Smt C.ramya

1

IN THE COURT OF III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Kum. RAMYA CHAVALI

III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

TUESDAY, 20 th DAY OF JUNE, 2017

C.C. 452/2011

This case coming on 13-06-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. Smt.T.Vani, for the state-complainant and Sri P.S.Sukumar, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

a.The Serial No. of the case:C.C.No.452/2011 b.The date of offence:Prior to 02-10-2010 c.The name of the complainant:State represented by the Inspector of Police, Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

d.The name of the accused:A1: SVR Overseas Educational Service, D.No.36-53-3/1, NH-5 Road, SVR hospital, Reddy Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam-8 rep., by its Admission Officer, Rapeti Venkata Ramana A2: Dr.Rapeti Venkata Ramana, Admission Officer, SVR Overseas Educational Service D.No.36-53-3/1, NH-5 Road, SVR Hospital, Reddy Kancharapalem, Visakhpatnam. e.The offence complained of:Punishable under Section 420, 406 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. f.The plea of the accused & his:Accused pleaded not guilty examination, if any

The Inspector of Police, Kancharapalem Police Station,

Visakhapatnam City filed charge sheet against accused, for the offence under

Section 420, 406 and 506 of Indian Penal Code with the following allegations.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

2.Accused 1 is “SVR OVERSEAS EDUCATIONAL SERVICE” claming of getting aspiring candidates admitted in M.B.B.S & P.G courses in Government Medical

Universities in China and that accused 2 is the Admission Officer of accused 1, and the defacto complainant influenced by the advertising of accused approached the accused with an intention of admitting her daughter into M.B.B.S course in a good Chinese University and 2 the accused 2 convinced the defacto complainant that their firm is genuine and is in the feild since long time and also registered and also promised that they would get her daughter admiited into MCI recognised university teaching in English and that to by Indian Faculty. A2 proposed suggested Visakhapatnam itself have joined in the said University for the

Academic year 2009-10 that “Southeast University would be a good choice and many indian students and that to many students from Visakhapatnam itself have joined in the said

University for the academic year 2007-08, wherein the name of the said university was there and that upon the demand of the A2 the defacto complainant gave a token advance of Rs.

10,000/- and no receipt was issued but promised to give receipt earliest and later A2 latercalled upon the defacto complainant gave an “Admission Letter” dt. 04-11-2009, in the name of her daughter and that then as per the demand of A2 the defacto- conplainant gave him Rs.50,000/- toward 'Fee at South East university ' on 19-11-2009 and also a further amont of Rs.50,000/- towards MCI, Visa Stamping, Flight tickets etc.,on 20-11-2009 and that subsequently another $2000(Rs.93,000/-) representing that he would make remittance of the said amount towards half the 1st semister fee through his contacts and that subsequently he did not make any proper arrangements as promised . On 31-11-2009 de facto complainant was shocked when she was informed by MCI that the application for “Eligibility Certificate” of the daughter of de facto complainant was rejected for the reason that “South-East Univesity” is not in the list of Chinese medical institution recognised by MCI and when she downloaded the same from internet the list of chinese medical institution recognised by MCI for the acadamic year 2008-09 and 2009-10 was not there and she then understood that A-2 had deliberately shown the list of academic year 2007-08 and cheated her and after returning to

Visakhapatnam the defacto complainant approached A-2 and demanded to get her daughter admitted in some other university recognised by MCI. The A-2 promised to do so but never complied with his promise and so the daugher of the defacto complainant was forced to leave the university as A-2 did not pay $ 2000. On the same the defacto complainant was fraustated of the act of A-2 and approached P.W.3 and got seat for MBBS at Hebei medical university after paying Rs.2.25.000/- through his contacts. After P.W.2 joining in the university she fell ill due to earlier experiences and her health was deterioriating day by day and on coming to know the condition of P.W.2, P.W.1 arranged return flight tickets and hence 3

P.W.2 came back to India. In April, 2010 P.W.1 appraoched A-2 and demanded to return back the amaounts Rs.2,03,000/- he had taken from her, he kept promising that he will return the amount after deducting his expenses but never returned any amount. Thus the accused willfuly cheated her misappropriated her amounts and indulged in intimidating her and have committed offences of “criminal breach of trust”, “cheating” and “criminal intimidation”. P.W.1 gave report to Kancharapalem P.S. and a case in Crime No.55/2011

U/Sec.420, 406 and 506 of IPC were registered and and investigated into and the accused was arrested and produced before this court. After completion of investigation S.i of

Kancharapalem has filed Charge Sheet in court and hence, accused is liable for prosecution and punishment.

3.The said case is taken on file as C.C. No.452 of 2011 for the offences punishable U/s 420, 406 and 506 of IPC on the file of Learned III Metropolitan Magistrate Court,

Visakhapatnam and issued summons to accused.

4.After appearance of accused before court, copies of case documents are supplied to him as contemplated U/s 207 of Cr.P.C.,

5.Accused is examined U/s 239 of Cr.P.C., After hearing accused, a Charge U/s 420, 406 and 506 of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to accused, during which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.6 are examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19 are marked. On behalf of accused, no witness is examined and no document is also marked.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused is examined U/s 313 of Cr.P.C., during which, he denied evidence of prosecution side witnesses as false and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and Learned counsel for Accused and perused the record.

9.The Point for determination is -

I“Whether the Accused have committed 'Criminal Breach of Trust' by

misusing the money entrusted to him by PW1, which is liable for

punishment U/s 406 of IPC?”

II “Whether the Accused by false promise and also with a dishonest intention committed an offence of 'Cheating' which is liable 4 for punishment U/s 420 of IPC?”

III “ Whether the Accused have committed Criminal Intimidation, which is liable for punishment U/s 506 of IPC?

P O I N T

10. In this context, P.W.1 speaks from het chief-examination that in 2009 examinations P.W.2 couldnot get admission in MBBS in Andhra Pradesh. P.W.1 receiaved Ex-P.1. a pamplet which sas allegedly issued by the SVR Overseas educational service in which it is stated that they would provide MBBS in China. With regard to the same P.W.1 personally went to the office and met A-2. A-2 informed that he would take care of admission in China and will besto his personal attention towards P.W.2 and also informed that there were several students from Visakhapatnam. On enquiry A-2 informed with regard to the procedure of admission to pay Rs.10,000/- so that he would get admission to P.W.2 in best college in

China. She paid the said amount. On 04-11-2009 A-2 handed over Ex-P.2. admission letter of P.W.2 in MBBS course in a university namely “South-East Univerty” China. On receipt of such admission letter accused informed to block the seat of P.W.2 and asked to pay

Rs.50,000/- and accordingly the same was paid to the accused on 09-11-2009 which is Ex-

P.3. For stamping on Visa, flight ticket and obtaining eligibility certificate for MCI again an amount of Rs.50,000/- was asked to pay and the same was paid which is marked as Ex-.P.4

dt:20-11-2009. P.W.1 stated that A-2 also advised to purchse dollars for payment of fee in

China and also informed that dollars would be available at Prabhat stores, jagadamba,

Visakhapatnam and accordiangly purchased 4000 dollars of USA by paying Rs.1,86,000/- under two receipts which are Ex-P.5 and Ex-P.6. A-2 further advised that one cannot carry 4000 dollars if carried so the air port authorities would take away the amount and asked to take only 2000 dollars with P.W.2 and hand over the remaining 2000 dollars to A-2. A-2 reserved flight ticket from Delhi to China though he promised to purchase ticket from

Visakhapatnam to China. A-2 did not accompany P.W.2 to China and promised that some other persons will receive P.W.2 at China. On the information by A-2 P.W.1 returtned to

Visakhapatnam and aksed A-2 to complete the formalities in MCI and the same was refused by A-2 as he has urgent personal work and aksed me to go to MCI and complete the formalites which is simple in nature. When PW1 went to the MCI and tried to submit the 5 application to get elibility certificate the office clerck refused to receive the same on the ground that the “South East University” of China was not recognised by MCI. Then PW1 approached the higher authories and got informed that for the year 2009-10 the said

University was not found recognised by the MCI. The said fact was informed by PW1 to A2 and he informed that they would influence and try to get eligibility to PW2 or else he would try to seek admission to PW2 in another University which is recognised. On the same PW1 returned back to Visakhapatnam.. Later stated that PW2 informed over phone that some persons came and recieved her in China and did not come to contact for 5 days. She stated that after 5 days PW2 informed that she was confined for 5 days in a room and was provided food through windows. She also stated that PW2 informed about her confinement to A2 to which he replied that it was a process of medical examination. She also stated that she asked Pw2 to enquire the college authories and obtain receipt token of payment of college fee, the same was done by PW2 and the college informed that fee was not paid. When asked the same to A2 he informed that he would pay the fee after getting admission to recognised university.

