Smt. D.geetha Rani

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE:: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present:- Smt. D.Geetha Rani M.A.LL.M., VII Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate,

Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2019

C.C.No. 2277/2019 Between:

State: The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Rajamahendravaram (South) …Complainant

And

Relangi Satyanarayana @ Annavaram, S/o Venkatarao, Age: 37 years, cAste: Gowda, R/o. Gowthami Nagar D Block,

Rajamahendravaram Rural ...Accused

-o0o-

This case coming on 18.10.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.Ch.Padmavathi, Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri. P.P.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate for the accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The sole accused is facing trial of offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amended) Act., 1997 in Crime No.270/2017 on the file of Prohibition and Excise

Station, Rajamahendravaram (South).

2.It is alleged that on 13.06.2017 at about 07.30 AM upon receipt of reliable information about Prohibition and Excise offences

Sri Md.Abdul Rehman(LW1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,

ESTF, Rajamahendravaram. He along with his staff while conducting patrolling for detection of Prohibition and excise offences and when he reached near margin of Church situated at Gowthami Nagar D

Block of Hukkumpeta, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal found the

Accused in possession of 10 liters of I.D. liquor packed in a 2 polythene cover and kept in a mica hand bag. On enquiry the accused furnished her particulars and stated that she purchased the

I.D. Liquor from an unknown person at village outskirts with an intention to sell the same for higher price. Then Sri Md. Abdul

Rehman (L.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ESTF,

Rajamahendravaram apprehended the accused duly effecting seizure of ten liters of Illicitly Distilled Liquor, drawn two sample bottles containing 300 ml. of Illicitly Distilled Liquor from the said contraband under cover of special report scribed to that effect duly attested by her. Thereafter, the accused along with seized contraband was brought to Prohibition and Excise Station,

Rajamahendravaram (South) for taking necessary action. In turn, PW1 registered the said special report as Crime No.270/2017 duly invoking provisions under section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition (Amended) Act-1997. Thereafter, the accused was produced before the Court seeking judicial remand.

3.During the course of investigation, Sri Md.Abdul Rehman (L.W.1),ProhibitionandExciseSub-Inspector,

Rajamahendravaram(South) forwarded sample Illicitly Distilled Liquor bottle for Chemical analysis, in turn the chemical examiner, Kakinada issued a report dated 28.06.2017 opining the sample as illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

The remaining seized contraband was destroyed on 18.08.2017 as per the orders of Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise,

Kakinada. After completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against accused liable for punishment of the alleged offence.

4.Upon careful perusal of charge sheet and other relevant material placed on record, cognizance of offence punishable under 3 section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amended) Act.

1997 was taken against the accused and ordered summons as he was enlarged on bail on his apprehension before the court under section 167(2) Criminal Procedure Code.

5.On receipt of summons, the accused made his appearance and copies of documents furnished as stipulated under section 207 of

Criminal Procedure Code. The accused was examined under section 239 Criminal Procedure Code about allegations leveled against him in above crime and a charge under section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act-1997 was framed, read over and explained to him in vernacular language to which, he pleaded not guilty for the above said charge, duly claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the prosecution relied upon testimonies of P.W1 supported by marking documents under Ex.P1 to P4 so also produced the sample Illicitly Distilled liquor bottles as M.O.1. Upon closure of prosecution’s side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code about the incriminating evidence appearing against him from prosecution’s side witnesses, and he denied the same. The accused did not choose to examine any defence witness nor marked documents on his behalf.

7.Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and Sri Smt.Padmavathi the learned counsel

for accused respectively.

8. The point for consideration:-

Whether the prosecution succeeded in proving its contention leveled against the accused under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition(Amendment) Act, 1997 beyond all reasonable doubt that she was guilty of possessing Illicitly Distilled Liquor?

9. To prove its case, prosecution relied upon testimonies of Sri Md

Abdul Rehman (P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ESTF

Rajamahedravaram and R. Kranthi Kiran (P.W.2), Prohibition and

Excise Sub-Inspector, Rajamahendravaram(South) who happened to be excise officials. The initial contention of Sri Md. Abdul Rehman 4 (P.W.1)ProhibitionandExciseSub-Inspector,ESTF

Rajamahendravaram as placed on record, discloses that on 13.06.2017 at about 07.30 AM on receipt of credible information, he along with his staff member B.V.Gangadhara Rao(LW2), Prohibition and Excise Head Constable, while conducting patrolling for detection of Prohibition and excise offences and when reached beside near at the road margin opposite to road margin of Church situated at

Gowthami Nagar d Block of Hukkumpeta, Rajamahendravaram Rural

Mandal found accused with a mica hand bag, he found polythene cover of five liters of Illicitly Distilled Liquor and Ex.P1 Special Report was scribed duly effecting arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from your possession. Further deposed that she also lifted one sample of 300 mI. of Illicitly Distilled Liquor from the said contraband and marked as M.O.1 for chemical analysis. He brought the accused along with seized contraband to Prohibition Excise

Station, Rajamahendravaram for taking necessary action.

