B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL­CUM­PRINCIPAL

DISTRICT JUDGE, EAST GODAVARI :: AT :: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

 PRESENT : SRI B.SAI KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHI, 

 CHAIRMAN, MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENTS 

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL­CUM­PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Wednesday, the 17th day of June 2020

MVOP No.58/2009

Between :

1.Smt Thota Somu Lakshmi.

2.Thota Narasimhara Rao (Died)...Petitioners.

AND 1.Sirisetti Chittodu @ Chittibabu.

2.M/s.P.S.L. Holdings Ltd., Visakhapatnam represented by its Managing Director.

3.M/s.New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

rep. By its Divisional Manager, Rajahmundry...Respondents.

This petition coming on before me for final hearing on 17.3.2020 in the presence of Sri K.L.Bhavani, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri Msambasiva

Rao, Advocate for 3rd respondent; Respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/­ for the loss of life of

Thota Veera Venkata Murali Krishna Rao @ Murali Krishnarao @ Murali

Krishna in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.1.2007 at about 7.30 p.m. in flront of the petrol bunk sitauted on Samalkot­Peddapuram A.D.B.

Road, East Godavari District.

2

2.1st petitioner is mother and 2nd petitioner is father of the deceased

Thota Veera Venkata Murali Krishna Rao @ Murali Krishnarao @ Murali

Krishna (herein after referred to as deceased). During pendency of the petition, the counsel for the petitioner filed a memo on 6.5.2019 stating that, 2nd petitioner died. 

On 11.7.2007 at 8 a.m., the deceased and M.L.V.N.Satyanarayana proceeding on their L.M.L. energy motor cycle from Rajahmundry to

Visakhapatnam on business promotion work. After completion of their work, they returned to Rajahmundry, when they reached near Petrol Bunk situated on Samlkot­Peddapuram ADB road, the 1st respondent driver of Jeep bearing

No.AP31V 3907 had driven it in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased and pillion rider fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Safe

Emergency Hospital, Kakinada in 108 Ambulance, where he succumbed with injuries. The deceased was aged 27 years and he was hale and healthy. The deceased was running Bits and Bytes Computer Center at Danavaipeta,

Rajahmundry. He used to earn Rs.20,000/­ per month. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. 1st respondent is the driver, 2nd respondent is the owner, 3rd respondent is the insurer of 2nd respondent. As such all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Hence the claim. 

3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte. 

3rd respondent filed counter denying the allegations in the petition and contended that, 1st respondent is not having a valid and effective driving license. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of deceased.

3

The petitioners are not dependants on the earnings of the deceased. The claim of compensation is excessive and exorbitant and prays to dismiss the claim against this respondent.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed and settled for trial.

1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep bearing No.AP31 V 3907 by its driver, 1st respondent herein?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation amount claimed? If so, from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

5.On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 to PW.3 were examined and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A18. Exs.A1/attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.12/2007 of

Peddapuram P.S, Ex.A2/Attested copy of altered FIR; Ex.A3/Attested copy of inquest report; Ex.A4/attested copy of P.M. Report; Ex.A5/attested copy of charge sheet; Ex.A6/Death certificate of 2nd petitioner; Ex.A7/bunch of medical bills; Ex.A8/bunch of prescriptions; Ex.A9/invitation card of BITS N Bytes computer technologies; Ex.A10/computer center opening photos; Ex.A11/no due certificate issued by Jetty Suryarao and sons; Ex.A12/certificate issued by

Indian Institute of computer accounts and taxation; Ex.A13/bunch of receipts and vouchers spent towards ads and purchase of computer and accessories;

Ex.A14/attested copy of bank statement issued by Andhra Bank;

Ex.A15/identity card of deceased issued by A.P.State Basic practitioners association; Ex.A16/deceased certificate at participation pulse polio programme; Ex.A17/income tax returns of deceased for the year 2006 and

Ex.A18 is the Photostat copy of driving license of deceased. On behalf of the 4 respondents, respondents did not adduce any evidence, but marked

Ex.B1/copy of insurance policy.

ISSUE NO.1:­

6.The legal representatives of the deceased Thota Veera Venkata

Murali Krishna Rao @ Murali Krishnarao @ Murali Krishna, who are parents of the deceased filed the petition for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/­ for the loss of life of their son in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.1.2007 at about 7.30 p.m. in front of the petrol bunk situated on Samalkot­Peddapuram

A.D.B. Road, East Godavari District.

7.The mother of deceased is examined as PW.1 and she filed his chief affidavit, which is nothing but reiteration of petition averments. In support of her contention, she got examined PW.2 who is pillion rider on the vehicle of the deceased. He deposed in his chief affidavit that, on 11.1.2017 at about 7.30 p.m. himself and the deceased were travelling on his motor cycle bearing No.AP5S 6857 from Kakinada to Rajahmundry and when they reached near petrol Bunk on Samalkota­Peddapuram ADB road, the 1st respondent

Jeep bearing No.AP31 V 3907 had driven it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed his vehicle. As a result, himself and the deceased fell down on the road. The deceased received severe injuries and lost his consciousness.

Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Safe Emergency Hospital, Kakinada, where he succumbed with injuries. During his cross examination, he stated that, on the date of accident, they started from Rajahmundry and went to

Visakhapatnam and came to Kakinada and on the way back to Rajahmundry, the accident occurred. They both drove the vehicle alternatively. He denied the suggestion that, the accident occurred due to negligence of deceased.

Nothing much could be elicited from the cross examination of PW.2 in order to 5 discredit his testimony. Apart from the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, PW.1 also relied upon the Exs.A1/attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.12/2007 of Peddapuram

P.S, Ex.A2/Attested copy of altered FIR; Ex.A3/Attested copy of inquest report;

Ex.A4/attested copy of P.M. Report and Ex.A5/attested copy of charge sheet.

All these documents go to show that, there is no mechanical defect to the crime vehicle.

The respondents in this case did not adduce any evidence in support of their contentions in the written statement. 1st respondent is the driver of the crime vehicle, 2nd respondent is the owner of crime vehicle, who remained exparte and while 3rd respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicle took a defence in the written statement that the 1st respondent has no valid driving license at the time of accident. 3rd respondent claimed that the compensation is excessive. PW.2 is the eye witness to the accident and he is the pillion rider on the motor cycle at the time of accident. But there is no evidence whatsoever by the respondents in this case in support of their contentions raised in the written statement. 

 In view of the above, it is clear that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1strespondent, as such, 2nd respondent/owner and 3rd respondent/Insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.2:­

8.3rd respondent filed copy of insurance policy/Ex.B1, which is standing in the name of 2nd respondent. The said insurance policy is valid from the period from 9.11.2006 to 8.11.2007. The accident took place on 11.1.2007. So, by the date of accident, the insurance policy was in force.

6

9.The legal representatives of the deceased who are the parents of the deceased filed this petition for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/­. As per the evidence of P.W.1 and the pleadings, the deceased was running Bits and Bytes

Computer Center at Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry. He used to earn Rs.20,000/­ per month. In support of her contention, she filed Ex.A9/invitation card of

BITS N Bytes computer technologies; Ex.A10/computer center opening photos;

Ex.A11/no due certificate issued by Jetty Suryarao and sons;

Ex.A12/certificate issued by Indian Institute of computer accounts and taxation; Ex.A13/bunch of receipts and vouchers spent towards ads and purchase of computer and accessories; Ex.A14/attested copy of bank statement issued by Andhra Bank; Ex.A15/identity card of deceased issued by

A.P.State Basic practitioners association and Ex.A16/deceased certificate at participation pulse polio programme. In support of her/PW.1 contention, she got examined Pw.3. PW.3 deposed that, he is having commercial complex at

Danavaipeta,Innispeta,StadiumRoadandPrakashNagar,

Rajamahendravaram. The deceased used to run Bits and Bytes Computer

Center from 8.12.2004 to 4.11.2006. Ex.A11/no due certificate was issued by him to the deceased. The deceased used to pay the rents every month regularly.

10.The evidence of PW.3 clearly goes to show that, the deceased used to run Bits and Bytes computer center. PW.3 did not state the rent which the deceased is paid to him. He simply stated that, the deceased used to pay the rents every month regularly.

