Smt D.Bharani

CC No.233-2023, Dt.14.09.2023, JMFC, NPT

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

NARASANNAPETA

PRESENT:-Smt. D. Sri Bharani, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Prohibition and Excise Judge, Srikakulam (FAC) Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasannapeta.

Thursday, this the 14 th day of September, 2023.

C. C. No. 233/2023

Between:

The State represented by the Special Enforcement Bureau Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Narasannapeta.

…Complainant.

And

Korada Hari Govindu, S/o Bhaskararao, age 44 years, Vysya by caste, R/o Pradhanaveedhi, Ralla Godayavalasa village, Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District.

… Accused.

This case coming on 31.08.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ld., Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.Anandarao learned Advocate for the accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Special Enforcement Bureau Sub-Inspector, SEB station, Narasannapeta has filed Charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.132/2022 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.34 (a) (1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 against the accused.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 19.12.2022 at about 09.30 PM, as per the instructions of the LW-3/Smt J.

Sandhyarani, Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Narasannapeta conducted patrolling along with her staff at Rallagodayavalasa village of

Polaki Mandal, when the raid party reached the scene of offence they found the

CC No.233-2023, Dt.14.09.2023, JMFC, NPT

2 accused standing with a white plastic bag holding heavily with his right hand in a suspicious circumstances. On seeing the same the raid party stopped the accused and questioned him about the possession of the polythene bag and on that the accused gave reply that there are liquor bottles in the polythene bag. Immediately the Sub-Inspector (LW-3/ Smt J. Sandhyarani) deputed LW1/S. Dharamaraju, Police Constable to secure the mediators in and around the scene of offence but in vain. As no mediators readily available, the raid party verified the bag and found 09 nip bottles of Epic reserve

classic whisky and 04 nip bottles of Southern Blue Supreme whisky each

containing 180 ml. Total 13 nip bottles. Which are labeled as ‘Sale in Andhra Pradesh

State only’. The raid party drafted an Occurrence Report on the spot and that basing on the same lifted a sample so also seized the contraband. Adverting to the above basing on the special report, a case in Crime. No.132/2022 was registered U/Sec.34(a)(1) of

A.P. Excise Amendment Act against the accused before the Special Enforcement

Bureau Station, Narasannapeta. After completion of the investigation LW4/Sri

A.S.Dora, Inspector of Police, SEB, Narasannapeta PS laid charge sheet against the accused. Thereafter on 06.05.2023 through R.C.No.232/2023/A2, proceedings were issued by the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam wherein the remaining contraband apart from the samples lifted by the Investigating officer is ordered to be destroyed by the SHO of Special Enforcement bureau Station, Narasannapeta and the proceedings were filed before this court for kind perusal.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.34(a)(1) of A.P. Excise

Amendment Act 2020 against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents furnished to him in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

CC No.233-2023, Dt.14.09.2023, JMFC, NPT

3

5. Accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charge U/Sec.34(a)(1) of A.P. Excise

Amendment Act framed against the accused read over and explained to him in Telugu

U/Sec.240(2) Cr.P.C. After having understood the same, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 and

PW2 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 i.e Ex.P1 is the Occurrence Report. Ex.P2 is the

Original First Information Report in Crime No. 132/2022. Ex.P3 is the Letter of Advice and Ex.P4 is the Analysis report. So also Mos.1 and 2 were marked i.e. MO.1 is the sample bottle of Epic reserve classic whisky and MO.2 is the sample bottle of Southern

Blue Supreme whisky.

7. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witness, for which he denied. On behalf of accused no oral evidence is adduced and no documents marked.

8.Heard both the sides.

9.Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of

the accused for the offence U/Sec.34(a)(1) of A.P. Excise

Amendment Act beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise ...

10. POINT:-

In this case, the prosecution examined the Police Constable, SEB Station

Narasannapeta as PW2. The PW1 is the Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau

Station, Narasannapeta. The evidence in chief of PW2 is in tune with the records of the

CC No.233-2023, Dt.14.09.2023, JMFC, NPT

4 prosecution. Through PW2, Ex.P1 received in evidence. PW1 is the investigating officer, who conducted raid, arrested the Accused and also registered the crime against the accused. Then, he forwarded the sample bottles and lifted samples to chemical

Analyst. Through PW2, Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.4 received in evidence so also Mos.1 and 2.

