Sri Ch. Pavan Kumar

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TIRUPATI

Present : CH. PAVAN KUMAR,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

O.S.No.1132 of 2019

Tuesday, this the 21st day of February, 2023 Between:

Magaraja Akilesh ..Plaintiff

And

Chamarthi Balarama Raju .. Defendant

This suit coming on 20.12.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Bhaskhar, Advocate for plaintiff and of B.K. Ramesh and K. Subramanyam Raju, Advocates for the defendant, upon hearing their arguments and upon perusing the documents on record, and this matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed against the defendant on the strength of A and B marked promissory notes dated 12.08.2018 and 20.09.2018 for recovery of an amount of Rs.12,93,999/- together with subsequent interest and costs of the suit.

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

(i)The defendant on 12.08.2018 and 20.09.2018 borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each from the plaintiff for his family necessities and executed the A and B marked suit promissory notes on the respective dates in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% p.a., on demand or to the order of the plaintiff.

(ii)That in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not repaid the promissory notes debt and kept postponing the repayment. Finally, on 03.10.2019 the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant demanding him to repay the promissory note debt and the same was acknowledged by the defendant, but the defendant did not comply with the said notice. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant having received summons from this court, made appearance through his counsel and filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint. It is further submitted that one Hariprasad Reddy and Akilesh (plaintiff) are having pesticides business and they used to supply pesticides to the defendant and they are also doing Mango’s business in Fruit Mandi at Thanapalli, Tiruchanur Road, Tirupati Rural. Both Hariprasad Reddy and Akilesh had acquaintance with the defendant for 30 years and they used to do business with the defendant on credit basis and used to collect the said amounts.

2

(i)It is further submitted that this suit is devoid of merits and the averments in the plaint are all false and created for the purpose of the suit to harass the defendant and to have wrongful gain. There is no cause of action to file the suit. Thus, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Having considered the pleadings of both sides, the following issues are settled for trial.

1.Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim amount from the defendant?

3.To what relief?

5.In the course of trial on behalf of the plaintiff P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and exhibits A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, Dws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

6.Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and that of the defendant. Issue No.1

7.As per the plaintiff, the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- each from him on 12.08.2018 and 20.09.2018 for his family necessities under the A and B marked suit promissory notes and failed to repay the same in spite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice. However, the defendant denied the entire transaction including passing of consideration. So, it is the burden of the plaintiff not only to prove valid execution of suit promissory note, but also to prove that the suit promissory note was executed for consideration.

8.The plaintiff to substantiate his case, has got examined himself as P.W.1 and filed chief affidavit reiterating the material averments of the plaint. Exs. A1 to A6 are marked through PW1. The plaintiff further got examined the 1st and 2nd attestors of the two suit promissory notes by name B. Mohan Chowdary as P.W.2 and B. Hariprasad as PW3 and they have filed their respective chief affidavits supporting the case of plaintiff in respect of the two suit promissory note transactions.

9.As per the defendant, he has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and that he has not executed the suit promissory note. The defendant to substantiate his contentions examined himself as DW1. In the cross examination of Pws.1 to 3 they have denied the suggestions put in consonance with the contentions of the defendant. On the other hand, in the cross 3 examination of DW1, he has admitted the signatures on Exs.A1 and A2 as executant.

10.In view of the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and the circumstances found on record, there can be no hesitation in holding that the plaintiff has placed sufficient material to raise presumption U/Sec.118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act. Now it is to be seen whether the defendant could able to rebut the presumption drawn in favour of the plaintiff.

11.The main contention of the defendant is that he used to do business with the plaintiff and PW3 by purchasing pesticides on credit basis and by exchanging mangoes. In the cross examination of P.W.1 he admitted that the defendant used to purchase pesticides from his shop and that he has supplied pesticides to the defendant on credit basis and he has paid the amount. PW1 further deposed that only on one occasion he has supplied pesticides to the defendant on credit basis. In the further course of cross examination PW1 was confronted with corbon copies of bills (12 in number) issued by Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Agencies and the same were admitted by PW1 and marked as Ex.B1. However, PW1 clarified that all the bills are concerning one mango crop season. Thus, the evidence of PW1 that he has supplied pesticides to the defendant on credit basis only on one occasion has to be construed as one crop season. Therefore, Ex.B1/Bills are of no help to the defendant.

12.As per the plaintiff, Exs.A1 and A2/Promissory notes were scribed by the defendant in his own handwriting. In the cross examination of Pws.1 to 3 no suggestion was put to them denying the above contention of the plaintiff. On the other hand, from the cross examination of Pws.1 to 3 it can be understood that the defendant has taken the stand that the plaintiff obtained two signed blank promissory notes from the defendant as security for the pesticides supplied on credit basis and that even after payment of entire amount by the defendant, the said promissory notes were not returned to the defendant and due to mis-understandings, the same were fabricated and this false suit was foisted. Pws.1 to 3 denied the above contention of the defendant.

13.It is pertinent to mention here that in the cross examination of DW1, he admitted that the endorsement “Written by self C. Balarama Raju” at the bottom of Exs.A1 and A2 is in his hand writing. From the above admission made by DW1 it is clear that the defendant had scribed Exs.A1 and A2/Promissory notes. The defendant had not taken any steps for comparison of hand writings in Exs.A1 and A2 with his admitted hand writing by an expert to show that Exs.A1 and A2 are not scribed by him. The above circumstances not only proves that Exs.A1 and A2 are in the hand writing of the defendant, but 4 also goes to show that the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff had obtained two signed blank promissory notes from the defendant towards security for pesticides supplied on credit basis, is false.

