Sri D.Dhanaraju

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Salur (Taluka) · Vizianagaram · Andhra Pradesh

Sri D.Dhanaraju, Civil Judge (Junior Division), is posted at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Salur (Taluka), Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2,481 court orders on record since 2018. 14 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

2,481

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/252/2013 Acquitted

S.H.O, Ramabhadrapuram P.S vs Gurla Jagannadham

28 Jun 2019

C.C.No.252/20131J.F.C.M.Court, Salur

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMJUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE

FIRST CLASS, SALUR.

Present: Sri D.Dhanaraju, Junior Civil JudgecumJudicial Magistrate of the First Class, Salur.

Friday, this the 28th day of June, 2019.

C.C.NO.252 OF 2013

Between: State represented by the SubInspector of Police, Ramabhadrapuram Police Station. …Complainant And: Gurla Jagannadham, S/o Sadhu babu, aged 30 years, SC Mala by caste, working as Secondary Grade Teacher, Balajijagar, Vizianagaram Town.

…Accused

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 18.06.2019 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri K.Sanyasi Rao, Advocate for the accused and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The SubInspector of Police, Ramabhadrapuram Police Station filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.50/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against accused.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are that PW1 married A1 on 07.4.2012 and at the time of marriage, parents of PW1 gave dowry of Rs.3,80,000/, Rs.50,000/ for motor cycle and an amount of Rs.30,000/ for Adapilla Lanchanamulu and half tula gold ring and sari samanalu worth Rs.1,00,000/ on the demand of accused. PW1 and

Accused lead happy conjugal life at Kata Veedhi, Vizianagaram and late they shifted in a rented house of Hussan near ring road at Vizianagaram. The accused and his family members started harassing PW1 both physically and mentally and Accused demanded to bring an amount of Rs.5,00,000/ additional dowry from her parents and caused torture.

On 24.6.2012 A1 mixed the ants poison in tea of his wife for consume her by force, in which PW1 reported the matter against her husband and inlaws at II Town Police station

Vizianagaram and they registered a case in Cr.No.43/2013 u/sec.498A, 307 and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act against accused and the same was compromised in the court. Later

C.C.No.252/20132J.F.C.M.Court, Salur

PW1 joined the accused and they lead conjugal life at Kottavalasa and again accused demanded additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/. PW1 having 4th month pregnancy, she fell in sick and the same was informed to her father LW2 Chintada Kannayya and on that said Kannayya gave Rs.30,000/ for medical expenses and PW1 joined in KGH,

Visakhapatnam on 28.5.2013 where she gave birth to a femlae child on 30.5.2013 and due to birth of female child the accused left her at KGH due to suspect her fidelity, on that a dispute was raised in the presence of Pws 3 and 4 and the elders chastised the accused but the accused did not heed their words and also demanded to bring an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/ from parents of PW1 when she expressed her inability to meet his demand, the accused did not take her back to his house. PW1 gave report to police.

Basing on report, PW6 registered a case in Cr.No.50/2013 u/sec.498A IPC and section 3 and 4 of D.P.ACt. On 22.8.2013 he arrested the accused and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act against the accused.

4.After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under

Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the accused was examined under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.

and he denied the offences. Charge under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of

D.P.Act was framed and read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.3.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused were examined u/sec.313

Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

C.C.No.252/20133J.F.C.M.Court, Salur

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

8. Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT:

9.In order to make out a case for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the husband of a woman or his relative must have subjected her to cruelty which is of such a nature as is likely to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, either physically or mentally; or harassment is caused to her with a view to coerce her or her relative to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security.

10.The defactocomplainant was examined as PW1. She deposed that her marriage was performed with the accused on 7.4.2012, at the time of marriage, her parents gave

Rs.3 lakhs towards dowry, one motor bike, Adapaduchu lanchanams Rs.30,000/ Sare samanlu wroth Rs. 1 lakhs and 1 ½ tula gold to the accused. On the next day of marriage, the accused and his parents did not allow her inside their house stating that the sare samanlu are not properly given and did not present any cot, at the intervention of marriage elders, the matter was pacified and she resided at her in laws house for about one month. She further deposed that during that period accused used to raise disputes and used to beat her by demanding addl.dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and accused also used to beat her in drunken state. On one day accused gave her tea by mixing gamaxin and she was hospitalized and a case was registered against accused and his parents. On one day, the accused kicked on her stomach even she was pregnant and accused stayed for one week at the hospital and accused informed her parents about the birth of daughter and further stated that he will bring clothes and went away but later the accused did not turn up. She gave her gold chain, ear rings and silver anklets to the accused. Later she gave report against accused.

C.C.No.252/20134J.F.C.M.Court, Salur

11.During the course of cross examination PW1 deposed that she gave report against her husband, inlaws and sisterinlaws. She further deposed that the dispute arose as the accused demanded her to bring Rs.30,000/ from her parents towards medical expenses and she deposed that accused took her to the hospital while she was pregnant and he took a scan. She further deposed that herself and accused had lived at

Kothavalasa for about 4 months and that prior to Kothavalasa she had lived at her parents house for about 5 or 6 months. She further deposed that during the pendency of the criminal case at Vizianagaram, she started living with the accused at Kothavalasa and the matter was compromised. She denied the suggestion that as she was not feeling well, the accused had taken her to the hospital in the month of May and accused joined her in the hospital. She admitted in her cross examination that accused filed divorce OP against her stating that he got suspicion against her and that accused filed a petition for DNA test and the same is allowed.

12.PW2 who is father of PW1, deposed that he performed the marriage of PW1 with accused and he gave dowry of Rs.3,80,000/, one bike, one tula chain, half tula ring,

Adapaduchu lanchanams of Rs.30,000/ and sare samanlu worth Rs. 1 lakh. He further deposed that after 15 days of marriage, accused used to harass PW1 to bring addl.dowry and later they raised dispute and on that accused put up a separate family at

Vizianagaram and the house owner called him and informed him that accused mix gamaxin in tea and gave it to PW1 and she was admitted in Tirumala Nursing Home and that he gave report to police and accused and his family members admitted their guilt. He further deposed that again disputes arose and accused kicked Pw1 on her stomach while she was pregnant. PW1 gave birth to female child and accused took Rs.20,000/ and pusthela thadu of PW1 and went to Vizianagaram and did not turn up.

13.During the course of cross examination, PW2 deposed that no written documents were executed at the time of giving dowry and marriage presentations. He admitted that both PW1 and accused started living separately at Vizianagaram and got separated from accused’s family members i.e., father, mother and sisters. He deposed that he came to know about the demand of additional dowry of accused only when PW1 informed him

C.C.No.252/20135J.F.C.M.Court, Salur through phone. He admitted that a case was registered as Pw1 consumed poison, due to the harassment of accused. He further admitted that in the present case also initially they filed case against three members but after investigation, police registered case against the accused only. He further deposed that while the case at Vizianagaram is still pending PW 1 and accused lived at Naiduvalasa for a period of six months to his knowledge. He further deposed that he came to know about PW1’s pregnancy when accused informed him. He further admitted that accused used to take care of PW1 during his stay at

Kothavalasa and he used to take medical attention of PW1. He further admitted that accused raised suspicion over the pregnancy of PW1 with him. And accused admitted

PW1 in K.G.Hospital and informed them later and accused himself informed about the birth of his daughter and that daughter was born with premature pregnancy.

14.PW3 who is said to be the eye witness, deposed that at the time of marriage parents of PW1 presented Rs.3,80,000/ towards dowry and Rs.50,000/ towards vehicle, one tula gold chain, ¼ tula gold ring and sare samanlu worth Rs.60,000/ to the accused and 3 days after marriage disputes arose between both of them and accused shifted in a rented house and lived happily for one week, thereafter disputes arose. On one day, he came to know through PW1 that accused administered poison to PW1 and accused left PW1 at the hospital after birth of girl child. The learned A.P.P. cross examined PW3 and PW3 admitted that he stated to police that PW2 informed him that accused harassing the PW1 with regard to additional dowry for an amount of

Rs.30,000/ as in Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement.