11. On perusal of the evidence available on record, what emerges clear is that the scene of offence is a busy locality as it is situated at Rallagodayavalasa village which is surrounded by a number of residential houses. The evidence of Investigating officer is that she deputed her constable i.e. PW.1 for securing the mediators in and around the scene of offence but in vain.

12. After analysis of the above evidence what emerges clear is that the alleged scene is situated in a busy locality. Despite this topography of the scene, the prosecution failed to secure the support of independent witnesses for the search of the accused and seizure of contraband. The attempt of the Police Party in deputing the constable to secure mediators and his return in vain, has become futile when the deputed constable failed to file the report of non-availability of mediators. If at all the Police party tried best to secure mediators and failed, they ought to have filed report of the deputed constable as to whom he contacted and where and that he failed to secure the mediators. In the absence of such report, the alleged attempt of the Police party to secure mediators and proceeding against the accused basing on the Occurrence Report appears to be doubtful virtually. Thus there is a doubt in the case of the prosecution.

13. With this what emerges clear is that, by the time the search was conducted and seizure was made, there were people all along in the nearby vicinity and locality

CC No.233-2023, Dt.14.09.2023, JMFC, NPT

5 including village VRO and other official witnesses and that, despite their presence the investigating officer could not take their assistance to act as mahazardars. In other words, the local inhabitants were not pressed into service to act as mahazardars. Thus, the entire search is against the spirit of law of search, thereby the alleged seizure and arrest thereon is in contravention of the above law. In this way, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the Occurrence Report on which the case of the prosecution is edifices, thereby the Occurrence Report doubted, consequently, the entire case of the prosecution.

14. So, in the light of the above discussion, the Court is of the view that the case of the prosecution filled with doubts, and that, the evidence of Police party alone is not inspiring confidence of this Court to proceed against the accused. Hence, the POINT is answered holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

15. In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty for the offence U/Sec.34(a) (1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, thereby he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., MO.1 is the sample bottle of Epic reserve classic whisky and MO.2 is the sample bottle of Southern Blue Supreme whiskyshall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment.

Typed to the dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of September, 2023.

Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Court, Srikakulam, (FAC) Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

CC No.233-2023, Dt.14.09.2023, JMFC, NPT

6 Narasannapeta.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION : DEFENCE:

P.W.1/24.08.2023 : K. Umapathi ---None---

P.W.2/24.08.2023: J.Sandhyarani

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF:

PROSECUTION : DEFENCE :

Ex.P1:Occurrence report. ---Nil---

Ex.P2:Original First Information Report in Cr.No.132/2022

Ex.P3:Letter of Advice

Ex.P4:Analysis report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

MO.1 is the sample bottle of Epic reserve classic whisky---Nil--- MO.2 is the sample bottle of Southern Blue Supreme whisky

Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Court, Srikakulam, (FAC) Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasannapeta.

CC No.233-2023, Dt.14.09.2023, JMFC, NPT

7

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NARASAN-

NAPETA

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C.NO.233/2023

Date of offence:19.12.2022 Date of Complaint or report: 19.12.2022 Date of apprehension of accused:10.08.2023 Date of Remand :19.12.2022 Date of Release on bail: 21.12.2022 Date of commencement of trial:24.08.2023 Date of close of trial:14.09.2023 Date of sentence or order:14.09.2023 Explanation of delay:The date of appearance of accused in this court is 10.08.2023. The date of disposal of this case is 14.09.2023. Hence, No delay. Name of the complaint:The Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Narasannapeta (Cr.No.132/2022)

Name of the Ac- Father's Age Religion Village & Mandal

cused Name Korada Bhaskararao44HinduRalla Godayavalasa (V), Hari GovinduPolaki (M)

Offence : U/s. 34(a)(1) of AP Excise Amendment Act, 2020

Finding: The accused is found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:

In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.34(a)(1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, thereby he is acquitted U/

Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., MO.1 is the sample bottle of Epic re- serve classic whisky and MO.2 is the sample bottle of Southern Blue Supreme whisky shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the

Judgment.

Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Court, Srikakulam, (FAC) Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasannapeta.

Copy submitted to The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for perusal.