10.R.Kranthi Kumar (P.W.2), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,

Rajamahendravaram (South) on 23.10.2018 at about 09.30 AM while he was acting as Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise

Station, PW.1 brought the accused with seized contraband of ten liters of Illicitly Distilled Liquor in a mica hand bag under special report marked as ExP1 and the same was registered by her as in

Crime No. 270/2017 under section 7(A) r/w.8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition (Amended) Act., 1997, under Ex.P2 (F.I.R.) and produced accused before the Court seeking judicial remand. He forwarded the seized samples to Government Chemical Examiner, Prohibition and

Excise Laboratory, Kakinada under a letter of advice, i.e., Ex.P3 received, Ex.P4 report, dt.28.06.2017. The remaining seizure of 5 contraband was destroyed on 18.08.2017 as per destruction proceedings marked as Ex.P5.

11.As seen from contentions of Pws 1 and 2 viz., Sri Md. Abdul

Rehman (P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ESTF,

Rajamahednravaram and R. Kranthi Kumar (P.W.2), Prohibition and

Excise Sub-Inspector, Rajamahendravaram, initially Sri Md. Abdul

Rehman (P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ENFT,

Rajamahendravaram had effected apprehension of accused and seizure of contraband. Even according to Sri Md. Abdul Rehman (P.W.1),ProhibitionandExciseSub-Inspector,ESTF,

Rajamahendravaram the place of apprehension of accused is busy and residential locality and he did not secure independent witnesses at the place of apprehension. On the above fact, Sri Md. Abdul

Rehman (P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ESTF

Rajamahendravaram offered an explanation that his efforts to procure any independent witnesses did not yield any result. The said contention of Sri Md. Abdul Rehman(P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise

Sub-Inspector, ESTF, Rajamahendravaram seems to be unbelievable as by the time of apprehension of accused, it is not improbable that neighboring witnesses would not be available at the place of apprehension. On going through recitals of said report marked as

Ex.P1 it is clear that the mode of reaching place of apprehension of accused was not described. Alternatively, Sri Md. Abdul

Rehman(P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ESTF,

Rajamahendravaram also failed to make any whisper in his testimony that soon after completing proceedings under Ex.P1, contents of special report were explained to the accused and obtained her signature as acknowledgment. Except placing the solitary testimony of Sri Md. Abdul Rehman(P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub- 6

Inspector, ESTF Rajamahendravaram prosecution did not try to examine other witness said to have participated in the alleged raid.

12.The remaining testimony of R. Kranthi Kumar (P.W.2),

Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Rajamahendravaram which confines to the extent of setting the law into motion and forwarding the sample for chemical analysis even if accepted to that extent would not be sufficient enough to arrive at safe conclusion. The effort made by prosecution duly producing sample liquor bottles as

M.O.1 while examining Sri Md. Abdul Rehman(P.W.1), Prohibition and

Excise Sub-Inspector, ESTF, Rajamahedravaram is the only piece of evidence available on record as contended by him to find the accused to be guilty of possession of Illicitly Distilled Liquor. Further non compliance of Sub Section(4) of Section 100 Criminal Procedure

Code by Sri Md. Abdul Rehman(P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-

Inspector, ESTF, Rajamahendravaram at the time of apprehension of accused and non examination of other witness said to have participated in the raid would lead to a finding that the accusation leveled against accused in above crime stands not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, this court holds that case of prosecution fails for above said reason and accused is entitled for acquittal.

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence charged under section 7(A) r/ w 8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amended) Act., 1997 and he is acquitted under section 248 (1)

Criminal Procedure Code in Crime No.270/2017 of Prohibition and

Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram(south). The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time. The case property I.e, M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to Dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open court, this the 23rd day of October, 2019. VII A.J.F.C.Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

7

Appendix of Evidence. Prosecution: Witnesses Examined Defence P.W.1: Md.Abdul Rehman – None –

P.W.2: R.Kranthi Kiran

Exhibits marked Ex.P1: Special report. Ex.P2: First Information Report Ex.P3: Letter of Advice Ex.P4:Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P4: Destruction Proceedings

Material objects marked. M.O.1 : Unexpended portion of Sample bottle

VIIA.J.F.C.Magistrate,

Rajamahendravaram.