14.A perusal of Exs.A1 and A2 discloses that the purpose mentioned therein for borrowing the amount is business in Ex.A1 and family expenses in Ex.A2. Once it is proved that Exs.A1 and A2 are in the hand writing of the defendant, the contents mentioned therein are believed to be true. The purposes mentioned in Exs.A1 and A2 are not in consonance with the contention of the defendant. Hence, the contention of the defendant cannot be accepted. In the cross examination DW2 he categorically deposed he is not witness to the suit promissory notes. Hence, the evidence of DW2 is not of any help to the defendant.

15.It is evident from the record that the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant under Exs.A3 and A5 and the receipt of the same were acknowledged by the defendant under Exs.A4 and A6. It is further evident that no reply notice was issued by the defendant. Hence, an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant that he has borrowed the amount under the suit promissory notes from the plaintiff. In this regard I would like to rely on the following decision.

Gorantla Venkateswara Rao Vs Kolla Veera Raghava Rao and

Anr. reported in 2006 Crl.L.J. 1 at para 40 held as thus:

“The failure of the accused in giving reply to the legal notice issued by P.W. 1 is one of the strong circumstances to draw an inference that the accused borrowed the amount from P.W.1 and the cheque was issued towards part payment of the legally enforceable debt.”

16.Though, the learned counsel for defendant cross examined P.Ws.1 to 3, nothing could be elicited supporting the contentions of the defendant or shaking the promissory notes transaction. Thus, from the above circumstances, it is clear that the defendant has failed to set up his case either by leading the evidence of Dws.1 and 2 or by cross examining P.Ws.1 to 3.

17.A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes and admission made by DW1 amply establishes that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- each under the suit promissory notes from the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Ex.A1 to A6 proved his case against the defendant. The learned counsel for defendant on the other hand failed to raise any probable case of defence by cross-examining P.Ws.1 to 3 or by examining D.Ws.1 and 2 on behalf of the defendant and thereby could not rebut the presumption drawn in favour of plaintiff under Sec.118(a) of N.I. Act. Thus, for all the reasons 5 discussed above, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No.2

18.In view of the finding arrived by this Court in issues No.1, the defendant is liable to repay the debt covered under the promissory note along with interest. Promissory note debt along with interest comes to Rs.12,93,999/- as on the date of filing of the suit. Calculation of interest is not in dispute.

19.In so far as the interest aspect is concerned, the plaintiff has claimed future interest at the rate of 24% per annum. However, the interest claim appears to be on the higher side. Since the suit debt is an unsecured one, the interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of suit till realization appears to be reasonable as the same is neither usurious or exorbitant. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No.3

20.In view of my findings on issue Nos.1 and 2, the suit deserves to be decreed against the defendant with costs.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for Rs.12,93,999/- (Rupees twelve lakhs ninety three thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) covered under suit promissory notes from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation directly on the computer by Stenographer, corrected the soft copy and pronounced by me in open court, this the 21 st day of February, 2023.

Sd/- Ch. Pavan Kumar,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TIRUPATI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

6

FOR PLAINTIFF: - FOR DEFENDANT:-

P.W.1:M. Akilesh DW1 : Chamarthi Balarama Raju

P.W.2:B. Mohan Chowdary DW2 : Koneti Subramanyam Raju

P.W.3:B. Hariprasad

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: A-marked promissory note dated 12.08.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/-. Ex.A2: B- promissory note dated 20.09.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/-. Ex.A3: Office copy of the legal notice dated 03.10.2019 issued to the defendant along with postal receipt in respect of A-marked pronote. Ex.A4: Served acknowledgment card dated 05.10.2019.

Ex.A5: Office copy of legal notice dated 03.10.2019 issued to the defendant along with postal receipt in respect of B-marked pronote. Ex.B6: Served acknowledgment card dated 05.10.2019.

FOR DEFENDANT:NIL.

// True Copy//Id/- Ch.PKR.

Sd/- ch. Pavan Kumar,I AJCJ, TPT

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TIRUPATI

Present : CH. PAVAN KUMAR, I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

O.S.No.1132 of 2019

Tuesday, this the 21st day of February, 2023 Between:

Magaraja Akilesh, S/o Chandrakumar, Hindu, aged about 28 years, Business, D.No.9-6, Sai Nagar, Avilala post, Tirupati Town and Rural Mandal, Chittoor District.

..Plaintiff

And

Chamarthi Balarama Raju, S/o Venkataswamy Raju, Hindu, aged about 65 years, Business at CBR fruits company C/o C. Dilip, shop No.32, APMC, Market yard, near Thanapalli Road, Tiruchanur post, Tirupati Rural Mandal, residing at D.No.8/173, R.S. Road, Railway Kodur town, Post and Mandal, Kadapa District.

.. Defendant

This is a suit filed against the defendant on the strength of A and B marked promissory notes dated 12.08.2018 and 20.09.2018 for recovery of an amount of Rs.12,93,999/- together with subsequent interest and costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on 23.11.2019, plaint last presentation on 23.11.2019 and filed on 06.12.2019.

The cause of action for the suit arose on 12.08.2018 and 20.09.2018 at Tirupati, within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court.

The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.12,93,999/- and a court fee of Rs.17,952/- is paid under sec.20 of APCF & SV Act.

TThis suit coming on 20.12.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Bhaskhar, Advocate for plaintiff and of B.K. Ramesh and K. Subramanyam Raju, Advocates for the defendant, this court doth order and decree as follows:

1)that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed;

2)That the defendant is hereby directed do pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.12,93,999/- (Rupees twelve lakhs ninety three thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a, from the date of decree till the date of realization;

3) that the defendant do pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.58,739/- (Rupees fifty eight thousand seven hundred and thirty nine only) being the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 21st day of February, 2023.

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

S.NDescription Plaintiff Defendants o 1Stamp on Vakalat2-002-00 2Stamp on plaint17,952-00-- 3Stamp on process 65-00-- 4Advocate fee Sr 40,520-0040,520-00 5Advocate fee Jr–13,506-00 5Writing charges100-00100-00 6Typing charges100-00100-00

Total : 58,739-00 54,228-00

I A.J.C.J.