CC No.233-2023, Dt.14.09.2023, JMFC, NPT

8

OS.21 of 2023 (fair)

17.08.2023/JCJ/NPT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARASANNAPETA

PRESENT: Smt D. Sri Bharani,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Prohibition and Excise Judge,

Srikakulam.

(FAC) Junior Civil Judge,

Narasannapeta.

Thursday, this the 17th day of August, 2023.

Original Suit Original Suit No. 21/2023 No. 21/2023

B e t w e e n :

Jayi Suryanarayana, S/o late Krishnamurthy, Hindu, aged about 58 years, Business, R/o D.No. 3-57, Butchipeta, H/o Madapam village and Post, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam District.

. . . Plaintiff And:

Pydi Srinivasarao, S/o Venkataramana, Hindu, aged about 31 years, Business, R/o Kathyacharyulapeta village, Cheemalavalasa post, Amadalavalasa mandal, Srikakulam District and presently R/at Danappa Nilayam, Plot No. 38, Teacher’s Colony, Gujarathipeta, Hayathnagar, Srikakulam town and District.

. . . Defendant.

This case is coming before me on 10.08.2023 in the presence of Sri K. Jagan Mohan Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and the Defendant is having remained Exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of suit amount of Rs 7,65,750/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs sixty five thousand seven hundred and fifty only) from the defendant being the Principal and interest due under a Promissory Note, dated 15.03.2020 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to repay the same with interest @ 18 % per annum and for subsequent interest thereon, till the realization of the suit amount and for costs.

OS.21 of 2023 (fair)

17.08.2023/JCJ/NPT

2.The brief averments of the Plaint are :

The plaintiff submits that the defendant is borrowed an amount of Rs.

5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) from the plaintiff on 15.03.2020 for the purpose of his family expenses and discharging of sundry debts by agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 18 % per annum and on demand to the plaintiff or to his order and on the same day he executed a valid pronote in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the cash consideration in the presence of the attesters and scribe. The plaintiff made repeated demands, and thereafter they did not repay the said promissory note amount with interest personally and through his elders, but the defendant is admitting their liability and procrastinating the same someone pretext or other. On 09.01.2023 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant calling him to pay the principal and interest of the pronote amount and the defendant did not give any replay nor paid any amount till today and as such the plaintiff constrained to file this suit for recovery of amount due to him by the defendant under the suit promissory note. Hence, the suit.

3. On 13.07.2023, Defendant called absent. No representation. Court has given sufficient time for defendant to engage a counsel. Inspite of giving opportunity defendant failed to engage a counsel nor filed written statement. Court waited till 05.00 PM. Hence, defendant is set-exparte.

4.To prove his contention the Plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit and examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs A1 to A3.

5.Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now, the point for determination is;

OS.21 of 2023 (fair)

17.08.2023/JCJ/NPT

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the

defendant as prayed for ?

P 0 I N T :

7.At the outset this is a suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant for recovery of suit amount basing on a Promissory Note. To prove his contention the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A3.

8.P.W1 is the Plaintiff. Ex A1 is the Original Suit Promissory Note, Dated 15.03.2020, Ex.A2 is the Office Copy of the legal notice, dated 09.01.2023 and

Ex.A3 is the Postal online track information on 10.02.2023.

9.It is the case of PW 1 as per the contents of the plaint that, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs 5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 15.03.2020 under Ex A1 promissory Note agreeing to repay the borrowed amount with interest at 18% per annum and thereafter failed to repay the borrowed amount to the plaintiff inspite of several demands made by him and also after issuing Ex A2 legal notice, PW1 filed the present suit.

10.PW1 deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs 5,00,000/- from him under Ex A1 promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum to him or to his order on demand and thereafter failed to repay the borrowed amount, inspite of several demands made by him and even after issuing

Ex A2 legal notice and prayed to pass a decree in his favour as prayed for.