She also stated that she made efforts through PW3 whose children were studying MBBS in

China and who in turn contacted his children and they went to PW2 and took her along with them to their and got admitted her to Hebei University which is recognised by MCI. She also stated that due all these circumstances PW2 got sick and as a result she returned back to

Visakhapatnam. She also stated that the accused refused to return the amount and as he made to Rs.5,00,000/-, approached police and loged Ex.P1.On cross of P.W.1 she denied that she appraoched A-2 and verified about Ex-P.1 and semt P.W.2 to China in the year 2009 and obtained visa as she received admission to pursue MBBS in Sourt East University.

She stated that she did not verify the particulars of the university in the net. She also stated that accused did not issue any return letter stating that he would pay the first time fees in

China. She denied that the said University was recognised by China government. She stated that she herself went to Prabhat Stores and converted the Indian currency into US dollars. She also stated that P.W.2 informed about one medical student committed suicide in the University. She denied that in which amount accused arrenaged flight ticket to P.W.2 from Delhi to China. She denied that ascent consultancy accompanied her and A-2 while 6 sending P.W.2 to China. She also denied that P.W.2 returned India as she was unable to adjust due to home sick in China. She stated that she joined P.W2 in BDS Course at

Rajahmundry and the said fact is not mentioned in Ex-P.1. She denied that P.W.2 did not submit original documents of intermediate at the time of MCI and so they rejectaed admission to P.W.2. She stated that no document was issued by MCI stating that Sourth

East university was recognised by MCI. She denied that P.W.2 opted Sourth East University as the accused informed that she could not get admission in any other universities as there was delay in seeking admission and also stated that she did not mention the same in her chief or Ex-P.1. She stated that she got admitted P.W.2 in Hebei university, China and she left Sourth East University and three months later she returned back to India.

11.P.W.2 in her examination stated that she appeared for Emcet in 2009 and got admission in Denatal collage, Rajahmindry. As faculty of the said college are not good she took back her certificattes cancelling her admission and at the same time P.W.1 noticed Ex-

P.1 and contacted A-2. A-2 informed that he sent several students for studying abroad in

MBBS in China and also stated that A-2 informed that seaveral studients were also sent in the year 2009 and there is no worry to study in China andhe will personnaly look after in china and also stated that the Indian faculty are available in the said college. As advised by

A-2 she got pass port and got admission letter in MBBS at South East University by the accused. A-2 promised to accompany to China but did not accompany and sent alone. She stated that a lady from South east university received her at China and saying that she has to be subjected for medical check up and confined in a room in 5th floor of the said university in different places and did not allow her to call her parents. 5 days later she was taken to the University in the eavening hours and they provided hostel campus, while she was unpacking her luggage she noticed a suicide note ont the table which indicates that one male studemt attemped to commit suicide due to which she could not get proper sleep. She also stated that on the following day college authorities to pay the college fee but the same was already handed over to A-2 and A-2 failed to pay the same. Then informed P.W.1 about the same and also stated that she was not willing to studuy in the said university so that

P.W.1 contacted P.W.3 and appraised to issue and who in turn contacted his children studying in China and they took her to Hebei university and got admission and paid the fee 7 as sent by PW..1 to children of P.W.3 and also stated that later she discontinued her studies in china and returned back to India in 2010. In her cross examination she stated that she know partly about the procedure of admission in medical course in China , P.W.1 enquired A- 2 awith regard to admission she stated that Sourth East means DONGNAN in Chinese language. She also stated that the said university is recognised by MCI in India and was taken to architectural and enginering college of Sourth East University before getting admission into the medical course. She denied that she was taken to medical college of sourth east university soon after she was landed in China and denied that she was deposing falsely to defame the accused organisation. She stated that she was joined in Hebei college in medical course and studied for five months. She denied that she willfuly returned back to

India as she was not acustom to the conditions that were prevailing in China. She stated that as she could not pay in South East University her admission was cancelled. (Witness clarifies accused took admission fee and forwarded to pay the fee to the college and failed as such her admission was cancelled. ) She stated that accused gave token of college fee and denied that P.W.1 had not hand over any amount to A-2 for processing pay and visa chargese. She also stated that she got issued admission in the name of South East

University but not in the name of Dongnan and also satated that she do not remember aboutthe name of athe stamp of the college in her visa but it may be in the name of Hebei university in Visa while returning to India.

12P.W.3 is examined and stated that he is practising doctor in Kakinada and he know

P.W1 and P.W.2. He stated that in Novermber, 2009 P.W.1 came to Kakinada along with common friend and informed about P.W.2 joining in South East Unviersity and there were no telugu students and as one of my sons was studying MBBS in Hebei university in China

P.W.1 requested him to see that her daugher also get admission in MBBS course in Hebei

University and the same was contacted to his son studying in Hebei University in China and asked to enquire about P.W.2 could get admission in the said unviersity. At the request of

P.W.1 he informed his son to meet P.W.2 and see that she should be brought to Hebei university and settle comfortably accordingly his son brought P.W.2 to hebei unversity. In his cross examination he stated that within stipulated time onehas to pay the college fee, if failed naturally the admission would be cancelled. He denied that one has to join in college where 8 admission was given. He stated that for foreign students in China , college authorities provide accomidation. He denied that PW1 not approaching him and his son did not help

PW2 in China, and also whether PW2 paid fee in South East University. He also stated that his son apprised him that he tried for admission in Hebei University to PW2. When Learnd

APP reexamined PW3 in question, How did you come to know that PW2 was cheated by the acuused with regard to payment of fee to PW2 in South East University?,He denied that he dont know that PW2 was cheated or not by the accused but came to know that PW2 faced problems.

13.Prosecution examined PW4, in his examination he stated that he know PW1 from his childhood and on 24-11-2009 when he came to house of PW1, accused came to her house and PW1 handed over $2000 to the accused for the purpose of education of PW2 in China.

In his cross examinaton he denied that as he know PW1 from childhood he is deposing falsely to help PW1even though he is not aware of the transaction between PW1 and the accused much less than $2000. she stated that PW1 was not present but PW2 was present at the house and he left to Simhachalam.

14.Prosection examined the mediator as PW5, in his examination he stated that about 4 or 5 years back when he was going along the road at Reddi Kancharapalem Area Inspector of Police called him and arrested the accused in his house and seized some documents relating to passport and report Ex. P14 was drafted at the house of the accused and he signed on it. In his cross examination he stated that after the contents of Ex.P14 are read over to him he signed on it. He denied that he is deposing falsely to help police eventhough accused was not arrested at his house in his presence and that no documents were seized.

15.Prosecution examined the Investigating Officer as PW6, in his examination he stated that during the course of investigation he is working as Inspector Of Police Kancharapalem.

On 10-02011 he received a complaint of PW1 forwarded by This Court U/s 156(3) CrPC, which was registered as case in Cr.No. 55/11 U/s 406, 506, 420 r/w 34 IPC, the FIR is

Ex.P15. He stated that he PW1 handed over some documents relating to this case. On 27- 02-2011 he examined and recorded the statement of LW3. On 19-03-2011 secured the presence of PW2 and 3 , On 21-3-2011 secured the presence of LW5 and 6 , on 12-4-2011 secured presence of PW4, on 3-5-2011 secured presence of PW5 and LW9 recoreded all 9 thier statements. On information furnished by PW5 and LW9 he arrested the accused and seized passport, letter heads, case sheet book Ex. P 18 in the name of SRI VENKATA

RAMANA Hospital, fitness certificate book Ex. P19 under Ex.P14 in the presence of PW5 &

LW9 and submitted Ex P16, Ex.P 17, Ex.P18 and Ex.P19. In his cross examination stated that he did not personally secure or collect from the concerned department about the colleges which were recognised in China but PW1 handed over list of names of colleges containing which were recognised in China. He denied that without conducting proper investigation he filed charge sheet.