15.During the course of cross examination by learned counsel for accused, he deposed that PW1 and himself belongs same caste. He further deposed that he does not know personally about the disputes between Pw1 and accused but he came to know about the accused. He further deposed that he deposed evidence before Vizianagaram

Court, thereafter the said case was compromised and that the said case was foisted against the sisters of accused as well as accused in this case. He further admitted that the dispute arose between PW1 and accused as due to accused refused his paternity of the child born to PW1.

C.C.No.252/20136J.F.C.M.Court, Salur

16.PW4 who is said to be another eye witness, deposed that at the time of marriage the parents of PW1 gave an amount of Rs.3,80,000/ towards dowry, Rs.50,000/ towards vehicle, one week after marriage disputes arose and accused demanded to bring addl. Dowry, sister of accused harassed Pw1 and accused mixed gamaxin powder in tea and gave it to PW1 and asked her to drink. He further deposed that Pw1 consumed the said tea and she was admitted in hospital. Later PW1 conceived pregnancy and gave birth to female baby and accused refused paternity of that baby and on that PW1 gave report to police.

17.During the course of cross examination, PW4 he has no personal knowledge about the disputes happened at Vizianagaram between them. He further deposed that the family members of accused lived along with Pw1 and accused at Kata Veedhi, Vizianagaram for ten days and after that PW1 and accused set up their family in a separate house at Nalla

Cheruvu. He further deposed that he never resided near the house of PW1 and A1 and that PW1 and her parents used to inform about the disputes arose between PW1 and accused. He deposed that he does not know after how many days of filing of the complaint, they compromised the case and that he came to know that again disputes arose between PW1 and accused at Kothavalasa village after set up separate family due to accused refused the paternity of female child of PW1. He does not know when PW1 filed this case.

18.PW5 who is said to be the neighbour of Pw1 at Kothavalasa, deposed that PW1 and accused resided by their house at Kothavalasa for rent and that they lived happily during that period. After two months they shifted to another house. She does not know what happened later. She further deposed that in the year 2014 accused brought auto as

PW1 was not feeling well and he wants to take her to hospital in the auto, later she came to know that some cases were filed against each other.

C.C.No.252/20137J.F.C.M.Court, Salur

19.The learned APP submitted that the evidence on record clearly proves the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they are charged and therefore the accused may be convicted and sentenced accordingly.

20.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the entire evidence brought on record does not at all support the case of the prosecution and that the accused is falsely implicated in this case and thus he is entitled to acquittal.

21.As can be seen from the entire evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the marriage of PW.1 with A.1 was performed by PW.2 and LW.3 Chintada Ramanamma on 07.04.2012 and at the time of marriage a sum of Rs.3,80,000/ towards dowry, one gold ring and saresamanulu worth Rs.1,00,000/ were given to Accused.

22.On perusal of entire evidence of PW1 during her cross examination, she deposed that the dispute arose as the accused demanded her to bring Rs.30,000/ from her parents towards medical expenses and that accused took her to the hospital while she was pregnant and he took a scan. She further deposed that during the pendency of the criminal case at Vizianagaram, she started living with the accused at Kothavalasa and that she admitted that accused filed divorce OP against her stating that he got suspicion against her. The above evidence of PW1 clearly shows that the dispute arose only when accused demanded Rs.30,000/ for medical expenses. Hence the demand of dowry of

Rs.5,00,000/ is not proved. During the pendency of criminal case at Vizianagaram both

PW1 and accused lived together and it shows that there is no harassment by the accused towards PW1.

23.On perusal of evidence of PW2 who is father of PW1 shows he came to know about the demand of additional dowry of accused only when PW1 informed him through phone. This piece of evidence shows that PW2 does not know personally about the demand of dowry by the accused and he came to know only through PW1 and accused never demanded PW2 for additional dowry. His evidence further shows that he came to know about pregnancy of PW1 when accused informed him. He further admitted in his cross examination that accused used to take care of PW1 during his stay at Kothavalasa

C.C.No.252/20138J.F.C.M.Court, Salur and he used to take medical attention of PW1. It shows that accused never harassed

PW1 and he takes care of PW1 even in the hospital also.

24.The evidence of PW3 who is eye witness, shows that PW2 informed him that accused harassing Pw1 with regard to additional dowry for an amount of Rs.30,000/.

He deposed that he gave evidence before the Vizianagaram Court. He deposed that he came to know through PW1 that accused administered poison (gamaxyn) to PW1. It means PW3 is not a eye witness to the incident and he came to know the same through

PW1 only. Hence his evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the ingredients for the offence u/sec.498A IPC. The evidence of PW1 is full of developments.

PW4 in her chief examination deposed that one week of the marriage, disputes arose between PW1 and A1 as the accused demanded to bring additional dowry, sister of accused harassed PW1. On evaluating the evidence of PW1 to 3, there is no single piece of evidence about the harassment made by sister of accused. But PW4 made developed in his evidence and deposed that sister of accused harassed PW1. His evidence is not cogent and trustworthy.

25.On perusal of evidence of PW5 who is independent witness and neighbour to the house of PW1 and A1, categorically deposed that both PW1 and A1 lived happily during their stay at Kothavalasa in a rented house. This piece of evidence shows that accused never harassed PW1 or demanded Pw1 to bring additional dowry from her parents.

26.PW6 who is investigation officer deposed that on 22.6.2013 he received a written report from PW1, basing on the same, he registered a case in Cr.No.50/2013 u/sec.498

A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act and he issued Ex.P3 FIR to the concerned. Later he examined Pws 1 and 2 and LW3 Chintala Ramanamma and recorded their statements and visited the scene of offence situated at Naiduvalasa village and and later he went to

Kothavalasa village and recorded the statement LW6 Gopachana Achari and on 22.8.2013 Accused surrendered before him and he arrested the accused and after completion investigation, he filed charge sheet.

C.C.No.252/20139J.F.C.M.Court, Salur

27.During the course of cross examination he deposed that PW1 gave complaint against five persons. He deposed in his chief examination that after completion of investigation, according to the witness statements, the prima facie case established against A1 only, he filed charge sheet.

28.That apart, it is not uncommon that there may be varied reasons for the variety of quarrels took place between PW.1 and the accused, which may be either petty or serious, but without cogent and convincing evidence adduced before the Court, the same cannot be said to have taken place with a view to causing cruelty to PW.1 or demanding

additional dowry. Perusal of the explanation appended under Section 498A of the IPC

shows that ‘cruelty’ means any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life or limb or health of the woman (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or the harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Basing on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who are interested witnesses, it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be said that the harassment alleged to have been meted out by the accused to PW.1 reflected that PW.1 was forced to commit suicide or it caused grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, either mentally or physically, or with a view to coercing PW.1 or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security as there was no iota of evidence before the Court in that regard at all. Except the interested testimony of Pws 1 and 2, there is no other corroborative evidence to prove the case of prosecution.

29.It is well established principle of law that no conviction can be based on mere assumptions and presumptions. Further, there must be concrete legal evidence to convict an accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence. Having due regard to the decisions referred to herein before and after carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and in light of the evidence on record, it is manifest

C.C.No.252/201310J.F.C.M.Court, Salur that there is no iota of evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they are charged. For the foregoing discussion, it is obvious that the prosecution has miserably failed to wholly bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, Point is accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

30.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. Accused is directed to execute bonds for a sum of Rs.5,000/ (Rupees five thousand only) each which shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437A of the Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate

Court if an appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation corrected, and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28th day of June, 2019. Sd/ D.Dhanaraju. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMJUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

SALUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Defence

PW.1: Gurla SrilekhaNone PW.2: Chinthada Kannayya P.W.3: Yenda Gopala Rao PW.4: Yetthula Chittibabu P.W.5: Polamarasetty Sujatha PW.6: S.Srinivas , S.I. of Police.

Documents Marked

For Prosecution For Defence

Ex.P.1: Report of PW1 dt. 22.06.2013Nil Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3 Ex.P.3: Original FIR in Cr.No.50/2013

Material Objects Marked

Nil.

Sd/ D.Dhanaraju. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMJUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

SALUR.

CC/378/2012 Acquitted

Food Safety Officer, Vizianagaram. vs Chokkakula Simhachalam

28 Jun 2019

C.C.No.378/20121J.F.C.M.Court, Salur

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMJUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

THE FIRST CLASS, SALUR.