11.PW.1 filed Ex.P17 income tax returns of deceased for the year 2006 and 2007 in order to show the income of the deceased. The date of accident was on 11.1.2007. During her cross examination, she stated that, her 7 husband filed income tax returns on 18.6.2007 after death of her son. She denied the suggestion that, in order to get more compensation, her husband filed income tax returns of her son after his death with exaggerated income.

12.The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in a case reported in Oriental

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ramilaben and others reported in 2018 ACJ 1986 by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

V.Subbulakshmi Vs. S.Lakshmi reported in 2008 ACJ 936 SC held that, the loss of income would have to be assessed on the basis of income tax filed during the life time of deceased. 

Thus, it is clear from the above decision that the income tax returns filed during the life time of deceased alone has to be taken into consideration and last income tax return submitted by the deceased should be taken into consideration. In this case, the income tax returns filed by the deceased during his life time is not filed before this Tribunal. Hence, Ex.P17 is not taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing income of the deceased.

13.Ex.A9 to Ex.A16 clearly goes to show that, the deceased used to run Bits and Bytes computer center and eking out his livelihood. In view of absence of any documentary evidence to show the earning capacity of the deceased, this Tribunal by taking into consideration of Ex.A9 to Ex.A16 documents, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/­ per month. The age of the deceased is mentioned as `27 years in the petition and the same is supported by Ex.A3 inquest report and Ex.A4 postmortem examination report.

8

14.The petitioner filed Ex.A7 bunch medical bills and Ex.A8 bunch of prescriptions to show that the deceased took treatment. But the petitioner did not examine the Doctor to prove that the deceased took treatment and they issued Ex.A7 and Ex.A8, hence, this Tribunal has not taken into consideration

Ex.A7 and Ex.A8.

15.The Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of a Constitutional bench in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors in ACJ 2017

ACJ 2700, while dealing with the multiplier specified in the second schedule and also the future prospects held in para 59 as follows: 

''Taking into consideration the cumulative factors namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable '' Their Lordships ultimately concluded in para 61 as follows [I].......

[ii]........

[iii]While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 

[iv] In case the deceased was self­employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 

[v] For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma case 9 [vi] The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma. 

[vii] The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 

[viii] Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/­, Rs.40,000/­, and Rs.15,000/­ respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. ''

16.Thus taking the above dictum laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court into consideration and applying the same to the case on hand, there shall be an addition of 40% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects (as the age of deceased is 27 years). Thus in this case if 40% is added to the income of the deceased of 10,000/­ per month, then the income of the deceased would come to Rs.14,000/­ per month (Rs.10,000/­ + 4,000/­).

17.In Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009

A.C.J 1298 their Lordship of Supreme Court very exhaustively discussed thread bare with illustrations about the deduction for personal and living expenses in para 25 of the Judgment. It was held by their Lord ships in Para 31 and 32 as follows:­ “Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In re­ gard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.'' 10

Thus, taking the above guidelines in to consideration, in this case, the deceased was an young person of 27 years and a bachelor, the deduction to be made will be 50%. The monthly contribution comes to Rs.7,000/­.(14,000/2).

The annual contribution would come to Rs.84,000/­ (7,000 x 12) which the deceased would have contributed to the family. As per the decisions of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2015 ACJ 1985, above the age of the deceased

should be taken into consideration for determining the choice of multiplier.

Therefore, considering the age of the deceased as 27 years, the rel­ evant multiplier corresponding (as per the table fixed in Sarala Varma's case) is '17'. Then the loss of dependency comes to Rs.14,28,000/­ [84,000 x 17).

18The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd.

vs. Pranay Seth and Others 2017 ACJ 2700 held at para 61 clause [viii ]as follows: 

''[viii] Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/­, Rs.40,000/­, and Rs.15,000/­ respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. ''

19.Following the above principle and applying the same, to this case, 1st petitioner is entitled to Rs.15,000/­ towards funeral expenses and

Rs.15,000/­ towards loss of estate. Thus the total compensation, which the 1st petitioner is entitled comes to Rs.14,58,000/­ [14,28,000 + Rs.30,000/­] which is just and reasonable. The issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.3 :

20.In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs.

11

1. The 1st petitioner are entitled for compensation to a tune of

Rs.14,58,000/­ [Rupees Fourteen Lakhs, Fifty Eight thousand only)

2. Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the 1st petitioner. 

3. 3rd respondent as insurer is directed to deposit the said sum with interest at 6% p.a., from 7.1.2009 to 21.6.2010, from 2.9.2014 to 31.3.2015 and from 3.4.2019 to till realization, within 30 days from the date of award.

4. On such deposit the 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw

Rs.10,00,000/­ (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) in the first instance and the remain­ ing balance shall be invested in fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank for a pe­ riod of One year. Thereafter, after its maturity the 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest thereon by filing an applica­ tion.

5. Petition against 2nd petitioner is abated.

6. Advocate fee fixed at Rs.10,000/­

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 17 th day of June 2020. 

Sd/­ B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi. Chairman, Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal­cum­

Principal District Judge,

Rajamahendravaram.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For petitioner:

PW.1 : Thota Somu Lakshmi

PW.2 : Maradula Lakshmi Venkata Naga Satyanarayana.

PW.3 : Jetti Prasad Rao

For respondents: NIL

12

Documents marked

For petitioner:

Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.12/2007 of Peddapuram P.S.

Ex.A2: Attested copy of altered FIR; 

Ex.A3:Attested copy of inquest report.

Ex.A4:Attested copy of P.M. Report; 

Ex.A5:Attested copy of charge sheet; 

Ex.A6:Death certificate of 2nd petitioner;

Ex.A7: Bunch of medical bills; 

Ex.A8:Bunch of prescriptions; 

Ex.A9: Invitation card of BITS N Bytes computer technologies;

Ex.A10:Computer center opening photos; 

Ex.A11:No due certificate issued by Jetty Suryarao and sons;

Ex.A12:Certificate issued by Indian Institute of computer accounts and taxation; 

Ex.A13:Bunch of receipts and vouchers spent towards ads and purchase of computer and accessories; 

Ex.A14:Attested copy of bank statement issued by Andhra Bank;

Ex.A15: Identity card of deceased issued by A.P.State Basic practitioners association; 

Ex.A16: Deceased certificate at participation pulse polio programme;

Ex.A17: Income tax returns of deceased for the year 2006

Ex.A18: Photostat copy of driving license of deceased. 

For respondents:

Ex.B1: copy of insurance policy. Sd/­ B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi. P.D.J.

13

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL­CUM­PRINCIPAL

DISTRICT JUDGE, EAST GODAVARI :: AT :: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

 PRESENT : SRI B.SAI KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHI, 

 CHAIRMAN, MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENTS 

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL­CUM­PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Wednesday, the 17th day of June 2020

MVOP No.58/2009

Between :

1.Smt Thota Somu Lakshmi.

2.Thota Narasimhara Rao (Died)...Petitioners.

AND 1.Sirisetti Chittodu @ Chittibabu.

2.M/s.P.S.L. Holdings Ltd., Visakhapatnam represented by its Managing Director.

3.M/s.New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

rep. By its Divisional Manager, Rajahmundry...Respondents.

This petition coming on before me for final hearing on 17.3.2020 in the presence of Sri K.L.Bhavani, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri Msambasiva

Rao, Advocate for 3rd respondent; Respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/­ for the loss of life of

Thota Veera Venkata Murali Krishna Rao @ Murali Krishnarao @ Murali

Krishna in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.1.2007 at about 7.30 p.m. in flront of the petrol bunk sitauted on Samalkot­Peddapuram A.D.B.

Road, East Godavari District.

2

2.1st petitioner is mother and 2nd petitioner is father of the deceased

Thota Veera Venkata Murali Krishna Rao @ Murali Krishnarao @ Murali

Krishna (herein after referred to as deceased). During pendency of the petition, the counsel for the petitioner filed a memo on 6.5.2019 stating that, 2nd petitioner died. 

On 11.7.2007 at 8 a.m., the deceased and M.L.V.N.Satyanarayana proceeding on their L.M.L. energy motor cycle from Rajahmundry to

Visakhapatnam on business promotion work. After completion of their work, they returned to Rajahmundry, when they reached near Petrol Bunk situated on Samlkot­Peddapuram ADB road, the 1st respondent driver of Jeep bearing

No.AP31V 3907 had driven it in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased and pillion rider fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Safe

Emergency Hospital, Kakinada in 108 Ambulance, where he succumbed with injuries. The deceased was aged 27 years and he was hale and healthy. The deceased was running Bits and Bytes Computer Center at Danavaipeta,

Rajahmundry. He used to earn Rs.20,000/­ per month. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. 1st respondent is the driver, 2nd respondent is the owner, 3rd respondent is the insurer of 2nd respondent. As such all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Hence the claim. 