16. The case of P.W.2 from her chief-examination that “the accused person having received the money by making a promise that he would provide admission to her for

MBBS in China, as such got admission to the college, PW2 in her examination stated that as there were no Indian students in the university and about the suicide and as informed by PW1 that it is not a recognised University of MCI, she is not willing to study in the said University, as such prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused for 'breach of trust'.

17.In order to hold a person guilty of 'Cheating' as defined U/s 415 of IPC, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise with an intention to retain the property. In other words, Section 415 of IPC, which define 'Cheating', requires deception of any person (a) inducing that person to (i) to deliver any property to any person or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property or (b) intentionally inducing that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person, anybody's mind, reputation or property.”

18.But, there is no evidence on part of the prosection to prove the guilt of accused for the offence of cheating as he sent PW2 to China to the said University and a lady from that university received PW2 at China as said by PW2 in her evidence. PW1 also stated that accused asked to wait and did not pay the fee as getting admission to PW2 in recognised

University by MCI as the South East University is not recognised as stated by PW1 to the accused. But meanwhile she contacted PW3, through his son got PW2 adimission in Hebei

University. Therefore, making promise by the accused person by assuring that he 10

would get admission in MBBS in China in a recognised University by MCI to the

victim on payment of amount cannot itself establish the ingredient that at the time of making the promise, he had fraudulent and dishonest intention to deceive the victim and to get gain wrongfully.

19.After examining all the witnesses, the prosection could not establish anywhere that accused threatened the victim with any injury to her or reputation or property.

Therefore criminal intimidation U/s 506 is also not proved against the accused.

20.Having regard to the material available on record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to proved its case against accused for the offence punishable U/s 420, 406 and 506 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt.

21. Hence, the point is answered in favour of accused and against prosecution.

22.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 420 , 406 and 506 of IPC and he is Acquitted for the said Charges U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and sureties if any, shall stands cancelled. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 20th day of June, 2017.

III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

11

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: -For Accused: -

P.W.1: M.L.G. Aruna Kumari. . . N o n e . . . P.W.2: Divya Ardin P.W.3: Dr. A. Swami Varma P.W.4: M.V. Seshasiri Rao P.W.5: R. Chinna rao P.W. 6: K. Prabhakar, the then ACP, Traffic, Visakhapatnam.

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: -

Ex.P.1:Pamphlet for Advertisement. Ex.P.2: Admission notification for South East University, China. Ex.P.3: Receipt, dt.09.11.2009 for Rs.50,000/-. Ex.P.4: Receipt, dt.20.11.2009 for Rs.50,000/-. Ex.P.5: Cash memo no. 2634. Ex.P.6: Cash memo no.2636. Ex.P.7: Admission notice. Ex.P.8: Passport and Visa of PW2( copy compared with original). Ex.P.9: Eligibilty Certificate of MCI. Ex.P.10: Return flight ticket of PW2. Ex.P.11: MCI recognised college list for 2007-08. Ex.P.12: MCI recognised college list for 2008-09. Ex.P.13: MCI recognised college list for 2009-10. Ex.P.14: Mediators report. Ex.P.15: FIR in Cr.No.55/11 Ex.P.16: Pass Book. Ex.P.17: Prescription Letter. Ex.P.18: Case Sheet Book. Ex.P.19: Medical fitness certificate book.

For Accused: -. . . N I L . . .

M.O.s . . . N I L . . .

III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

12

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT :: VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.NO. 452/2011

Date of offence:Prior to 02-10-2010

Date of release on bail: --

Date of Filing: 26-07-2011 Date of Apprehension: 20-12-2011 Date of commencement of trial: 21-07-20174 Date of Close of trial: 15-09-2016

Date of Sentence or Order: 20-06-2017

Explanation for delay: Delay due to non-appearance of accused and witnesses. No witness is detained beyond three days.

C.C.No.452/2011on the file of III Metropolitan

Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

The name of the complainant :State represented by the Inspector of Police, Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. The Name of the accused :A1: SVR Overseas Educational Service, Parentage & ResidenceD.No.36-53-3/1, NH-5 Road, SVR hospital, Reddy Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam-8 rep., by its Admission Officer, Rapeti Venkata Ramana A2: Dr.Rapeti Venkata Ramana, Admission Officer, SVR Overseas Educational Service D.No.36-53-3/1, NH-5 Road, SVR Hospital, Reddy Kancharapalem, Visakhpatnam. Offences:Punishable under Section 420, 406 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. Finding:Accused pleaded not guilty Sentence:In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 420 , 406 and 506 of IPC and he is Acquitted for the said Charges U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and sureties if any, shall stands cancelled. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

1

IN THE COURT OF III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Kum. RAMYA CHAVALI

III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Tuesday, this the 27th day of June, 2017

Calendar Case No. 529 of 2010

This case is coming before me on 19.06.2017 for final hearing in the presence of T.Vani, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant / Prosecution, Sri Bypa Arun Kumar, Advocate for Accused, having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court delivered the following: ­

J U D G M E N T

a.The Serial No. of the case:C.C.No.529/2010 b.The date of offence: Prior to 20-05-2010 c.The name of the complainant:State represented by theSub­ Inspector of Police, Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam city d.The name of the accused:Majji Narayana Rao,S/o. Raja Sekhar Rao, 30 years, Kapu by caste, R/o. D. No.18­250, Chandra Nagar, Gopalapatnam,Visakhapatnam. e.The offence complained of:Punishable under Section403, 409,420, 468 & 471 of Indian Penal Code. f.The plea of the accused & his:Accused pleaded not guilty examination, if any

The State Represented by Sub­Inspector of Police, Airport Police

Station, Visakhapatnam city has filed Charge Sheet against Accused in Crime No. 242 of 2010 of Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam city for the offence punishable U/s 403, 409,420, 468 & 471 of Indian Penal Code (In short 'IPC').

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

2.The defacto complainant is working as branch manager, ICICI Bank

Butchirajupalem branch, NAD Kotha road, Visakhapatanam. ICICI banking company is registered under Companies Act and governed under Banking Regulation Act, and such having branches across the country. The accused joined as Sales Executive for 2

ICICI Home Finance, Siripuram Office, in 2009. as a Sales Executive the accused is to source various clients for Home Loans with the Bank. As to that process on 19­05­ 2010 the accused visited ICICI Bank NAD Branch, Visakhapatnam with a cheque breaing No.520842 of Rs.60,000/­ to be transfered to his Account No.036501519778.

At that time the branch operation manager has observed tink colour which had lead to a suspesion. The cheques were issued by one of the ICICI bank customer A/c No:

028001501373 belonged to Kakinada Branch. Immediately the operation manager called the custmnly issued cheques to pay hi the name of the acused, he had oner for confis home loan EMI in favour of ICICI bank only. The bank officials informed the same and Branch Manager loged a report to the police and handed over the accused to the police.on proceeding with the investigation it was alleged that the accused had collect Rs.6,50,00/­ from various customers of various banks. Basing on the report registered a case in Crime No. 242/2010 U/s 403,409,420,468 & 471 IPC on 20­05­ 2010. After completion of investigation filed Charge Sheet in case and hence, accused is liable for punishment U/s 403,409,420,468 & 471 IPC.

3.The said case is taken on file as C.C. No. 529 of 2010 against Accused for the offences punishable U/s 403,409, 420,468 & 471 of IPC and issued summons to accused.

4.After appearance of accused before court, copies of documents are supplied to them as contemplated U/s 207 of Cr.P.C.,

5.Accused are examined U/s 239 of Cr.P.C., After hearing accused, Charges U/s 403,409,420,468 and 471 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to accused, during which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

6.On behalf of prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined and Ex.P.1 and

Ex.P.14 are marked. On behalf of accused, no witness is examined and no document is also marked.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined U/s 313 of

Cr.P.C., during which, they denied the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 as false and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard and perused the record.

9.The Point for determination is: ­

“Whether prosecution has proved its case against Accused for the

offences punishable U/s 403,409,420, 468 and 471 of IPC, beyond all reasonable

doubt?”

P O I N T

10.At the outset, case of prosecution against accused is that “accused made to believe the customers that cheques collected from customers as he is the agent of

ICICI bank home loans for the purpose of Home Loan EMI and but the same

was being credited to the account of accused for his personal benefits accused is liable for punishment.”

11.In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has cited four (10) witnesses; but, it has succeeded to examine only six (6) witness as P.W.1.to P.W.6.

