Sri.Beera Srinivasulu

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: GIDDALUR

Present: Sri B.Srinivasu Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur FAC :: I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

Friday, this the 1st day of November, 2019

Calendar Case No.470 of 2018

Between:

The Proh & Excise Inspector, Proh. & Excise station, Cumbum. …Complainant.

AND

Katikala Manikyala Rao, s/o Prasad, aged 29 years, r/o Cumbum. … Accused.

Present:

For Complainant : Miss B.Lakshmi Kumari Sr. A.P.P

For Accused : Mr. B.Isaac, Advocate

J U D G E M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, P & E, Cumbum filed a charge sheet against the accused in PR.No.22/17 for the offence punishable u/sec.34 (a) of AP Excise Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that – as per the instructions of the

Superintendent of Prohibition & Excise, Markapur on 15.8.2017, Lw.3/M.Sree

Nagesh, SI of Police, P & E, Cumbum, along with his staff conducted raids to detect the Prohibition & Excise offences, at 1 p.m. near Jangamguntla village outskirts, they found the accused in possession of one white plastic bag, on seeking the police officials the accused tried to escape from the place, then

Lw.3/SI of Police detained the accused with the help of staff and on enquiry, the accused disclosed that the bag containing liquor bottles, then Lw.3 sent 2 C.C.470/18

Lw.1/Sk.Ashadulla, P & E constable to secure the mediators, after 20 minutes,

Lw.1 returned to the scene and stated that either the VRO or VAO are not available in the village and the villagers did not come forward to act as mediators in excise offences, then Lw.3/M.Sree Nagesh, SI of Police, P & E, Cumbum opened the said bag and found royal experience whisky 180 ml 49 bottles, MC dowells No.1 celebration luxury xxx rum 180 ml 56 bottles a total of 105 nip bottles, the EAL labels were torn off, on enquiry the accused failed to produce either permit or license, then Lw.3/ M.Sree Nagesh, SI of Police, P & E, Cumbum took samples from the bottles for the purpose of chemical analysis, seized the property, affixed lables, and took the accused into custody under cover of special report, and the same was registered as a case in PR No. 22/17 u/sec. 34 (a) of

AP Excise Act and submitted the FIR to all concerned, later Lw.3 Sub Inspector produced the accused before the Hon’ble court for remand, subsequently, the analyst issued analyst report vidde RC No. 1428/2018 dt. 2.6.2018 opining that the sample is Indian liquor, after receipt of analysis report and on receipt of confiscation orders from Dy. Commissioner, P & E Ongole, Lw.3/ M.Sree

Nagesh, SI of Police, P & E, Cumbum confiscated the amount to the state, then

Lw.4/Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. This court took cognizance of offence u/sec.34 (a) of AP Excise Act against the accused. After appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required u/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused was examined u/sec.239 Cr.P.C. and charge was framed for the offence u/sec.34 (a) of AP Excise Act against accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language and the accused having 3 C.C.470/18 understood the charge pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined

Pw.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.7. M.O.1 and 2 marked.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined u/sec.

313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating material that was deposed by prosecution witnesses against accused was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

7. Argument of both sides are heard.

8. Now the point for determination is “whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt ?”

9. Point :

Pw.1 is the SI of Police, P & E, Cumbum. Even though in his chief examination he deposed that on 15.8.2017 at about 12.30 p.m. he along with his staff Lw.1/Sk. Ashadulla, P & E constable and Lw.2/S.K.Shamsheer, P & E constable, went to Janganguntla village to conduct raids, when they reached

Janganguntla outskirts at about 1 p.m. they found the accused in possession of one white plastic bag, after seeing them, the accused tried to escape from the scene, hence he caught hold of the accused with the help of his staff, interrogated the accused, accused disclosed his name and identity particulars and confessed that he has liquor bottles in the said bag, then he deputed Lw.1 to bring mediators from the village, after some time Lw.1 returned to the scene and informed that nobody came forward to act as mediator, then he verified the bag and found 49 royal experience whisky bottles 180 ml each, MC dowells No.1 celebration luxury 4 C.C.470/18 xxx rum 56 bottles each 180 ml, total 105 bottles, on interrogation the accused confessed that he purchased the same from unknown person and to sell the same for higher price for his livelihood, then he seized the liquor bottles under

Ex.P.1 police proceedings, and lifted one sample bottles M.O.1 & M.O.2 to send the same for chemical analysis, arrested the accused and took him to police station and registered the Ex.P.1 as Ex.P.2 FIR as case in PR.No. 22/17 for the offence punishable u/sec. 34 (a) of AP Excise Act, thereafter he sent M.O.1 and 2 along with Ex.P.3 letter of request and Ex.P.4 letter of advice to the chemical analyst, after receiving Ex.P.5 report and after obtaining Ex.P.6 confiscation proceedings from Dy. Commissioner, P & E, Ongole, he confiscated the liquor bottles, and the sale proceeds are deposited to the state under Ex.P.7 challan dt.

28.9.18, after completion of investigation Lw.4/P & E Inspector, Cumbum filed charge sheet, but in his cross examination he clearly admitted that the scene of offence is situated in between Jangamguntla and Cumbum, in Jangamguntla village there is a primary school and government high school, he did not issue any notices or summons to any person to act as mediator in this case, and also admitted that he did not investigate with regard to the liquor bottles purchased by the accused.