Present: Sri D.Dhanaraju, Junior Civil JudgecumJudicial Magistrate of the First Class, Salur.

Friday, this the 28th day of June, 2019.

C.C.NO.378 OF 2012

Between: State represented by the Food Safety Officer, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. …Complainant And: Chokkakula Simhachalam S/o late Surayya, Proprietor, M/s. Sri Manikanta Sweets, Opp: Bose Statue, Salur, Vizianagaram District. …Accused

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 25.06.2019 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri L.Ekadanteswara Rao , Advocate for the accused and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Complainant i.e., Food Safety, Officer, Vizianagaram District filed complaint against Accused for the offence u/see. 22 (2) (I) 3(zz) r/w section 59(1) of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 (for short “FSS.Act”).

2.The brief facts of the complaint are that on 26.12.2011 at about 1100 a.m.

along with his office subordinate PW3 visited Salur Municipality of Vizianagaram

District and entered into M/s. Sri Manikanta Sweets situated at opposite Bose Statue,

Salur for inspection of food articles kept for sale for human consumption while the accused was transacting business. PW1 called and secured the presence of PW2 who accepted to act as mediator for the proceedings followed. PW1 found stock of prepared sweets and preparing various sweets and he inspected one tray with sweets i.e., Cova Burfi with silver foil (prepared sweet) in the shop being stored and exposed for sale by the accused and examined and suspected its quality, i.e., to be unsafe.

Then PW1 bought 2 Kg of Cova Burfi with silver foil from the accused shop for

Rs.280/ and paid its cost and obtained cash receipt from the accused on which both

C.C.No.378/20122J.F.C.M.Court, Salur

PW2 and PW3 attested. Immediately PW1 issued Form VA notice to the accused informing his intention to sent the same to the Food Analyst for analysis and obtained acknowledgment of accused. Then PW1 divided the the purchased 2Kg Kova Burfi with Silver foil into four parts and after completion of all procedure and formalities of sampling, sealing and packing as contemplated under the Act, on 27.12.2011 he sent on part of the sample to the Food Analyst, Hyderabad and remaining three parts were handed over to the Food Safety Designated Officer, Vizianagaram and on 9.1.2012 the

Food Safety Designated Officer, Vizianagaram received Analysis report dt.6.1.2012 from the Food Analyst who opined that the sample contains silver coloured foil which is not silver foil, therefore it is unsafe. The Food Safety Designated Officer,

Vizianagaram District sent a copy of Analysis report of Cova Burfi with silver foil along with covering letter dated 13.01.2012 to the accused by registered post and also given opportunity to make an appeal before the Food Safety Designated Officer within 30 days from the date of receipt of Form VIII for sending of other part of the sample to the referral laboratory under section 46 (4) of FSS Act, 2006, but the accused did not make any appeal within the stipulated time. The Commissioner of Food Safety having satisfied that there is a prima facie case of sale of Unsafe Cova Burfi with silver foil and accorded written consent to PW1 to launch prosecution against accused and he filed this complaint against accused for the offence of sale of unsafe Cova Burfi with silver foil (prepared sweet) under law.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence under Section u/see. 22 (2) (I) 3(zz) r/w section 59(1) of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 against the Accused.

4.After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under

Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the Accused was examined under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C.

The substance of the complaint was read over and explained to the Accused in Telugu for the offence u/sec. 22 (2) (I) 3(zz) r/w section 59(1) of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 and he denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

C.C.No.378/20123J.F.C.M.Court, Salur

5.During the course of trial, in order to prove the its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW3 and marked Exs.P.1 and P.16.

6.After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the Accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution as envisaged under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. None were examined and no documents marked on behalf of the accused.

7.Heard the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the accused.

8.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 22 (2) (I) 3(zz) r/w section 59(1) of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT:

9.To prove the case of the complainant, the District Food Inspector, Vizianagaram was examined as PW1. He deposed that on 26.12.2011, on routine inspection at

Salur municipality, he entered along with his office subordinate to M/s. Manikantha

Sweets, Bosumobba Centre, Salur at about 1100 a.m. and on that accused was present in the sweet shop and transacting business and on enquiry, he revealed that he is the proprietor of the shop. He further deposed that he secured presence of PW2 and LW3 R.Eswar Rao and while inspecting he found prepared sweets and preparing various sweets in the shop for the purpose of sale to the public for human, then he found one tray containing prepared sweets called as “Kova Burfi” with silver foil, then he suspected its quality that it to be unsafe. He further deposed that he purchased 2Kgs of kova burfi with silver foil, for Rs.280/ from the accused and paid its cost and obtained the receipt. Then he issued From V A notice to the accused informing his intention that he send the purchased sweet to the State Food Laboratory for analysis.

He further deposed that he divided purchased kova burfi with silver foil into 4 equal parts of 500 gms each and placed into 4 clean dry and empty plastic jars and added

C.C.No.378/20124J.F.C.M.Court, Salur 2ml of formalin into 4 parts i.e., each part contains 0.5 ml and their screw caps were air tightened and label bearing code No.002800105/2011 and other details of the food sample were affixed on the 4 jars of the samples, then 4 jars were folded inside neately and affixed by means of gum and paper slips were pasted on the jars such a manner that the paper slips goes round completely from bottom to top of the jars and obtained signatures of the accused on 4 sample jars in such a manner that the both the paper and brown paper carry a signature of the accused. He further deposed that then each part of the sample tied with strong twine thread above and across the sample jars and affixed 4 seals by covering knots. He further deposed that he drafted mediators report and on 27.12.2011 he sent one part of the sample in a sealed packet along with Form

VI memorandum with specimen impression seal of himself used to seal the sample packet to the Food Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad in a sealed packet by registered post and intimated the same to the Food Safety Designated Officer,

Vizianagaram and on the same day, he sent copy of Form VI memorandum along with specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet was also sent separately to the

Food Analyst and the remaining three parts of the sample are handed over to the Food

Safety Designated Office, Vizianagaram. He further deposed that the Food Safety

Designated Officer, Vizianagaram received analyst report on 9.1.2012 in Form

B.No.2/2012 dt.6.1.2012 from the Food Analyst, Hyderabad in which the Food Analyst opined that the sample contains silver coloured foil which is not silver foil i.e., that is therefore unsafe. He further deposed that the Commissioner, Food Safety, having satisfied that there is prima facie of sale of unsafe kova burfi with silver foil and accorded written consent in RC.No.1004/F1/2012 dt.30.11.2012 to launch prosecution against the accused for the offence committed before the Court. He marked Ex.P1 copy of Gazette notification of G.O.Ms.No.243 HM & FW(L1) Dept., dt.25.08.2011, Ex.P2 Copy of G.O.Ms.No.320, H.M. & FW(L1) Dept. dt.27.10.2011 regarding appointment of Food Safety Designated Officer, Ex.P3 copy of Gazette notification at GO RT No.549 HM & FW(L1) Dept. dt.4.4.2012, Ex.P4 Cash receipt dt.26.12.2011 for Rs.280/, Ex.P5 original Form VA notice dt.26.12.2011, Ex.P6

Copy of label on the sample container dt.26.12.2011, Ex.P7 Mediators report

C.C.No.378/20125J.F.C.M.Court, Salur dt.26.12.2011, Ex.P8 Copy of Form VI memorandum dt.26.12.2011, Ex.P9 copy of postal receipt Regd.parcel No.RPA 6345 dt.27.12.2011 in token of dispatch of one part of sample along with Form VI memorandum to the Food Analyst, Hyderabad, Ex.P10

Regd. Postal acknowledgment dt.27.12.2011 in token of dispatch of copy of Form VI memorandum separately to the Food Analyst in sealed cover, Ex.P11 Copy of intimation letter to Food Safety Designated officer dt.27.12.2011 and 30.01.2012 along with acknowledgment from FSDO, Ex.P12 Analyst report in Form B bearing

No.2/2012 dt.6.1.2012, Ex.P13 Intimation letter to the FBO to make an appeal before

Designated Officer dt.13.1.2012, Ex.P14 is the postal acknowledgment dt.13.1.2012,

Ex.P15 is the Detailed report vide letter No.002A00105/2011 dt.20.1.2012, Ex.P16 is the copy of written consent RC No.1004/F1/2012 dt.30.11.2012 from the

Commissioner of Food Safety, Hyderabad.