12.The prosecution has examined L.W1 as P.W.1. P.W.! stated is evidence that on 19­05­2010 accused visted their branch and presented a cheque drawn in favour of

ICICI bank, name of the accused and his account number of ICICI Bank. Then he 4 suspected the genuineness of the cheque. Thereafter called the customer who issued the cheque and informed the same, for which he informed that he did not mention the name of the accused and his account number. Later the same was reported to the branch manager and handed over the cheque Ex.P1 and pay in slip Ex.P2 to him. And also informed the same to his senior officers including L.W.1 and handed over the accused to police. In his cross examination stated that he was present with L.W.1 at that time of incident, and that he did not lodge a report but L.W.1 lodged a report.

Also stated that P.W.2 did not lodge any complaint either to him or to L.W.1. he stated that the alleged cheque amount was credited to the account of P.W.2. he stated that he do not know as to whether other customers had lodged a report from whose account an amout of Rs.6,50,000/­ was allegedly misappropriated by the accused. He also stated that he handed over Ex.P1 to the police and do not remember whether the statement of account of P.W.2 was handed over to police or not. He denied that he did not go to the police station alomg with L.W.1 at the timing of lodging Ex.P14 and that he have no knowledge about the averments.

13.Prosection examined L.W.3 as P.W.2. P.W.2 in his evidence stated that one Mr.

Venu Gopal introduced the accused as the agent of ICICI bank and would help to avail

additional housing loan, accordingly the same was done. The accused informed that if

he pays Rs.60,000/­ then he can avail interest @8% p.a, so that he may be benifited.

On the alleged day he recieved a phone call from the branch manager and got enquired about Ex.P1. The branch manager informed me that the name of of the accused and his account number were mentioned on the cheque to which he informed that he did not mention the same. In his cross examination he stated that he did not see any document regarding the interest 8% p.a which the accused promised.

5

14.Prosection examined L.W.5 as P.W.3. P.W.3 in his evidence stated that on 21­ 05­2010 at about 9.30 am S.I of Kancharapalem P.S summoned him, one Sudhakar reddy and L.W.6 and accordingly all of them went went to the police station and from there they were led to te house of the accused, and on seeing them accused tried to escape , and that he identified accused and police caught hold of him. He also stated that when police enquired the accused as to why he was trying to escape, the accused informed that his salaru was Rs.4,500/­ or so and he was habituated to lead luxurious lif On te ans also confessed that he cheated the customers to avail home loans from

ICICI bank by way of in corporating his name on the cheques issued by the customers infavour of ICICI bank. He also stated some of the names of the Customers got cheated by the accused. He also stated that police seized some documents and also obtained specimen signatures of the accused and also Ex.P3 to Ex.P10. In his cross examination he stated that he know the contents of report lodged by L.W.1, that he did not handover any document to show that accused was working as sales executive of their bank, and that P.W.2 did not lodge any complaint to him with regard to tampering of his cheque, but clarifies that his bank officials made a phone call to the customer about the alleged incident. And also stated that no written complaints were received against the accused from other customers who were alleged to be cheated by the accused. He stated that accused did not open any savings account at NAD branch but he had account at Ramnagar branch, and that he did not handover any copy of statement of the accused account to the police. He also stated that he he did not verify the account details bearing A.c No. 036501519778 and as such he is unable to say the name of the accout holder that either it stands as Majji Narayana Rao or Macherla

Narayana Rao. He also stated that customers who avail loan issues blank cheques by mentioning only name of the bank or keeping it blank. He also stated that he do not remember about obtaining specimen signatures of accused Ex.P9 and that no panchanama was prepared under Ex.P10 in his prence.

6

15.Prosecution examined L.W.7 as P.W.4. P.W.4 in his evidence stated that on 19­ 05­2010 he received a message from kancharapalem police wherein he was enquired about presentation of cheque by furnishing the details of the same. He stated that cannot recollect the number and amount mentioned on cheque Ex.P11 and that police asked to hand over the original and he handed over the same and the same was identified and that the amount of the Ex.P11 was credited into account of accused. In his cross examination he stated that he did not receive any complaint from drawer of

Ex.P11 , and also stated that the account might have been credited to the account of the accused and stated the name of the drawer as T. Apparao but not P.Apparao and that he do not know that what police had written.

16.Prosecution examined L.W.8 as P.W.5 that . P.w.5 stated that he is Asst.

Director RFSL, Guntur. On 28­0­2010 that their department received a reqisition from

ACP North Sub division, Visakhapatnam along with Ex.P1 & P11, Ex.P2, P3, P4, P5,

P6, P7, P8, P9. After careful examination he stated that red enclosed writings marked

S1 t sh is very pertinent to make a note herein that neither victim, who put the criminal law into motion nor the husband of victim is exsence.amined on behalf of prosecution to substantiate the case of prosecution. Evidence of victim was closed by court on 27.10.2016 as she died. But, though o S22 also wrote the red enclosed writings marked Q1 & Q2 ie Ex.P1 & P11, and also stated that it is not possible to offer any opinion on the authorship of red enclosed writings marked Q3 i.e Ex.P2 on the basis of existing standards, and that he furnished his opinion vide FSL File

No.DOC/260/2010, Dt: 28­06­2010 ie Ex.P12. He denied that writings changes basing on the pressure put on the pen holiding. He stated that they did not print out the magnified impression of the hand writing.

7

17.Prosecution examined L.W.10 as P.W.6. P.W.6 in his evidence stated that on 20­ 05­2010 L.W1 and P.W1 went to station and presented a written report by L.W1to

L.W9 and registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 242/2010 U/s 403, 409, 420 ,468 and 471 IPC and issued FIR Ex. P13 and entrusted him to conduct further investigation. The complaint of L.W.1 is marked as Ex.P14. He stated that he examined and recorded the statements of L.W.1, P.W.1 and visited the ICICI bank of

Butchirajupalem, where he enqired about P.W.2 but was not available. And stated that on the next day he enquired P.W.2 and recorded his statement and also secured presence of P.W3, L.W.6, and thereafter went to house of accused and arrested the accused under cover of mediators report and seized the documents Ex.P3 to Ex.P5,

P7,P8, obtained Ex.P9 and sought to judicial custody. On 10­06­2010 secured the presence of L.W.4 and on 20­06­2010 eamined PW4, on 21­06­2010 sent all documents to RFSL, Hyderabad through ACP and after receiveng the same filed charge sheet. In his cross examination stated that he did not collect any document to show accused joined as sales executive in ICICI bank and that PW2 did not lodge any repoan the prosecution is having anrt he stated that except PW2 and LW4 he did not examine other persons who were allegedly cheated by the accused to an tune of

Rs.6,50,000/­ and did not collect any document to show accused committed fraud of the said Rs.6,50,000/­ as alleged in Ex.P14 and that he did not give notice to P.W3 and L.W6 and denied that they are stock mediators to that station and that Ex.P3 to

P5, P7, P8 did not contain signatures of accused. The witness volunteers in his cross examination that opportunity to examine the husband of victim, who is cited as List of

Witness No.2, the prosecution has not opted to examine him as a witness on its behalf.

The said lacuna on he collected Ex.P5, P7 and P8 to show that the accused was Maggi

Narayana rao S/o Rajasekhar.

8

18.It is that P.W1 has stated that he informed about the alleged offence to his senior officers and also L.W1 and that they handed over the accused to police. And all the other witnesses states that the accused was caught at his house when they went to the accused house and also seized the documents. Prosecution has failed to examine L.W1 who is the main witness of this case who has to speak about the cheating committed by the accused. P.W3 in his cross examination also stated that they collect blank cheques from the customers while availing home loans. P.W1 also stated that the amount that was alleged was credited to the account of P.W2 but not to the account of accused, hence there is no dishonest misappropriation of property U/S 403 of IPC. There was no criminal breach of trust by banker merchant or his agent U/s 409 IPC levelled against the accused as to which that the accused has presented the cheque to the bank and the same was credited to the loan account of P.W2.

There was no cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property levelled against accused as there is no proof that the writings made on the cheque were written by the accused except on FSL report and that report solely cannot be taken into consideration and prove the same on accused hence Sec.420 IPC has not been proved by the prosecution. The prosecution has also failed to to prove the forgery for purpose of cheating U/s 468 IPC and also using of genuine a forged document U/s 471 of IPC.

19.It is suffice to say that the case of prosecution fully and completely rests on mere surmises and conjectures without there being any positive proof to point out the guilt of accused for the Charges levelled against him, beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present set of facts and circumstances of the case, accused is perfectly entitled to get a benefit of doubt under law.