T.P.T.

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TIRUPATI

Present : CH. PAVAN KUMAR,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

O.S.No.426 of 2021

Tuesday, this the 21st day of February, 2023

Between:

P. Murali ..Plaintif

And

G. Manohar .. Defendant

This suit coming on 27.01.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Avula Purushotham, Advocate for plaintif and of Sri P.M. Sreekanth, Advocates for the defendant, upon hearing their arguments and upon perusing the documents on record, and this matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed against the defendant on the strength of suit promissory note dated 15.02.2019 for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- together with subsequent interest and costs of the suit.

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

(i)The defendant on 15.02.2019 borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintif for his family necessities and executed the suit promissory note on the same day in favour of the plaintif agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% p.a., on demand or to the order of the plaintif.

(ii)That in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif, the defendant has not repaid the promissory note debt and kept postponing the repayment. Finally, on 15.02.2021 the plaintif got issued legal notice to the office and residential address of the defendant demanding him to repay the promissory note debt. The notice sent to the residential address was acknowledged by the defendant and he gave a reply on 25.02.2021 with all false allegations. The notice sent to his office was returned. Hence, the suit.

2

3.The defendant having received summons from this court, made appearance through his counsel and filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint. It is further submitted that the plaintif is an utter stranger to the defendant and the defendant has never borrowed any amount from the plaintif and no consideration was passed. The defendant never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintif much-less the promissory note date.15.02.2019.

(i)It is further submitted that the defendant vide reply notice dt.25.02.2021, requested to send the photocopy of alleged promissory note, but the plaintif has not sent the same and filed this false suit.

(ii)It is further submitted that, after pursuing the alleged promissory note dt.15.02.2019 which was received along with summons and plaint, it is learnt that the 1st witness P. Ravi is known person to him from whom the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and executed a blank signed promissory note as security purpose. It is further submitted that the defendant has paid the entire amount due to said P. Ravi, but due to mis-understandings with regard to interest, the said P. Ravi 1st witness has not returned the promissory note to the defendant.

(iii)It is further submitted that the said P. Ravi has not filed any suit against the defendant and he in collusion with the plaintif might have created and fabricated the promissory note and filed this suit in the name of plaintif. It is further submitted that there is no cause of action to file the suit. Thus, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Having considered the pleadings of both sides, the following issues are settled for trial.

1.Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of suit claim amount from the defendant?

3. To what relief?

5.In the course of trial on behalf of the plaintif, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and exhibits A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, Dw.1 was examined and Exs.A5 to A7 were marked in his cross examination.

6.Heard learned counsel for the plaintif and that of the defendant.

Issue No.1 3

7.As per the plaintif, the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from him on 15.02.2019 for his family necessities under the suit promissory note and failed to repay the same in spite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice. However, the defendant denied the entire transaction including passing of consideration. So, it is the burden of the plaintif not only to prove valid execution of suit promissory note, but also to prove that the suit promissory note was executed for consideration.

8.The plaintif to substantiate his case, has examined himself as P.W.1 and filed chief affidavit reiterating the material averments of the plaint. Exs. A1 to A4 were marked through PW1. Further, Exs.A5 to A7 are marked through DW1 in his cross examination. The plaintif further got examined the 1st attestor of the suit promissory note by name P. Ravi as P.W.2 and he has filed his chief affidavit supporting the case of plaintif in respect of the suit promissory note transaction.

9.As per the defendant, he has not borrowed any amount from the plaintif and that he has not executed the suit promissory note. The defendant to substantiate his contentions examined himself as DW1. In the cross examination of Pws.1 and 2 they have denied the suggestions put in consonance with the contentions of the defendant. On the other hand, in the cross examination of DW1, he has admitted the signatures on Ex.A1.

10.In view of the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and the circumstances found on record, there can be no hesitation in holding that the plaintif has placed sufficient material to raise presumption U/Sec.118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act. Now it is to be seen whether the defendant could able to rebut the presumption drawn in favour of the plaintif.

11.The main contention of the defendant is that the plaintif is an utter stranger to him. In the cross examination of PW1 he deposed that the defendant is his relative. However, there is no denial suggestion. PW1 denied the suggestion that he is stranger to the defendant and that he filed the suit at the instigation of his brother i.e., PW2. In the cross examination of PW2, he deposed that the defendant is his distant relative. There is no denial suggestion on the said evidence. Thus, as per the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 the defendant is a distant relative to the plaintif.

4

12.In the cross examination of DW1, he conceded that his mother is the daughter of the elder sister of the plaintif's mother. The counsel for plaintif confronted certain photographs to DW1 and admitted by him. Perusal of Ex.A5/Photographs discloses that the plaintif is found along with the defendant in the said photographs in the marriage event. Perusal of Ex.A6/Photograph discloses that the plaintif along with defendant and PW2 are found in the said photograph. Perusal of Ex.A7 discloses that the name of the defendant was mentioned in the wedding invitation of the plaintif. Further, DW1 in his cross examination conceded that his name was mentioned in the wedding invitation of the plaintif. Thus, from the above circumstances it is amply made clear that the plaintif is not a stranger to the defendant and there is a distant relationship as well as close acquaintance between them. Hence, the contention of the defendant that the plaintif is an utter stranger to him is proved to be false.

13.The other contention of the defendant is that he had money transactions with PW2 and in connection with the same he has given signed blank promissory note to PW2 towards security and that he has repaid the amount, but dispute arose between him and PW2 with regard to payment of interest, as such, PW2 has not returned the promissory note and foisted this case through the plaintif. In the cross examination of Pws.1 and 2, they have denied the suggestions which were put to them in consonance with the above contention of the defendant. However, it was elicited that there were hand loan transactions between PW2 and defendant for small amounts.