8

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.2277 /2019 Crime No.270/2017 of Prohibition & Excise Police Station Rajamahendravaram

1. Date of Offence13.06.2017

2. Date of Complaint13.06.2017 3.Apprehension of Accused13.06.2017 4.Released on Bail15.06.2017 5.Commencement of Trial16.10.2019

6. Close of Trial16.10.2019

7. Date of order23.10.2019

8. Complainant State:- Rep. by probation & Excise Sub-Inspector, Rajamahendravaram (South)

9. AccusedRelangi Satyanarayana @ Annavaram, S/o Venkatarao, Age: 37 years, cAste: Gowda, R/o. Gowthami Nagar D Block, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal.

10. Offence Under Section7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amended)Act, 1997.

11. FindingNot Guilty

12. Order/Sentence: In the result, Accused is found not guilty of the offence charged under section 7(A) r/ w 8 (e) of A.P.P. Act and he is accordingly acquitted of the said charge under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands canceled after expiry of appeal time. M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

13. Remarks Delay due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

VII Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I class, Rajamahendravaram.

9

Copy to Submitted to the Hon’ble. Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl.Senior Civil Judge, E.G. Dist. Rajamahendravaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS;

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: Smt. D.Geetha Rani M.A.,LLM.,

VII Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class

Dated this the 31st day of October, 2019

C.C.No.1325/2019

Between:

State – Station House Office, Dowlasiwaram Police Station,

Rajamahendravaram Uraban. ..Complainant

AND

Beera Ramesh, S/o Gagaraju (late), Age 32 years, Caste SC Mala, D.No.2-191, Kothapeta,

2nd Ward, Dowlaiswaram Village. ...Accused

This case has come before me for final hearing on 29.10.2019 in the presence of Smt Ch.Padmavathi Assistant Public Prosecutor, counsel for prosecution and the Accused is in Sub Jail, Rajamahendravaram and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has made the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dowlaiswaram Police Station laid charge sheet for the offence under Section 498-A IPC in Cr.No.206/2018 with a prayer to punish the above accused for the alleged offence.

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

The case of the prosecution is that LW6 Beera Jyothi and Accused loved and got married with blessings of their parents and eldes abot 8 years back. They are having two children. The accused SC Mala by caste. Sicne one year the accused suspected the character of LW B.Jyothi, beat her abused her, harassed with physically and mentally and he didnto do any work. In this connectin LW1 and herparents were tried to settle the issue. Hence, LW6 Beera Jyothi gave a report to Dowlaiswaram

Police Station they sent to both are family counselling but the alelged accused did nto change his attitude. On 13.12.2018 at about 9-00 pm the neigbour of LW6 Beera

Jyothi called to the LW1 by phone and informed that LW6 Beera Jyothi hanged to fan with help of saree, immeditley the LW1 and his family memebrs rushed to scene of 2 offence, they learnt to know the LW6 Beera Jyothi shifted to Government Hospital,

Rajahmundry they are went to Hospital and noticed that LW6 Beera Jyothi under going treatment in ICU and unable to speak.

Basing on the MLC intimation along with the statement of LW1 the LW9 -B.Ravi

Teja, SI of Police registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 206/2018 on 14.12.2018 at 11.30 am and investigated into the same.

During the course of investigation LW9 visited the scene of offence , there he examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements.

On 29-12-2018 a notice U/sec 41-A Cr.P.c was served against the accused and accused comply the instruction of 41-A Cr.P.C. Consequently the accused complied the instructions of 41-A Cr.P.C and after completion of all directions of Hon’ble Apex

Court, the accused was arrested and released on bail by obtaining the sufficient sureties.

LW9 Dr.B.Baby, C.A.S, District Hospital, Rajamahendravaram who treated LW6 issued Wound certificate with his opinion that the injuries are simple in nature.

Hence, the charge.

4.Considering the charge sheet and material on record, this Court took the case on file for the offence punishable U/S. 498-A IPC against Accused and issued process in reply to the process agreed entire their appearance and he provided with the copies of documents on which the prosecution is relaying to prove the protested guilty.

5.Accused was examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C, substitution of acquisition punishable U/S. 498-A IPC against the Accused was read over and examined in

Telugu, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be trail.

6.In pursuance of the prosecution case, prosecution examined two witnesses as

PW.1 and PW2 marked Exs. P1 and P2. Ex.P.1 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 and Ex.P.2 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence examination U/S. 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed, as there is no incriminating material against the accused person. The 3 defence not chosen to adduce any evidence on their behalf heard reported arguments on merits. Now the point that arises for determination is :-

“Whether the evidence and the record is sufficient to record a confession

for the offence punishable U/S. 498-A of IPC against the accused?”