10.During the course of cross examination PW1 admitted that he did not mention in Ex.P7 that Siripurapu Seetharam was working in Manikanta sweet shop. He further deposed that he does not have any documentary proof to show that accused is the owner of the Manikantha Sweet shop. He further deposed that he did not serve any written summons to Siripurapu Seetharam to act as mediator in this case. He further deposed that he has not mentioned in Ex.P7 that before measuring 2 Kgs of kova burfi with silver foil, he did not clean the measurement available in the shop. He further deposed that he has not used any gloves or any other article to put the sweets into four plastic jars. He admitted that he has not clean the jars in the presence of mediators

before putting Kova burfi with silver foil into the Jars from where the samples were

took for sending the same to Analyst. He deposed that he has not mentioned the colour and shape of th sweet lifted from the Manikanta Sweet shop. He further admitted that he has not mentioned the physical appearance of the sample lifted by him in Ex.P7. He deposed that according to Ex.P12 physical appearance of the sample light brownish cream coloured, cube shaped, prepared sweet with silver foil.

He admitted in his cross examination that Ex.P12 does not contain the standards of the sample observed by him. He further admitted that Food Analyst did not mention

C.C.No.378/20126J.F.C.M.Court, Salur in Ex.P12 that the sample is injurious to health. He admitted that he mentioned in

Ex.P11 that sample of kova burfi with silver foil lifted from Sri Manikantha Sweets,

Salur on 30.1.2012.

11.PW2 who is mediator for the lifting of sample from the shop of accused, did not support the case of prosecution and he turned hostile. The learned A.P.P. cross examined PW2 after seeking permission from the Court, but nothing worth was elicited in favour of the prosecution.

12.PW3 who is none other than Office subordinate of PW1 deposed that he along with PW1 went to Sri Manikantha Sweets situated near Bose Statute, Salur, by the time accused was doing business in that shop and that PW1 verified the shop and purchased 2 Kgs Kova Burfi with silver foil for Rs.280/ and paid the same to the accused. He further deposed that he along with PW1, PW2 and accused signed on it.

He further deposed that PW1 issued Form V A notice to the accused and that PW1 divided the purchased Kova burfi sweets with silver foil into 4 equal parts and placed into 4 clean, dry and empty plastic jars and after completion of all procedure of sealing and sampling process as required under the Act, PW1 drafted mediators report there in the presence of Pw2 and himself and accused signed on the mediators report.

13.During the course of cross examination PW3 deposed that Manikanta sweet shop is located in a busy locality. PW2 was present there by the time they went there.

No written summons were issued by PW1 to PW2 to act as mediator in this case. He further deposed that PW1 did not mention in Ex.P7 that some other sweets were also present in that shop.

14.The learned counsel for accused argued that Public Analyst did not mention in his report that sample is injuries to health. In support of his contention he relied on a decision reported in State of Gujarat V. Mansukhlal Jamnadas Nathwani 2012 (2) ALT (Crl.) 27 (NRC) wherein it was held that:

“Trail Court found that prosecution has failed to follow the mandatory provision of the Act and that sample is injuries to health or not has not been recorded in

C.C.No.378/20127J.F.C.M.Court, Salur the report of Public Analyst and that trial court was justified in acquitting the accused...”

In this case also the Public Analyst opined in his report Ex.P12 that sample contains

Silver foil which is not Silver foil. Therefore it is Unsafe. Hence the above decision squarely applicable to the case on hand.

15.It is the contention of the learned counsel for Accused is that samples were lifted in plastic jars and PW1 admitted that he has not cleaned the jars in the presence of mediators before putting Kova barfi with silver foil into the jars from where the samples were took for sending the same to analyst. In this regard the learned counsel for Accused relied on a decision reported in Food Inspector, Kakinada,

E.G.District rep. By the Public Prosecutor V. Gunturu Venkateswara Rao and

another 2008 (3) ALT (Crl.) 238 (A.P.) wherein the Hon’ble High Court Judicature held that :

“Food Inspector drew samples into empty plastic containers thereby

resorting to deliberate violation of Rule 14 of the Rules,,,” The Rule

mandates that the samples have to be drawn in clean glass containers

(bottles). Admittedly,, in the present case, PW1 the Food Inspector drew

samples into the empty plastic containers and thereby resorted to

deliberate violation of Rule 14.

In the case on hand also, the Food Safety Officer lifted samples into empty plastic jars and he also admitted the same in his cross examination. Hence the above decision is squarely applicable to the case on hand.

16.In this case PW2 who is said to be the mediator, did not support the case of prosecution and he turned hostile. PW1 and PW3 are interested witnesses. Basing on the evidence of interested witnesses it is not safe to convict the accused.

17.It is well settled principle of law that no conviction can be based on mere assumptions and presumptions or on mere surmises or conjectures. Further, there must be concrete legal evidence to convict an accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, in the light of the above discussion, it is

C.C.No.378/20128J.F.C.M.Court, Salur obvious that the prosecution has miserably failed to wholly bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

18.In view of above discussion and facts of the case, the complainant has miserably failed to prove that the sample were lifted in hygienic condition as discussed earlier and considering the provisions, I am of the opinion that the accused is entitled for acquittal.

19.In the result, the Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence 22 (2) (I) 3(zz) r/w section 59(1) of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 and accordingly he is acquitted u/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The accused is directed to execute a self bond for Rs.5000/ (Rupees Five thousand only) as required u/sec.437 A Cr.P.C.

in order to appear before Appellate Court if an appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation corrected, and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28th day of June, 2019.

Sd/ D.Dhanaraju JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMJUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

SALUR.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: None.

PW1: S.V.Veerabhadra Rao, Dist.Food Inspector. PW2: Siripurapu Seetharam, Mediators PW3: R.Eswar Rao, Office subordinate.

Documents marked For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Copy of Gazette notification of G.O.Ms.No.243 HM & FW(L1) Dept., dt.25.08.2011. Ex.P2: Copy of G.O.Ms.No.320, H.M. & FW(L1) Dept. dt.27.10.2011 regarding appointment of Food Safety Designated Officer, Ex.P3: Copy of Gazette notification at GO RT No.549 HM & FW(L1) Dept. dt.4.4.2012, Ex.P4 Cash receipt dt.26.12.2011 for Rs.280/ Ex.P5: Original Form VA notice dt.26.12.2011, Ex.P6: Copy of label on the sample container dt.26.12.2011 Ex.P7: Mediators report dt.26.12.2011, Ex.P8: Copy of Form VI memorandum dt.26.12.2011, Ex.P9: Copy of postal receipt Regd.parcel No.RPA 6345 dt.27.12.2011 in token of dispatch of one part of sample along with Form VI memorandum to the Food Analyst, Hyderabad,

C.C.No.378/20129J.F.C.M.Court, Salur

Ex.P10: Regd. Postal acknowledgment dt.27.12.2011 in token of dispatch of copy of Form VI memorandum separately to the Food Analyst in sealed cover, Ex.P11: Copy of intimation letter to Food Safety Designated officer dt.27.12.2011 and 30.01.2012 along with acknowledgment from FSDO, Ex.P12: Analyst report in Form B bearing No.2/2012 dt.6.1.2012, Ex.P13: Intimation letter to the FBO to make an appeal before Designated Officer dt.13.1.2012, Ex.P14: Postal acknowledgment dt.13.1.2012, Ex.P15: Detailed report vide letter No.002A00105/2011 dt.20.1.2012, Ex.P16: Copy of written consent RC No.1004/F1/2012 dt.30.11.2012 from the Commissioner of Food Safety, Hyderabad.

For Defence: Nil

Sd/ D.Dhanaraju JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMJUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

SALUR.

CC/497/2018 Acquitted

Proh and Excise sub-Inspector,salur vs Mugada Apparao

29 Jun 2019

C.C.No.497/2018J.F.C.M.Court, Salur 1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

SALUR.