3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte. 

3rd respondent filed counter denying the allegations in the petition and contended that, 1st respondent is not having a valid and effective driving license. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of deceased.

3

The petitioners are not dependants on the earnings of the deceased. The claim of compensation is excessive and exorbitant and prays to dismiss the claim against this respondent.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed and settled for trial.

1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep bearing No.AP31 V 3907 by its driver, 1st respondent herein?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation amount claimed? If so, from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

5.On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 to PW.3 were examined and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A18. Exs.A1/attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.12/2007 of

Peddapuram P.S, Ex.A2/Attested copy of altered FIR; Ex.A3/Attested copy of inquest report; Ex.A4/attested copy of P.M. Report; Ex.A5/attested copy of charge sheet; Ex.A6/Death certificate of 2nd petitioner; Ex.A7/bunch of medical bills; Ex.A8/bunch of prescriptions; Ex.A9/invitation card of BITS N Bytes computer technologies; Ex.A10/computer center opening photos; Ex.A11/no due certificate issued by Jetty Suryarao and sons; Ex.A12/certificate issued by

Indian Institute of computer accounts and taxation; Ex.A13/bunch of receipts and vouchers spent towards ads and purchase of computer and accessories;

Ex.A14/attested copy of bank statement issued by Andhra Bank;

Ex.A15/identity card of deceased issued by A.P.State Basic practitioners association; Ex.A16/deceased certificate at participation pulse polio programme; Ex.A17/income tax returns of deceased for the year 2006 and

Ex.A18 is the Photostat copy of driving license of deceased. On behalf of the 4 respondents, respondents did not adduce any evidence, but marked

Ex.B1/copy of insurance policy.

ISSUE NO.1:­

6.The legal representatives of the deceased Thota Veera Venkata

Murali Krishna Rao @ Murali Krishnarao @ Murali Krishna, who are parents of the deceased filed the petition for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/­ for the loss of life of their son in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.1.2007 at about 7.30 p.m. in front of the petrol bunk situated on Samalkot­Peddapuram

A.D.B. Road, East Godavari District.

7.The mother of deceased is examined as PW.1 and she filed his chief affidavit, which is nothing but reiteration of petition averments. In support of her contention, she got examined PW.2 who is pillion rider on the vehicle of the deceased. He deposed in his chief affidavit that, on 11.1.2017 at about 7.30 p.m. himself and the deceased were travelling on his motor cycle bearing No.AP5S 6857 from Kakinada to Rajahmundry and when they reached near petrol Bunk on Samalkota­Peddapuram ADB road, the 1st respondent

Jeep bearing No.AP31 V 3907 had driven it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed his vehicle. As a result, himself and the deceased fell down on the road. The deceased received severe injuries and lost his consciousness.

Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Safe Emergency Hospital, Kakinada, where he succumbed with injuries. During his cross examination, he stated that, on the date of accident, they started from Rajahmundry and went to

Visakhapatnam and came to Kakinada and on the way back to Rajahmundry, the accident occurred. They both drove the vehicle alternatively. He denied the suggestion that, the accident occurred due to negligence of deceased.

Nothing much could be elicited from the cross examination of PW.2 in order to 5 discredit his testimony. Apart from the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, PW.1 also relied upon the Exs.A1/attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.12/2007 of Peddapuram

P.S, Ex.A2/Attested copy of altered FIR; Ex.A3/Attested copy of inquest report;

Ex.A4/attested copy of P.M. Report and Ex.A5/attested copy of charge sheet.

All these documents go to show that, there is no mechanical defect to the crime vehicle.

The respondents in this case did not adduce any evidence in support of their contentions in the written statement. 1st respondent is the driver of the crime vehicle, 2nd respondent is the owner of crime vehicle, who remained exparte and while 3rd respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicle took a defence in the written statement that the 1st respondent has no valid driving license at the time of accident. 3rd respondent claimed that the compensation is excessive. PW.2 is the eye witness to the accident and he is the pillion rider on the motor cycle at the time of accident. But there is no evidence whatsoever by the respondents in this case in support of their contentions raised in the written statement. 

 In view of the above, it is clear that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1strespondent, as such, 2nd respondent/owner and 3rd respondent/Insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.2:­

8.3rd respondent filed copy of insurance policy/Ex.B1, which is standing in the name of 2nd respondent. The said insurance policy is valid from the period from 9.11.2006 to 8.11.2007. The accident took place on 11.1.2007. So, by the date of accident, the insurance policy was in force.

6

9.The legal representatives of the deceased who are the parents of the deceased filed this petition for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/­. As per the evidence of P.W.1 and the pleadings, the deceased was running Bits and Bytes

Computer Center at Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry. He used to earn Rs.20,000/­ per month. In support of her contention, she filed Ex.A9/invitation card of

BITS N Bytes computer technologies; Ex.A10/computer center opening photos;

Ex.A11/no due certificate issued by Jetty Suryarao and sons;

Ex.A12/certificate issued by Indian Institute of computer accounts and taxation; Ex.A13/bunch of receipts and vouchers spent towards ads and purchase of computer and accessories; Ex.A14/attested copy of bank statement issued by Andhra Bank; Ex.A15/identity card of deceased issued by

A.P.State Basic practitioners association and Ex.A16/deceased certificate at participation pulse polio programme. In support of her/PW.1 contention, she got examined Pw.3. PW.3 deposed that, he is having commercial complex at

Danavaipeta,Innispeta,StadiumRoadandPrakashNagar,

Rajamahendravaram. The deceased used to run Bits and Bytes Computer

Center from 8.12.2004 to 4.11.2006. Ex.A11/no due certificate was issued by him to the deceased. The deceased used to pay the rents every month regularly.

10.The evidence of PW.3 clearly goes to show that, the deceased used to run Bits and Bytes computer center. PW.3 did not state the rent which the deceased is paid to him. He simply stated that, the deceased used to pay the rents every month regularly.

11.PW.1 filed Ex.P17 income tax returns of deceased for the year 2006 and 2007 in order to show the income of the deceased. The date of accident was on 11.1.2007. During her cross examination, she stated that, her 7 husband filed income tax returns on 18.6.2007 after death of her son. She denied the suggestion that, in order to get more compensation, her husband filed income tax returns of her son after his death with exaggerated income.

12.The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in a case reported in Oriental

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ramilaben and others reported in 2018 ACJ 1986 by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

V.Subbulakshmi Vs. S.Lakshmi reported in 2008 ACJ 936 SC held that, the loss of income would have to be assessed on the basis of income tax filed during the life time of deceased. 

Thus, it is clear from the above decision that the income tax returns filed during the life time of deceased alone has to be taken into consideration and last income tax return submitted by the deceased should be taken into consideration. In this case, the income tax returns filed by the deceased during his life time is not filed before this Tribunal. Hence, Ex.P17 is not taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing income of the deceased.

13.Ex.A9 to Ex.A16 clearly goes to show that, the deceased used to run Bits and Bytes computer center and eking out his livelihood. In view of absence of any documentary evidence to show the earning capacity of the deceased, this Tribunal by taking into consideration of Ex.A9 to Ex.A16 documents, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/­ per month. The age of the deceased is mentioned as `27 years in the petition and the same is supported by Ex.A3 inquest report and Ex.A4 postmortem examination report.

8

14.The petitioner filed Ex.A7 bunch medical bills and Ex.A8 bunch of prescriptions to show that the deceased took treatment. But the petitioner did not examine the Doctor to prove that the deceased took treatment and they issued Ex.A7 and Ex.A8, hence, this Tribunal has not taken into consideration

Ex.A7 and Ex.A8.

15.The Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of a Constitutional bench in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors in ACJ 2017

ACJ 2700, while dealing with the multiplier specified in the second schedule and also the future prospects held in para 59 as follows: 

''Taking into consideration the cumulative factors namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable '' Their Lordships ultimately concluded in para 61 as follows [I].......

[ii]........

[iii]While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 

[iv] In case the deceased was self­employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 

[v] For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma case 9 [vi] The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma. 

