suit against the defendant for recovery of the suit amount. Hence the suit.

4. The defendant is set exparte.

5. In order to prove the suit claim, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1 who reiterated the plaint averements in support of Ex.A1 is marked. Ex.A1 is the original suit promissory note executed by the defendant for sum of Rs.1,30,000/- infavour of PW.1, dt.21.4.2016.

6. The evidence of PW.1 goes to show that the defendant borrowed sum of

Rs.1,30,000/- from the PW.1 under Ex.A1 suit promissory note on 21-4-2016 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18 % p.a., either to him or to his order on demand and executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note infavour of PW.1. Later, he demanded the defendant several times to discharge the amount covered under Ex.A1 suit promissory note amount, but he did not choose to pay the amount to the PW.1. The defendant is set exparte. He did not choose to contest the matter. The evidence of PW.1 is unchallenged and unrebutted.

7. The evidence of PW.1 and coupled with Ex.A1 clinchingly goes to show that the defendant is due sum of Rs.2,00,200/- to the PW.1. The evidence of PW.1 is proved the suit claim through Ex.A1.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs infavour of the plaintiff against the defendant for sum of Rs.2,00,200/- with subsequent interest 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree on principal sum Rs.1,30,000/- and thereafter @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree and till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer to the Stenographer Grade - III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 16th day of August, 2019.

Sd/- Sri.B.Rajesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINATION

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

Pw1:K.Ramanaiah NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

EX.A1 : Original promissory note executed by the defendant for sum of Rs.1,30,000/- in her favour dt:21.4.2016.

For Defendant : NIL

Sd/- B. Rajesh,

PJCJ, KDP.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : : KADAPA

Present: Sri B.Rajesh, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa,

Friday, this the 16nd day of August, 2019.

O.S.No.362/2019

Between: Samba Aruna Kumari, W/o S.Hari Hara Kumar, aged about 34 years, Hindu, Business, resident of D.No.42/383-30, Upstairs Bhagya Nagar Colony, Kadapa City. ..… Plaintiff.

And

Gajjala Nagendra, S/o Gajjala Balanna, aged about 40 years, Hindu, Ganapathi cutting Shop, resident of 42/383-28, Bhagya Nagar Colony, Kadapa City. ...… Defendant.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 16-08-2019. in presence of Sri M.Suresh KUmar, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant is set exparte and after having stood over for consideration till this day this Court has delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant for recovery sum of Rs.17,200/- with future interest and costs.

2. The brief averements made in the plaint as set out in the plaintiff are that the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed sum of Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff on 16-3-2016 for his immediate family necessities and he executed the suit promissory note infavour of the plaintiff and agreeing to repay the same at 24% per annum either to her or to her order on demand. Plaintiff made several demands on him to discharge the amount covered under the suit promissory note and also personally demanding him to discharge the amount, but he did not pay the suit amount covered under suit promissory note. As such there is no option to her except to file the suit against the defendant for recovery of the suit amount. Hence the suit.

4. The defendant is set exparte.

5. In order to prove the suit claim, the plaintiff herself got examined as PW.1 who reiterated the plaint averements in support of Ex.A1 is marked. Ex.A1 is the original suit promissory note executed by the defendant for sum of Rs.10,000/- infavour of PW.1, dt.16.3.2016.

6. The evidence of PW.1 goes to show that the defendant borrowed sum of

Rs.10,000/- from the PW.1 under Ex.A1 suit promissory note on 16-3-2016 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % p.a., either to her or to her order on demand and executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note infavour of PW.1. Later, she demanded the defendant several times to discharge the amount covered under Ex.A1 suit promissory note amount, but he did not choose to pay the amount to the PW.1. The defendant is set exparte. He did not choose to contest the matter. The evidence of PW.1 is unchallenged and unrebutted.

7. The evidence of PW.1 and coupled with Ex.A1 clinchingly goes to show that the defendant is due sum of Rs.17,200/- to the PW.1. The evidence of PW.1 is proved the suit claim through Ex.A1.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs infavour of the plaintiff against the defendant for sum of Rs.17,200/- with subsequent interest 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree on principal sum Rs.10,000/- and thereafter at 6% p.a., from the date of decree and till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer to the Stenographer Grade - III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 16th day of August, 2019.

Sd/-Sri B.Rajesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINATION

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

Pw1:S.Aruna Kumari NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

EX.A1 : Original promissory note executed by the defendant for sum of Rs.10,000/- in her favour dt:16.3.2016.

For Defendant : NIL I/d.B.Rajesh,

PJCJ, KDP.