10. Hence, the evidence of Pw.1 is clearly shows that except the Pw.1 no independent witness is examined on behalf of the prosecution. Moreover, scene of offence is situated in a busy locality, but in this case Pw.1 did not issue any notice or summon to any person to act as mediator. Pw.1 also in his cross examination he clearly admitted the same. Hence, the evidence of Pw.1 is clearly shows that he violated the procedure laid down u/sec. 100 (4) Cr.P.C. while 5 C.C.470/18 conducting search and seizure in a busy locality.

11. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh between

S. Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs., State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2009

Lawsuit (AP) 258 - “ Admittedly PW.1 accompanied the excise officials from

Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information. When they were proceeding on information, they were right in taking mediators along with them. If in a given case the excise or police officials have to search a vehicle in a forest area or at a place where there is no possibility of securing any local mediators, then probably they will be justified in conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them from a different place. But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators. That is the mandate of Section 100(4) Code of Criminal Procedure. As referred to in the above provisions, the excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under Sub-section(4) of Section 100 Cr.P.C.

6 C.C.470/18

The object of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. Of course it cannot be said that the evidence of a witness, who accompanied the police, cannot be always believed nor it can be discarded only on the ground that he accompanied the excise or police officials. But where, in a case, the excise officials, having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, did not make any effort to take such mediators certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version. In this case, admittedly no efforts where made to secure the presence of the local mediators. It may be noted that respectability does not connote any particular status or wealth or anything of that kind. Independent respectable mediator means who can stick to truth and depose

honestly. Respectable means who are impartial and

independent and not closely connected with the officials or under the influence of the officials. “

12. In this case the SI of Police i.e., Pw.1, who is having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, but he did not make any efforts to take such mediators, even he did not follow the procedure laid down under Sec.100 of Code of

Criminal Procedure while conducting search and seizure, certainly which casts doubt about the prosecution version. Hence, there is no credibility in the evidence 7 C.C.470/18 of Pw.1. Hence, after considering the evidence of Pw.1 and other material available on record, I opined that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sec. 34

(a) of A.P Excise Act.

13. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, and accordingly he is acquitted under

Section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the judgment under

Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. The M.O.1 & 2 are ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Shorthand writer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 1st day of November, 2019

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur FAC I Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Giddalur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution side For Defence side

Pw.1 : M.Sree Nagesh, SI of Police - None -

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution For Defence

Ex.P1: Special report NIL.

Ex.P2: FIR in PR No. 22/17

Ex.P3: Letter of request

Ex.P4: Letter of advice

Ex.P5: Analysis report

Ex.P6: Confiscation Proceedings.

Ex.P.7 : Challan

Material Objects

8 C.C.470/18

M.O.1 : Sample bottle

M.O.2 : Sample bottle

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, FAC: Ist Addl.Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Giddalur 9 C.C.470/18

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 470 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Giddalur

1. Date of Offence : 15-08-2017

2. Date of Report : 15-08-2017

3. Date of arrest of accused : 15-08-2017

4. Date of release : 21-08-2017

5. Date of commencement of trial : 11-10-2019

6. Date of close of trial : 25-10-2019

7. Date of Judgment : 01-11-2019

8. Complainant : State: The Proh & Excise Inspector, Proh. & Excise station, Cumbum.

9. Accused : Katikala Manikyala Rao, s/o Prasad, aged 29 years, r/o Cumbum.

10. Offence : u/Sec. 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Act

11. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of Court : Found not guilty

13. Sentence or Order :

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal

Procedure. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the judgment under Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. The M.O.1 & 2 are ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Explanation for delay: - This case was taken on file on 31-10-2018 for the offence u/Sec. 34(A) of

A.P. Excise Act against the accused. After appearance of the accused, on 31-01-2019, copies of all the documents were furnished to him u/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. On 08-03-2019, accused was examined u/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. On behalf of prosecution, PW.1 was examined, got marked Exs.P1 to P7 besides M.Os.1 & 2. On closure of prosecution evidence, on 25-10-2019, accused was examined u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported ‘no defence evidence’. Hence, defence side evidence is closed, on the same day i.e. on 25-10-2019 heard arguments. On 01-11-2019 Judgment

pronounced. Hence the delay.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: GIDDALUR

Present: Sri B.Srinivasu Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur FAC :: I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

Friday, this the 1st day of November, 2019

Calendar Case No.478 of 2018

Between:

The Proh & Excise Inspector, Proh. & Excise station, Cumbum. …Complainant.

AND

Bogem Prathap, s/o Lingaiah, aged 22 years, r/o Kakarla, Ardhaveedu mandal. … Accused.

Present:

For Complainant : Miss B.Lakshmi Kumari Sr. A.P.P

For Accused : Mr. P.N.Seshasayana Reddy, Advocate

J U D G E M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, P & E, Cumbum filed a charge sheet against the accused in PR.No.5/2018 for the offence punishable u/sec.34-A of AP Excise Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that – as per the instructions of the

Superintendent of Prohibition & Excise, Markapur on 25.2.2018, Lw.2/M.Sree

Nagesh, SI of Police, P & E, Cumbum, along with his staff conducted raids to detect the Prohibition & Excise offences, at 6 p.m. near kakarla village outskirts they found the accused in possession of one white plastic bag, on seeking the police officials the accused tried to escape from the place, then Lw.2/SI of Police detained the accused with the help of staff and on enquiry, the accused disclosed 2 C.C.478/18 that the bag containing liquor bottles, then Lw.2 sent Lw.1/Sk.Ashadulla, P & E constable to secure the mediators, after 20 minutes, Lw.1 returned and stated that either the VRO or VAO are not available in the village and the villagers did not come forward to act as mediators in excise offences, then Lw.2 M.Sree