8.Evidence of point:-

As stated point the prosecution examined Pws 1 and 2 Exhibit P.1 & 2 documents. PW1 is brother of de-facto complainant and PW2 is defacto complainant.

9.Point:

Coming to the evidence of Pw1 who is the brother of de-facto complainant has deposed that Accused is his brother-in-law and husband of LW6. In the year 2010

LW6 marriage was performed with the accused at Dowlaiswaram and due to wedlock they blessed with two children. For about 7 years they lead happy marital life and subsequently small disputes arose between them and LW6 was hospitalized. As per t

W2 Rajesh is her husband. LW3 Y.Uday Bhaskar is her house owner. She know LW4

G.Manga Devi, LW5 A.Ramana. LW6 N.Seetha( Woman Head Constable) recorded her statement at Police Station . She do not know the accused. She is residing in front of

Santharam Hospital, Neeladrinagar,.Dowlaiswaram. She is living in a Asbestos tin shed. The distance between her house and main road is about 6 feet and the house belongs to LW3-Y.Udaya Bhaskar. Some unknown persons are throwing garbage in the vacant site. About four years back, at about 5-00 PM, he asked some unknown persons why they are throwing garbage int he vacant site. In that galata those unknown persons pushed her aside on keeping their hands on her chest. But she do not know the names of the said persons. Later, he informed the matter to her husband and they both went to police station and lodged complaint. But he d not know its contents. She identified her signature. Ex.P.1 is her signature. Police not examined her and recorded her statement. Prosecution is permitted to cross examination PW.1 as she devoted from her earlier statement and not supported the case of the prosecution. Nothing could elicit from the cross examination of PW.1 to suggest that she speaks falsehood. However, PW.1 made an admission in her cross examination that she comprised the case with the accused.

4

11.As seen from the evidence of PW.1 have pleaded, ignorance of the contents of complaint as well as statements recorded by the police and not supported the prosecution case. Though the prosecution exhibited this statements of PW1 recorded by the police, it has its own the limitation as the said statements were recorded U/S.161 of Cr.P.C. It is well settled law that the contents of statement U/S.

161 of Cr.P.C. can be used for contradicting a witness by the defence, but the contents of said statements cannot be relied upon by the prosecution. Thus, exhibits P1 and

P2 are no way to helpful to the prosecution case.

12.The admission made by PW 1 in her cross examination that they promised with the accused is significant and thus declaration that the PW1 is not interested in continuation of the case. The evidence of LWs 2 to 7 viz., Ch.Rajesh, Y.Udaya Bhaskar,

G.Manga Devi, A.Ramana, N.Seetha and B.Narasimha Murthy were given up by the

Learned A.P.P, as the material witness turned hostile by entering into compromise with the accused and under parties will be served if they are examined.

13.Therefore, if there is no congaed and liable evidence to implicate the complicity of the accused in the commission of the offence. It is well known that panal status should be strictly consorted and prosecution not to prove the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt it is lacking in the present case of in the material produced or prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the guilty of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt therefore it is a point is decided infavour of the defence.

14.In the result, accused A1 & A3 are found not guilty for the offence under section U/S. 354, 447, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and their sureties shall stand canceled after expiry of 6 months. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my diction by the Stenographer, Typist corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 13th day of August, 2019.

5

VIIA.J.F.C.Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

Appendix of Evidence. Witnesses Examined Prosecution:Defence P.W.1:Chevviti Mani -None- P.W2: P.Venkata Rao

Exhibits marked Prosecution:Defence: -NIL

Ex:P1: Signature of report Ex:P2: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement.

VIIA.J.F.C.Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.230/2016

Crime No.4/2015 of Dowlaiswaram Police Station

1. Date of Offence 02.08.2015 6

2. Date of Complaint 02.08.2015

3. Apprehension of Accused 05.08.2015

4. Released on Bail --

5. Commencement of Trial 05.08.2019

6. Close of Trial05.08.2019

7. Date of order 13.08.2019

8. Complainant State:- Rep.by its Inspector of Police, Dowlaiswaram Police Station

9. Accused 1. Pasupuleti Lakshmi Prasad@ Mohan Babu, @pedda Babu, S/o Hari, A/52 yrs, C/ kapu, D.No.4-438,Neeladri Nagar, Dowlaiswaram.

2. Borra Raju S/o Venkata Ramana, A/20 yrs, C/Mala,D.No.10-09, Cottonpeta, Dowlaiswaram.

3. Regulla Rajendra Prasad @ Raju,

S/o Surya Rao, A/34 yrs, C/ mala,

D.No.10-36/1, cottonpeta, Dowlaiswaram. .