Present: Sri D.Dhanaraju, Junior Civil JudgecumJudicial Magistrate of the First Class, Salur.

Saturday, this the 29th day of June, 2019.

C.C.NO.497 OF 2018

Between: State represented by the Proh. & Excise SubInspector, Proh. & Excise Station, Salur. …Complainant And: Mugada Apparao, S/o Venkataswamy, Aged 62 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Kandulapodam village, Salur Mandal …Accused

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 26.06.2019 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Muralidhar Padhi, Advocate for the accused and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Prohibition and Excise SubInspector, Prohibition and Excise

Station, Salur filed charge sheet in Cr.No.44/2017 for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act against accused.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are that on 30.03.2017 at about 7:00 P.M. while the SubInspector of Police, Salur Rural police station and

PW1 and their staff, while conducting raids at outskirts of Kandulapodam village of Salur Mandal, they found the accused in possession of card board boxes and on seeing the party he perturbed and tried to ran away. On suspicion the SubInspector of Police (LW.3) stopped him with the help of his staff and questioned and that the accused revealed the boxes contain liquor bottles. Then the SubInspector of Police verified the said boxes and found the 1st box containing 39 Nip bottles of Officers Choice whisky each 180 ml, 2nd box containing 71 nip bottles of Gold Riband Elite Whisky each 180 ml. Later the

C.C.No.497/2018J.F.C.M.Court, Salur 2 accused disclosed his name and stated that he purchased the same at various wine shopa in Salur Town in different spells and was bringing the same for sale at higher rate in his village to eke out his livelihood. Since the accused failed to produce any valid licence or permit of the bottles, SubInspector of Police seized and sealed the contraband and arrested the accused under the cover of occurrence report and registered the same as a case in Cr.No.21/2017 under

Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and transmitted the case to the Proh.

& Excise Station, Salur and LW4 P.V.S.Ramaraju, Proh. & Excise Sub

Inspector, Salur reregistered the same as a case in Cr.No.44/2017 u/sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and after receipt of Analysis report and after completion of further investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused. Hence the accused is liable for punishment under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 34(a) of the

A.P.Excise Act, 1968 against the accused.

4.After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the accused was examined under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. and he denied the offence. Charge under Section 34(a) of the

A.P.Excise Act, 1968 was framed and read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 and Ex.P.1 is marked.

6.After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution as envisaged under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. None were examined and no documents marked on behalf of the accused.

C.C.No.497/2018J.F.C.M.Court, Salur 3

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

8. Now the points that arise for determination are:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.The case of the prosecution is that on 30.03.2017 Police people were conducting raids at outskirts of Kandulapodam village, found the accused with liquor bottles and they arrested the accused along with the contraband. The counsel for the accused contended that a false case is foisted against the accused for statistical purpose and accused never committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution and that as per the record the scene of offence is a busy locality but the prosecution did not secure any independent mediators which shows that the prosecution case is false. The counsel for accused further argued that there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW1 and no property was produced before the court and no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution and hence the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence.

10.On behalf of the prosecution PW.1 was examined, PW.1 stated in his evidence that they found the accused at Kandulapadam village, who was in possession of card board box and on seeing them, the accused perturbed and on suspicion they stopped him and found liquor bottles in the said box. As the accused failed to produce valid licence they seized liquor bottles from the possession of the accused. During the course of crossexamination PW1 deposed that there is no specification in the report in which shop the accused brought the whisky bottles and that they did not bring any mediators along

C.C.No.497/2018J.F.C.M.Court, Salur 4 with them and no written notices were issued to him. He also further stated that the scene of offence is a busy locality.

11.It is the case of the prosecution that the Investigating Officer sent LW.3

B.Ganesh sent him to secure mediators. But the prosecution did not examine the said B.Ganesh to prove the same. The evidence of PW.1 does not disclose to whom he asked to act as mediators and who refused to act as mediators. Even his evidence does not disclose that Sarpanch and other elders are not in the village. Except a bare statement that as no body came forward the Investigating

Officer arrested the accused, the prosecution did not put forth any material

before the Court to prove the same. The evidence on record shows that the

scene of offence is a busy locality. PW.1 also admitted in his evidence that the scene of offence is a busy locality. The evidence of PW.1 itself shows that the investigation officer failed to secure any independent mediators. When it is the case of the prosecution the offence took place in a busy locality there is every possibility to secure independent mediators but the prosecution failed to secure them.

12.Moreover the prosecution did not choose to produce the contraband

before the Court. Further the charge sheet and occurrence report shows that

they have seized 71 Gold Riband Elite whisky bottles and 39 Officer Choice whisky bottles but the prosecution failed produce the sample bottles before court the reason best known to the prosecution. Furthermore, the prosecution did not choose to get mark the analysis report.

13.In this case according to the prosecution PW.1, S.I of Police Salur rural police station (LW3) went for raid but the prosecution did not choose to examine the said SubInspector of police the reasons best known to the prosecution. There is no corroborative evidence for the evidence of PW.1. Even the evidence of PW.1 is not consistent and corroborated with Ex.P.1 occurrence

C.C.No.497/2018J.F.C.M.Court, Salur 5 report. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 also not reliable. Moreover in this case according to the prosecution LW.3 B.Ganesh is the investigation officer who conducted raid but the prosecution did not choose to examine said Ganesh who is a material witness. Nonexamination of a material witness is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, in view of the uncorroborative testimony of PW.1 and other infirmities of the case of the prosecution, this Court hold that the prosecution, failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

14.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted under

Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. The accused is directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/ (Rupees five thousand only) which shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437A of the

Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court if an appeal is preferred.

The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, Gr.III, corrected, and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 29th day of June, 2019.

Sd/- D.Dhanaraju.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMJUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

SALUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Defence

PW.1: Ch.Appalanarayana, ConstableNone

Documents Marked

For Prosecution For Defence

Ex.P.1: Occurrence report dt.30.03.2017Nil

Material Objects Marked

NIL.

Sd/ .Dhanaraju. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMJUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

SALUR.

OS/37/2017

Arisetty Satyanarayana vs Timmaka sridevi

01 Nov 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SALUR.

Present : Sri D.Dhanaraju, Junior Civil JudgecumJudl.

Magistrate of I Class, Salur.

Friday , this the 2nd day of November, 2018.

O.S.NO.37 OF 2017

Between Arisetty Satyanarayana, S/o late Rama Rao, Aged 43 years, R/o Kottakki Village, Ramabhadrapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

...Plaintiff

And

Timmaka Savitri, W/o late Appa Rao, Aged 50 years, Attender in District Educational Office, Vizianagaram, R/o Near Sunitha Hostel, K.L.Puram, Vizianagaram District. …Defendant

This suit is coming on for final hearing before me on 12.06.2017 in the presence of Sri V.Shanmuka Mutyalu, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri G.Jaya Rao, Sri Ch.D.Prasanna Kumar, Advocates for the defendant and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff on the foot of a promissory note dated 23.10.2014 for Rs.1,00,000/ seeking a decree directing the defendant to pay the suit claim of Rs.1,58,000/ with subsequent interest and costs thereof.

2.The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are that the defendant being in need of money borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ from the plaintiff on 23.10.2014 for the purpose of her family expenses and to discharge other debts and after receipt of cash consideration executed a promissory note of even date at Salur in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to him or to his order. Later, in spite of repeated demands made by him and on his behalf, the defendant while admitting her liability, have been postponing the payment of suit debt to the plaintiff on some pretext or the other.

Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant filed her written statement denying the material averments of the plaint and contended that she never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff on 23.10.2014 and never executed any promissory note on 23.10.2014 at Salur.

She further contended that in the year 2009 she borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/ 2 from the plaintiff on monthly payment basis payable by the defendant Rs.400/ slab rate of interest and principal of Rs.2,000/ in ten monthly installments. At that time the plaintiff obtained blank signed promissory note from the defendant at Vizianagaram. Subsequently the defendant regularly paid slab rate of interest and principal in ten months. After completion of repayment of interest and

principal amount, the defendant demanded the plaintiff to return the promissory

note obtained by the plaintiff from the defendant, the plaintiff promised to return the blank signed unfilled promissory note to the defendant but did not return the same stating that the said promissory note mixed in other promissory notes and promised to return the same after searching. The defendant further contended that on the alleged date of execution of the suit promissory note she was in

Vizianagaram on her duty and hence borrowing amount at Salur is absolutely false and plaintiff invented the same in order to create jurisdiction to this Court.