Nagesh, SI of Police, P & E, Cumbum opened the said bag and found old label superior grain whisky 180 ml 15 bottles, the EAL labets were torn off, on enquiry the accused failed to produce either permit or license, then Lw.2 M.Sree Nagesh,

SI of Police, P & E, Cumbum took samples from the bottles for the purpose of chemical analysis, seized the property, affixed lables, and took the accused into custody under cover of special report, and the same was registered as a case in

PR No. 5/18 u/sec. 34 (a) of AP Excise Act and submitted the FIR to all concerned, later Lw.3M.Ramesh, Inspector produced the accused before the

Hon’ble court for remand, subsequently, the analyst issued analyst report vidde

RC No. 1428/2018 dt. 2.6.2018 opining that the sample is Indian liquor, after

receipt of analysis report and on receipt of confiscation orders from Dy.

Commissioner, P & E Ongole, Lw.2/ M.Sree Nagesh, SI of Police, P & E,

Cumbum confiscated the amount to the state, then Lw.3/Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. This court took cognizance of offence u/sec.34 (a) of AP Excise Act against the accused. After appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required u/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused was examined u/sec.239 Cr.P.C. and charge was framed for the offence u/sec.34 (a) of AP Excise Act against accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language and the accused having 3 C.C.478/18 understood the charge pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined

Pw.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.7.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined u/sec.

313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating material that was deposed by prosecution witnesses against accused was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

7. Argument of both sides are heard.

8. Now the point for determination is “whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt ?”

9. Point :

Pw.1 is the SI of Police, P & E, Cumbum. Even though in his chief examination he deposed that on 25.2.2018 at about 6 p.m. he along with his staff

Lw.1/Sk. Ashadulla, P & E constable went to Kakarla village to conduct raids, when they reached kakarla village at about 6.10 p.m. they found the accused in possession of one white plastic bag, after seeing them, the accused tried to escape from the scene, hence he caught hold of the accused with the help of his staff, interrogated the accused, accused disclosed his name and identity particulars and confessed that he has liquor bottles in the said bag, then he deputed Lw.1 to bring mediators from the village, after some time Lw.1 returned to the scene and informed that nobody came forward to act as mediator, then he verified the bag and found old label superior grain whisky – 50 bottles 180 ml each, on interrogation the accused confessed that he purchased the same from 4 C.C.478/18 unknown person and to sell the same for higher price for his livelihood, then he seized the liquor bottles under Ex.P.1 police proceedings, and lifted one sample bottle M.O.1 to send the same for chemical analysis, arrested the accused and took him to police station and registered the Ex.P.1 as Ex.P.2 FIR as case in

PR.No. 5/18 for the offence punishable u/sec. 34 (a) of AP Excise Act, thereafter he sent M.O.1 along with Ex.P.3 letter of request and Ex.P.4 letter of advice to the chemical analyst, after receiving Ex.P54 report and after obtaining Ex.P.6 confiscation proceedings from Dy. Commissioner, P & E, Ongole, he confiscated the liquor bottles, and the sale proceeds are deposited to the state under Ex.P.7 challan dt. 28.9.18, after completion of investigation Lw.3/P & E Inspector,

Cumbum filed charge sheet, but in his cross examination he clearly admitted that the scene of offence i.e., Kakarla village is a major panchayat, he did not issue any notices or summons to any person to act as mediator in this case, and also admitted that he did not investigate with regard to the liquor bottles purchased by the accused.

10. Hence, the evidence of Pw.1 is clearly shows that except the Pw.1 no independent witness is examined on behalf of the prosecution. Moreover, scene of offence is situated in a busy locality, but in this case Pw.1 did not issue any notice or summon to any person to act as mediator. Pw.1 also in his cross examination he clearly admitted the same. Hence, the evidence of Pw.1 is clearly shows that he violated the procedure laid down u/sec. 100 (4) Cr.P.C. while conducting search and seizure in a busy locality.

11. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh between

S. Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs., State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2009 5 C.C.478/18

Lawsuit (AP) 258 - “ Admittedly PW.1 accompanied the excise officials from

Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information. When they were proceeding on information, they were right in taking mediators along with them. If in a given case the excise or police officials have to search a vehicle in a forest area or at a place where there is no possibility of securing any local mediators, then probably they will be justified in conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them from a different place. But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators. That is the mandate of Section 100(4) Code of Criminal Procedure. As referred to in the above provisions, the excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under Sub-section(4) of Section 100 Cr.P.C.

The object of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. Of course 6 C.C.478/18 it cannot be said that the evidence of a witness, who accompanied the police, cannot be always believed nor it can be discarded only on the ground that he accompanied the excise or police officials. But where, in a case, the excise officials, having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, did not make any effort to take such mediators certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version. In this case, admittedly no efforts where made to secure the presence of the local mediators.

It may be noted that respectability does not connote any particular status or wealth or anything of that kind.

Independent respectable mediator means who can stick to truth and depose honestly. Respectable means who are impartial and independent and not closely connected with the officials or under the influence of the officials. “

12. In this case the SI of Police i.e., Pw.1, who is having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, but he did not make any efforts to take such mediators, even he did not follow the procedure laid down under Sec.100 of Code of

Criminal Procedure while conducting search and seizure, certainly which casts doubt about the prosecution version. Hence, there is no credibility in the evidence of Pw.1. Hence, after considering the evidence of Pw.1 and other material available on record, I opined that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the 7 C.C.478/18 accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sec. 34

(a) of A.P Excise Act.

13. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, and accordingly he is acquitted under

Section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the judgment under

Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. The M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Shorthand writer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 1st day of November, 2019

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur FAC I Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Giddalur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution side For Defence side

Pw.1 : M.Sree Nagesh, SI of Police - None -

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution For Defence

Ex.P1: Special report NIL.

Ex.P2: FIR in PR No. 5/18

Ex.P3: Letter of request

Ex.P4: Letter of advice

Ex.P5: Analysis report

Ex.P6: Confiscation Proceedings.

8 C.C.478/18

Ex.P.7 : Challan

Material Objects

MO.1: Sample bottle

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, FAC: Ist Addl.Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Giddalur 9 C.C.478/18

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 478 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Giddalur

1. Date of Offence : 25-02-2018

2. Date of Report : 25-02-2018

3. Date of arrest of accused : 25-02-2018

4. Date of release : 01-03-2018

5. Date of commencement of trial : 11-10-2019

6. Date of close of trial : 25-10-2019

7. Date of Judgment : 01-11-2019

8. Complainant : State: The Proh & Excise Inspector, Proh. & Excise station, Cumbum.

9. Accused : Bogem Prathap, s/o Lingaiah, aged 22 years, r/o Kakarla, Ardhaveedu mandal.

10. Offence : u/Sec. 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Act

11. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of Court : Found not guilty

13. Sentence or Order :

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal

Procedure. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the judgment under Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. The M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Explanation for delay: - This case was taken on file on 02-11-2018 for the offence u/Sec. 34(A) of

A.P. Excise Act against the accused. After appearance of the accused, on 13-02-2019, copies of all the documents were furnished to him u/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. On 22-04-2019, accused was examined u/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. On behalf of prosecution, PW.1 was examined, got marked Exs.P1 to P7 besides M.O.1. On closure of prosecution evidence, on 25-10-2019, accused was examined u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witness and reported ‘no defence evidence’. Hence, defence side evidence is closed, on the same day i.e. on 25-10-2019 heard arguments. On 01-11-2019 Judgment

pronounced. Hence the delay.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: GIDDALUR

Present: Sri B.Srinivasu Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur FAC :: I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

Friday, this the 1st day of November, 2019

Calendar Case No.477 of 2018

Between:

The Proh & Excise Inspector, Proh. & Excise station, Cumbum. …Complainant.

AND

Nara Kondaiah, s/o Kondaiah, aged 40 years, r/o Yachavaram village, Ardhaveedu mandal. … Accused.

Present:

For Complainant : Miss B.Lakshmi Kumari Sr. A.P.P

For Accused : Mr. PJV Prabhudas, Advocate

J U D G E M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, P & E, Cumbum filed a charge sheet against the accused in PR.No.26/17 for the offence punishable u/sec.34 (a) of AP Excise Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that – on 4.12.2017 at about 1.30 p.m. Lw.2/M.Sree Nagesh, SI of Police, P & E, Cumbum, along with his staff conducted raids to detect the Prohibition & Excise offences, when they reached

Yachavaram village bus stop they found the accused in possession of one white plastic bag, on seeking the police officials the accused tried to escape from the place, then Lw.2/SI of Police detained the accused with the help of staff and on enquiry, the accused disclosed that the bag containing liquor bottles, then Lw.2 2 C.C.477/18 sent Lw.1/R.Venkataiah, P & E constable to secure the mediators, after some time, Lw.1 returned and stated that no revenue officials available nearby the village and the villagers did not come forward to act as mediators, then Lw.2

M.Sree Nagesh, SI of Police, P & E, Cumbum opened the said bag and found 12 nips of royal experience whisky 180 ml liquor bottles of each 180 ml capacity and also noticed that the EAL labets were torn off, on enquiry the accused failed to produce either permit or license, then Lw.2 M.Sree Nagesh, SI of Police, P & E,

Cumbum took samples from the bottles for the purpose of chemical analysis, seized the property, affixed lables, and took the accused into custody under cover of special report, and the same was registered as a case in PR No. 26/17 u/sec.

34 (a) of AP Excise Act and submitted the FIR to all concerned, later

Lw.3M.Ramesh, Inspector produced the accused before the Hon’ble court for remand, subsequently, the analyst issued analyst report vidde RC No. 1428/18

dt. 2.6.2018 opining that the sample is Indian liquor, after receipt of analysis

report and on receipt of confiscation orders from Dy. Commissioner, P & E

Ongole, Lw.2/M.Sree Nagesh, SI of Police, P & E, Cumbum confiscated the amount to the state, then Lw.3/Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. This court took cognizance of offence u/sec.34 (a) of AP Excise Act against the accused. After appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required u/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused was examined u/sec.239 Cr.P.C. and charge was framed for the offence u/sec.34 (a) of AP Excise Act against accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language and the accused having 3 C.C.477/18 understood the charge pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined

Pw.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.7. M.O.1 is marked.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined u/sec.