20.Hence, the point is answered against prosecution and in favour of accused.

9

21.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 403,409,420, 468 and 471 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted from the said Charges

U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six (6) months from today. Unmarked property if any shall destroy after appeal time is over.

 Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27th day of June, 2017.

III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: ­For Accused: ­

P.W.1: V. Srivasthava P.W.2: P.Atcha Rao P.W.3: R. Narasimha Kumar. . . N o n e . . . P.W.4: G. Pasupatheswara Rao P.W.5: K. Vani Prasada Rao P.W.6: K. Paidapunaidu

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: ­

Ex.P.1: Cheque, dt. 15.04.2010. Ex.P.2: Pay in Slip dt 19­05­2010. Ex.P.3: Dairy . Ex.P.4: Ochers of the bank. Ex.P.5: Reliance Mobile Application. Ex.P.6: Form 60. Ex.P.7: Addendum to customer Application Form. Ex.P8: SBI Account Opening Application Form. Ex.P.9: Specimen writing of the accused. Ex.P.10: Mediators Report. Ex.P.11: Cheque of UCO bank. Ex.P.12: FSL report. Ex.P.13: FIR. Ex.P.14: Complaint by PW6

For Accused: ­. . . N I L . . . 

M.O.s

. . . N I L . . .

III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

10

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT :: VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No.529/2010

Date of offence: Prior to 20-05-2010

Date of release on bail: --

Date of Filing: 28-08-2010

Date of Apprehension: 02-02-2011

Date of commencement of trial: 04-12-2013

Date of Close of trial: 29-11-2016

Date of Sentence or Order: 27-06-2017

Explanation for delay: Delay due to non-appearance of accused and witnesses. No witness is detained beyond three days.

C.C.No.529/2010on the file of III Metropolitan

Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

The name of the complainant :State represented by the Inspector of Police,AirportPoliceStation, Visakhapatnam City. The Name of the accused :Majji Narayana Rao,S/o. Raja Sekhar Parentage & Residence Rao, 30 years, Kapu by caste, R/o. D.No.18­250,ChandraNagar, Gopalapatnam,Visakhapatnam. Offences:Punishable under Section 403, 409,420, 468 & 471 of Indian Penal Code.

Finding:Accused pleaded not guilty Sentence:In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 403,409,420, 468 and 471 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted from the said Charges U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six (6) months from today. Unmarked property if any shall destroy after appeal time is over.

III Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam 11

1

IN THE COURT OF III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Kum.RAMYA CHAVALI

III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE.

VISAKHAPATNAM

THURSDAY, THE 15thDAY OF JUNE, 2017

C.C.187/2013

This case coming on 16-05-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. Smt. T.Vani, for the state-complainant and of Sri Akku Naidu Boni, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

a.The Serial No. of the case:187/2013 b.The date of offence:11-05-2011 c.The name of the complainant:State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kancharapalem Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

d.The name of the accused:A1: Maranana Sreenu, driver of TATA ACM Van bearing registration No.AP 31 TU 9076

A2: Maddila Ravi Kumar, S/o Appalaswamy, 33 years, SC by caste R/o Madanapuram village, Gantyada mandal, Vizianagaram District

A3: Lachireddi Demudubabu, S/o Sanyasappadu, 33 years, K.Velama by caste, R/o Madhanapuram, Gantyada Mandal, Vizianagaram.Owner of TATA ACM Van bearing registration No.AP 31 TU 9076 e.The offence complained of:Punishable A1 under section 304­A of IPC and A2 and A3 under section 419, 201 r/w 304 of IPC f.The plea of the accused & his:Accused pleaded not guilty examination, if any

1.The State Represented by Sub­Inspector of Police, Kancharapalem Traffic police station, Visakhapatnam laid Charge Sheet against the accused A1 under section 304­A and A2 and A3 under section 419, 201 r/w 304 of IPC in Crime No.159/2011.

2.Case of prosecution made in the Charge Sheet, in brief, is that:

On 11­05­2011 at 12.45 hours at Tatichetalpalem signal point NH­5 road,

Visakhapatnam the accused A­1 being the driver of Tata Ace Van bearing registration 2

No.AP 31 TU 9076 drove the same in rash and negligent manner while proceeding from Tathichetlapalem towards Kancharapalem on NH­5 road from behind dashed

P.W.1 the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 31 AT 2621. As a result at which P.W.1 along with his wife (deceased pillion rider) fell down and the deceased received head injury and became unconscious. Immediately she was shifted to NRI hospital for treatment. On 11­05­2011 at 21.45 hours P.W.1 lodged a report at

Kancharapalem traffic police station and L.W.15 registered a case in Cr.No.159/2011 under section 338 of IPC and investigated into. L.W.15 visited the scene of offence and examined the witnesses. During further investigation, the deceased while undergoing treatment scummbed to the injuries on 14­05­2011 at 12.00 hours. On the same day death report was presented to the police as such altered the secation from 338 IPC to 304­A IPC and investigated into. During the course of further investigation

P.W.6 visted K.G.H mortory and held inquest over the dead of the deceased in the presence of L.W.2, L.W.3, L.W4, P.W.3 and L.W.6 and panchayatdars L.W.8, P.W.7,

L.W.10, L.W.11 and P.W.12 and sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination to the Professor of Forensic Medicine Department, Andhra medical

College, Visakhapatnam. During the course of investigation the accused A­3 influenced L.W.15 to change the real accued A1 and to replace A­2 in the place of A­1.

On the influence of A­3 L.W.15 prepared athe record of arrest and other particurlars by changing the A­1 and replacing A­2 in that place on behalf of P.W.6 the incharge

Sub­inspector of police without the knowledge of P,.W.6 shown the arrst of accused on 16­05­2012 and A­2 was sent to judicial custody. During further investigation the fraud made by the A­3 changing the real accused A­1 by A­2 by influencing L.W15 came to light. Later commissioner of police initiated departmental action of L.W.15 and suspended him immediately. P.W.8 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued PM report opining that the deceased died due to head injury.

P.W.4 Assistant Motor Cycle Inspector inspected the crime vehicle opined that the accident was not due to any mechannical defect. P.W.9 took up further investigation arrested A­1 and A­3. As the investigation is completed P.W.9 filed charge sheet against A­1 under section 304­A IPC and against A­2 and A­3 under section 201 IPC r/w 304 IPC.

3.The cognizance of offence was taken against A­1 U/s 304­A IPC and against A­2 and A­3 U/sec.419 and 201 r/w 304­A IPC On appearance of accused A1 to A3 the 3 case copies were furnished as contemplated U/s 207 of Cr.P.C.,

4.The accused A1 to A3 were examined U/s 251 of Cr.P.C., for the said offence and read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the accusation levelled against them, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The Points for determination are:

“Whether the Accused­1 is the Driver of Tata Ace Van bearing

Registration No. AP­31­TU­9076 and he drove the same rash and negligently and caused the accident?”

“Whether the Accused­3 has personated Accused­2 in the place of

Accused­1 which is punishable under section 419 IPC and causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender under section 201 IPC?”

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got marked

Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused 1 to 3 were examined U/s 313 of Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which, the accused 1 to 3 denied the incriminating evidence. When the accused 1 to 3 were called upon to enter upon their defence, they reported no defence witnesses.

8.Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned Defence Counsel and perused the record.

9.Point No. (i): ­

Undisputedly on 11­05­2011 at 12.45 hours when the deceased along with

P.W.1 was going on their motorcycle the Tata Ace dashed them from behind as to which P.W.1's wife received head injury and became unconscious and later while undergoing treatment scummbed to injuries on 14­05­2011 at 12.00 hours.

4

Subsequently, on the report given by P.W.1, the defacto complainant, the police registered the case and investigated into. The point that arises for determination is whether the accused­1 is the driver of the crime vehicle and he drove the said vehicle rash and negligently with high speed and caused accident.

10.The case of the accused is total denial of entire prosecution case.

11.P.W.1, the defacto­complainant deposed that the deceased is his wife. On that day himself and his wife were proceeding to Gajuwaka from Bheemili. The deceased is the pillion rider and he is riding the vehicle and a van was coming from their behind by driving it rashly and dashed them from behind as to which the deceased fell down.