10. Offence U/sec 354, 447 and 506 r/w 34 IPC

11. Finding Not Guilty

12. Order/Sentence: In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence charged under section U/sec 354, 447 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are accordingly acquitted the said charge under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

13. Remarks No delay

VII A.J.F.C.Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble. Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl.Senior Civil Judge, E.G. Dist. Rajamahendravaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present Smt.D.GEETHA RANI

Prl.Junior Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

Tuesday, the 12th day of July, 2022.

O.S.No.127/2022

Between:

State Bank of India, R.A.S.M.E.C.C.& S.A.R.C., Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry, Rep.by its Authorized Manager, S.A.R.C wing Mr. Paleti Bhaskara Rao, S/o Apparao, aged 56 years, R/o Rajahmundry. … Plaintif

And

Viyyuri Kiranmai, W/o Vijaya Kumar, Hindu, aged 37 years, Business, D.No.7- 150, Kiran sonic, Gokavaram, Road, Jaggampeta, E.G.District.

...Defendant

This suit having come on 8-7-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Gopal Krishna, Advocate for the plaintiff, defendant remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:- : J U D G M E N T :

1.The Plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,02,055/- due by the defendant as on 27-10-2021 for subsequent interest and for the costs of the suit.

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

The plaintiff is State Bank of India, a Public Corporation constituted under the State Bank of India Act XXIII of 1995 having one of its local head office at Hyderabad conducting banking business having branches at various places The bank established Retail Assets and Small and Medium

Enterprises City Credit Center and Stressed Assets Resolution Centers, in short “Cell” at various places for processing the loan proposals of its 2 borrowers received from various branches and also for pursuing the recovery process from time to time. Accordingly the bank established one such cell at Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry. including S.A.R.C., Danavaipeta,

Rajahmundry being rep. By its manager.

ii) At the request and application Dt 15-10-2018 of defendant for purchasing Honda, Jazz, 2018 on 16-10-2018 the plaintiff bank,

Kotagummam Branch, Rajahmundry sanctioned and disbursed term loan of

Rs.8,30,000/- to the defendant for the said purpose. The defendant is agreed to repay the same with interest that would be fixed by the bank from time to time with monthly rests in equated monthly installments. The defendant executed arrangement letter and loan cum hypothecation agreement for Rs.8,30,000/- in favour of plaintiff bank by adhering to the terms and conditions set forth therein agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 9.70% p.a. with monthly rests and such other rate of interest that would be fixed by the bank, in equated monthly installments of Rs.13,651/- commencing from 16-11-2018 in 96 months hypothecating the vehicle that would be purchased by him with the plaintiff bank. In pursuant to that the plaintiff bank disbursed the loan under A/C No.38017240716. The defendant availed the said loan on 16-10-2018 and he executed a vehicle delivery letter in favour of plaintiff.

Iii) after availing the said loan, the defendant not paid the loan installments and committed default and violated the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The loan account has become non performing asset. Still the defendant is liable to pay the loan amount. On 23-8-2021 the plaintiff bank got issued legal notice to the defendant calling upon to repay the balance amount. The defendant received the same but did not comply the demands of plaintiff bank. Hence, the suit.

3 3Summons served to the defendant personally. The defendant did not appear before this Court. As such, the defendant set exparte on 20-06- 2022.

4.To prove the case of plaintiff, the Manager of plaintiff bank examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7.

5.Heard for plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration:

“Whether the plaintif is entitled to recovery the suit

amount from the defendant as prayed for?”

POINT:

To substantiate the case of plaintiff, the Manager of plaintiff bank himself examined as P.W.1 by filing examination in chief as affidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint. Through him Exs.A1 to A7 were marked.

As the defendant was set exparte, the evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged. As seen from the entire material on record, it clearly appears that the plaintiff exhibited Exs.A1 to A7 documents. Out of them Ex.A1 is

Original Car loan Application submitted by the defendant to the plaintiff bank Dt. 15-10-2018, Ex.A2 is Original arrangement letter executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff bank Dt. 16-10-2018, Ex.A3 Original loan cum hypothecation agreement Dt. 16-10-2018, Ex.A.4 is Original vehicle delivery letter Dt. 16-10-2018, Ex.A5 is original legal notice got issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendant Dt.23-08-2021, Ex.A.6 is Original acknowledgement card from the defendant dt 26-08-2021 and Ex.A.7 is Original statement of account of defendant loan transaction vide loan A/c no. 38017240716 dt. 12- 10-2021. On perusal of the said documents, it appears that the defendant availed Car loan from the plaintiff on 15-10-2018 agreeing to repay the same with terms and conditions imposed by the plaintiff bank and executed relevant documents in favour of plaintiff.