313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating material that was deposed by prosecution witnesses against accused was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

7. Argument of both sides are heard.

8. Now the point for determination is “whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt ?”

9. Point :

Pw.1 is the SI of Police, P & E, Cumbum. Even though in his chief examination he deposed that on 4.12.2017 at about 1 p.m. he along with his staff

Lw.1/R.Venkataiah, P & E constable went to conduct raids, when they reached

Yachavaram bus stand at about 1.30 p.m. they found the accused in possession of one white plastic bag, after seeing them, the accused tried to escape from the scene, hence he caught hold of the accused with the help of his staff, interrogated the accused, accused disclosed his name and identity particulars and confessed that he has liquor bottles in the said bag, then he deputed Lw.1 to bring mediators from the village, after some time Lw.1 returned to the scene and informed that nobody came forward to act as mediator, then he verified the bag and found 12 royal experience whisky bottles 180 ml each, on interrogation the accused confessed that he purchased the same from unknown person and to sell the 4 C.C.477/18 same for higher price for his livelihood, then he seized the liquor bottles under

Ex.P.1 police proceedings, and lifted one sample bottle M.O.1 to send the same for chemical analysis, arrested the accused and took him to police station and registered the Ex.P.1 as Ex.P.2 FIR as case in PR.No. 26/17 for the offence punishable u/sec. 34 (a) of AP Excise Act, thereafter he sent M.O.1 along with

Ex.P.3 letter of request and Ex.P.4 letter of advice to the chemical analyst, after receiving Ex.P54 report and after obtaining Ex.P.6 confiscation proceedings from

Dy. Commissioner, P & E, Ongole, he confiscated the liquor bottles, and the sale proceeds are deposited to the state under Ex.P.7 challan dt. 28.9.18, after completion of investigation Lw.3/P & E Inspector, Cumbum filed charge sheet, but in his cross examination he clearly admitted that in Ex.P.1 police proceedings at the date column there is corrections with regard to month, and also admitted that he did not examine the owner of the whine shop at Kakarla village.

10. Hence, the evidence of Pw.1 is clearly shows that except the Pw.1 no independent witness is examined on behalf of the prosecution. Moreover, scene of offence is situated in a busy locality, but in this case Pw.1 did not issue any notice or summon to any person to act as mediator. Hence, the evidence of Pw.1 is clearly shows that he violated the procedure laid down u/sec. 100 (4) Cr.P.C.

while conducting search and seizure in a busy locality.

11. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh between

S. Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs., State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2009

Lawsuit (AP) 258 - “ Admittedly PW.1 accompanied the excise officials from 5 C.C.477/18

Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information. When they were proceeding on information, they were right in taking mediators along with them. If in a given case the excise or police officials have to search a vehicle in a forest area or at a place where there is no possibility of securing any local mediators, then probably they will be justified in conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them from a different place. But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators. That is the mandate of Section 100(4) Code of Criminal Procedure. As referred to in the above provisions, the excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under Sub-section(4) of Section 100 Cr.P.C.

The object of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. Of course it cannot be said that the evidence of a witness, who accompanied the police, cannot be always believed nor it 6 C.C.477/18 can be discarded only on the ground that he accompanied the excise or police officials. But where, in a case, the excise officials, having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, did not make any effort to take such mediators certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version. In this case, admittedly no efforts where made to secure the presence of the local mediators.

It may be noted that respectability does not connote any particular status or wealth or anything of that kind.

Independent respectable mediator means who can stick to truth and depose honestly. Respectable means who are impartial and independent and not closely connected with the officials or under the influence of the officials. “

12. In this case the SI of Police i.e., Pw.1, who is having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, but he did not make any efforts to take such mediators, even he did not follow the procedure laid down under Sec.100 of Code of

Criminal Procedure while conducting search and seizure, certainly which casts doubt about the prosecution version. Hence, there is no credibility in the evidence of Pw.1. Hence, after considering the evidence of Pw.1 and other material available on record, I opined that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sec. 34

(a) of A.P Excise Act.

7 C.C.477/18

13. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, and accordingly he is acquitted under

Section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the judgment under

Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. The M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Shorthand writer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 1st day of November, 2019

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur FAC I Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Giddalur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution side For Defence side

Pw.1 : M.Sree Nagesh, SI of Police - None -

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution For Defence

Ex.P1: Special report NIL.

Ex.P2: FIR in PR No. 26/17

Ex.P3: Letter of request

Ex.P4: Letter of advice

Ex.P5: Analysis report

Ex.P6: Confiscation Proceedings.

Ex.P.7 : Challan

Material Objects

MO.1: Sample bottle

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, 8 C.C.477/18

FAC: Ist Addl.Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Giddalur 9 C.C.477/18

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 477 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Giddalur

1. Date of Offence : 04-12-2017

2. Date of Report : 04-12-2017

3. Date of arrest of accused : 04-12-2017

4. Date of release : 07-12-2017

5. Date of commencement of trial : 11-10-2019

6. Date of close of trial : 25-10-2019

7. Date of Judgment : 01-11-2019

8. Complainant : State: The Proh & Excise Inspector, Proh. & Excise station, Cumbum.

9. Accused : Nara Kondaiah, s/o Kondaiah, aged 40 years, r/o Yachavaram village, Ardhaveedu mandal.

10. Offence : u/Sec. 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Act

11. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of Court : Found not guilty

13. Sentence or Order :

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal

Procedure. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the judgment under Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. The M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Explanation for delay: - This case was taken on file on 02-11-2018 for the offence u/Sec. 34(A) of

A.P. Excise Act against the accused. After appearance of the accused, on 13-02-2019, copies of all the documents were furnished to him u/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. On 18-03-2019, accused was examined u/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. On behalf of prosecution, PW.1 was examined, got marked Exs.P1 to P7 besides M.O.1. On closure of prosecution evidence, on 25-10-2019, accused was examined u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witness and reported ‘no defence evidence’. Hence, defence side evidence is closed, on the same day i.e. on 25-10-2019 heard arguments. On 01-11-2019 Judgment

pronounced. Hence the delay.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole

1

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: GIDDALUR

PRESENT: Sri B. Srinivasu,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur,

FAC: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur.