14.In the cross examination of DW1, he denied the suggestion that he never borrowed any amount from P. Ravi and never issued a blank promissory note to him. However, he deposed that he has not issued any legal notice to P. Ravi asking him to return the signed blank promissory note. The defendant has not let in any evidence to show that he has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from PW2 and that he has issued a signed blank promissory note to PW2 towards security. Further, the defendant has not let in any evidence to show that he has repaid the alleged amount to PW2. Therefore, the contention of the defendant in this regard is not supported by any cogent and convincing evidence, as such, the same cannot be accepted.

5

15.The counsel for defendant contended that though the defendant issued reply notice requesting to send a copy of promissory note, the same was not sent to the defendant, as such, adverse inference has to be drawn to the efect that the suit promissory note is created immediately before filing the suit. It is evident from the record that the plaintif issued legal notice dated 15.02.2021 to the defendant calling upon him to pay the amount due under the promissory note, for which the defendant issued reply dated 25.02.2021 denying the transaction and further requested to send photo copy of promissory note. It is further evident from the record that the plaintif has not sent any copy of promissory note to the defendant as requested in the reply notice. However, the said circumstance alone cannot be treated as adverse to the case of the plaintif. Since, the defendant denied the transaction in the reply notice, there is no point in sending photocopy of promissory note to the defendant.

16.Though, the learned counsel for defendant cross examined P.Ws.1 and 2 at length nothing could be elicited supporting the contentions of the defendant or shaking the promissory note transaction. Thus, from the above circumstances, it is clear that the defendant has failed to set up his case either by leading the evidence of Dw.1 or by cross examining P.Ws.1 and 2.

17.A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1 promissory note and admission made by DW1 amply establishes that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- under the suit promissory note from the plaintif. Thus, the plaintif by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Ex.A1 to A7 proved his case against the defendant. The learned counsel for defendant on the other hand failed to raise any probable case of defence by cross-examining P.Ws.1 and 2 or by examining D.W.1 on behalf of the defendant and thereby could not rebut the presumption drawn in favour of plaintif under Sec.118(a) of N.I. Act. Thus, for all the reasons discussed above, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.

Issue No.2

18.In view of the finding arrived by this Court in issue No.1, the defendant is liable to repay the debt covered under the promissory note along with interest. Promissory note debt along with interest comes to Rs.4,50,000/- as on the date of filing of the suit. Calculation of interest is not in dispute.

19.In so far as the interest aspect is concerned, the plaintif has claimed future interest at the rate of 24% per annum. However, the interest claim appears to be on the higher side. Since the suit debt is an unsecured one, the interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of suit till realization appears to be reasonable as the same is neither usurious or exorbitant. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.

Issue No.3 6

20.In view of my findings on issue Nos.1 and 2, the suit deserves to be decreed against the defendant with costs.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs and fifty thousand only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation directly on the computer by Stenographer, corrected the soft copy and pronounced by me in open court, this the 21 st day of February, 2023.

Sd/- Ch. Pavan Kumar,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TIRUPATI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: - FOR DEFENDANT:-

P.W.1:M. Akilesh DW1 : G. Manohar

P.W.2:P. Ravi

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Suit promissory note dated 15.02.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs.3,00,000/-. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dated 15.02.2021 issued to the defendant. Ex.A3: Unserved postal cover. Ex.A4: Served copy of reply notice dated 25.02.2021 issued by the defendant. Ex.A5: Four photographs (with plaintif). Ex.A6: Photographs (with plaintif and Ravi).

Ex.A7: Wedding invitation card of plaintif.

FOR DEFENDANT:NIL.

// True Copy//Id/- Ch.PKR.

Sd/- ch. Pavan Kumar,I AJCJ, TPT

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TIRUPATI

Present: Ch. Pavan Kumar,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

Tuesday, this the 21st day of February, 2023

O.S.No.876 of 2019

Between:

E. Nirmalamma.. Plaintiff.

And

Varaganti Subramanyam @ Bellamaiah .. Defendant.

This suit coming on 20.12.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.V.S. Naveen Prasad, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri C. Balaji, Advocate for the defendant, upon hearing their arguments and upon perusing the documents on record, and this matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed on the strength of a promissory note dated 11.06.2016 for recovery of money of Rs.3,39,733/- together with subsequent interest and costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows: The plaintiff and defendant are residing in opposite houses in the same locality. The defendant has approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 11.06.2016 for his family necessities and evidencing the said transaction, the defendant executed demand promissory note on the same day in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the amount along with interest at 24% per annum either to his demand or order.

(i)That in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant postponed repayment of the debt on premise or the other, as such, the plaintiff finally got issued legal notice dated 27.02.2019 to the defendant demanding him to repay the promissory note debt. The defendant received the said legal notice and acknowledged the same, but failed to comply with the terms of notice. Hence, the suit.

2

3.Having received summons from this court, the defendant made appearance through his counsel and filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is running private chits and the defendant subscribed in Rs.50,000/- chit with the plaintiff. The defendant participated in the chit auction and became a successful bidder. The plaintiff obtained signatures of the defendant in the promissory note for security purpose. After completion of the chit the plaintiff has not returned the promissory note inspite of several repeated demands made by the defendant. The plaintiff filed the suit by correcting the date and amount in the promissory note for the purpose of wrongful gain. It is further submitted that no consideration was passed under the suit promissory note. The defendant is an auto driver and he has no need or necessity to borrow such a huge amount from the plaintiff.

(i)It is further submitted that the plaintiff and her family members are rowdy sheeters in their locality and a number of criminal cases are pending against the plaintiff and her family members. Cr.No.39/2008 offence U/Sec.323, 341 IPC of Alipiri PS, Cr.No.69/2017 U/Sec.110(e) Cr.P.C, Cr.No.226/2013 U/Sec.110(e) Cr.P.C and ITP cases are pending against the plaintiff. Only to harass the defendant the plaintiff filed the above false suit. After receiving notice from the plaintiff, the defendant approached the plaintiff, but she stated that by oversight the notice was sent and no case will be filed against the defendant. However, plaintiff filed the suit to get wrongful gain. Thus, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Having considered the pleadings of both sides, the following issues are settled for trial.

1. whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. whether consideration was passed under the suit promissory note or not?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

5.In the course of trial on behalf of the plaintiff PWs 1 and 2 were examined and exhibits A1 and A2 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, DW1 was examined, but no document was marked.

6.Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and that of the defendant. Issue No.1 and 2

7.Since issues no. 1 and are interlinked and interdependent, I would like to answer them at once to avoid repetition and confusion.

3

8.As per the plaintiff, the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from him on 11.06.2016 for his family necessities and executed the suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff. However, the defendant denied the entire transaction including passing of consideration. So, it is the burden of the plaintiff not only to prove its valid execution, but also to prove that the suit promissory note was executed for consideration.

9.The plaintiff to prove his case got examined himself as P.W.1 and further the 2nd attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note by name G. Prakash was examined as P.W.2. While, P.W.1 filed chief affidavit reiterating the material averments of the plaint, P.W.2 filed chief affidavit supporting the case of plaintiff with regard to promissory note transaction. Ex.A1 promissory note and Ex.A2 office copy of legal notice are marked through P.W.1.

10.As per the defendant, the plaintiff obtained a signed blank promissory note from the defendant in connection with the chit transaction and even after repayment of the chit amount, the said promissory note was returned and the same was fabricated and this false suit was filed. In the cross examination of PW1, the suggestion put to the above effect was duly denied. No suggestion was put to PW2 to the effect that the suit promissory note was fabricated.

11.From the above evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1, it is clear that plaintiff has placed sufficient material to raise presumption under Sec.118- A of Negotiable Instruments Act. Now it is to be seen whether the defendant could able to rebut the presumption drawn in favour of the plaintiff.

12.The main contention of the defendant is that, the plaintiff obtained signed blank promissory note from the defendant in connection with chit transaction as security. However, in the cross examination of PW1 suggestion was put to the effect that the husband of plaintiff in his lifetime used to run private chits and he obtained signed blank promissory note from the defendant in connection with chit transaction. In the written statement it was pleaded that the plaintiff conducted private chits, whereas in the above suggestion it was pleaded that the husband of the plaintiff used to run private chits. It is not the case of the defendant that both plaintiff and her husband organized private chits. Hence, the above contentions do not go together.

13.The defendant to prove his case examined himself as DW1 and filed chief affidavit reiterating the contents of the written statement. In the cross examination of DW1 he denied the signatures on Ex.A1. When it is the case of the defendant that his signed blank promissory note obtained in chit transaction was fabricated to file the suit, the denial of signatures by DW1 on the suit promissory note clearly reflects the conduct of the defendant.

4

14.In the further cross examination of DW1, he deposed that he has not filed any documentary proof to show that he is an auto driver and that the plaintiff organized private chits. Though, the defendant contended that there are several criminal cases against the plaintiff and her family members, no evidence was let in to prove the said contention. However, mere pendency of criminal cases against the plaintiff cannot be taken as a circumstance to show that the suit transaction is false.

15.It is pertinent to mention here that the counsel has put suggestions to P.Ws 1 and 2 with regard to over writings in the date portion and amount portion of Ex. A1. However, it is not the case of the defendant that the suit promissory note suffers from material alterations. Further the counsel for the defendant failed to explain how the alleged over writings in Ex.A1 would affect the promissory note transaction. When it is the case of the defendant that a signed blank promissory note was fabricated to file the suit, the question of material alteration does not arise.

16.It is evident from Ex. A2 that the plaintiff has sent legal notice to the defendant before filing the suit. Further receipt of legal notice sent by the plaintiff is not disputed by the defendant. However, the defendant has not issued any reply to the legal notice sent by the plaintiff. Hence, an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant that he has borrowed the amount under the suit promissory note from the plaintiff. In this regard I would like to rely on the following decision.

Gorantla Venkateswara Rao Vs Kolla Veera Raghava Rao and Anr.

reported in 2006 Crl.L.J. 1 at para 40 held as thus:

“The failure of the accused in giving reply to the legal notice issued by P.W. 1 is one of the strong circumstances to draw an inference that the accused borrowed the amount from P.W. 1 and the cheque was issued towards part payment of the legally enforceable debt.”

17.Though, the learned counsel for defendant cross examined P.Ws.1 and 2 nothing could be elicited supporting the contentions of the defendant or shaking the promissory notes transaction. Thus, from the above circumstances, it is clear that the defendant has failed to set up his case either by leading the evidence of Dw.1 or by cross examining P.Ws.1 and 2.

5

18.A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1 promissory note amply establishes that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Ex.A1 and A2 established his case against the defendant. The learned counsel for defendant on the other hand failed to raise any probable case of defence by cross-examining P.Ws.1 and 2 and by examining D.W.1 and thereby could not rebut the presumption drawn in favour of plaintiff under Sec.118A of N.I. Act. Thus, for all the reasons discussed above, issue No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue No.3

19.In view of the finding arrived by this Court in issues No.1 and 2, the defendant is liable to repay the debt covered under the promissory note along with interest. Promissory note debt along with interest comes to Rs.2,38,400/- as on the date of filing of the suit. Calculation of interest is not in dispute. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

20.In so far as the interest aspect is concerned, the plaintiff has claimed future interest at the rate of 24% per annum. However, the interest claim appears to be on the higher side. Since the suit debt is an unsecured one, the interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of suit till realization appears to be reasonable as the same is neither usurious or exorbitant. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

Issue no. 4

21.In view of my findings on issue Nos.1 to 3, the suit deserves to be decreed against the defendant with costs.