11.To disprove the contention of the plaintiff the defendant did not appear before the court and give evidence and he remained exparte. So, it is to be presumed that the defendant admitted the case of the plaintiff. Further, the oral

OS.21 of 2023 (fair)

17.08.2023/JCJ/NPT evidence of P.W1 and documentary evidence under Exs A1 to A3 establishes that defendant, borrowed amount from the plaintiff under Ex A1 and failed to repay the borrowed amount even after issuing legal notice by the plaintiff. To disprove Ex.s

A1 to A3 and oral evidence of P.W.1, the defendant did not appear before court and remained exparte. So, the oral evidence of P.W.1 and documentary evidence under

Exs A1 to A3 stand un-rebutted and proved by the plaintiff. Hence, it is held that the suit promissory note dated 15.03.2020 is true, valid and binding on the defendants and that the plaintiff proved that the defendants borrowed amount from him and executed Ex A1 promissory note in his favour after taking amount from him and failed to repay the borrowed amount to him and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

12.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, directing the defendant, to pay to the plaintiff the suit amount of Rs.7,65,750/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs sixty five thousand seven hundred and fifty only) together with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) from the date of suit till the date of realization.

Typed to dictation by the Typist on computer; corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this, the 17th day of August, 2023.

Sd/- Smt Ch. Hari Priya,

III Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Srikakulam.

(FAC) Junior Civil Judge,

Narasannapeta.

OS.21 of 2023 (fair)

17.08.2023/JCJ/NPT

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

For Plaintiff For Defendant

P.W 1/10.08.2023: Jayi Suryanarayana ---Nil---

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff For Defendant

Ex.A1 : Original Suit Promissory Note, Dated: 15.03.2020. - - - None - - - Ex.A2 : Office Copy of Legal Notice, Dated: 09.01.2023 Ex.A3 : is the Postal online track information on 10.02.2023

Sd/- Smt D. Sri Bharani,

III Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Srikakulam.

(FAC) Junior Civil Judge,

Narasannapeta.

// True copy//

III Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Srikakulam.

(FAC) Junior Civil Judge,

Narasannapeta.

OS.21 of 2023 (fair)

17.08.2023/JCJ/NPT

Date of Presentation:27.02.2023 Date of filing: 04.03.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARASANNAPETA

PRESENT: Smt D. Sri Bharani,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Prohibition and Excise Judge,

Srikakulam.

(FAC) Junior Civil Judge,

Narasannapeta.

Thursday, this the 17 th day of August, 2023.

Original Suit Original Suit No. 21/2023 No. 21/2023

B e t w e e n :

Jayi Suryanarayana, S/o late Krishnamurthy, Hindu, aged about 58 years, Business, R/o D.No. 3-57, Butchipeta, H/o Madapam village and Post, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam District.

. . . Plaintiff And:

Pydi Srinivasarao, S/o Venkataramana, Hindu, aged about 31 years, Business, R/o Kathyacharyulapeta village, Cheemalavalasa post, Amadalavalasa mandal, Srikakulam District and presently R/at Danappa Nilayam, Plot No. 38, Teacher’s Colony, Gujarathipeta, Hayathnagar, Srikakulam town and District.

. . . Defendant.

This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of suit amount of Rs 7,65,750/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs sixty five thousand seven hundred and fifty only) from the defendant being the Principal and interest due under a Promissory Note, dated 15.03.2020 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to repay the same with interest @ 18 % per annum and for subsequent interest thereon, till the realization of the suit amount and for costs.

Suit is valued for the purpose of jurisdiction Rs.7,65,750/- and court fee of Rs. 10,126/- was deposited in State Bank of India, Narasannapeta on 27.02.2023, U/Sec. 20 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act 1956.

This case is coming before me on 10.08.2023 in the presence of Sri K. Jagan Mohan Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and the Defendant is having remained Exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court doth order and;

OS.21 of 2023 (fair)

17.08.2023/JCJ/NPT

D E C R E E

i) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs; ii) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff the suit amount of Rs.7,65,750/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs sixty five thousand seven hundred and fifty only) together with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) from the date of suit till the date of realization.

iii) that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.22,505/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 17th day of August, 2023.

Sd/- Smt D. Sri Bharani,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Prohibition and Excise Judge,

Srikakulam.

(FAC) Junior Civil Judge,

Narasannapeta.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

Stamp on plaint : Rs. 10,126.00 -- Set exparte -- Stamp on Vakalat : Rs. 3.00 Stamp on process : Rs. 40.00 Advocate fee : Rs. 12,336.00 --------------------- Costs Allowed : Rs. 22,505.00 ---------------------

Sd/- Smt D. Sri Bharani,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Prohibition and Excise Judge,

Srikakulam.