Friday, this the First (01 st ) day of November, 2019.

O.S.No. 329 of 2019

Between:

State Bank of India, Giddalur Branch, Represented by it’s Chief Manager, Giddalur Village, Post & Mandal, Prakasam District. … PLAINTIFF

AND

Donapati Chinna Ramaiah, S/o. Lakshmaiah, aged about 54 years, Hindu, Cultivation, P. Akkapalli Village and Post, Komarole Mandal, Prakasam District. … DEFENDANT

This suit has come before me on 25-10-2019 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri P. Rajasekhara Reddy and Sri B. Prakash, Advocates for the plaintiff and Defendant is set exparte; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff’s bank to pass a Decree and judgment in his favour by directing the defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs. 1,42,524/- with future interest on suit amount @ 12% p.a. and with costs of the suit.

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

The defendant approached the plaintiff’s bank for sanction of loan on 26-03- 2015 to a tune of Rs. 1,21,200/- and he submitted application to plaintiff’s bank on the same day. The Plaintiff’s bank arranged and sanctioned Rs. 1,21,200/- to him under “KCC LOAN” on 26-03-2015. As per terms and conditions of the arrangement letter,

Dt. 26-03-2015, the defendant has to repay the loan amount including interest in

lump-sum within one year and the defendant opened loan account bearing No.

30254616618 and the defendant received loan amount from plaintiff’s bank on 26-03- 2015 and he executed agreement of Hypothecation in favour of bank on 26-03-2015.

Subsequently the defendant committed default in paying the loan due amount as agreed by him. The plaintiff’s bank and his staff requested him to pay the loan due amount. But the defendant did not pay the same inspite of several requests and demands made by the plaintiff’s bank authorities. The defendant executed revival letter on 22-03-2018 acknowledging the debt dated 26-03-2015 in favour of plaintiff’s 2 bank. The plaintiff’s bank demanded the defendant several times to pay the loan due amount with interest. But the defendant failed to discharge the loan due amount with interest intentionally. The loan amount outstanding to the plaintiff’s bank as on 05- 05-2019 is Rs. 1,42,524/-. As the defendant failed to discharge the loan due amount inspite of repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiff’s bank, the plaintiff is filing this suit on account basis of the defendant against him for recovery of the suit amount.

03. On 20-09-2019, defendant called absent and set ex-parte. On 25-10-2019 the plaintiff's bank filed his chief affidavit.

04. To prove the case of the plaintiff's bank, the Chief Manager of the plaintiff's bank is examined as P.W.1 and Exs. A1 to A 5 are marked.

05. Heard the counsel for Plaintiff's bank.

06. Now the point for determination is “whether the Plaintiff's bank is entitled to recover the suit debt as prayed for?”

07. Point :

To prove the case of the plaintiff's bank, the Chief Manager of the plaintiff's bank is examined as P.W.1, and in his evidence clearly supported the averments of the plaint and deposed that on the basis of application submitted by the defendant under

Ex. A1 to the plaintiff’s bank on 26-03-2015, the plaintiff’s bank sanctioned loan on 26- 03-2015 to a tune of Rs. 1,21,200/- under “KCC LOAN”. As per terms and conditions of the arrangement letter, Dt. 26-03-2015 under Ex. A3, the defendant has to repay the loan amount including interest in lump-sum within one year and the defendant opened loan account bearing No. 30254616618 and he received loan amount from plaintiff’s bank on 26-03-2015 by executing agreement of Hypothecation in favour of bank on 26-03-2015 under Ex. A2. Subsequently the defendant committed default in paying the loan due amount as agreed by him. The P.W.1 requested him to pay the loan due amount. But the defendant did not pay the same inspite of several requests 3 and demands made by him. The defendant executed revival letter on 22-03-2018 acknowledging the debt dated 26-03-2015 in favour of plaintiff’s bank under Ex. A4.

Subsequently, the P.W.1 demanded the defendant several times to pay the loan due amount with interest. But the defendant failed to discharge the loan due amount with interest intentionally. The loan amount outstanding to the plaintiff’s bank as on 05- 05-2019 is Rs. 1,42,524/-. As the defendant failed to discharge the loan due amount inspite of repeated requests and demanded made by the plaintiff’s bank, the P.W.1 is filing this suit on account basis of the defendant against him for recovery of the suit amount.

08.The oral evidence of P.W.1 and Exs. A1 to A5 clearly shows that the defendant has received the entire consideration amount then only he executed Ex. A2 agreement on 26-03-2015 and subsequently the defendant did not pay the amount due under the agreement. Once the plaintiff's bank proved its case by adducing oral and documentary evidence, then the burden shifts on the shoulders of the defendant to disprove the case of Plaintiff but the defendant did not appear before the Court and thereby this Court was constrained to set him ex-parte. Hence, this Court felt that it is a fit case to pass decree in favour of Plaintiff's bank. Accordingly, this Point is answered in favour of the plaintiff's bank and against the defendant.

09.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs. 1,42,524/- (Rupees One lakh forty two thousands five hundred and twenty four only) with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 07-05-2019, till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs. 1,42,524/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, Corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 01st day of November, 2019.