22.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for Rs.3,39,733/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty nine thousand seven hundred and thirty three only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization. Typed to my dictation directly on the computer by Stenographer, corrected the soft copy and pronounced by me in open court, this the 21 st day of February, 2023.

Sd/- Ch. Pavan Kumar,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TIRUPATI.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: - FOR DEFENDANT:-

P.W.1:E. Nirmalamma

P.W.2:G. Prakash

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Promissory note dated 11.06.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A2: Office copy of the legal notice dated 27.02.2019 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant along with postal receipt.

FOR DEFENDANT:NIL.

// True Copy//Id/- Ch.PKR.

Sd/- ch. Pavan Kumar,I AJCJ, TPT

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: TIRUPATI

PRESENT: CH. PAVAN KUMAR, I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. FAC / Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

Wednesday, this the 22nd day of February, 2023

ORIGINAL SUIT No.309 of 2022

State Bank of India, ADD Branch, Chandragiri, Represented by its General Manager. … Plaintiff.

Vs.

Pariyavaram Nioranjan Reddy … Defendant.

This suit is coming on 23.01.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. Niranjan Bubuji, Advocate for the plaintiff, and defendant having been remained exparte, upon hearing, upon perusing the material on record and this matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,91,326/- along with future interest at 9.55% p.a., and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that: The defendant has availed ACC and ATI Credit Limit loan amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on 24.12.2003 from the plaintiff bank for the purpose of agriculture by executing relevant documents. The defendant had deposited the title deeds of plaint schedule property belongs to him with the bank by creating equitable mortgage as collateral security for the repayment of the loan granted to him. Later, the defendant executed confirmation letter regarding deposit of title deeds, i.e., for A on 26.12.2003.

(i)It is further submitted that the defendant is operating the said account by renewing the same from time to time on 21.10.2008, 22.03.2013 and 18.03.2015. While renewing his loan account, the defendant executed necessary documents in the aforementioned dates. He also executed document for extension of mortgage for deposit of title deeds on 21.10.2008 in favour of the bank. He also executed Revival letters in favour of the Bank on 10.09.2011, 01.09.2014 and 26.08.2017 and acknowledged his debt. But, the defendant failed to repay the loan amount as per the terms and conditions.

(ii)In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank, the defendant did not choose to repay the amount due. Hence, the suit.

3.The summons to the defendant through court could not be served, as such, substituted mode of service of summons to the defendant by way of publication in the 2 newspaper was ordered. Publication was filed, but the defendant has not turned up, as such, he was set exparte on 16.09.2022.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff Bank, its Manager is examined as PW-1 and got marked Exhibits A.1 to A.17. On behalf of the defendant no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the material on record. POINT:

6.As per the plaintiff bank, the defendant availed loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff bank on 24.12.2003 by executing relevant documents and thereafter committed default in repayment of the loan. In order to substantiate the case of the plaintiff-bank, its Manager is examined as PW-1. P.W.1 reiterated the plaint pleadings in his chief examination affidavit and got marked Exhibits A-1 to A-17.

7.On perusal of the evidence on hand, I have observed that the plaintiff-bank has established its case including the execution of Ex.A1 to A10 by the defendant. Further perusal of Ex.A11 makes it clear that the defendant fell due a sum of Rs.3,91,326/- as on 11.02.2022. The evidence of PW-1 remained unchallenged. Therefore, I have no hesitation in concluding that the plaintiff-bank is entitled for a decree against the defendants for recovery of the entire suit amount with costs. Accordingly, the point is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of Rs.3,91,326/- (Rupees three lakhs ninety one thousand three hundred and twenty six only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 9.55% per annum from from the date of suit till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation directly on the computer by Stenographer, corrected the soft copy and pronounced by me in open court, this the 22 nd day of February, 2023.

(Sd/- A.Shobha Rani) I Additional Junior Civil Judge, FAC / Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

PW1:Sarraju Muralidhar ----NONE---- (Deputy Manager) ( Exparte)

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A.1:Form-A dated 26.12.2003 executed by the defendant.

Ex.A.2:Application form date 21.10.2008 for agriculture credit along with letter of arrangement executed by the defendant. Ex.A.3:Hypothecation agreement dated 21.10.2008 executed by defendant.

Ex.A.4:Letter of confirmation dated 21.10.2008 for extension of mortgage by deposit of title deeds (SME 8).

3 Ex.A.5: Memorandum dated 21.10.2008 for recording of extension of mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Ex.A.6:Application dated 22.03.2013 for continuation of limits under KCC for the year 2012-13 along with letter of arrangement. Ex.A.7:Renewal application dated 18.03.2015 for agriculture credit executed by defendant. Ex.A.8:Revival letter dated 10.09.2011 executed by defendant.

Ex.A.9:Revival letter dated 01.09.2014 executed by defendant.

Ex.A.10:Revival letter dated 26.08.2017 executed by defendant.

Ex.A.11:Certified copy of loan ledger extract dated 11.02.2022.

Ex.A.12:Original registered partition deed dated 12.02.2003 vide doc.No.2902/2003 executed among wife and children of Late Ramakrishna Reddy (including the defendant). Ex.A.13:Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 11.09.1985 vide doc.No.869/1958 executed by Venkatarathnamma and another in favour of P. Ramakrishna Reddy. Ex.A.14:Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 11.03.1958 vide doc.No.874/1958 executed by Venkata Subramanya Sastry and others in favour of Ramakrishna Reddy. Ex.A.15:Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 04.05.1962 vide doc.No.1729/1962 executed by N. Kesava Reddy in favour of Ramakrishna Reddy. Ex.A.16:1B account dated 08.03.2013 issued by Mee seva Kendram.

Ex.A.17:Assets Statement dated 22.03.2013 signed by VRO, Thondawada, Chandragiri Mandal. FOR DEFENDANTS: Exparte.