He stated that he did not observe the driver of the crime vehicle and also cannot identify the driver of the crime vehicle and that his wife died scummbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. He stated that a person resident of Arillova has seen the accident and caught the driver of the van by getting stopped the van and handed over the same to police. He stated that he had given report to police immediately after the accident i.e. Ex­P1 and another report after the death of the deceased i.e. Ex­P.2. In his cross examination he stated that he mentioned in his report that a person resident of Arillova has seen the accident and caught the van and handed ovaer it to the police.

12. Proseuction examined P.W.2. P.W.2 stated that on 11­05­2011 at about 12.40 p.m. while he was going towardss NAD Kotha road from Maddilapalem on his scooter and he stopped his scooter at the signal point of Tatichetlapalem due to red signal.

When green signal was given a couple in front of him were proceeding on a bike and a

Tata Ace goods vehicle was proceeding rashly driven by A­3 and dashed the said vehicle as to which a lady fell down and received head injury and that they helped to carry the injured to hospital and A­3 also went along with them to the said hospital.

13.Prosecution examined P.W.3. P.W.3 stated that the deceased is his younger sister. He stated that he was informed on telephone that accident took place near signal point of Tatichetlapalem while P.W.1 and deceased were proceeding on a motor bike and was also informed that a van behind them dashed as to which the deceased got severre injuries on her back of head and body.

5

14.Prosecution examined P.W.4. P.W.4 is MV Inspector, DTC, Visakhapatnam and that he receivaed a requisition from SHO, Kancharapalem traffic PS on 17­05­2011 and examined athe crime vehicle at the prmises of police station and found no damages and conducated road test and gave report Ex­P.3 as there were no mechanical defects.

15.Prosecution examined P.W.5. P.W.5 stated that deceased is daughter of his elder brother. He along with others were the inquest mediators opined that deceasaed died due to motor accident. Ex­P.4 is the inquest report.

16.Prosecution examined P.W.6. P.W.6 was incharage to Kancharapalem traffic PS.

on the date of incident and that their CI instrucated him to alter FIR and to investigate the matter in Cr.no.159/2011. He stated that K.G.H and secured the presence of witnesses and conductaed inquest over the dead body of the deceased and examined witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. Ex­P.4 was drafted and arrested A2.

17.Prosecution examined P.W.7. P.W.7 stated that he was present at the time of scene observation made by the SI of Kancharapalem Traffic PS. at the scene of offence on 11­05­2011 at about 1.00p.m and signed on it i.e. Ex­P.5 and that he was present at the time of inquest at K.G.H.

18.Prosecution examined P.W.8. P.W.8 is Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine,

Visakhapatnam, he conductted postmortem examination over the dead bodyof the deceased and anitmortem external and internal injuries mentioned in Ex­P.6 and opined deceased was died due to head injury.

19.Prosecution examined P.W.9. P.W9 stated that he took up investigation from

P.W.6 and arrested A1 and A3 at Madanapuram Village at 11.00 am. On verification of investigation P.W.6 filed charage sheet by collecting all the necessary documents.

Ex­P.7 was the FIR and Ex­P.6 is athe rough sketch.

20.In the accident cases the evidence of direct eye­witnesses plays pivotal and vital role to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence. The evidence of other witnesses such as hearsay witnesses, Mediators for the Crime Scene Observation 6

Report, Inquest Report, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Medical Officer and the Investigating

Officer is of no avail when the evidence of direct eye­witnesses could not bring home the guilt of the accused for the said offence.

21.Further, the prosecution story is that when the deceased and P.W.1 were proceediang on their motor cycle accident took place and that the accident took place at the signal point when the signal was just moved from red to green and hence there is no possibility of driving the vehicle rash and negigently on that point of moment as the vehicles will just start slowly. Hence the prosecution has failed to prove that the accident took place rash and nelgigently and P.W.1 stated that he did not witness the driver of the crime vehicle. Hence the accused was not identified. P.W.2 also stated that he has saw A­2 driving the vehicle but not A­1 and no other eye witnesses were examined as to which the driver is not identified as A­1 and hence prosecution has failed to establish the case against A­1 for the offence under section 304­A IPC.

POINT NO:(ii)

22.After examining all other witnesses there is no proof of persuanating a person or causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender was also not provaed by the prosecution against A­2 and A­3 and hence prosecution has failed to prove the case against A2 and A3 under section 419 and 201 of IPC.

23.In the result, A­1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 304­A of IPC and A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 419, 201 of IPC r/w 304­A IPC and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and sureties if any shall stands cancelled. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 15th day of June, 2017.

III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

7

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: ­For Accused: ­

P.W.1: G.Venkata Satyanarayana

P.W.2: Kolli Venkata Ramana . . . N o n e . . .

P.W.3: Nammi Venkata Ramana

P.W.4: A.S.Ganesh Reddy

P.W.5: Corrai Ramarao

P.W.6: D.Kondala Rao

P.W.7: Pinninti Appala Ramana

P.W.8: Dr.V.Chandra Sekhar

P.W.9: P.Suryanarayana

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: ­

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 given to Police, dt.11­05­2011

Ex­P.2: Report of P.W.1 given to police dt:14­05­2011

Ex.P.3: MVI Report.

Ex­P.4: Inquest report

Ex­P.5:Scene observation report

Ex­P.6: Postmortem Report

Ex­P.7: FIR

Ex­P.8: Rough sketch.

For Accused: ­. . . N I L . . .

M.O.s

. . . N I L . . .

III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

8

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT 

DISTRICT :: VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No .187 /2013 Date of offence:11­05­2011

Date of release on bail: 16­05­2011

Date of Filing: 04­04­2013

Date of Apprehension: 05­11­2013

Date of commencement of trial: 10­04­2015

Date of Close of trial: 16­05­2017

Date of Sentence or Order: 15­06­2017

Explanation for delay: Delay due to non­appearance of accused and witnesses. No witness is detained beyond three days.

C.C.No.187/2013 on the file of III Metropolitan 

Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

The name of the complainant :State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, KancharapalemTrafficPoliceStation, Visakhapatnam City. The Name of the accused Parentage:A1: Maranana Sreenu, driver of TATA ACM Van & Residencebearing registration No.AP 31 TU 9076 A2: Maddila Ravi Kumar, S/o Appalaswamy, 33 years, SC by caste R/o Madanapuram village, Gantyada mandal, Vizianagaram District A3:Lachireddi Demudubabu, S/o Sanyasappadu, 33 years, K.Velama by caste, R/o Madhanapuram,GantyadaMandal, Vizianagaram.Owner of TATA ACM Van bearing registration No.AP 31 TU 9076 Offences:Punishable A1 under section 304­A of IPC and A2 and A3 under section 419, 201 r/w 304 of IPC Finding:Accused pleaded not guilty Sentence: In the result, A­1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 304­A of IPC and A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 419, 201 of IPC r/w 304­A IPC and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and sureties if any shall stands cancelled. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

9

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Kum. Ramya Chavali

III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Tuesday the 27th day of June, 2017

D.V.C. No. 23/2014

Between: Smt. Nakkana Hima Bindu W/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 23 years, resident of D.No.56-11-6, Golla Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. …Petitioner And: 1.Nakkana Srinivasa Rao, S/o Atchiyam naidu, Hindu, aged about 26 years, resident of D.No. 36-92-248, Beside Gopala KrishnaAlayam,srinivasaNagar,burma camp,kancharaoalpalam,visakhapatnam.

2. Nakkana achiyamma W/o Atchiyam naidu, Hindu, aged about 59years, resident of D.No. 36-92-248, Beside Gopala Krishna Alayam, srinivasa Nagar, burma camp,kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

3. muvvala jyothi, W/o M.Venkata Rao, Hindu, aged about 30 years, resident of D.No. 36-92-248, Beside Gopala Krishna Alayam, srinivasa Nagar, burma camp,kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

(cognizance is taken as against R1 to R3) …Respondents

O R D E R

1.The petitioner filed the petition as against R1 to R3 (cognizance is taken by this court as against R1 to R3 seeking the following reliefs.

i)To direct the R1 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards maintenance, food, clothes and medical expenses to the petitioner. ii) To direct the R1 and R2 to return the dowry amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. iii) To direct the respondent No.1 and Respondent 2 to return the sare samanu to the petitioner or in alternative to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner. iv) To direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards mental touture from the respondents.

v) To direct all the respondents prohibit the repondents from causing violence to her and direct the station house officer to implement the protection order that may be passed by the Court in favour of the petitioner against the respondents. vi) For such other relief or relief's as the Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.The case of the petitioner is that her marriage with the 1st respondent was taken place on 14-10-2009 at Burma Camp, Nookalama Temple at

Visakhapatanam. Tye marriage was consumated at Respondents 1 residence at 2

Visakhapatnam. Before the marriage 1st Respondent's parents demanded dowry on that aspect the petitioners parents gave Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry, the following gold ornaments presented to the respondents a gold chain of ½ tula and pasupu thadu1 ½ tulas, ear stud 1 tula, sare articles of Rs.1,00,000/- and aadapaduchu lanchanam Rs.10,000/- and T itan watch presented to the respondent 1.