Verified and found correct. (FAC) Junior Civil Judge,

Narasannapeta.

Superintendent.

OS.21 of 2023 (fair)

17.08.2023/JCJ/NPT // True copy//

III Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Srikakulam.

(FAC) Junior Civil Judge,

Narasannapeta.

1

OS.98 of 2022 (fair)

17.08.2023/JCJ/NPT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARASANNAPETA

PRESENT: Smt D. Sri Bharani,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Prohibition and Excise Judge,

Srikakulam.

(FAC) Junior Civil Judge,

Narasannapeta.

Thursday, this the 17th day of August, 2023.

Original Suit Original Suit No. 98/2022 No. 98/2022

B e t w e e n :

Jami Srinivasarao, S/o late Ramanayya, Hindu, aged about 42 years, Business, R/o Door No. 4-54, Main road, Bhyri Singupuram village, Srikakulam mandal and District. . . . Plaintiff And:

Kurmana Srinivas, S/o late Venkatarao, Hindu, aged about 54 years, Business, R/o Newly constructed house Door No. are not allotted, Kirana General Stores House- cum-shop, Opp. Generic Medical Shop Beside Rythu Bazar, Illisipuram, Srikakulam town, Municipality and District.

. . . Defendant.

This case is coming before me on 10.08.2023 in the presence of Sri K.

Jagan Mohan Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and the Defendant is having remained

Exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of suit amount of Rs 6,87,500/- (Rupees Six Lakhs eighty seven thousand and five hundred only) from the defendant being the Principal and interest due under a

Promissory Note, dated 27.09.2020 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to repay the same with interest @ 18 % per 2

OS.98 of 2022 (fair)

17.08.2023/JCJ/NPT annum and for subsequent interest thereon, till the realization of the suit amount and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the Plaint are :

The plaintiff submits that the defendant is borrowed an amount of Rs.

5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) from the plaintiff on 27.09.2020 for the purpose of his business development and for clearance of sundry debts by agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 18 % per annum and on demand to the plaintiff or to his order and on the same day he executed a valid pronote in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the cash consideration in the presence of the attesters and scribe. The plaintiff made repeated demands, and thereafter they did not repay the said promissory note amount with interest personally and through his elders, but the defendant is admitting their liability and procrastinating the same someone pretext or other. On 29.08.2022 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant calling him to pay the principal and interest of the pronote amount and the defendant did not receive the same and it was refused and as such the plaintiff constrained to file this suit for recovery of amount due to him by the defendant under the suit promissory note. Hence, the suit.

3. On 27.07.2023, Defendant is called absent. No representation. Written statement not filed on behalf of the defendant. Court waited till 05.00 PM. Hence, the defendant is set-exparte.

4.To prove his contention the Plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit and examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs A1 to A3.

5.Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff.

3

OS.98 of 2022 (fair)

17.08.2023/JCJ/NPT

6.Now, the point for determination is;

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the

defendant as prayed for ?

P 0 I N T :

7.At the outset this is a suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant for recovery of suit amount basing on a Promissory Note. To prove his contention the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A3.

8.P.W1 is the Plaintiff. Ex A1 is the Original Suit Promissory Note,

Dated 27.09.2020, Ex.A2 is the Office Copy of the legal notice, dated 29.08.2022

and Ex.A3 is the Returned and un-served notice, dated 05.09.2022 with an endorsement “Addressee unclaimed and returned to sender”

9.It is the case of PW 1 as per the contents of the plaint that, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs 5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 27.09.2020 under Ex A1 promissory Note agreeing to repay the borrowed amount with interest at 18% per annum and thereafter failed to repay the borrowed amount to the plaintiff inspite of several demands made by him and also after issuing Ex A2 legal notice, PW1 filed the present suit.

10.PW1 deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs 5,00,000/- from him under Ex A1 promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum to him or to his order on demand and thereafter failed to repay the borrowed amount, inspite of several demands made by him and even after issuing

Ex A2 legal notice and prayed to pass a decree in his favour as prayed for.