// True copy \\(Sd/- A.Shobha Rani) (Sd/- A.Shobha Rani)I Additional Junior Civil Judge, I Additional Junior Civil Judge,FAC / Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.Tirupati.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: TIRUPATI

PRESENT: CH. PAVAN KUMAR, I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. FAC / Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

Wednesday, this the 22nd day of February, 2023

ORIGINAL SUIT No.309 of 2022

State Bank of India, ADD Branch, Chandragiri, Represented by its General Manager. … Plaintiff.

Vs.

Pariyavaram Nioranjan Reddy, S/o. Late amakrishna Reddy, aged about 52 years, R/o. Paidipalli Village,Sanambatla Post, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chitoor District.

… Defendant.

This a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.3,91,326/- being he

principal and interest due as per the extract of loan ledger as on 11.02.2022

with subsequent at 9.55% per annum from the date of suit till realization and

for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 14.02.2022

Last represented on : -

Plaint filed on : 11.04.2022

The cause of action for the suit has arisen on 24.12.2003 when the

defendant availed ACC and ATL credit facility and executed necessary

documents of even date in favour of the plaintiff bank and when the deposited

his title deeds relating to the plant schedule property with the plaintiff bank

and on 26.12.2003 when the defendant confirmed the mortgage by executing

Form ‘A’ in favour of the plaintiff bank and on 21.10.2008, on 22.03.2013 and

on 18.03.2015 when the defendant renewed the loan from time to time by

executing necessary documents in favour of the bank and on 21.10.2008 when

the defendant confirmed the extention of mortgage by deposit of title deeds in

favour of the plaintiff bank and on 10.09.2011, 01.09.2014 and on 26.08.2017

when the defendant acknowledged his debt and executed Revival Letters in

favour of the plaintiff bank and on all dates of demands made by the plaintiff

bank and continuous de-die-in-diem at Tirupati within the jurisdiction of this

Hon’ble Court.

PARTICULARS OF VALUATION

Term Loan amount under Rs.2,00,000-00

A/c.No.31727910005816

Amount due as per ledger extractRs.2,60,714-00

Court Fee paid thereon under Sec.20 of

APCF & SV Act is Rs.2,30,714/-

This suit coming on 04.01.2023 before me for final hearing in the

presence of Sri M. Harish, Advocate for the plaintiff, and defendants having been remained exparte,this court doth order and decree as follows:

1)that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed; 2

2)That the defendants jointly and severally to pay a sum

of Rs.2,30,714/- (Rupees two lakhs thirty thousand

seven hundred and fourteen only) with subsequent

interest at the rate of 14.25% per annum on the

outstanding amount from the date of suit till the date of

realization.

3)that the defendant do pay to the Plaintiff a sum of

Rs.13,795/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred

and ninety five only) being the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 1st day of

February, 2022.

I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

FAC. Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tirupati.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

S.No Description Plaintiff Defendant

1Stamp on Vakalat2-00

2Stamp on plaint4826-00

3Stamp on process Remained

exparte

4Advocate fee Sr. Costs memo

filed hence

5Writing charges

costs not

certified

6Typing charges

Total : 4828-00

I A.J.C.J.

FAC. PJCJ, T.P.T.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: TIRUPATI.

Present: Sri Ch. Pavan Kumar, II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

Monday, this the Eighth (08th) day of November, 2021. 

Calendar Case No. 351 / 2021.

Between:

State represented by Sub­Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Tirumala. (Cr.No.22/2020)

..Complainant.

And

1)Donthi Reddeppa, Age: 24 years, S/o Gopala Setty, Raja Street, Gokul Circle, Punganur Town, Chittoor District, A.P. Caste by Vysya. Occ:Coolie.

2)Kunchala Ganga, Age: 44 years, S/o Late Kuppaiah, O.G. Kuppam Village, Kavetipuram Post, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P. Caste by Dasari. Occ: Coolie.

3)Pasupuleti Venkatesulu, Age: 35 years, S/o Late Govindarajulu, D.No.118, O.G. Kuppam Village, Kavetipuram Post, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P. Caste by Dasari. Occ: Coolie.

4)Dasari Subbaiah, Age: 65 years, S/o Late Ankaiah, O.G.Kuppam Village, Kavetipuram Post, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P. Caste by Dasari. Occ: Coolie.

5)Devendra Ramu, Age: 23 years, S/o Late Devendra, D.No.76, Nagatingara Village, Sarkara Post, Perumadhura Taluq, Nagarkoil District, Tamilnadu State. Caste by Puda. Occ: Bus cleaner.

6)Bandralla Masthan, Age: 33 years, S/o Late Parasuram, D.No.1­22, Nerimetla Village, Vajrakarur Mandal, Ananthapur District, A.P. Caste by Madiga. Occ: Mason. 

2

7)Kunchala Deepa, Age: 39 years, W/o K. Ganga, O.G.Kuppam Village, Kavetipuram Post, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P. Caste by Dasari. Occ: Coolie.

(Note: Case against A2, A3, A4, A6 and A7 is split up from this case and numbered as CC.4139/2021. Now the present case is against A1 and A5 only)

..Accused.

­­­ This case is presented before me on this day i.e., 08.11.2021 for hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri A.Eswaraiah, Counsel for A2, A3, A4 & A7, Sri Y.Suresh Raju, Counsel for A6 and A1 and A5 are in judicial custody, upon hearing and perusing the record, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1)The Sub­Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Tirumala has laid charge sheet in Cr.No.22/2020 for the offence punishable U/sec.379 IPC against A1 to A7.

2)The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:­

(i)on 01.02.2020 at about 15:20 hrs, the informant S.Gandhi left their naive place along with his family members for darshan of Lord Venkateswara swamy and reached Tirumala at 22:30 hrs by bus. That the informant went to tonsure along with others by keeping his mother Karpagam as surveillance to their luggage at Hall

No.2, PAC­II, Tirumala. Then the informant returned at 23:00 hrs and found that the hand bag containing cash of Rs.8,000/­ of his mother was stolen by some unknown offenders while his mother was sleeping. Then the informant made searches in and around Tirumala along with his family, but in vain. Adverting to the above, basing on the report of informant, a case in Cr.No.22/2020 u/s 379 IPC was registered in II Town P.S, Tirumala on 02.02.2020 at 12:00 hrs by the Investigation

Officer and investigated into.