No transaction was taken place in the presence of scribe and attestors who are the persons under his thumb. Cause of action mentioned in the plaint is not correct, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit and the court fee paid is not correct. The plaintiff came to the court with unclean hands and hence she prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

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

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

2) To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff Pws 1 and 2 are examined and Ex.A1 is marked. Even the defendant filed her chief affidavit she did not turn up for cross examination even though several opportunities were given and hence her chief evidence was eschewed on 26102018 and counsel for defendant represented that no instructions were received from the defendant. Hence the defendant evidence was closed.

6.Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

7.Issue No.1

The case of the plaintiff is that defendant the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,20,000/ from the plaintiff on 23.10.2014 for her family expenses 3 and to discharge her other debts and executed the suit promissory note that on even date in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the plaintiff or his order in the presence of the attestors and scribe at the house of the plaintiff. The plaintiff demanding defendant personally and also through elders for the repayment of debt but defendant postponing the pronote debt.

8.The defendant contended that she never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed the suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff. She further contended that in the year 2009 she borrowed Rs.20,000/ from the plaintiff on monthly payment basis payable by her Rs.400/ slab rate and

principal of Rs,2000/ in ten monthly installments and at that time the plaintiff

obtained blank signed promissory note from her. Later she discharged entire amount of Rs.20,000/ including interest. But the plaintiff did not return the blank signed promissory note even though she demanded the plaintiff to return the said promissory note. Further the defendant contended that on the alleged date of execution of suit promissory note she was in Vizianagaram on her duty.

9.To prove the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 Suit promissory note. In his chief affidavit PW1 reiterated the contents of his plaint contending that the defendant borrowed

Rs.1,00,000/ from his on 23.10.2014 and executed suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same @ 24% per annum in the presence of scribe and attestors. During the course of cross examination PW1 deposed that Ex.A1 was scribed by Jampa Srinivasa Rao and attestors of Ex.A1 are Jampa Srinivasa Rao and Muralikrishna. He denied the suggestion that he lent an amount of

Rs.20,000/ to the defendant and she paid interest for 4 months and later she had discharged the entire amount of Rs.2000/ per month and that the defendant discharged the amount. During the course of cross examination by the learned counsel for defendant, nothing was elicited to disbelieve the evidence of

PW1. In support of the version of PW1, the plaintiff also examined one Jampa

Srinivasa Rao who is scribe and attestor of Ex.A1 as PW2. PW2 deposed that 4 the defendant in need of money approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ on 23.10.2014 and executed suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff at Salur on the even date i.e., 23.10.2014. After receiving consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/ by the defendant from the plaintiff, the defendant signed on the suit promissory note in his presence and other witness and he is the witness and scribe of suit promissory note. During the course of cross examination by the learned counsel for defendant, nothing was elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW2.

10.By examining Pws 1 and 2 and by producing Ex.A1 the plaintiff proved execution of Ex.A1 and the passing of consideration amount. The defendant except filing written statement, did not choose to adduce any sort of evidence. It is settled law that mere filing of written statement is not sufficient and in the absence of evidence no pleadings can be taken into consideration. Though the defendant pleaded in her written statement that she never borrowed any amount, the defendant did not come forward to offer her cross examination, hence an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant.

11.On the other hand, the plaintiff by examining himself, attestor and scribe of Ex.A1 proved the execution and passing of consideration. Therefore, in the light of above discussion, the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim.

12.In the result, this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with costs for a sum of Rs.1,58,000/ with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/ from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 1st day of November, 2018. Sd/ D.Dhanaraju JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGECUM

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SALUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Oral Evidence

For Plaintiff For Defendant

PW.1: Arisetty Satyanarayana.DW1: Timmaka Savitri (Chief PW.2: Jampa Srinivasa Raoaffidavit eschewed)

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff For Defendant

Ex.A.1: Suit promissory note dated 23.10.2014 for Rs.1,00,000/ Nil executed in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant.

Sd/ D.Dhanaraju JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGECUM

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SALUR .

OS/130/2019

Terli Kavitha Rani vs Bugga Suryanarayana

18 Apr 2022

O.S No.130/2019 1 JCJ Court, Salur

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, SALUR.

Present: Sri D.Dhanaraju, Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl.Maistrate of I Class, Salur.

Monday, this the 18th day of April, 2022.

O.S.NO.130 OF 2019

Between:

Smt.Terli Kavitha Rani, W/o Babji Prasad Naidu, aged 40 years, Household duties, R/o H.No.C-215, Janasakthi Colony, Belagam, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District.

...Plaintiff.

And:

1) Bugga Suryanarayana S/o late Chinnayya, Aged 55 years, Cultivation, R/o Kudumuru village, Pachipenta Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

2) Smt.Naidana Bharathi, W/o late Trinadha Rao, aged 55 years, Cultivation, R/o Kudumuru village, Pachipenta Mandal, Vizianagaram District. …Defendant no.1 and 2.

This suit is coming on 08.3.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Rajeswara Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri S.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the defendants and the defendant having been called absent, no representation, written statement not filed and defendant is set exparte and upon having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the defendants 1 and 2 for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of plaint schedule mentioned property restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and en- joyment of the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that the the plaintiff purchased a dry land in an extent of Ac.6-00 cents covered by Survey No.22 of Kudumuru village of

Pachipenta Mandal under Registered sale deed dt.14.02.2007 from Surapaneni

Vedakumari W/o Srinivasa Rao and since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land by raising dry crops thereon. Subsequently during

O.S No.130/2019 2 JCJ Court, Salur

September, 2014 she sold an extent of Ac.2.33 cents out of Ac.6-00 to one

Gunupuru Eswar Rao under a Registered Sale deed dt.27.9.2014 towards northern side and also sold an extent of Ac.2.33 cents to one Mukhi Srinivasa Rao under a registered sale deed dt.27.9.2014 towards southern side and there remains an ex- tent of Ac.1.34 cents which is plaint schedule property to the plaintiff out of said

Ac.6-00 of land towards western side. The 2nd defendant is having her land towards north of the suit land and 1st defendant is her ryot and henchman. The defendants are nothing to do with the suit land and they have no right, title, interest or posses- sion over the same. The plaintiff is non-local person and helpless lady, the defen- dants are trying to occupy the suit land by merging the same in the land of 2nd de- fendant. On 4.8.2018 when the plaintiff and her husband were getting the suit land ploughed through hired labour for planting Neelagiri plantation, the defendants came to the suit land and tried occupy the suit land forcibly by threatening th,e plaintiff with dire consequences, the plaintiff could prevent the same with the help of neighbouring land holder and other labour. The defendants went away by proclaim- ing that they would forcibly trespass into the suit land and occupy the same. Hence the plaintiff filed this suit for injunction.

3. Initially, the defendants made their appearance through their counsel but later they failed to file written statement and they remained exparte .

4. The plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A-1 Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.14.02.2007 executed by Surapaneni Vedhakumari in favour of plaintiff in respect of Ac.6-00 of land in Sy.No.22 of Kudumuru village, Ex.A-2 is the

Original title deed book issued in favour the plaintiff vide Khatha No.110 dt.02.05.2008, Ex.A-3 is the Mee-seva certified copy of IB Namoona for Khatha

No.110 dt.26.06.2019 issued in favour of plaintiff, Ex.A-4 is the Copy of Adangal for

Sy.No.22 of Kudumuru village dt.16.07.2019 and Ex.A-5 is the Certified copy of Reg- istered sale deed dt.18.10.1997.

5. Heard the arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff.

O.S No.130/2019 3 JCJ Court, Salur

6. Now the point for determination is “ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for per- manent injunction over the plaint schedule land restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule land or not ?