4 7 On repeated demands by the plaintiff bank, the defendant did not repay the debt amount, to prove the same, the plaintiff exhibited Exs A1 to A7.

On considering the unchallenged evidence of the plaintiff clinchingly established that defendant failed to repay the loan amount to the plaintiff as such, defendant have received by agreeing to repay the same with interest. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of plaintiff against the defendant.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.7,02,055/-(Rupees seven lakhs two thousand and fifty five only) with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization.

Typed to my Dictation by the stenographer G-III corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 12th day of July, 2022.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First class, Rajamahendravaram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness Examined

For plaintif: For defendant: None

P.W.1 Paleti Bhaskara Rao

Documents marked

For plaintif:

Ex.A1: is Original Car loan Application submitted by the defendant to the plaintiff bank Dt. 15-10-2018,

Ex.A2: is Original arrangement letter executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff bank Dt. 16-10-2018,

Ex.A3: Original loan cum hypothecation agreement Dt. 16-10-2018,

Ex.A4: is Original vehicle delivery letter Dt. 16-10-2018,

Ex.A5: is original legal notice got issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendant Dt.23-08-2021,

Ex.A6:is Original acknowledgement card from the defendant dt 26-08-2021 . Ex.A7: is Original statement of account of defendant loan transaction vide loan A/c no. 38017240716 dt. 12-10-2021.

For defendant: Nil

PJCJ cum JFCM 5

Date of presentation:29-10-2021

Date of filing: 08–02-2022

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present Smt.D.GEETHA RANI

Prl.Junior Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

Tuesday, the 12th day of July, 2022.

O.S.No.127/2022

Between:

State Bank of India, R.A.S.M.E.C.C.& S.A.R.C., Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry, Rep.by its Authorized Manager, S.A.R.C wing Mr. Paleti Bhaskara Rao, S/o Apparao, aged 56 years, R/o Rajahmundry. … Plaintif

And

Viyyuri Kiranmai, W/o Vijaya Kumar, Hindu, aged 37 years, Business, D.No.7- 150, Kiran sonic, Gokavaram, Road, Jaggampeta, E.G.District.

...Defendant

The Plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,02,055/- due by the defendant as on 27-10-2021 for subsequent interest and for the costs of the suit.

Cause of action for the suit arose when the defendant executed loan application in favoaur of plaintiff bank on 16-10-2018 and when the car loan sanctioned by the plaintiff bank on the same day and defendant executed arrangement letter and loan cum hypothecation agreement for Rs.8,30,000/- and the defendant committed default in payment of monthly installments and the plaintiff bank got issued legal notice on 23-08-2021 calling upon to repay the loan amount , the defendant received the same and did not comply with the demand of plaintiff bank and at suit transaction took place and where the plaintiff bank is situated within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble court.

Value of the suit:

Principal amount due as on 27-10-2021 is Rs.7,02,055/-

6

On which a court fee of Rs.9526/- is paid under Sec.20, Sch.I, Art.1(c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

This suit having come on 8-7-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Gopal Krishna, Advocate for the plaintiff, defendant remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, DOTH ORDER AND:-

DECREE

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff an amount of Rs.7,02,055/- (Rupees seven lakhs two thousand fifty five only) with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization;

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.21,008/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and seal of the court this the 12th day of July, 2022.

Prl.Jr.Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajamahendravaram.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For defendant

Vakalath Rs. 2-00 Plaint fee Rs. 95266-00 Process fee Rs. 80-00 Advocate fee Rs. 11,300-00 No cost memo filed Typ. Charges Rs. 100-00 ------------------- Costs taxed: Rs.21,00800 ---------------------

Prl.Jr.Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajamahendravaram.

7

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ANAPARTHY.

Present:-SMT.D.GEETHA RANI, VII Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram. (FAC) Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthi. Thursday, the 17th day of October, 2019

O.S.No.177/2019

Between:

Mallidi Surredy, S/o Sathi Reddy, Age:44 years, Business and Cultivation, R/o No. 5-21, Durga Colony, Rayavaram Village, Rayavaram Mandal. … Plaintif

AND

Smt. Sarapu Ammaji, W/o Turasa Challanna Dora, Age: 51 years, R/o D.No. 11-58-267, Ambedkar Nagar, Konthamuru, Rajamahendravaram Mandal. … Defendant.

The suit coming on this day i.e., 26.09.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.V.Rama Krishna, Advocate for plaintif and defendant remained exparte 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 Plaintif filed this suit based on promissory note dated 27.05.2016 for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,11,000/- from the defendant with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and for the costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- The Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintif on 27.05.2016 for her family expenses and to discharge sundry debts and on the same day the defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of the Plaintif interalia agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. either to the plaintif or his order. On repeated demands made by plaintif, the defendant did not repay the suit amount. The plaintif got issued registered legal notice to the defendant and the same was received by the defendant. After receipt of the legal notice, the defendant did not repay the amount. Hence, this suit.