4

OS.98 of 2022 (fair)

17.08.2023/JCJ/NPT

11.To disprove the contention of the plaintiff the defendant did not appear

before the court and give evidence and he remained exparte. So, it is to be

presumed that the defendant admitted the case of the plaintiff. Further, the oral evidence of P.W1 and documentary evidence under Exs A1 to A3 establishes that defendant, borrowed amount from the plaintiff under Ex A1 and failed to repay the borrowed amount even after issuing legal notice by the plaintiff. To disprove Ex.s

A1 to A3 and oral evidence of P.W.1, the defendant did not appear before court and remained exparte. So, the oral evidence of P.W.1 and documentary evidence under

Exs A1 to A3 stand un-rebutted and proved by the plaintiff. Hence, it is held that the suit promissory note dated 27.09.2020 is true, valid and binding on the defendants and that the plaintiff proved that the defendants borrowed amount from him and executed Ex A1 promissory note in his favour after taking amount from him and failed to repay the borrowed amount to him and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

12.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, directing the defendant, to pay to the plaintiff the suit amount of Rs 6,87,500/- (Rupees Six Lakhs eighty seven thousand and five hundred only) together with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) from the date of suit till the date of realization.

Typed to dictation by the Typist on computer; corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this, the 17th day of August, 2023.

Sd/- Smt D. Sri Bharani,

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.

(FAC) Junior Civil Judge,

Narasannapeta.

5

OS.98 of 2022 (fair)

17.08.2023/JCJ/NPT

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

For Plaintiff For Defendant

P.W 1/10.08.2023: Jami Srinivasarao ---Nil---

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff For Defendant

Ex.A1 : Original Suit Promissory Note, Dated: 27.09.2020. - - - None - - - Ex.A2 : Office Copy of Legal Notice, Dated: 29.08.2022 Ex.A3 : Returned and un-served notice, dated 05.09.2022 with an endorsement “Addressee unclaimed and returned to sender”

III Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Srikakulam.

(FAC) Junior Civil Judge,

Narasannapeta.

6

OS.98 of 2022 (fair)

17.08.2023/JCJ/NPT

Date of presentation:27.10.2022 Date of filing:01.11.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARASANNAPETA

PRESENT: Smt D. Sri Bharani,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Prohibition and Excise Judge,

Srikakulam.

(FAC) Junior Civil Judge,

Narasannapeta.

Thursday, this the 17th day of August, 2023.

Original Suit Original Suit No. 98/2022 No. 98/2022

B e t w e e n :

Jami Srinivasarao, S/o late Ramanayya, Hindu, aged about 42 years, Business, R/o Door No. 4-54, Main road, Bhyri Singupuram village, Srikakulam mandal and District. . . . Plaintiff And:

Kurmana Srinivas, S/o late Venkatarao, Hindu, aged about 54 years, Business, R/o Newly constructed house Door No. are not allotted, Kirana General Stores House- cum-shop, Opp. Generic Medical Shop Beside Rythu Bazar, Illisipuram, Srikakulam town, Municipality and District.

. . . Defendant.

This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of suit amount of Rs 6,87,500/- (Rupees Six Lakhs eighty seven thousand and five hundred only) from the defendant being the Principal and interest due under a Promissory Note, dated 27.09.2020 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to repay the same with interest @ 18 % per annum and for subsequent interest thereon, till the realization of the suit amount and for costs.

Suit is valued for the purpose of jurisdiction Rs. 6,87,500/- and court fee of Rs. 9,326/- was deposited in State Bank of India, Narasannapeta on 26.10.2022, U/Sec. 20 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act 1956.

This case is coming before me on 10.08.2023 in the presence of Sri K. Jagan Mohanrao, Advocate for Plaintiff and the Defendant is having remained Exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court doth order and; 7

OS.98 of 2022 (fair)

17.08.2023/JCJ/NPT

D E C R E E

i) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs; ii) that the defendant, to pay to the plaintiff the suit amount of Rs 6,87,500/- (Rupees Six Lakhs eighty seven thousand and five hundred only) together with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) from the date of suit till the date of realization.

iii) that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 20,531/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 17th day of August, 2023.

Sd/- Smt D. Sri Bharani,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Prohibition and Excise Judge,

Srikakulam.

(FAC) Junior Civil Judge,

Narasannapeta.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

Stamp on plaint : Rs. 9,326.00 -- Set exparte -- Stamp on Vakalat : Rs. 3.00 Stamp on process : Rs. 40.00 Advocate fee : Rs. 11,162.00 --------------------- Costs Allowed : Rs. 20,531.00 ---------------------

Sd/- Smt D. Sri Bharani,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Prohibition and Excise Judge,

Srikakulam.