[vii] The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 

[viii] Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/­, Rs.40,000/­, and Rs.15,000/­ respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. ''

16.Thus taking the above dictum laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court into consideration and applying the same to the case on hand, there shall be an addition of 40% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects (as the age of deceased is 27 years). Thus in this case if 40% is added to the income of the deceased of 10,000/­ per month, then the income of the deceased would come to Rs.14,000/­ per month (Rs.10,000/­ + 4,000/­).

17.In Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009

A.C.J 1298 their Lordship of Supreme Court very exhaustively discussed thread bare with illustrations about the deduction for personal and living expenses in para 25 of the Judgment. It was held by their Lord ships in Para 31 and 32 as follows:­ “Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In re­ gard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.'' 10

Thus, taking the above guidelines in to consideration, in this case, the deceased was an young person of 27 years and a bachelor, the deduction to be made will be 50%. The monthly contribution comes to Rs.7,000/­.(14,000/2).

The annual contribution would come to Rs.84,000/­ (7,000 x 12) which the deceased would have contributed to the family. As per the decisions of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2015 ACJ 1985, above the age of the deceased

should be taken into consideration for determining the choice of multiplier.

Therefore, considering the age of the deceased as 27 years, the rel­ evant multiplier corresponding (as per the table fixed in Sarala Varma's case) is '17'. Then the loss of dependency comes to Rs.14,28,000/­ [84,000 x 17).

18The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd.

vs. Pranay Seth and Others 2017 ACJ 2700 held at para 61 clause [viii ]as follows: 

''[viii] Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/­, Rs.40,000/­, and Rs.15,000/­ respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. ''

19.Following the above principle and applying the same, to this case, 1st petitioner is entitled to Rs.15,000/­ towards funeral expenses and

Rs.15,000/­ towards loss of estate. Thus the total compensation, which the 1st petitioner is entitled comes to Rs.14,58,000/­ [14,28,000 + Rs.30,000/­] which is just and reasonable. The issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.3 :

20.In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs.

11

1. The 1st petitioner are entitled for compensation to a tune of

Rs.14,58,000/­ [Rupees Fourteen Lakhs, Fifty Eight thousand only)

2. Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the 1st petitioner. 

3. 3rd respondent as insurer is directed to deposit the said sum with interest at 6% p.a., from 7.1.2009 to 21.6.2010, from 2.9.2014 to 31.3.2015 and from 3.4.2019 to till realization, within 30 days from the date of award.

4. On such deposit the 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw

Rs.10,00,000/­ (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) in the first instance and the remain­ ing balance shall be invested in fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank for a pe­ riod of One year. Thereafter, after its maturity the 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest thereon by filing an applica­ tion.

5. Petition against 2nd petitioner is abated.

6. Advocate fee fixed at Rs.10,000/­

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 17 th day of June 2020. 

Sd/­ B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi. Chairman, Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal­cum­

Principal District Judge,

Rajamahendravaram.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For petitioner:

PW.1 : Thota Somu Lakshmi

PW.2 : Maradula Lakshmi Venkata Naga Satyanarayana.

PW.3 : Jetti Prasad Rao

For respondents: NIL

12

Documents marked

For petitioner:

Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.12/2007 of Peddapuram P.S.

Ex.A2: Attested copy of altered FIR; 

Ex.A3:Attested copy of inquest report.

Ex.A4:Attested copy of P.M. Report; 

Ex.A5:Attested copy of charge sheet; 

Ex.A6:Death certificate of 2nd petitioner;

Ex.A7: Bunch of medical bills; 

Ex.A8:Bunch of prescriptions; 

Ex.A9: Invitation card of BITS N Bytes computer technologies;

Ex.A10:Computer center opening photos; 

Ex.A11:No due certificate issued by Jetty Suryarao and sons;

Ex.A12:Certificate issued by Indian Institute of computer accounts and taxation; 

Ex.A13:Bunch of receipts and vouchers spent towards ads and purchase of computer and accessories; 

Ex.A14:Attested copy of bank statement issued by Andhra Bank;

Ex.A15: Identity card of deceased issued by A.P.State Basic practitioners association; 

Ex.A16: Deceased certificate at participation pulse polio programme;

Ex.A17: Income tax returns of deceased for the year 2006

Ex.A18: Photostat copy of driving license of deceased. 

For respondents:

Ex.B1: copy of insurance policy. Sd/­ B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi. P.D.J.

13

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: EAST GODAVARI AT

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: Sri B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,

Principal District Judge,

Rajamahendravaram.

Wednesday, the 17th day of June 2020

A.S.No.150/2016

Between: 

Sree Keerthi Finance, represented by its Managing

Partner, Ch.Swaminadha Rao...Appellant

AND 1.M/s.Sriram Chits Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, Kakinada.

2.M/s.Sriram Chits Pvt. Ltd., represented by its

Branch Manager, Main Road, Ramachandrapuram...Respondents.

Appeal preferred against Judgment and decree on the file of Senior Civil

Judge’s court, Ramachandrapuram in OS No.250/2011 dated 28.3.2016. 

Between:

Sree Keerthi Finance, represented by its Managing

Partner, Ch.Swaminadha Rao...Plaintiff.

AND 1.M/s.Sriram Chits Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, Kakinada.

2.M/s.Sriram Chits Pvt. Ltd., represented by its

Branch Manager, Main Road, Ramachandrapuram...Defendants.

This appeal coming before me on 3.2.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.R.Satya Sai, Advocate for appellant and of Sri

K.S.Laxminarayana, Advocate for respondents and after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

2

 J U D G M E N T

1.This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.250/2011 dated 28.3.2016 Senior Civil Judge’s court, Ramachandrapuram.

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the trial court.

2.Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.2,02,227/­ from the defendants with future interest and also a sum of Rs.50,000/­ towards damages and for costs.

3.Plaintiff firm is doing finance business in the name and style of Sri

Keerthi Finance at Kakinada. 1st defendant is doing chit fund business in various places in Andhra Pradesh. The plaintiff’s firm joined as a member in several chit groups of D1’s company. It allotted subscription Nos.RCLK1­25,

RCLK1­29, RCKL1­35, RCLK1­49 AND RCLK1­13. The plaintiff’s firm in the auction of the chit Nos.RCLK1­25, RCLK1­29, RCKL1­35, RCLK1­49 AND

RCLK1­13 became highest bidder for Rs.1,90,000/­ each. The said chit groups were closed in 2005 and 2007. Inspite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice on 11.1.2010 by the plaintiff’s firm, the defendants paid

Rs.1,66,030/­,Rs.1,66,030/­,Rs.1,06,233/­,Rs.1,16,729/­and

Rs.1,61,522/­ respectively to the plaintiff’s firm. Due to non­payment of prize amount by the defendants, the plaintiff’s firm sustained financial loss and mental agony, as such, the defendants are liable to pay damages at

Rs.50,000/­ and also interest of Rs.2,02,227/­ due on five chits. Hence the suit.

3

4.2nd defendant filed written statements and the same is adopted by 1st defendant. In the written statement, the defendants denied the allegations in the plaint except admitting that the plaintiff’s firm joined as a member in several chit groups. Plaintiff willfully suppressed the real facts and came up with false case. The plaintiff is well aware of the fact that income tax authorities have instructed the defendants to stop payments as garnishes of the present plaintiff’s firm, as they attached the chits amounts of the plaintiff’s firm lying with the defendants. After raising the attachment, the defendants paid the amounts to the plaintiff firm. The suit claims are barred by limitation.

The plaintiff’s firm filed the suit in order to have wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss and harassment to the defendants. There is no cause of action to file the suit and suit is liable to be dismissed. 

5.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial by the trial court:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount?

2. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of parties?

3. To what relief? 

6.On behalf of plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and marked Ex.A1 to

Ex.A5. On behalf of defendants, DW.1 was examined and marked Ex.B1 to

Ex.B3.

7.After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial

Court dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment of the learned Trial Judge, the unsuccessful plaintiff preferred this appeal 4

In this appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that, the trial court erred in dismissing the suit without considering the legal aspect and also the evidence on record. The trial court failed to consider that, who is the subscriber of the defendants firm whether the plaintiff firm or the Managing Partner individually. The Trial Court failed to see that the plaintiff’s firm is an individual income tax assessee and the

Managing Partner is also individual income tax assessee. The Trial Court failed to see that income tax authorities issued notices to stop the payment of

Chappdi Swaminadhara Rao, but not plaintiff’s firm and prays to allow the appeal. 