3.the petitioner parents had fulfilled all the above demands such as dowry, sare articles and gold as mentioned above. Both the spouses lived happily for only 1 month.

4.The repondent 1 stated harrasing the petitioner to get valuble securities and money, gold from the petitioner's parents, which the petitioner and her parents expressed their inability to etch the same demands, but R1 accelerated harrasment by both physically and mentally. R1 along with R2 & R3 came to the petitoner parents residence demanded for extra dowry and valuable securities from the parents of the petitioner and on the other hand all of them threatned the petitioner and her parents on the ground that unless the said demands are not fulfilled they are ready to give divorce. R2 & R3 unnecessarily interfered and harrased the petitioner and beaten the petitioner black and blue and created mental and physical harrasment to the petitioner.

5.The repondent 1 is dancing the tunes of R2 & R3 without any reasonable cause or any excuse and the petitioner is eagerly waiting for R1 to probe the matrimonial cause being a legally husband and the petitioner is still sober,polite, good enough being a customer women but R1 is avoiding the petitioner on the premise of one context or otherwise.

6. The o drink and alocohol and is habitutated of coming home in a drunken stage and beat the petitioner for no fault. R1 used to spend all his earnings for drinking of liquor and has to take away the gold ornaments of the petitioner sell them and spend all the amount for his bad vices. Ever the repondent 1 suspect the fidelity of the petitioner, the petitioner beared all the harassment of all the respondents found hope that one day or the other, the respondents will mend their behaviour, but in vain the repondent 1 and his family did not change their 3 attitude.

6. 1st repondent came to the petitioner every night at late nights in drunken stage on each and every day and stated abusing the petitioner to bring additional dowry and other vaulable articles from her parents and she is unable to bear the beating and abuses, as well as the respondent 1 regularly harrasing the petitioner and the 1st respondent beat the petitioner on her private parts, all the repondents encouraged the repondent 1 for his illegal activities. The remaining respondents also abused the petitioner and used unparlimenrty words and beat and necked out the petitioner from the matrimonial house at drak nights. The petitioner was illtreated by all the repondents.

7.The repondents used to beat the petitioner without any reasonable cause or genuine reason and at the same time the repondents have narrow corner of understanding of matrimonial and suspected the petitioner fedility at every brim of stage and any point of incident on the other hand the repondent 1 left the petitioner to her fate likewise the petitioner is dependent on the aims of kin and kith relatives. The petitioner finally filed FCOP No. 243/13 U/s 125 Cr.P.C for maintenance, the Hon'ble Court Visakhapatanam, the said OP is still pending.

8.The repondent 1 having finance businesnning own auto and getting monthly

Rs.1 5,000/- and having movable and immovable properties.

9.The petitioner is depending on her parents and her parents assisted her medically and domestic needs could not be fulfilled by the parents of the petitioner, and for the maintenance, the petitioner is in herculean task atleast Rs.

10,000/- for her to spend for food, cloth, domestic needs, medical and shelther.

3.Notices were sent to R1 toR3 the same were received by the respondents they were set exparte by this court.

4.On 12-4-20167 petitioner's chief evidence affidavit was filed by reiterating almost all the averments made in the petition and Exs. P1 and P2 were marked, on behalf of the petitioner.

5.Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for 4 the reliefs as prayed for.

6. As observed above, the petitioner filed her chief evidence affidavit and got marked Exs. P1 and P2. As respondents were set exparte and as none appeared for the respondents, the cross-examination of PW1 was closed and the matter was posted for arguments. On 23-6-2017 arguments were heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. A perusal of the averments naratted above and also the chief evidence affidavit would disclose that the petitioner was harassed demanding

additional dowry and also failed to provide medical treatment. The evidence of

PW1 further shows that an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- was paid to the 1st respondent on different occasions by considering the demands made by the respondents.

Ex.P1 is the petition filed by the petitioner in FCOP 243/2013 on the file of Hon'ble

Family Court, Visakhapatnam, Ex.P2 is the marriage photo.

8.The petitioner sought maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance from the 1st respondent but no document is filed to show the income of the 1st respondent except pleading that the petitioner is earning Rs.15,000/- from running auto and on movable and immovable propertiesof the 1st respondent. As no document is filed in support of the above assertions, it can't be said that the 1st respondent is earning the income as pleaded by the petitioner.

However, considering the fact that the 1st respondent is able bodied person and has potentiality to earn income on his own, in the interest of justice, the 1st respondent can be directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of filing of petition.

9.With regard to the claim for grant of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- this court has to look into the nature of the harassment meeted to the petitioner vis-a-vis capacity and nature of the properties possessed by the respondents. The petitioner in her chief affidavit as well as in the petition specifically alleged that the respondents harassed her demanding additional dowry, failed to provide proper food and medicine. Though specific allegations were made in the petition 5 as well as in the chief affidavit the respondents did not choose to deny those allegations subjecting the petitioner for cross-examination, they failed to make their appearance before this court and as such this court set them ex-parte. Thus the allegations made by the petitioner against the respondents were not rebutted and thereby it is held that the petitioner proved that she was subjected to harassment both physically and mentally.

10.Now with regard to quantum of compensation, the petitioner sought compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is also alleged that 1st respondent has auto and also movable and immovable properties. The above specific assertions made by the petitioner with regard to the property possessed by the respondents were not denied by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner prima-facie proved that the respondents have both moveable and immoveable properties in view of the fact that the respondents did not deny the specific assertions made by the petitioner in her chief affidavit as well as in the petition in view of the fact that they remind ex-parte. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner proved harassment in the hands of the respondents and as such this court is of the opinion that if the petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- as against claim of Rs.1,50,000/- made by her, ends of justice would be met. Hence the respondents are hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-.

11.The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of

Rs.10,000/- towards maintenance, food,clothes and medical expenses, to return dowry amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, Sari samanu amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and also amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards mental torture. It is not proved by adducing any corroborative or documentary evidence to show an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- of dowry and Rs. 1,00,000/- as to sari samanu was retained by the respondent.

Hence this court is of the opinion that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner for relief of Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry, sari samanu of Rs.1,00,000/- is rejected.

12. In the result, after overall assessing the oral and documentary evidence and 6 other material on record, 1) the petitioner (aggrieved person) proved that domestic violence had taken place,

13.The petitioner was subjected to domestic violence and as such this court restrained the respondents not to commit any act of domestic violence under

Section 18 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

2) This court directs the respondents to the 1st respondent is to provide accommodation or an amount of Rs.3000/- towards house rent, food, clothes and medical expenses for securing alternative accommodation by the petitioner, under Section 19 of the Act.

3) The respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally are directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental torture and harassment, under

Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, as against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/-.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court, this the 27th day of June, 2016.

III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

1 O.S.NO.205/16, I AJCJ/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt. Ch.Ramya, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam

Monday, this the 30th day of September, 2019

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.205/2016

Between:-

Gummadi Manoranjan, S/o.Rama Seshu, Hindu, aged 32 years, r/of. D.No.50-61-3, Rajendra Nagar, Seethammapeta, Visakhapatnam-16 ... Plaintif And:-

1. Smt. Bonula Hemalatha, W/o. Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged 40 years, r/of. D.No.25-29-17, Tiyyalavariveedhi, Moulalipanja, Fire Station Back Side, I Town, Visakhapatnam-01

2. Bonula Nageswara Rao, S/o. Not known, Hindu, aged 45 years, r/of.D.No.25-29-17, Tiyyalavariveedhi, Moulalipanja, Fire Station Back Side, I Town, Visakhapatnam-01 … Defendants

This suit is coming on today i.e., on 17-09-2019 for hearing

before me in the presence of Sri K.S.N.Vara Prasad, Advocate for plaintif

and Smt. K.Jaya, Sri K.Premananda Rao, Advocates for the defendants and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is fled by the plaintif against the defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,63,833/- being the principal and interest due under a promissory note, dated 21-07-2013 said to be executed by defendants in favour of the plaintif for Rs.1,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and for costs of the suit.