Verified and found correct. (FAC) Junior Civil Judge,

Narasannapeta.

Superintendent.

8

OS.98 of 2022 (fair)

17.08.2023/JCJ/NPT // True copy//

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.

(FAC) Junior Civil Judge,

Narasannapeta.

CC No.231-2023, Dt.31.08.2023, JMFC, NPT

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

NARASANNAPETA

PRESENT:-Smt. D. Sri Bharani, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Prohibition and Excise Judge, Srikakulam (FAC) Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasannapeta.

Thursday, this the 31 st day of August, 2023.

C. C. No. 231/2023

Between:

The State represented by the Special Enforcement Bureau Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Narasannapeta.

…Complainant.

And

Edakula Chittamma, W/o late Suryanarayana, age 32 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Kambakaya village, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam District.

… Accused.

This case coming on 31.08.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ld., Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G. Satyanarayana learned Advocate for the accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Special Enforcement Bureau Sub-Inspector, SEB station, Narasannapeta has filed Charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.130/2022 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.34 (a) (1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 against the accused.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 06.12.2022 at about 11.15 AM, as per the instructions of the LW-3/Smt J.

Sandhyarani, Sub- Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Narasannapeta conducted patrolling along with her staff at Edakula Chittamma, House back side of Kambakaya village limits of Narasannapeta Mandal, when the raid party

CC No.231-2023, Dt.31.08.2023, JMFC, NPT

2 reached the scene of offence they found the accused standing with a white polythene bag holding heavily with her right hand in a suspicious circumstances. On seeing the same the raid party stopped the accused and questioned her about the possession of the polythene bag and on that the accused gave reply that there are liquor bottles in the polythene bag. Immediately the Sub-Inspector (LW-3/ Smt J. Sandhyarani) deputed

LW1/B. Hymavathi, WPC to secure the mediators in and around the scene of offence but in vain. As no mediators readily available, the raid party verified the bag and found

20 nip bottles of Officer’s Choice Supreme whisky each containing 180 ml. Total

20 nip bottles. Which are labeled as ‘Sale in Andhra Pradesh State only’. The raid party drafted an Occurrence Report on the spot and that basing on the same lifted a sample so also seized the contraband. Adverting to the above basing on the special report, a case in Crime. No.130/2022 was registered U/Sec.34(a)(1) of A.P. Excise

Amendment Act against the accused before the Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Narasannapeta. After completion of the investigation LW4/Sri A.S.Dora, Inspector of

Police, SEB, Narasannapeta PS laid charge sheet against the accused. Thereafter on 06.05.2023 through R.C.No.232/2023/A2, proceedings were issued by the

Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam wherein the remaining contraband apart from the samples lifted by the Investigating officer is ordered to be destroyed by the SHO of

Special Enforcement bureau Station, Narasannapeta and the proceedings were filed

before this court for kind perusal.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.34(a)(1) of A.P. Excise

Amendment Act 2020 against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents furnished to her in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

CC No.231-2023, Dt.31.08.2023, JMFC, NPT

3

5. Accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charge U/Sec.34(a)(1) of A.P. Excise

Amendment Act framed against the accused read over and explained to her in Telugu

U/Sec.240(2) Cr.P.C. After having understood the same, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 and

PW2 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 i.e Ex.P1 is the Occurrence Report. Ex.P2 is the

Original First Information Report in Crime No. 130/2022. Ex.P3 is the Letter of Advice and Ex.P4 is the Analysis report. So also MO.1 were marked i.e. MO.1 is the sample bottle of Officer’s Choice Supreme whisky.

7. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witness, for which she denied. On behalf of accused no oral evidence is adduced and no documents marked.

8.Heard both the sides.

9.Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of

the accused for the offence U/Sec.34(a)(1) of A.P. Excise

Amendment Act beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise ...

10. POINT:-

In this case, the prosecution examined the Police Constable, SEB Station

Narasannapeta as PW2. The PW1 is the Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau

Station, Narasannapeta. The evidence in chief of PW2 is in tune with the records of the prosecution. Through PW2, Ex.P1 received in evidence. PW1 is the investigating

CC No.231-2023, Dt.31.08.2023, JMFC, NPT

4 officer, who conducted raid, arrested the Accused and also registered the crime against the accused. Then, he forwarded the sample bottles and lifted samples to chemical

Analyst. Through PW2, Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.4 received in evidence so also MO.1.