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent supported the findings of the learned Trial Judge.

8.Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount?

2. Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Trial Judges?

POINT Nos.1 and 2:

9.The contention of the plaintiff is that, he is doing finance business in the name and style of Sri Keerthi Finance at Kakinada. His firm joined as a member in several chit groups of D1’s company. It allotted subscription

Nos.RCLK1­25, RCLK1­29, RCKL1­35, RCLK1­49 AND RCLK1­13. The plaintiff’s firm became highest bidder in the auction and that said chit groups were closed in 2005 and 2007. Inspite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice on 11.1.2010 by the plaintiff’s firm, the defendants paid 5

Rs.1,66,030/­,Rs.1,66,030/­,Rs.1,06,233/­,Rs.1,16,729/­and

Rs.1,61,522/­ respectively to the plaintiff’s firm. Due to non­payment of prize amount by the defendants, the plaintiff’s firm sustained financial loss and mental agony, as such, the defendants are liable to pay damages at

Rs.50,000/­ and also interest of Rs.2,02,227/­ due on five chits.

10.It is the contention of the defendants that, the income tax authorities have instructed them to stop payments as garnishes of the present plaintiff, as they attached the chits amounts of the plaintiff lying with the defendants. After raising the attachment, they paid the amounts to the plaintiff’s firm and this suit is filed to have wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss and to harass them.

11.There is no dispute with regard to joining in the chit groups by the plaintiff’s firm in the 1st defendant’s firm and auctioned the amount. The short point to be determined is, whether there are any valid reasons for 2nd defendant for non­payment of chit amounts to the plaintiff’s firm.

12.The Managing Director of plaintiff’s firm filed his chief affidavit as

PW.1, which is nothing but reiteration of averments of plaint.

During cross examination, he categorically admitted that, he received attachment orders attaching his properties and also the properties of

Shriram Chits by the Income Tax department. After raising the attachment order by the income tax department in the year 2009, Shriram Chits released the amounts due to him in the year 2009. Shiram Chits, Ramachandrapuram

Branch sent copy of reply notice to him, which was issued to the income tax department. He did not issue any notice to the Shiram Chits,

Ramachandrapuram Branch stating that attachment orders of Income Tax 6 department are related to his personal and not to the plaintiff’s firm.

Attachment orders of the Income Tax Department were communicated to him after auction was completed and thereby, he was not give bid amount.

13.From the above evidence of PW.1, it is very much clear that, PW.1 has knowledge of the fact that, the Income Tax department attached the amount lying in the 2nd defendant firm, as such, 2nd defendant withhold the amount of plaintiff’s firm in pursuance of directions of the Income Tax

Department. PW.1 admitted in his cross examination that, after raising attachment by the Income Tax Department, Shriram Chits paid amount to him.

14.The main contention of the plaintiff/appellant is that, the attachment order was issued in the name of Ch.Swaminadha Rao, hence the chits which was in the name of company cannot be attached. In order to substantiate his contention, PW.1 cross examined DW.1. In the cross examination, DW.1 categorically admitted that, as per Ex.B1, there is no whisper about the plaintiff’s firm. As per Ex.B1/letter, they have no authority to stop the payment of plaintiff’s firm. As per Ex.B2, the Income Tax authorities asked them to sent an amount of Rs.82,280/­ of the plaintiff firm.

Except Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 letter, there are no other correspondence in between the Income Tax authority and Shiram Chit Company. He also admitted that, they received letter to hold the accounts of Chappidi Swaminadha rao, on that, they hold the accounts of plaintiff’s firm.

15.DW.1 admitted that, Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were issued in the name of

Ch.Swaminadha Rao and it is not in the name of plaintiff’s firm. But 7 surprisingly, the suit was filed by Ch.Swaminadha Rao as Managing partner of the plaintiff’s firm.

In this regard, it is essential to look into the provision of Section 226 (3) of the Income Act reads as follows:

(3) (i) The Assessing Officer or Tax Recovery Officer may, at any time or from time to time, by notice in writing require any person from whom money is due or may become due to the assessee or any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of the assessee, to pay to the 1 Assessing] Officer 2 or Tax

Recovery Officer] either forthwith upon the money becoming due or being held or at or within the time specified in the notice (not being

before the money becomes due or is held) so much of the money as

is sufficient to pay the amount due by the assessee in respect of arrears or the whole of the money when it is equal to or less than that amount.

(ii) A notice under this sub­ section may be issued to any person who holds or may subsequently hold any money for or on account of the assessee jointly with any other person and for the purposes of this sub­ section, the shares of the joint holders in such account shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to be equal.

(iii) A copy of the notice shall be forwarded to the assessee at his last address known to the 3 Assessing] Officer 4 or Tax Recovery Officer], and in the case of a joint account to all the joint holders at their last addresses known to the 5 Assessing] Officer 6 or Tax Recovery Officer].

(iv) Save as otherwise provided in this sub­ section, every person to whom a notice is issued under this sub­ section, shall be bound to comply with such notice, and, in particular, where any such notice is issued to a post office, banking company or an insurer, it shall not be necessary for any pass book, deposit receipt, policy or any other document to be produced for the purpose of any entry, endorsement or the like being made before payment is made, notwithstanding any rule, practice or requirement to the contrary.

(v) Any claim respecting any property in relation to which a notice under this sub­ section has been issued arising after the date of the notice shall be void as against any demand contained in the notice.

(vi) Where a person to whom a notice under this sub­ section is sent objects to it by a statement on oath that the sum demanded or any part thereof is not due to the assessee or that he does not hold any money for or on account of the assessee, then, nothing contained in this sub­ section shall be deemed to require such person to pay any such sum or part thereof, as the case may be, but if it is discovered that such statement was false in any material particular, such person shall be personally liable to the 7 8

Assessing] Officer 8 or Tax Recovery Officer] to the extent of his own liability to the assessee on the date of the notice or to the extent of the assessee' s liability for any sum due under this Act, whichever is less.

(vii) The 1 Assessing] Officer 2 or Tax Recovery Officer] may, at any time or from time to time, amend or revoke any notice issued under this sub­ section or extend the time for making any payment in pursuance of such notice.

(viii) The 3 Assessing] Officer 4 or Tax Recovery Officer] shall grant a receipt for any amount paid in compliance with a notice issued under this sub­ section, and the person so paying shall be fully discharged from his liability to the assessee to the extent of the amount so paid.

(ix) Any person discharging any liability to the assessee after receipt of a notice under this sub­ section shall be personally liable to the 5 Assessing] Officer 6 or Tax Recovery Officer] to the extent of his own liability to the assessee so discharged or to the extent of the assessee' s liability for any sum due under this Act, whichever is less.

(x) If the person to whom a notice under this sub­ section is sent fails to make payment in pursuance thereof to the 7 Assessing] Officer 8 or Tax Recovery Officer], he shall be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of the amount specified in the notice and further proceedings may be taken against him for the realisation of the amount as if it were an arrear of tax due from him, in the manner provided in sections 222 to 225 and the notice shall have the same effect as an attachment of a debt by the Tax Recovery Officer in exercise of his powers under section 222.

As per the above said proviso, if any person is due to the Income

Tax department, it initiate steps to recover the amount either from the personal properties or from business. Here in this case, PW.1 is Managing Partner of plaintiff’s firm, as such, the Income Tax Department directed the 2nd defendant firm to hold the auctioned amount. When once PW.1 has not taken any steps either to challenge the validity of the notice or his grievance about the notice, then he cannot turn round and say that, the assets of the firm cannot be attached.

16.It is pertinent to mention here that, plaintiff having admitted that, he received notice immediately after auction of the chits in the year 2007. The 9 suit was filed in the year 2011. PW.1 did not mention about issuance of notice by the Income tax department either in his plaint or in legal notice. For the first time, he admitted that, he received notices from Income Tax department after auction of the chits in the Shiram Chits/2nd defendant. PW.1 admitted that, after raising the attachment over the chits, 2nd defendant released the auctioned amounts to him. When once there is statutory obligation on the part of 2nd defendant to withhold amount as per directions of the Income Tax

Department, it cannot be treated as illegal and unlawful. Moreover, non­ mentioning of receipt of notice from the Income Tax department by the plaintiff either in the notice or in plaint or in evidence itself shows that, the plaintiff has approached the Court with unclean hands. There are no reasons to interfere with the findings of the learned Trial Judge, whose findings are based on evidence. The points are answered accordingly. 