Sd/- B. Srinivasu,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur,

FAC: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

P.W.1: Seelam Venkateswara Rao. -NIL- 4

Exhibits marked for

PLAINTIFF: Ex. A1 : The application Form submitted by the defendant to the bank for loan,

Dt. 26-03-2015,

Ex. A2 :The Hypothecation agreement executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff’s bank, Dt. 26-03-2015,

Ex. A3 :The arrangement letter, Dt. 26-03-2015,

Ex. A4 :The revival Letter executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff’s bank, Dt. 22-03-2018 and

Ex. A5 :The account extract copy maintained by plaintiff’s bank relating to the defendant.

DEFENDANT: -NIL-

Ild/- B.S.,

P.J.C.J., MRKP,

FAC: P.J.C.J., GDLR.

5

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: GIDDALUR

PRESENT: Sri B. Srinivasu,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur,

FAC: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur.

Friday, this the First (01 st ) day of November, 2019.

O.S.No. 329 of 2019

Between: State Bank of India, Giddalur Branch, Represented by it’s Chief Manager, Giddalur Village, Post & Mandal, Prakasam District. … PLAINTIFF

AND

Donapati Chinna Ramaiah, S/o. Lakshmaiah, aged about 54 years, Hindu, Cultivation, P. Akkapalli Village and Post, Komarole Mandal, Prakasam District. … DEFENDANT This suit is filed by the plaintiff’s bank to pass a Decree and judgment in his favour by directing the defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs. 1,42,524/- with future interest on suit amount @ 12% p.a. and with costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 07-05-2019 Plaint filed on : 29-06-2019

CAUSE OF ACTION:- The cause of action for the suit arose on 26-03-2015 at Giddalur Village and Mandal where and when the defendant submitted application to the plaintiff’s bank for sanction of loan and when the plaintiff’s bank sanctioned the loan and subsequently when the defendant committed default in paying the loan due amount within the jurisdiction of this court.

VALUATION:- For purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, this suit is valued at Rs. 1,42,524/- on which a court fee of Rs. 3,926/- is paid U/s.20 of APCF and SV Act,1956.

This suit has come before me on 25-10-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Rajasekhara Reddy and Sri B. Prakash, Advocates for the plaintiff and Defendant is set exparte; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree:

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff’s bank a sum of Rs. 1,42,524/- (Rupees One lakh forty two thousands five hundred and twenty four only) with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 07-05-2019, till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs. 1,42,524/-; and

2.that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff’s bank a sum of Rs. 7,081/- towards costs of the suit and bearing his own costs.

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 01st day of November, 2019.

Sd/- B. Srinivasu,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, FAC: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendant Stamp on Vakalat2-00-- Stamp on plaint 3,926-00-- Stamp on process65-00Set Exparte Advocate Fee2,988-00-- Type & Writing charges100-00-- Total 7,081-00--

Ild/- B.S.,

P.J.C.J., MRKP,

FAC: P.J.C.J., GDLR.

Note: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are marked have to be taken back by the parties concerned with in the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: GIDDALUR

PRESENT: Sri B. Srinivasu,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur,

FAC: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur.

Friday, this the First (01 st ) day of November, 2019.

O.S.No. 332 of 2019

Between:

State Bank of India, Giddalur Branch, Represented by it’s Chief Manager, Giddalur Village, Post & Mandal, Prakasam District. … PLAINTIFF

AND

Bogolu Subbamma, W/o. Pullaiah, aged about 50 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Thaticherla Village & Post, Komarole Mandal, Prakasam District. … DEFENDANT

This suit has come before me on 25-10-2019 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri P. Rajasekhara Reddy and Sri B. Prakash, Advocates for the plaintiff and Defendant is set exparte; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff’s bank to pass a Decree and judgment in his favour by directing the defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs. 2,07,499/- with future interest on suit amount @ 12% p.a. and with costs of the suit.

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

The defendant approached the plaintiff’s bank for sanction of loan on 09-03- 2015 to a tune of Rs. 1,41,000/- and she submitted application to plaintiff’s bank on the same day. The Plaintiff’s bank arranged and sanctioned Rs. 1,41,000/- to her under “KCC LOAN” on 09-03-2015. As per terms and conditions of the arrangement letter,

Dt. 09-03-2015, the defendant has to repay the loan amount including interest in

lump-sum within one year and the defendant opened loan account bearing No.

10997523986 and the defendant received loan amount from plaintiff’s bank on 09-03- 2015 and she executed agreement of Hypothecation in favour of bank on 09-03-2015.

Subsequently the defendant committed default in paying the loan due amount as agreed by her. The plaintiff’s bank and his staff requested her to pay the loan due amount. But the defendant did not pay the same inspite of several requests and demands made by the plaintiff’s bank authorities. The defendant executed revival letter on 05-03-2018 acknowledging the debt dated 09-03-2015 in favour of plaintiff’s 2 bank. The plaintiff’s bank demanded the defendant several times to pay the loan due amount with interest. But the defendant failed to discharge the loan due amount with interest intentionally. The loan amount outstanding to the plaintiff’s bank as on 05- 05-2019 is Rs. 2,07,499/-. As the defendant failed to discharge the loan due amount inspite of repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiff’s bank, the plaintiff is filing this suit on account basis of the defendant against her for recovery of the suit amount.

03. On 20-09-2019, defendant called absent and set ex-parte. On 25-10-2019 the plaintiff's bank filed his chief affidavit.

04. To prove the case of the plaintiff's bank, the Chief Manager of the plaintiff's bank is examined as P.W.1 and Exs. A1 to A 5 are marked.