7. POINT : The counsel for plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff purchased a dry land in an extent of Ac.6-00 cents covered by Survey No.22 of Kudumuru village of

Pachipenta Mandal under Registered sale deed dt.14.02.2007 from Surapaneni

Vedakumari W/o Srinivasa Rao and since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land by raising dry crops thereon and subsequently during September, 2014 she sold an extent of Ac.2.33 cents out of Ac.6-00 to one

Gunupuru Eswar Rao under a Registered Sale deed dt.27.9.2014 towards northern side and also sold an extent of Ac.2.33 cents to one Mukhi Srinivasa Rao under a registered sale deed dt.27.9.2014 towards southern side and there remains an extent of Ac.1.34 cents which is plaint schedule property to the plaintiff out of said

Ac.6-00 of land towards western side and the 2nd defendant is having her land towards north of the suit land and 1st defendant is her ryot and henchman and the defendants are nothing to do with the suit land and they have no right, title, interest or possession over the same and that as the plaintiff is non-local person and helpless lady, the defendants are trying to occupy the suit land by merging the same in the land of 2nd defendant and on 4.8.2018 when the plaintiff and her husband were getting the suit land ploughed through hired labour for planting

Neelagiri plantation, the defendants came to the suit land and tried occupy the suit land forcibly by threatening the plaintiff with dire consequences, the plaintiff could prevent the same with the help of neighbouring land holder and other labour. The defendants went away by proclaiming that they would forcibly trespass into the suit land and occupy the same.

8. Even though the defendants appeared through their counsel, they failed to file their written statement and they remained set-exparte . Non filing of written

O.S No.130/2019 4 JCJ Court, Salur

statement by the defendants, is nothing but admission of the case of the plaintiff .

Since there is no denial with regard to the case of the plaintiff by the defendants , the case of the plaintiff remained as unchallenged. It is the duty of defendants to attend before this Court and to file written statement by stating either plaintiff has no right over plaint schedule property or they are not interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over plaint schedule property, but the defendants failed to do so. Further, on careful perusal of Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5 it is noticed that Plaint schedule property is in the name of plaintiff and the extent and survey number of plaint schedule property is tallied with the survey number and it is established that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of Plaint schedule property.

Hence, if the defendants are succeeds in their attempt, the plaintiff will be put to hardship and irreparable loss, which can not be compensated in terms of money. In that circumstances, this court has no other alternative except to believe the case of the plaintiff in holding that the defendants are trying to interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over plaint schedule property. Hence, Point is answered in-favour of plaintiff .

9.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants no.1 and 2 and their henchmen from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over plaint schedule mentioned property.

10.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants no.1 and 2 and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over plaint schedule property.

Typed by Stenographer, Gr.II (on deputation) on my dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 18th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- D.Dhanaraju

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

SALUR

O.S No.130/2019 5 JCJ Court, Salur

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff :

P.W.1: T.Kavitha Rani

For Defendants : Nil

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A-1: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.14.02.2007 executed by Surapaneni Vedhakumari in favour of plaintiff in respect of Ac.6-00 of land in Sy.No.22 of Kudumuru village. Ex.A-2: Original title deed book issued in favour the plaintiff vide Khatha No.110 dt.02.05.2008. Ex.A-3: Meeseva certified copy of IB Namoona for Khatha No.110 dt.26.06.2019 issued in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A-4: Copy of Adangal for Sy.No.22 of Kudumuru village dt.16.07.2019. Ex.A-5:Certified copy of Registered sale deed dt.18.10.1997.