17.In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs confirming the

Judgment and decree of the learned Trial Judge in OS No.250/2011, dated 28.3.2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram. 

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this 17 th day of June 2020.

Sd/­ B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: EAST GODAVARI AT

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: Sri B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,

Principal District Judge,

Rajamahendravaram.

Wednesday, the 17th day of June 2020

A.S.No.150/2016

Between: 

Sree Keerthi Finance, represented by its Managing

Partner, Ch.Swaminadha Rao, S/o.Ramanna, 60 years,

Business, resident of plot No.100, Postal colony,

Kakinda, Kakinada District Court Jurisdiction...Appellant

AND 1.M/s.Sriram Chits Pvt. Ltd., represented by its

Divisional Manager, Kakinada.

2.M/s.Sriram Chits Pvt. Ltd., represented by its

Branch Manager, Main Road, Ramachandrapuram...Respondents.

Appeal preferred against Judgment and decree on the file of Senior Civil

Judge’s court, Ramachandrapuram in OS No.250/2011 dated 28.3.2016. 

Between:

Sree Keerthi Finance, represented by its Managing

Partner, Ch.Swaminadha Rao...Plaintiff.

AND 1.M/s.Sriram Chits Pvt. Ltd., represented by its

Divisional Manager, Kakinada.

2.M/s.Sriram Chits Pvt. Ltd., represented by its

Branch Manager, Main Road, Ramachandrapuram...Defendants.

11

This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.250/2011 dated 28.3.2016 Senior Civil Judge’s court,

Ramachandrapuram.

Appeal presented on 25.7.2016, filed on 30.9.2016.

Value of the appeal:

Suit amount is ..Rs.2,02,227­00 Interest at 24% p.a. on 2,02,227/­ from 4.11.11 to 25.7.16..Rs.2,29,344­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ TOTAL..Rs.4,31,551­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ A Court fee of Rs.6826/­ is paid under section 49, sch.I Art 1 {c} of APCF and SV Act.

Relief of damages is Rs.50,000/­; upon which a court fee of Rs.2386/­ is paid under section 49, sch.I Art 1{c} of APCF and SV Act.

This appeal coming before me on 3.2.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.R.Satya Sai, Advocate for appellant and of Sri

K.S.Laxminarayana, Advocate for respondents and after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH ORDER AND

DECREE as follows:­

1. That the appeal be and same is hereby dismissed;

2. That the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.250/2011 on the file of

Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram is hereby confirmed;

3. That each party do bear their own costs

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 17 th day of June 2020

Sd/­ B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Particulars of costs. No costs memo filed on either side. Sd/­ B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi.

P.D.J. 

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE 

EAST GODAVARI AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT:­ Sri B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi

Principal Sessions Judge 

Friday, the 13th day of March 2020

CRIMINAL APPEAL No :36/2018

From which Court, this appeal isII Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate’s preferredCourt, Rajamahendravaram.

Number of the case in that CourtC.C.No.579/2017

Name and description of theKuthadi Veera Venkata Ramana, Appellants.S/o.Trimurthulu, 25 years, D.No.3­2, Kavalagoyya village, Pidimgoyya post, Rajahmundry (A2)

Name and description of theState Rep. by its Sub­Inspector of Police, respondent Prakash Nagar PS, Rajamahendravaram.

Section of law under which the In the result, A1 and A2 found not guilty appellants were convicted in the for the offence under section 379 IPC, but they are found guilty for the offence under lower court: section 411 IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six months each. The remand period of A1 from 14.9.2017 to till date i.e., 27.12.2017 and A2 from 14.9.2017 to 26.9.2017 is given set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. 

If confirmed, reversed or modified MODIFIED: If modified, what is the In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Appellant/Accused No.2 is found guilty modification: for the offence under Section 411 of IPC, while upholding the conviction in the Calendar and Judgment dated 27.12.2017 in

CC No. 579/2017 on the file of II Addl.

JudicialFirstClassMagistrate, Rajamahendravaram, the sentence of imprisonment for (6) Six months is hereby reduced to (3) Three months. The order passed by the learned trial court with regard to M.O.1 is hereby made absolute. The remand period if any of the appellant/A2 shall given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. DATE ON WHICH : Presentation of appeal 24.01.2018 Filing 24.01.2018 Hearing 14.02.2020 Judgment 13.03.2020 2

This appeal coming on 14.02.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Bala Bhaskar, Advocate for the appellant and Public

Prosecutor for the State­complainant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivers the following

J U D G M E N T

1.This appeal is filed against the impugned calendar and judgment dated.27.12.2017 passed in CC No.579/2017 on the file of II Addl.

Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Rajamahendravaram, wherein the Trial Judge after careful consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record while acquitting Accused No.1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 379 IPC, found guilty and convicted the Accused No.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Six months for the offence under Sec.411 of IPC.

Aggrieved by the said order of conviction, Accused No.2 preferred the present appeal.

2.The case of prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet is that,

PW.1/Vasamsetti Lakshmi Tulasi is resident of Vambay Colony,

Rajamahendravaram. On 10.5.2017 at about 11 p.m., the husband of

PW.1 parked the scooter bearing No.AP05 DM 3540 in front of Yeswaswi

Juice Cornor, near Athidi restaurant and returned within 30 minutes and found missing of the motor cycle. Later, PW.1 presented Ex.P1 report to the police. On receipt of report, PW.4 Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Prakashnagar P.S., registered a case in crime No.122/2017 under section 379 IPC. He visited the scene of offence and recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared rough sketch. During the course of investigation, PW.3 Inspector of Police, Prakashnagar P.S. arrested 3 the accused on 8.9.2017 and recovered the stolen property relating to various cases including the scooter bearing No.AP05 DM 3540 in crime

No.122/2017 in the presence of mediators under cover of mediator’s report. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3.The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under

Sections 379 or 411 IPC.

4.The learned Magistrate followed the due procedure. When the

Accused pleaded not guilty, trial commenced. Prosecution in support of its case examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and

M.O.1. After hearing both sides and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Judge found the Accused, guilty for the offence under Section 411 IPC, convicted and sentenced the appellant/A2 and other accused for the said offence as stated herein above. 

5.Aggrieved by the said order of conviction the Accused

No.2/appellant filed the present appeal on the grounds that, the delay in lodging the report is not properly explained. The alleged seizure is hit by section 24 of Evidence Act and confession of the Accused relied upon by the prosecution is not valid and enforceable under law. The mediators report is fabricated document at the police station. The investigation officer admitted in his cross examination that, he did not examine any person at the place of arrest of Accused. The Prosecution has not proved any of the ingredients to attract the offence under section 411 I.P.C and prays to allow the appeal.

6. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7.Now, the point for consideration is:­ “Whether the judgment of the trial court is suffers from any illegality and infirmity and it is liable to be set aside”?

POINT:

4

8.The prosecution in order to prove its case got examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and also got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1. 

9.P.W.1 is the de­facto complainant. She stated that, on 10.5.2017 her husband/Raju [LW.2] took her scooter bearing No.AP05 DM 3540 and parked the same near Athidi restaurant at 11 p.m and he returned within 30 minutes and noticed missing of scooter. They searched for the scooter, but they did not find it. On 12.5.20017, she presented

Ex.P1 report to Prakashnagar P.S. After four months of her report, police informed her about recovery of her scooter. She obtained the same towards interim custody through the Court.

10.PW.2­Village Revenue Officer of Rajahmundry Urban, in whose presence the property was seized deposed that, on 8.9.2017 at about 1.30 p.m, the Inspector of Police, Prakashnagar Police Station called him to the Police Station. From there, himself, LW.9­Inspector of Police and his staff proceeded to Model Colony, where they noticed two parked motor cycles and three persons. On seeing them, the said three persons tried to escape from the place, then the police caught hold of them and interrogated them separately. The said persons revealed their names and confessed about the commission of offences at various places within the limits of Prakashnagar P.S., Bommuru P.S. and I

Town P.S. of Rajahmundry.