11. On perusal of the evidence available on record, what emerges clear is that the scene of offence is a busy locality as it is situated at Kambakaya village which is surrounded by a number of residential houses. The evidence of Investigating officer is that she deputed her constable i.e. PW.1 for securing the mediators in and around the scene of offence but in vain.

12. After analysis of the above evidence what emerges clear is that the alleged scene is situated in a busy locality. Despite this topography of the scene, the prosecution failed to secure the support of independent witnesses for the search of the accused and seizure of contraband. The attempt of the Police Party in deputing the constable to secure mediators and his return in vain, has become futile when the deputed constable failed to file the report of non-availability of mediators. If at all the Police party tried best to secure mediators and failed, they ought to have filed report of the deputed constable as to whom he contacted and where and that he failed to secure the mediators. In the absence of such report, the alleged attempt of the Police party to secure mediators and proceeding against the accused basing on the Occurrence Report appears to be doubtful virtually. Thus there is a doubt in the case of the prosecution.

13. With this what emerges clear is that, by the time the search was conducted and seizure was made, there were people all along in the nearby vicinity and locality including village VRO and other official witnesses and that, despite their presence the investigating officer could not take their assistance to act as mahazardars. In other

CC No.231-2023, Dt.31.08.2023, JMFC, NPT

5 words, the local inhabitants were not pressed into service to act as mahazardars. Thus, the entire search is against the spirit of law of search, thereby the alleged seizure and arrest thereon is in contravention of the above law. In this way, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the Occurrence Report on which the case of the prosecution is edifices, thereby the Occurrence Report doubted, consequently, the entire case of the prosecution.

14. So, in the light of the above discussion, the Court is of the view that the case of the prosecution filled with doubts, and that, the evidence of Police party alone is not inspiring confidence of this Court to proceed against the accused. Hence, the POINT is answered holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

15. In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty for the offence U/Sec.34(a) (1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, thereby she is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., MO.1 is the sample bottle of Officer’s Choice Supreme whisky shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment.

Typed to the dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of August, 2023.

Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Court, Srikakulam, (FAC) Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasannapeta.

CC No.231-2023, Dt.31.08.2023, JMFC, NPT

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION : DEFENCE:

P.W.1/24.08.2023 : B. Hymavathi ---None---

P.W.2/24.08.2023: J.Sandhyarani

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF:

PROSECUTION : DEFENCE :

Ex.P1:Occurrence report. ---Nil---

Ex.P2:Original First Information Report in Cr.No.130/2022

Ex.P3:Letter of Advice

Ex.P4:Analysis report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

MO.1 is the sample bottle of Officer’s Choice Supreme whisky ---Nil---

Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Court, Srikakulam, (FAC) Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasannapeta.

CC No.231-2023, Dt.31.08.2023, JMFC, NPT

7

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NARASAN-

NAPETA

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C.NO.231/2023

Date of offence:06.12.2022 Date of Complaint or report: 06.12.2022 Date of apprehension of accused:10.08.2023 Date of Remand :06.12.2022 Date of Release on bail: 08.12.2022 Date of commencement of trial:24.08.2023 Date of close of trial:31.08.2023 Date of sentence or order:31.08.2023 Explanation of delay:The date of appearance of accused in this court is 10.08.2023. The date of disposal of this case is 31.08.2023. Hence, No delay. Name of the complaint:The Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Narasannapeta (Cr.No.1302022)

Name of the Ac- Father's Age Religion Village & Mandal

cused Name Edakula late 32HinduKambakaya (V), ChittammaSuryanarayanaNarasannapeta (M)

Offence : U/s. 34(a)(1) of AP Excise Amendment Act, 2020

Finding: The accused is found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:

In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.34(a)(1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, thereby he is acquitted U/

Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., MO.1 is the sample bottle of Officer’s

Choice Supreme whisky shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment.

Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Court, Srikakulam, (FAC) Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasannapeta.

Copy submitted to The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for perusal.

CC No.231-2023, Dt.31.08.2023, JMFC, NPT

8