3.The defendant received summons personally, the defendant did not file her written statement. As such, she was set exparte.

4.To prove the case of plaintif, he himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1.

5.Heard for plaintif.

6.Now the point for consideration: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled recovery the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?”

7.To substantiate the case of plaintif, plaintif himself examined as P.W.1 by filing examination in chief as affidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint. Through him Ex.A1 was marked. As defendant was set exparte, the evidence of P.W.1 is unchallenged. As seen from the entire material on record, it clearly appears that the plaintif exhibited one document. Ex.A1 is demand promissory note dated 27.05.20126 for Rs.3,00,000/-. On perusal of the said document, it appears the signature of defendant. Ex.A1 further shows that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for her family expenses and to discharge sundry debts by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. As such, Ex.A1 corroborates with the version of plaintif. On repeated demands by the plaintif, the defendant did not repay the suit amount. On considering the unchallenged evidence of the plaintif clinchingly established that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintif on 27.05.2016, as such, defendant had borrowed by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. Hence, the plaintif is entitled for suit claim. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of plaintif.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant for sum of Rs.5,11,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty thousand and six hundred only) with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization on principal sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.

Typed to Dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17th day of October, 2019.

(FAC) Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthy.

Appendix of Evidence

1. No. of witnesses examined for plaintif:- P.W.1 Mallidi Surredy

2. No. of witnesses examined for defendant:- None

3. No of documents marked for plaintif:- Promissory note executed by defendant in favour of Ex.A1/27.05.2016plaintif.

4. No. of documents marked for defendant:- Nil (FAC) Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthy.

Plaint presented on:26.09.2019 Plaint numbered on:04-02-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ANAPARTHY.

Present:-D. Geetha Rani, VII Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram. (FAC) Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthi. Tuesday, the 17th day of October, 2019

O.S.No.177/2019

Between: Mallidi Surredy, S/o Sathi Reddy, Age:44 years, Business and Cultivation, R/o No. 5-21, Durga Colony, Rayavaram Village, Rayavaram Mandal.

...Plaintiff

And

Smt. Sarapu Ammaji, W/o Turasa Challanna Dora, Age: 51 years, R/o D.No. 11-58-267, Ambedkar Nagar, Konthamuru, Rajamahendravaram Mandal. …Defendant

The suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendant for recovery of money for Rs.5,11,000/- that being the principal and interest at the rate of 24% p.a., basing on the promissory note dt.27.05.2016.

C AUSE OF A CTION for the suit arose on 27.05.2016 and at Rayavaram village,

Rayavaram Mandal where the suit entire transaction took place within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

Value of the Suit:

Principal Amount borrowed under the Promissory Rs.3,00,000-00

note dt:07-02-2016

Add: Interest from 07-02-2016 to 30-01-2019 Rs.2,11,000-00 -------------------------- at 24% p.a., on Rs.1,30,000/- Total Rs.5,11,000-00 --------------------------

A Court fee of Rs.7,626/- is paid there on U/s.20 Sch.I Art.I (b) and (c) of

A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act, 1956.

The suit coming on this day i.e., 26.09.2019 for consideration before me in the presence of Sri P.V. Rama Krishna, Advocate for plaintif and defendant having remained ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows :

:: DECREE ::

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs;

2. that the defendant be and is hereby directed to pay to the plaintif an amount of Rs.2,22,933/- (rupees two lakhs twenty two thousand nine hundred and thirty three only) together with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.1,30,000/- (rupees one lakh and thirty thousand only) from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization;

3.that the defendant do also pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.7,728/- (Rupees seven thousand seven hundred and twenty eight only) towards costs of suit.

Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 23rd day of July, 2019.

SD/-D.GEETHA RANI

Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthy.

Memo of Costs

For plaintif Rs. Ps.For defendant

Stamp on Vakalat 102-00 No costs memo is filed Stamp on plaint 4,726-00 Advocate fee3,000-00 ------------------ Total costs allowed: Rs.7,728-00 ------------------

SD/-D.GEETHA RANI

Junior Civil Judge Anaparthy.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present Smt.D.GEETHA RANI

Prl.Junior Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

Tuesday, the 12th day of July,2022.

O.S.No.349/2022

Between:

Sigireddy Rajani, W/o late Tulasi Rao, Hindu, aged 59 years, Housewife, R/o

D.No.2-32/1, Burugupudi, Korukonda, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal.