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

The plaintif submits that the defendants borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintif on 21-07-2013 for the purpose of their family expenses and to discharge their sundry debts and having received the consideration, the defendants jointly executed a demand promissory note in 2 O.S.NO.205/16, I AJCJ/VSP favour of the plaintif on the even date agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 24% p.a. either to plaintif or to his order on demand.

The plaintif further submits that in spite of repeated demands made by him, the defendants did not pay any amount neither principal nor interest. The matter was also mediated by the elders several times but the same was not materialized as the defendant failed to comply the terms agreed upon. Hence, plaintif got issued lawyer’s notice and same was not received, for which the plaintif is constrained to fle this suit for recovery of the suit amount.

3. Per contra, written statement fled by the defendants denying all the allegations made in the plaint and submitted that they never received any consideration and never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintif and that they have no necessity to borrow amount as 2nd defendant is a port trust employee and that the plaintif along with attestors had colluded and fled this false case against them and that the promissory note is rank forged document. Hence, liable to be dismissed.

4.Basing on the above pleadings this Court settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendants or not?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of suit amount or not?

3. To what relief?

5. To substantiate the case of the plaintif, plaintif himself examined himself as P.W.1 and also got examined P.W.3 on his behalf and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of the defendants, 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1 and got examined D.W.2 on their behalf.

6. Heard plaintif counsel as well as defendant counsel.

3 O.S.NO.205/16, I AJCJ/VSP Issue No.1:

7. On careful scrutiny and appreciation of the evidence on record, a presumption has to be drawn in favour of the plaintif that the consideration was passed under Ex.A.1 pronote and the mentioned amount there in and the burden is on the plaintif initially to discharge the same in a positive and cogent evidence. Here in the present suit on hand, the plaintif himself examined as PW.1 and exhibited Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 i.e suit pronote, legal notice and returned unserved postal covers of defendants and the presumption which was raised in favour of the plaintif is rebuttable presumption and the defendants can rebut the same either coming into the witness box or through the cross examination, they can elicit the true facts that the consideration was not passed due under the said pronote.

8. Here in the present suit, PW.1 admitted that he had lent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to defendant on 21-07-2013. he also admitted that he had lent amount to both the defendants jointly and that he is working in Sneha

MAC. He also admitted that he do not know 2nd defendant and that the 2nd defendant was got acquainted through his ofice colleague. He deposed that loan of the defendants was rejected for which he lent the amount to the defendants through Ex.A1 promissory note. He deposed that the transaction had taken place in the afternoon hours.

9. The evidence of PW.2 was eschewed.

10. PW.3 categorically deposed that he was present at the time of transaction and that the transaction took place at 3 to 4 p.m. He also admitted that amount was lend to both the defendants. All the suggestions were denied by PW.3.

11. Under section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act whenever a fact within the knowledge of a person, the onus of proof is on his/her shoulder and he/she is suppose to prove the said fact by bringing cogent evidence to 4 O.S.NO.205/16, I AJCJ/VSP the court otherwise, and adverse inference can be drawn against the said person.

12. But, here in this present suit 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1 and he had admitted that the signature on Ex.A.1 promissory note and her evidence afidavit are not one and the same and the signature on Ex.A.1 promissory note does not belong to her. She also admitted that she had obtained loan from S.C & S.T Sneha Mutual aided co-operative society and repaid the same. She aslo admitted that signatures on Vakalat and summons belongs to her when confronted to her.

13. Here D.W.2 was examined and deposed that 2nd defendant had expired and that he do not know about the fnancial transactions of the defendants though he know them for the last 5 to 6 years. He admitted that 2nd defendant was a port trust employee and that the 1st defendant is a Court employee.

14. After going through the evidence of both the plaintif and defendants it is evident that, the plaintif could not prove his case as he himself admitted that promissory note amount was lent to the defendants when their loan was rejected and the plaintif could not prove either by oral or documentary evidence that the loan applied by the defendants was rejected.

It is that the plaintif has to prove that the consideration was passed to the defendants except P.W.3 stating that he was present at the time of transaction and had deposed that amount was lent to both the defendants.

There is no proof to show that P.W.3 was present at the time of transaction and that consideration was passed to the defendants. P.W.3 had not deposed any fact with regard to the Ex.A.1 promissory note on which the suit was based. It is the duty of the plaintif to prove the recitals of the Ex.A.1 promissory note that the consideration was passed through the promissory note to the defendants. But, here though P.W.3 was examined on behalf of 5 O.S.NO.205/16, I AJCJ/VSP plaintif, he could not prove Ex.A.1 promissory note recitals. Here the plaintif is claiming that both the defendants had received the Ex.A.1 promissory note consideration and on careful scrutiny it is evident that no steps were taken against the death of the 2nd defendant by the plaintif which shows the nature of the plaintif in harassing the 1st defendant. When the plaintif had not followed the steps / procedure prescribed by law, then he cannot be entitled for any relief sought by him. Accordingly, the point is answered against the plaintif.

Issue No.2 :-

15. Here in the present suit, the suit is fled basing on the pronote which is Negotiable Instrument. As the plaintif could not prove the execution of the suit pronote by examining himself and another witness, the recitals of pronote was not proved. When suit is fled basing on a pronote and when it is not proved by the plaintif that the consideration was passed to the defendants and when the defendants proved the said fact in issue i.e non receipt of consideration then the plaintif is not entitled for recovery of the said pronote amount. Therefore, here in the present suit, the plaintif had not proved the recitals of the Ex.A1 promissory note and accordingly this issue is answered.

Issue No.3 :-

16.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on the 30th day of September, 2019.

xx, Sd/- Ch.Ramya,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1 – Gummadi Manoranjan D.W.1 – Bonula Hemalatha 6 O.S.NO.205/16, I AJCJ/VSP P.W.2 - D.Veeraiah D.W.2 – Adduri Apparao

P.W.3 - Chintada Chanti

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1/ Original Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif, dated 21.07.2013;

Ex.A.2/ Ofice copy of the Regd. Lawyer’s Notice, dated 22.09.2015;

Ex.A.3/ Returned unserved postal R.P from the frst defendant;

Ex.A.4/ Returned unserved postal R.P from the second defendant;

FOR DEFENDANTS:

- NIL - xx, Sd/- Ch.Ramya, I AJCJ/VSP 7 O.S.NO.205/16, I AJCJ/VSP

Date of Presentation: 22-03-2016 Date of Filing: 23-03-2016

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt. Ch.Ramya, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam

Monday, this the 30th day of September, 2019

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.205/2016

Between:-

Gummadi Manoranjan, S/o.Rama Seshu, Hindu, aged 32 years, r/of. D.No.50-61-3, Rajendra Nagar, Seethammapeta, Visakhapatnam-16 ... Plaintif And:-

1. Smt. Bonula Hemalatha, W/o. Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged 40 years, r/of. D.No.25-29-17, Tiyyalavariveedhi, Moulalipanja, Fire Station Back Side, I Town, Visakhapatnam-01

2. Bonula Nageswara Rao, S/o. Not known, Hindu, aged 45 years, r/of.D.No.25-29-17, Tiyyalavariveedhi, Moulalipanja, Fire Station Back Side, I Town, Visakhapatnam-01 … Defendants

This suit is fled by the plaintif against the defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,63,833/- being the principal and interest due under a promissory note, dated 21-07-2013 said to be executed by defendants in favour of the plaintif for Rs.1,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.1,63,833/- and a Court fee of Rs.4,126/- is paid under section 20 Sch-I (b) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.

This suit is coming on today i.e., on 17-09-2019 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.S.N.Vara Prasad, Advocate for plaintif and Smt. K.Jaya, Sri K.Premananda Rao, Advocates for the defendants and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court doth Order; and

D E C R E E

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed.

2. that there be no costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 30th day of September, 2019.

xx, Sd/- Ch.Ramya,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

8 O.S.NO.205/16, I AJCJ/VSP

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintif: For Defendants:

No costs memo fled on either side xx, Sd/- Ch.Ramya, I AJCJ/VSP