11.PW.2­ Village Revenue Officer of Rajahmundry Urban deposed that, the Inspector of police, Prakashnagar seized one gold ingot from the possession of A1. A1 stated to him that, he snatched gold haram at walkers Road, Rajamahendravaram and converted the same into ingot at Suresh Jewellers. The Inspector of Police, Prakash Nagar identified it as it is stolen property pertaining to Crime No.49/2016. The Inspector of police, Prakashnagar seized three gold harams broken into pieces and 5 he identified the same as case property in Cr.No.205/2016,

Cr.No.102/2017 of I Town L & O P.S and Cr.No.262/2017 of Bommuru

PS. The inspector of police, Prakashnagar also seized motor cycle from the possession of A1.

12. PW.2 Village Revenue Officer of Rajahmundry Urban, deposed that, the Inspector of Police, Prakashnagar P.S. interrogated A2 and seized one gold black bead chain and one gold mangalasutra chain relating to Cr.No.72/.2017 and also seized one motor cycle relating to

Cr.No.122/2017. He also interrogated T.Nokkaraju and seized two gold

Chandra harams broken into pieces and he identified the same as case property relating to Bommuru P.S. and III Town P.S., of

Rajamahendravaram. The said stolen properties were seized under cover of mediator’s report/Ex.P2. Nothing much could be elicited during the cross­examination of P.W.2 to discredit his testimony and the mediators report/Ex.P.2 is proved in accordance with law.

13.PW.4 is Assistant Sub Inspector of police, Prakashnagar P.S.

deposed that, on 12.5.2017 at about 7.30 p.m., on receipt of report from

PW.1, he registered the same as case in crime no.122/2017 under section 379 IPC. He examined PW.1 and LW.2 Raju and recorded their statements. On the next day, he proceeded to the scene of offence and examined LW.3 Srinu and LW.4 Chandrababu and recorded their statements. He also prepared Ex.P4 rough sketch of scene of offence.

Further investigation is conducted by Inspector of Police, Prakash Nagar

Police station. 

14.PW.3 is Inspector of police, Prakashnagar P.S deposed that, on 8.9.2017 at about 1 p.m. on receipt of credible information, he secured the presence of PW.2 and LW.6 Nagasai and his staff proceeded to

Model colony vacant site, where they noticed three persons and two motor cycles. Then, they caught hold of them and on interrogation, A1, 6

A2 and another person by name Tokada Nookaraju confessed about commission of thefts at various places. He recovered stolen property from the said persons relating to various crimes. He seized motor cycle relating to this crime under cover of mediator’s report. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

15.The only ground that was urged by the Appellant/A2 is that, there is a delay in lodging F.I.R and it was not properly explained by the prosecution and hence, he is entitled for acquittal. 

16.For better appreciation Section 411 of IPC is reproduced hereunder:

411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property:­Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 

17.In this case, the prosecution proved that the appellant/A2 herein and another/A1 were in possession of the stolen property/MO.1 by way of evidence of independent witness/P.W.2, who acted as mediator for seizure of MO.1 and he categorically stated in his evidence that on 8.9.2017 in his presence police apprehended the Accused and on enquiry the Accused confessed about the commission of the offence and the evidence of P.W.2 categorically proves that the appellant/A2 and another/A1 were in possession of the stolen property/MO.1. To prove the offence under Section 411 IPC, the essential ingredients are recovery of stolen goods. In this case, no cloud of doubt is being raised against the ownership of the recovered scooter/MO.1. Under

Ex.P2/mediator’s report, which was marked through the mediator, the scooter/MO.1 was in the possession of the Accused. Accused have to answer how the said scooter/MO.1 has come into their possession.

7

Burden lies on the Accused under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act.

The owner of the scooter/MO.1 was examined. No specific evidence is let in by the Accused denying the case of the ownership of the scooter/MO.1 as well as report. I do not find any discrepancies in the evidence let in by the prosecution. Burden lies on the Accused under

Section 411 of IPC to dispel the case of the prosecution. But, the

Accused did not do so. The evidence of P.W.2 mediator, investigation

Officers/P.Ws.3 and 4 supported by the evidence of P.W.1. Hence, it is presumed that the accused were receivers of the stolen property.

18.The learned counsel for the appellant/A2 also contended that as the property was recovered after lapse of Six months, section 411 of IPC is not applicable and the Accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. The

Hon’ble Apex Court in Earabharappa Vs. State of Karnataka1 . Their

Lordships held that, no fixed time limit can be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or otherwise and each case must be

judged on its own facts’. From the above preposition, it is very much

clear that even after lapse of one year it cannot be said to be too long when it comes to question of recent possession and it changes according to the stolen article and it is a gold item and it cannot be passed from hand to hand in a particular period of Six months, which is not a long period and it can be termed as recent possession only.

According to the judgment, any lapsed time can be considered as basic possession depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case on hand, there is nothing to suggest that the property which was recovered from the possession of the accused is not the property of the de­facto complainant and hence the said contention of the learned 1 1983 Crl.L.J.846 8 counsel for the appellant/A2 that as the property was recovered after lapse of Six months, Section 411 of IPC cannot be sustained.

19.In the light of above discussion, I find prosecution could able to establish the guilt of the Appellant/A2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 411 IPC. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Judge.

20.The learned Judge after finding the guilt of the Appellant/A2 and other Accused for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. has convicted the

Accused for Six months simple imprisonment. In the facts and circumstances I find that, while upholding the conviction, the sentence of imprisonment of (6) five months can be reduced to (3) three months.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

21.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Appellant/Accused No.2 is found guilty for the offence under

Section 411 of IPC, while upholding the conviction in the Calendar and

Judgment dated 27.12.2017 in CC No.579/2017 on the file of II Addl.

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, the sentence of imprisonment for (6) Six months is hereby reduced to (3) three months. The order passed by the learned Trial Court with regard to MO.1 is hereby made absolute. The remand period if any of the appellant/A2 shall given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 13th day of March, 2020.

Sd/­ B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi.

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

//t.c.f.b.o.//

Chief Administrative Officer.

9 1)Copy to the Registrar (Judl.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapudu, Guntur District.

2) Copy to the II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram along with LC record.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE 

EAST GODAVARI AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT:­ Sri B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi

Principal Sessions Judge 

Friday, the 13th day of March 2020

CRIMINAL APPEAL No :35/2018

From which Court, this appeal isII Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate’s preferredCourt, Rajamahendravaram.

Number of the case in that CourtC.C.No.588/2017

Name and description of theKuthadi Veera Venkata Ramana, Appellants.S/o.Trimurthulu, 25 years, D.No.3­2, Kavalagoyya village, Pidimgoyya post, Rajahmundry (A3)

Name and description of theState Rep. by its Sub­Inspector of Police, respondent Prakash Nagar PS, Rajamahendravaram.

Section of law under which the In the result, A1 to A3 found not guilty for appellants were convicted in the the offence under section 356 and 382 IPC, but they are found guilty for the offence lower court: under section 411 IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six months each. The remand period of A1 and A2 from 9.9.2017 to till date i.e., 27.12.2017 and remand period of A3 from 9.9.2017 to 22.9.2017 is given set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. If confirmed, reversed or modified MODIFIED: If modified, what is the In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Appellant/Accused No.3 is found guilty modification: for the offence under Section 411 of IPC, while upholding the conviction in the Calendar and Judgment dated 27.12.2017 in

CC No. 588/2017 on the file of II Addl.

JudicialFirstClassMagistrate, Rajamahendravaram, the sentence of imprisonment for (6) Six months is hereby reduced to (3) Three months. The order passed by the learned trial court with regard to M.Os.1 to 2 is hereby made absolute. The remand period if any of the appellant/A3 shall given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. DATE ON WHICH : Presentation of appeal 24.01.2018 Filing 24.01.2018 Hearing 14.02.2020 Judgment 13.03.2020 2

This appeal coming on 14.02.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Bala Bhaskar, Advocate for the appellant and Public

Prosecutor for the State­complainant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivers the following

J U D G M E N T

1.This appeal is filed against the impugned calendar and judgment dated.27.12.2017 passed in CC No.588/2017 on the file of II Addl.

Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Rajamahendravaram, wherein the Trial Judge after careful consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record while acquitting Accused No.1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 356 and 382 IPC, found guilty and convicted the

Accused No.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal

Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Six months for the offence under Sec.411 of IPC.

Aggrieved by the said order of conviction, Accused No.3 preferred the present appeal.