… Plaintif

And

1.Kamisetti Prasad, S/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged 33 years, Business, R/o D.No.3-109, C-Block, Satelite City, Rajamahendravaram Rural, E.G.Dt.

2.Kamisetti Durga, W/o Prasad, Hindu, aged 31 years, Business, R/o D.No.3-109, C-Block, Satelite City, Rajamahendravaram Rural, E.G.Dt.

...Defendants

This suit having come on 07-07-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of P.Dhana lakshmi, Advocate for the plaintiff, defendants 1 & 2 remained exparte and upon purusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:- : J U D G M E N T :

1.The Plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.84,367/- the

principal and interest due under promissory note executed by the

defendant Dt.15-04-2019 with subsequent interest and for costs and other reliefs.

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

The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants 1 & 2 jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 15-04-2019 for the purpose 2 of family expenses and to discharge sundry debts agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and they jointly executed an on demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendants failed to repay the debt amount and postponed the same on one pretext or other. Hence, the plaintiff got filed PLC 41/2021

before District Legal Service Authority, Rajahmundry but the matter was not

settled. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendants received summons, but they did not appear

before this Court. As such, the defendants set exparte.

4.To prove the case of plaintiff, plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1.

5.Heard for plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration:

“Whether the plaintif is entitled to recovery the suit

amount from the defendant as prayed for?”

7. POINT:

To substantiate the case of plaintiff, plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and by filing examination in chief as affidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint. Through PW.1 Ex.A1 marked. As the defendants were set exparte, the evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged. As seen from the entire material on record, it clearly appears that the plaintiff exhibited Exs.A1

Original promissory note dated 15-4-2019. On perusal of the said document, it appears that the defendants borrowed an sum of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 15-4-2019 under promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and they jointly executed an on demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff.

3

8. On repeated demands by the plaintiff, the defendants did not repay the debt amount, to prove the same, the plaintiff exhibited Ex A1. On considering the unchallenged evidence of the plaintiff clinchingly established that defendants failed to repay the suit promissory note amount to the plaintiff as such, defendants have received by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of plaintiff against the defendants.

9. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants 1 & 2 for a sum of Rs.84,367/- (Rupees eighty four thousand three hundred and sixty seven only) with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization on

principal amount of Rs.50,000/-.

Typed to my Dictation by the stenographer G-III corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 12th day of July,2022.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First class, Rajamahendravaram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness Examined

For plaintif: For defendant: None

P.W.1:Sigireddy Rajani

Documents marked

For plaintif:

Ex.A1: Original promissory note dated 15-4-2019

For defendant: Nil

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

Rajamahendravaram 4

Date of presentation:07-01-2022

Date of filing:18-01-2022

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present Smt.D.GEETHA RANI

Prl.Junior Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

Tuesday, the 12th day of July,2022.

O.S.No.349/2022

Between:

Sigireddy Rajani, W/o late Tulasi Rao, Hindu, aged 59 years, Housewife, R/o

D.No.2-32/1, Burugupudi, Korukonda, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal.

… Plaintif

And

1.Kamisetti Prasad, S/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged 33 years, Business, R/o D.No.3-109, C-Block, Satelite City, Rajamahendravaram Rural, E.G.Dt.

2.Kamisetti Durga, W/o Prasad, Hindu, aged 31 years, Business, R/o D.No.3-109, C-Block, Satelite City, Rajamahendravaram Rural, E.G.Dt.

...Defendants

Cause of action for the suit arose on 15-04-2019 when the defendant borrowed the amount from the plaijtiff and executaed an on demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff and on 15-4-2019 the plaintiff got issued legal notice at Burugupudi, Rajahmundry where the transaction took place are all within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.

Value of the suit:

Principal amount due under the promissory

note dated 15-04-2019 is Rs.50,000/-

Interest @ 24% from 15-04-2019 to 26-02-2022 is Rs.34,367/- --------------------

Total: Rs.84,367/- ---------------------

On which a court fee of Rs.3106/- is paid under Sec.20, Sch.I, Art.1(c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

5

This suit having come on 18-5-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Subbarao, Advocate for the plaintiff, defendant remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, DOTH ORDER AND:-

DECREE

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

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff an amount of Rs.84,367-/-(Rupees eighty four thousand three hundred and sixty seven only) with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and there after at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.50,000/-;

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.3108/- towards Institutional costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and seal of the court this the 12th day of July, 2022.

Prl.Jr.Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajamahendravaram.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

NO COST MEMO FILED ON EITHER SIDE

Institutional costs:

Vakalath Rs. 2-00 Plaint fee Rs. 3106-00 ----------------- Costs allowed: Rs.3108-00 ------------------

Prl.Jr.Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajamahendravaram.

6