For Defendants : Nil

Sd/- D.Dhanaraju

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

SALUR

Order Record 2,433 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/29/2018	Chenna Srinivasarao vs Induri Nagaraju	18 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
OS/95/2019	Chintala Appalaswamy vs Chappa Venkataramana	18 Apr 2022	Order	—
OS/130/2019	Terli Kavitha Rani vs Bugga Suryanarayana	18 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
OS/141/2021	Bandi Venkata Ramana vs Perla Gunnayya	18 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
EP/40/2018	Maturi Nagamani vs Pacheti Venkata Satya Narayana and 3 others	13 Apr 2022	Order	—
OS/35/2018	Jada Chinnayya vs Jada Ramanamma	13 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
OS/61/2014	Nagireddi Someswara Rao vs Bupathi Harsha Vardana Rao and one other	13 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
CC/339/2020	Bonu Simhachalam vs Tankala Appa Rao	13 Apr 2022	Order	—
CC/376/2018	Sub-Inspector ofpolice,salur rural vs Vs	13 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
CC/851/2021	Sub-Inspector of police,Ramabhadrapuram P.S vs Chetla Ramu	13 Apr 2022	Order	—
CC/852/2021	Sub-Inspector of police,Ramabhadrapuram P.S vs Chetala Ramu	13 Apr 2022	Order	—
CC/853/2021	Sub-Inspector of police,Ramabhadrapuram P.S vs Vschetala Ramu	13 Apr 2022	Order	—
CC/236/2021	Sub-Inspector of police,Ramabhadrapuram P.S vs Suvvada Sankara Rao	12 Apr 2022	Order	—
CC/29/2020	THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM vs Seedarapu Haddi	11 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
CC/30/2020	THE divisional forest officer vs Mellika Rupana	11 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
CC/75/2015	S.H.O. Makkuva P.S. vs Landa Gowri Sankar and 2 others	11 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
CC/146/2021	Sub-Inspector ofpolice,salur rural vs Penta Vasu	11 Apr 2022	Order	—
CC/222/2016	MS. Sri Venkateswara Tyres, Salur vs Sunil Mal Pani	11 Apr 2022	Order	—
MC/10/2021	Ommara Adilakshmi vs Ommara Dalinaidu	11 Apr 2022	Order	—
CC/84/2016	S.H.O.,Makkuva P.S. vs Chodavarapu Murali Krishna	08 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
CC/331/2017	Sub-Inspector of police,Pachipenta P.S vs Kondur Srinu	08 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
CC/448/2019	Rapaka Kurma Rao vs Singarapu Appalaswamy	08 Apr 2022	Order	—
DVC/16/2019	Kapavarapu Soumya vs Kapavarapu Teju Babu	08 Apr 2022	Order	—
MC/10/2019	Kapavarapu Soumya vs Kapavarapu Teju Babu	08 Apr 2022	Order	—
OS/22/2020	Kuppili Rambabu vs Mahapatruni seshagiriraju	07 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
OS/41/2018	Thalari Venkata rao@Venkataramana vs Ranadevu Apparao	07 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
OS/113/2019	Palavalasa Rama Rao vs Pedakapur Sujatha	07 Apr 2022	Order	—
OS/128/2021	A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank, Salur Old Branch being represneted by its Branch Manager vs Routhu Gomathi	07 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
CC/130/2018	Sub-Inspector of police,Pachipenta P.S vs Denkada Simhachalam@Ayya	07 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
OS/43/2018	Korukonda Suryanarayana vs Roja Ramani Rowlo	06 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
CC/7/2019	Sub-Inspector of police,Pachipenta P.S vs Morcha Bhaskar Rao	06 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
DVC/10/2020	Patnana Neeraja vs Patnana Ravi Kumar	06 Apr 2022	Order	—
MC/5/2020	Patnana Neeraja vs Patnana Ravi Kumar	06 Apr 2022	Order	—
OS/43/2021	Allu Sivunnaidu vs Jammu Sambayya	04 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
OS/146/2021	Deesari Ramakrishna vs Dummari @ Dumari Chinabanti	04 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
CC/111/2014	Sri Venkateswara Tyres, Salur vs Pandranki Seetha Babu	04 Apr 2022	Order	—
DVC/12/2021	Pedabaliyarsimhuni Santhoshi Kumari vs PBS Ganesh	04 Apr 2022	Order	—
MC/3/2020	Sunkari Usha vs Sunkari Parameswararao	04 Apr 2022	Order	—
MC/6/2020	Golagana Lakshmi vs Golagana Ramu	04 Apr 2022	Order	—
CC/639/2014	S.H.O, Salur Rural P.S vs Donali Appalaswamy	01 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
OS/129/2019	Buddepu Narayana Murthy vs Kota Kandiriyya	31 Mar 2022	Order	—
CC/35/2021	Sub-Inspector of police,salur town. vs Chodavarapu Tilak Gopi Kumar	31 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/33/2018	Baratam Apparao vs Dokkari Gangayya	30 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/86/2021	Yevarna Appa Rao vs Bonu Srinu	30 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/170/2021	Nadella Satyanarayana vs Korajangi Lakshmamma	22 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
CC/370/2019	Marri Jagadeeswara Rao vs Yesarla Ravanamma	22 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/23/2010	Pamidimukkala alias Tummala Indira vs Pamidimukkala Radha krishna and 1 other	21 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/53/2020	Shirdi Sai Krishna Finance, Salur vs Padisetty Kondala Rao	21 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
CC/53/2021	Akyana Madhu vs Bonumahanti Srinivasa Rao	21 Mar 2022	Order	—
DVC/4/2020	Bonu Roopavathi vs Bonu Thavitandora	21 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/7/2022	Terlapu Venkata Ramana vs Yedla Maheswara Rao	16 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/8/2022	Vaddadi Prakasa Rao vs Badangi Suseela	16 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/16/2021	Gopalasetti Suryanarayana Patrudu vs Kodi Appalanarayana	15 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/23/2018	Shiridi Sai Krishna Finance rep by Kethireddi Satyanarayana vs Samanthula Simhachalam	15 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/29/2020	Yasarla Bhaskara Rao vs Sunkari Parameswara Rao	15 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/57/2020	Suthapalli China Rao vs Munakala Paidaraju	15 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/93/2017	Induru Srinivasa Rao vs Bankuru Poli Naidu	15 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/116/2020	Gandreti Gurumurthynaidu vs Velega Tirapareddy	15 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/177/2019	Pedapati Satya Chandra Mouli vs Jammu Gowri Raju	15 Mar 2022	Order	—
CC/231/2018	Kannuri Rajendra Prasad vs Valluri Surya Venkata Krishna Rao	15 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/12/2019	Ayakula Radhagapani vs HANUMANSETTI RAMAKRISHNA RAO	14 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/15/2021	Vengali Prakasha Rao vs Patri Rajeswari	14 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/77/2018	Thaduturi Bhaskara Rao vs Saragadam Ramakrishna	14 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/80/2020	Kandi parvathamma vs Yekkudu Mahesh	14 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/120/2021	Vanka Poliraju vs Ramajanni Apparao	14 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/140/2021	Basina Rajeswara Rao vs Thotapalli Syamala Rao	14 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/162/2021	Potnuru Venkataratnam vs Mudadla Ramakrishna	14 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/171/2021	Pachipenta Somayya vs Karanam Satya Narayana @ Chanti	14 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
CC/268/2014	S.H.O, Salur Rural P.S vs Kesumantha Mohana Rao	14 Mar 2022	Order	—
EP/5/2019	Gorle Ganapathi Rao vs Penumarthi srinivasa Murthy	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/12/2020	Nallanti Sanyasi rao vs Madeti Ramesh	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/18/2019	Patnana Lashmi vs Kaduri Ramakrishna	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/21/2018	Nallamilli Venkata Rama Reddy vs Kandula Sundara Rao	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/27/2020	Murapaka Thrinadha vs Lenkana Paramma	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/53/2019	Tentu Krishna Murthy Naidu vs Gandam Sankara Rao	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/54/2018	Borriadora Gowri vs Vurlaka Pentaayya and 5 others	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/56/2018	Konki Appalakonda vs Sarlingi Chinnarao	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/65/2019	Chodavarapu Govinda vs Chodavarapu Thirupathi rao	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/69/2021	Erstwhile Andhra Bank, Salur Branch, now merged in Union Bank of India, Salur Branch vs Majji Satyavathi	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/70/2019	Naidana Bharathi vs Naidana Madhavarao	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/78/2020	Bandi Venkata Ramana vs Kotyada Ramanamma	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/116/2021	Borra Ramarao vs Sankili Samuel	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/128/2020	Kilari Bhavani Sankar Rao vs Kialri Varalakshmi	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/141/2019	Induri Nagamani vs Nydana Sanyasi	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/145/2021	Karasu Suresh Kumar vs Minchula Narayana Swami	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/172/2021	Botcha Eswara Rao vs Kota Kama Raju	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/178/2019	Telluri Meribharathi kumari vs Pedireddy Venkata Naidu,	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
CC/4/2020	Proh and Excise sub-Inspector,salur vs Kttakki Pavitru	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
CC/4/2021	Sub-Inspector of police,salur town. vs Musidipalli Krishna	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
CC/7/2020	Proh and Excise sub-Inspector,salur vs Mendangi Sukha	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
CC/8/2017	S.H.O., Prohibition and Excise Station.Salur vs Chodipalli Dumbri and another	12 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
CC/8/2020	Proh and Excise sub-Inspector,salur vs Napiri Thirupathi	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
CC/9/2021	Sub-INspector of police ,Makkuva P.S vs Gadasana Krishna	12 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
CC/11/2018	Velagada Ganagamma vs Gandipalli Ramu	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
CC/12/2022	Sub-INspector of police ,Makkuva P.S vs Gollapalli Suryanarayana	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
CC/14/2020	Sub-Inspector of police,salur town. vs Bipul Haldar	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
CC/21/2022	Enforcement Sub-Inspector, Salur vs Reyi Venkateswaramma	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
CC/22/2022	Enforcement Sub Inspector, Salur vs Kommanapalli Venkata Rao	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
CC/24/2020	Sub-Inspector ofpolice,salur rural vs Chintada Naveen	12 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
CC/26/2022	Enforcement Sub Inspector vs Kona Jogulu	12 Mar 2022	Order	—

Showing 100 of 2,433 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2022		52
Mar 2022		345
Feb 2022		16
Jan 2022		32
Dec 2021		118
Nov 2021		45
Oct 2021		30
Sep 2021		319
Aug 2021		2
Jul 2021		311
May 2021		1
Apr 2021		14

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri D.Dhanaraju handled?

Sri D.Dhanaraju has handled 2481 court orders since 2018 at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Salur (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 59 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri D.Dhanaraju hear?

Based on available records, Sri D.Dhanaraju primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Salur (Taluka).

Where is Sri D.Dhanaraju currently posted?

Sri D.Dhanaraju is posted as Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Salur (Taluka), Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri D.Dhanaraju available online?

Yes. 14 judgments by Sri D.Dhanaraju are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri D.Dhanaraju dispose cases?

Sri D.Dhanaraju disposes approximately 59 cases per month, based on 2481 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Salur (Taluka).

Since when is Sri D.Dhanaraju serving?

Sri D.Dhanaraju has been serving at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Salur (Taluka) since 2018.

Case Types

CC 81%

OS 10%

EP 4%

MC 2%

DVC 2%

PRC 1%

STC 0%

ELECOP 0%

Posting History

Jan 2020 — Apr 2022

Civil Judge (Junior Division) · 2,145 orders
Mar 2019 — Jun 2019

Civil Judge (Junior Division) · 332 orders
Oct 2018 — Nov 2018

Civil Judge (Junior Division) · 4 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Sri G.Harsha Vardhan

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

1,537 orders

← View all judges at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Salur (Taluka)

Sri D.Dhanaraju

C.C.NO.252 OF 2013

J U D G M E N T

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Defence

Documents Marked

For Prosecution For Defence

Material Objects Marked

THE FIRST CLASS, SALUR.

C.C.NO.378 OF 2012

J U D G M E N T

E.G.District rep. By the Public Prosecutor V. Gunturu Venkateswara Rao and

“Food Inspector drew samples into empty plastic containers thereby

resorting to deliberate violation of Rule 14 of the Rules,,,” The Rule

mandates that the samples have to be drawn in clean glass containers

(bottles). Admittedly,, in the present case, PW­1 the Food Inspector drew

samples into the empty plastic containers and thereby resorted to

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

SALUR.

C.C.NO.497 OF 2018

J U D G M E N T

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

Documents Marked

Material Objects Marked

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SALUR.

J U D G M E N T

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

Appendix of Evidence

Oral Evidence

For Plaintiff For Defendant

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff For Defendant

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SALUR .

JUDGMENT

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDL.

(bottles). Admittedly,, in the present case, PW1 the Food Inspector drew