2.The case of prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet is that,

PW.1 Grandhi Surya Kumari is resident of Syamalanagar,

Rajamahendravaram. On 3.3.2017 at about 7 a.m., while PW.1 was plucking flowers in front of the apartment, some unknown offenders came on a motor cycle from her behind and forcibly snatched away her gold mangalsutralu chain and black bead chain from her neck and escaped. On the report of PW.1, a case in crime No.72/2017 under sections 356, 382 I.P.C. was registered. PW.3 S.I. of police, Prakash

Nagar Police Station visited the scene of offence, recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared rough sketch. During the course of investigation, on 8.9.2017 at about 2 p.m. at Model Colony, PW.4

Inspector of Police, Prakash Nagar Police Station arrested the Accused 3 and recovered the stolen properties relating to various cases including the case property relating to this crime from the possession of Accused in the presence of mediators. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. 

3.The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under

Sections 356, 382 & 411 IPC.

4.The learned Magistrate followed the due procedure. When the

Accused pleaded not guilty, trial commenced. Prosecution in support of its case examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and

M.Os.1 and 2.After hearing both sides and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Judge found the Accused, guilty for the offence under Section 411 IPC, convicted and sentenced the appellant/A3 and other accused for the said offence as stated herein above. 

5.Aggrieved by the said order of conviction the Accused

No.3/appellant filed the present appeal on the grounds that, the delay in lodging the report is not properly explained. The alleged seizure is hit by section 24 of Evidence Act and confession of the Accused relied upon by the prosecution is not valid and enforceable under law. The mediators report is fabricated document at the police station. The investigation officer admitted in his cross examination that, he did not examine any person at the place of arrest of Accused. The Prosecution has not proved any of the ingredients to attract the offence under section 411 I.P.C and prays to allow the appeal.

6. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7.Now, the point for consideration is:­ “Whether the judgment of the trial court is suffers from any illegality and infirmity and it is liable to be set aside”?

POINT:

8.The prosecution in order to prove its case got examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and also got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.Os.1 and 2. 

4

9.P.W.1 is the de­facto complainant. She stated that, on 3.3.2017 at 7 a.m. while she was plucking flowers in front of her apartment, some persons came from her behind and pushed her. As a result, she fell down. She got up and noticed that, they snatched her black beads chain and chain with Mangalasutralu from her neck. She gave Ex.P1 report to Prakash Nagar Police on 3.3.2017.

10.PW.2­Village Revenue Officer of Rajahmundry Urban, in whose presence the property was seized deposed that, on 8.9.2017 at about 1.30 p.m, the Inspector of Police, Prakashnagar Police Station called him to the Police Station. From there, himself, LW.9­Inspector of Police and his staff proceeded to Model Colony, where they noticed two parked motor cycles and three persons. On seeing them, the said three persons tried to escape from the place, then the police caught hold of them and interrogated them separately. The said persons revealed their names and confessed about the commission of offences at various places within the limits of Prakashnagar P.S., Bommuru P.S. and I

Town P.S. of Rajahmundry.

11.PW.2­ Village Revenue Officer of Rajahmundry Urban deposed that, the Inspector of police, Prakashnagar seized one gold ingot from the possession of A1. A1 stated to him that, he snatched gold haram at walkers Road, Rajamahendravaram and converted the same into ingot at Suresh Jewellers. The Inspector of Police, Prakash Nagar identified it as it is stolen property pertaining to Crime No.49/2016. The Inspector of police, Prakashnagar seized three gold harams broken into pieces and he identified the same as case property in Cr.No.205/2016,

Cr.No.102/2017 of I Town L & O P.S and Cr.No.262/2017 of Bommuru

PS. The inspector of police, Prakashnagar also seized motor cycle from the possession of A1.

5

12. PW.2 Village Revenue Officer of Rajahmundry Urban deposed that, the Inspector of Police, Prakashnagar P.S. interrogated A3 and seized one gold black bead chain and one gold mangalasutra chain relating to Cr.No.72/.2017 and also seized one motor cycle relating to

Cr.No.122/2017. He also interrogated A2 and seized two gold Chandra harams broken into pieces and he identified the same as case property relating to Bommuru P.S. and III Town P.S., of Rajamahendravaram.

The said stolen properties were seized under cover of mediator’s report/Ex.P2. Nothing much could be elicited during the cross­ examination of P.W.2 to discredit his testimony and the mediators report/Ex.P.2 is proved in accordance with law.

13.PW.3 is S.I. of police, who registered the F.I.R/Ex.P3. PW.4 is

Inspector of Police, Prakashnagar P.S. stated about his investigation, arrest of A.1 and A.2 and recovery of stolen property from the possession of the accused and his evidence corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2/mediator.

14.The only ground that was urged by the Appellant/A3 is that the prosecution did not produce any document to show that the stolen properties belonged to P.W.1. P.W.1 also did not submit purchase receipts pertaining to stolen properties on the alleged date of offence.

But, in fact except P.W.1 no other person claimed the property. Prior to recovery of the stolen properties, P.W.1 gave Ex.P.1 complaint and it was registered after commission of theft of the articles.

15.For better appreciation Section 411 of IPC is reproduced hereunder:

411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property:­Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be 6 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 

16.In this case, the prosecution proved that the appellant/A.3 herein and others/A.1 and A.2 were in possession of the stolen properties/M.Os.1 and 2 by way of evidence of independent witness/P.W.2, who acted as mediator for seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 and he categorically stated in his evidence that on 8.9.2017 in his presence police apprehended the Accused and on enquiry the Accused confessed about the commission of the offence and the evidence of P.W.2 categorically proves that the appellant/A3 and others/A1 and A2 were in possession of the stolen properties/MOs.1 and 2. To prove the offence under Section 411 IPC, the essential ingredients are recovery of stolen goods. In this case, no cloud of doubt is being raised against the ownership of the recovered articles. Under Ex.P2/mediator’s report, which was marked through the mediator, the articles were in the possession of the Accused. Accused have to answer how the said articles have come into their possession. Burden lies on the Accused under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act. The owner of the articles was examined. No specific evidence is let in by the Accused denying the case of the ownership of the articles as well as report. I do not find any discrepancies in the evidence let in by the prosecution. Burden lies on the Accused under Section 411 of IPC to dispel the case of the prosecution. But, the Accused did not do so. The evidence of P.W.2 mediator, investigation Officers/P.Ws.3 and 4 supported by the evidence of P.W.1. Hence, it is presumed that the accused were receivers of the stolen property.

17.The learned counsel for the appellant/A.3 also contended that as the property was recovered after lapse of Six months, section 411 of IPC 7 is not applicable and the Accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. The

Hon’ble Apex Court in Earabharappa Vs. State of Karnataka1 . Their

Lordships held that, no fixed time limit can be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or otherwise and each case must be

judged on its own facts’. From the above preposition, it is very much

clear that even after lapse of one year it cannot be said to be too long when it comes to question of recent possession and it changes according to the stolen article and it is a gold item and it cannot be passed from hand to hand in a particular period of Six months, which is not a long period and it can be termed as recent possession only.

According to the judgment, any lapsed time can be considered as basic possession depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case on hand, there is nothing to suggest that the property which was recovered from the possession of the accused is not the property of the de­facto complainant and hence the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/A.3 that as the property was recovered after lapse of Six months, Section 411 of IPC cannot be sustained.

18.In the light of above discussion, I find prosecution could able to establish the guilt of the Appellant/A.3 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 411 IPC. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Judge.

19.The learned Judge after finding the guilt of the Appellant/A.3 and other Accused for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. has convicted the

Accused for Six months simple imprisonment. In the facts and circumstances I find that, while upholding the conviction, the sentence 1 1983 Crl.L.J.846 8 of imprisonment of (6) five months can be reduced to (3) three months.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

20.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Appellant/Accused No.3 is found guilty for the offence under

Section 411 of IPC, while upholding the conviction in the Calendar and

Judgment dated 27.12.2017 in CC No.588/2017 on the file of II Addl.

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, the sentence of imprisonment for (6) Six months is hereby reduced to (3) three months. The order passed by the learned Trial Court with regard to M.Os.1 to 2 is hereby made absolute. The remand period if any of the appellant/A3 shall given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 13th day of March, 2020.

Sd/­ B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi.

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

//t.c.f.b.o.//

Chief Administrative Officer. 

1)Copy to the Registrar (Judl.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapudu, Guntur District.

2) Copy to the II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram along with LC record.