(ii)In the course of investigation, you A1 to A7 were arrested on 03.02.2020 at 16:00 hrs at Panchajanyam Guest House car parking, Tirumala and pursuant to their confession seized cash of Rs.2,500/­ from you A1 in the presence of mahazardars under a cover of mahazarnama. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against A1 to A7.

3)Cognizance of offence under Sec. 379 IPC is taken against the accused Nos.1 to 7. 

4)On appearance of A2, A3, A4, A6 and A7 and on production of A1 and A5 from Special Sub­jail, Tirupati, copies of case documents as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C., were furnished to them.

3

5)A1 to A7 are examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the contents of charge sheet, for which, A1 and A5 admitted the offence and A2, A3, A4, A6 and

A7 denied the allegations made against them. Charge U/Sec.379 IPC has been framed against A1 to A7, read over the same to them in the language of Telugu, for which, A1 and A5 voluntarily pleaded guilty of the offence and prayed for mercy of the Court. A2 to A4, A6 & A7 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In view of admission of A1 and A5, case against A2, A3, A4, A6 & A7 is split up and given new

CC number (C.C.4139/2021). Now, the present case is against A1 and A5 only.

6)The accused Nos.1 and 5 submitted that they voluntarily admitted their guilt of offence. They are apprised of the prescribed punishment, yet they voluntarily pleaded guilty of the offence. On considering the plea of guilt, this court is of opinion that accused Nos.1 and 5 voluntarily admitting their guilt for the offence charged against them, that there is no coercion from any side.

In the result, I find A1 and A5 guilty of the offence punishable u/s 379 IPC and they are convicted accordingly for the charge leveled against them under

Sec.241 of Cr.P.C. 

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, the 08 th day of November, 2021.

Sd/­ Ch. Pavan Kumar, II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

7)When accused Nos.1 and 5 are asked as to the quantum of sentence, for which, they stated that they have been in judicial custody since 20 months, and that, their financial status is very poor. They further stated that if they are put in prison, their families would suffer a lot, and that they would not commit any offence in future course and prayed the court to take a lenient view.

8)Having considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence and submissions of A1 and A5, this court is of opinion that sentence of imprisonment will meet the ends of justice. However, in view of mercy plea of A1 and A5, I am inclined to take lenient view in awarding sentence. 

9)Accordingly, A1 and A5 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty one (21) months each for the offence punishable u/sec.379

IPC.

10)The remand period undergone by A1 and A5 i.e., from 04.02.2020 to till date i.e., 08.11.2021 is given set off as contemplated u/s 428 Cr.P.C.

4

11)No property order is passed, since the case against A2, A3, A4, A6 and A7 is split up and pending vide C.C.4139/2021.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, the 08 th day of November, 2021. 

Sd/­ Ch. Pavan Kumar, II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

5

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: TIRUPATI.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No. 351 of 2021.

Date of offence:01.02.2020. 

Date of report:02.02.2020.

Date of apprehension (Appearance before court):04.02.2020.

Date of taken on file:12.04.2021.

Date of Judgment:08.11.2021.

Name of the Complainant:State represented by Sub­Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Tirumala. (Cr.No.22/2020)

Name of the Accused:1) Donthi Reddeppa, Age: 24 years, S/o Gopala Setty, Raja Street, Gokul Circle, Punganur Town, Chittoor District, A.P. Caste by Vysya. Occ:Coolie.

2) Kunchala Ganga, Age: 44 years, S/o Late Kuppaiah, O.G. Kuppam Village, Kavetipuram Post, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P. Caste by Dasari. Occ: Coolie.

3) Pasupuleti Venkatesulu, Age: 35 years, S/o Late Govindarajulu, D.No.118, O.G. Kuppam Village, Kavetipuram Post, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P. Caste by Dasari. Occ: Coolie.

4) Dasari Subbaiah, Age: 65 years, S/o Late Ankaiah, O.G.Kuppam Village, Kavetipuram Post, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P. Caste by Dasari. Occ: Coolie.

5) Devendra Ramu, Age: 23 years, S/o Late Devendra, D.No.76, Nagatingara Village, Sarkara Post, Perumadhura Taluq, Nagarkoil District, Tamilnadu State. Caste by Puda. Occ: Bus cleaner.

6) Bandralla Masthan, Age: 33 years, S/o Late Parasuram, D.No.1­22, Nerimetla Village, Vajrakarur Mandal, Ananthapur District, A.P. Caste by Madiga. Occ: Mason. 

6

7) Kunchala Deepa, Age: 39 years, W/o K. Ganga, O.G.Kuppam Village, Kavetipuram Post, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P. Caste by Dasari. Occ: Coolie. 

(Note: Case against A2, A3, A4, A6 and A7 is split up from this case and numbered as 

CC.4139/2021. Now the present case is 

against A1 and A5 only) Section of Law & Offence:u/sec.379 IPC – Punishment for Theft. Finding:Guilty. Sentence or Order of the Court:In the result, I find A1 and A5 guilty of the offence punishable u/s 379 IPC and they are convicted accordingly for the charge leveled against them under Sec.241 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, A1 and A5 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty one (21) months each forthe offence punishable u/sec.379 IPC. The remand period undergone by A1 and A5 i.e., from 04.02.2020 to till date i.e., 08.11.2021 is given set off as contemplated u/s 428 Cr.P.C. No property order is passed, since the case against A2, A3, A4, A6 and A7 is split up and pending vide C.C.4139/2021. 

Sd/­ Ch. Pavan Kumar, II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Tirupati.