05. Heard the counsel for Plaintiff's bank.

06. Now the point for determination is “whether the Plaintiff's bank is entitled to recover the suit debt as prayed for?”

07. Point :

To prove the case of the plaintiff's bank, the Chief Manager of the plaintiff's bank is examined as P.W.1, and in his evidence clearly supported the averments of the plaint and deposed that on the basis of application submitted by the defendant under

Ex. A1 to the plaintiff’s bank on 09-03-2015, the plaintiff’s bank sanctioned loan on 09- 03-2015 to a tune of Rs. 1,41,000/- under “KCC LOAN”. As per terms and conditions of the arrangement letter, Dt. 09-03-2015 under Ex. A3, the defendant has to repay the loan amount including interest in lump-sum within one year and the defendant opened loan account bearing No. 10997523986 and she received loan amount from plaintiff’s bank on 09-03-2015 by executing agreement of Hypothecation in favour of bank on 09-03-2015 under Ex. A2. Subsequently the defendant committed default in paying the loan due amount as agreed by her. The P.W.1 requested her to pay the loan due amount. But the defendant did not pay the same inspite of several requests 3 and demands made by him. The defendant executed revival letter on 05-03-2018 acknowledging the debt dated 09-03-2015 in favour of plaintiff’s bank under Ex. A4.

Subsequently, the P.W.1 demanded the defendant several times to pay the loan due amount with interest. But the defendant failed to discharge the loan due amount with interest intentionally. The loan amount outstanding to the plaintiff’s bank as on 05- 05-2019 is Rs. 2,07,499/-. As the defendant failed to discharge the loan due amount inspite of repeated requests and demanded made by the plaintiff’s bank, the P.W.1 is filing this suit on account basis of the defendant against him for recovery of the suit amount.

08.The oral evidence of P.W.1 and Exs. A1 to A5 clearly shows that the defendant has received the entire consideration amount then only she executed Ex. A2 agreement on 09-03-2015 and subsequently the defendant did not pay the amount due under the agreement. Once the plaintiff's bank proved its case by adducing oral and documentary evidence, then the burden shifts on the shoulders of the defendant to disprove the case of Plaintiff but the defendant did not appear before the Court and thereby this Court was constrained to set her ex-parte. Hence, this Court felt that it is a fit case to pass decree in favour of Plaintiff's bank. Accordingly, this Point is answered in favour of the plaintiff's bank and against the defendant.

09.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs. 2,07,499/- (Rupees Two lakhs seven thousands four hundred and ninety nine only) with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 10-05-2019, till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs. 2,07,499/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, Corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 01st day of November, 2019.

Sd/- B. Srinivasu,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur,

FAC: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

P.W.1: Seelam Venkateswara Rao. -NIL- 4

Exhibits marked for

PLAINTIFF: Ex. A1 : The application Form submitted by the defendant to the bank for loan,

Dt. 09-03-2015,

Ex. A2 :The Hypothecation agreement executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff’s bank, Dt. 09-03-2015,

Ex. A3 :The arrangement letter, Dt. 09-03-2015,

Ex. A4 :The revival Letter executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff’s bank, Dt. 05-03-2018 and

Ex. A5 :The account extract copy maintained by plaintiff’s bank relating to the defendant.

DEFENDANT: -NIL-

Ild/- B.S.,

P.J.C.J., MRKP,

FAC: P.J.C.J., GDLR.

5

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: GIDDALUR

PRESENT: Sri B. Srinivasu,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur,

FAC: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur.

Friday, this the First (01 st ) day of November, 2019.

O.S.No. 332 of 2019

Between: State Bank of India, Giddalur Branch, Represented by it’s Chief Manager, Giddalur Village, Post & Mandal, Prakasam District. … PLAINTIFF

AND

Bogolu Subbamma, W/o. Pullaiah, aged about 50 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Thaticherla Village & Post, Komarole Mandal, Prakasam District. … DEFENDANT This suit is filed by the plaintiff’s bank to pass a Decree and judgment in his favour by directing the defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs. 2,07,499/- with future interest on suit amount @ 12% p.a. and with costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 10-05-2019 Plaint filed on : 29-06-2019

CAUSE OF ACTION:- The cause of action for the suit arose on 09-03-2015 at Giddalur Village and Mandal where and when the defendant submitted application to the plaintiff’s bank for sanction of loan and when the plaintiff’s bank sanctioned the loan and subsequently when the defendant committed default in paying the loan due amount within the jurisdiction of this court.

VALUATION:- For purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, this suit is valued at Rs. 2,07,499/- on which a court fee of Rs. 4,526/- is paid U/s.20 of APCF and SV Act,1956.

This suit has come before me on 25-10-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Rajasekhara Reddy and Sri B. Prakash, Advocates for the plaintiff and Defendant is set exparte; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree:

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff’s bank a sum of Rs. 2,07,499/- (Rupees Two lakhs seven thousands four hundred and ninety nine only) with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 10-05-2019, till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs. 2,07,499/-;

and

2.that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff’s bank a sum of Rs. 8,656/- towards costs of the suit and bearing her own costs.

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 01st day of November, 2019.

Sd/- B. Srinivasu,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, FAC: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendant Stamp on Vakalat2-00-- Stamp on plaint 4,526-00-- Stamp on process65-00Set Exparte Advocate Fee3,963-00-- Type & Writing charges100-00-- Total 8,656-00--

Ild/- B.S.,

P.J.C.J., MRKP,

FAC: P.J.C.J., GDLR. Note: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are marked have to be taken back by the parties concerned with in the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.