Smt D.pavani, Excise Court

1

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Prohibition and Excise Cases), Anantapuramu

Present: Smt.D.Pavani

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Prohibition and Excise Cases), Anantapuramu

Friday, the 04 th Day of April, 2025

Calendar Case No.1252 of 2022

Between:-

The State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Itukalapalli Police Station…Complainant.

AND

Vaikuntam Mallikarjuna, aged 32 years, S/o. V.Obulesh, R/o.Santhguru Ravidas Colony, Upparapalli Gram Panchayath, Ananthapuramu Rural Mandal.…Accused

This case came before me on 04.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of APP for the state and of Sri B.Shiva Kumar and Sri. G.Sudhakar, Advocates for accused and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following:

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1)The State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Itukalapalli P.S., filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.191/2020 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and Sec.8(b)(ii) of A.P.Prohibition Act.

2)The case of the prosecution is that on 06.12.2020 at about 1.00PM infront of

Pakkir Reddy bricks factory, Santhguru Ravidas Colony, Upparapalli Grama

Panchayathi, Ananthapuramu Rural Mandal, wherein accused who purchased the liquor at Bagepalli, Karnataka State and while transporting to Upparapalli Village through Bajaj XCD - 125 motorcycle No.AP02-S-4718 with intent to sell the same at higher prices. LW.6 arrested the accused and seized 2 boxes (each box 49 tetra packets) 96 Bangalore whisky (each 180ml) and 7 boxes (each box 96 tetra 2 packets) 672 Bangalore whiksy (each 90ml) tetra packets of Karnataka state along with crime vehicle from his possession under the cover of Arrest, Confessional and

Seizure mahazarnama.

LW.6 registered case in Cr.No.191/2020, U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and

Sec.8(b)(ii) of A.P.Prohibition Act of Itukalapalli P.S., and the accused was sent to judicial custody and LW.6 drawn sample and sent for chemical analysis Report to

Chemical Examiner, Govt., Regional Excise Laboratory, Chittoor, he opined that the the sample are Indian made liquor vide report C.E.No.794/2021 in S.No. 8449 to 8451. Further, LW.6 verified the case and received the destruction orders confiscate the contraband vide C.No.545/SEB-ATP/2022, dated 18.5.2022. LW.6 received the auction of the Confiscation orders of Crime Vehicel i.e., Bajaj XCDn -125 motorcycle No.AP02-S-4718 from Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu town vide C.No.2012/SEB-ATP/2021, dated 06.05.2022. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case.

3) After filing charge sheet and required documents, the cognizance was taken for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and Sec.8(b)(ii) of A.P.Prohibition Act.

4)On appearance of accused, copies of case records were furnished to her as required U/s.207 Cr.PC.

5) On 23.01.2022, accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation levelled against him in the charge sheet, for which, he denied. Having considered the submissions of both sides and also taking into consideration the material placed before this Court. Charge was framed against accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and Sec.8(b)(ii) of

A.P.Prohibition Act. Charge was read over and explained to him in Telugu language, 3 for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.

6)In order to prove the case, prosecution got examined Pws.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6 on behalf of the prosecution. On the other hand, no witnesses were examined and no documents are marked on behalf of accused.

7)After closure of the prosecution side evidence, on 04.04.2025, accused was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked by the defence.

8)Heard arguments of prosecution and defence. Perused the entire record.

9)The contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is that the prosecution has examined PW.1 to 4 to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and Sec.8(b)(ii) of A.P.Prohibition Act and that the accused was found in possession of 2 boxes (each box 49 tetra packets) 96 Bangalore whisky (each 180ml) and 7 boxes (each box 96 tetra packets) 672

Bangalore whiksy (each 90ml) tetra packets of Karnataka state along with crime vehicle, which were seized by PW.4, that no inconsistent statement were made by

PW4 and as such the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and Sec.8(b)(ii) of A.P.Prohibition Act.

10) Per contra, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the accused was falsely implicated in this case only for statistical purposes and nothing else and the entire proceedings were drafted in the Police Station itself and prayed 4 this court to acquit the accused.

11)Now the point arose for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and Sec.8(b)(ii) of A.P.Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

12)POINT:-

i)P.W.2 & 3, who are mediators deposed that, they do not know anything facts of the case. At about five years ago, they have police station on their personal work, the police obtained their signatures of PW.1 & 2 on the mahazarnama is marked as Ex.P1 & P2.

ii) PW.1: K.Vijay Kumar, Home Guard, deposed that on 6-12-2020 at 1-00

PM, LW6/Sreekanth, SI of police, received information about selling of liquor.

Then LW6 along with and other staff proceeded to and reached bricks factory of

Pakkira Reddy, Santhuguru Ravidas colony, Upparapalli and they found one male person coming on a motor cycle by possessing one bag infront and one bag back side and on seeing thyem, he stopped the motor cycle and tried to skulk away.

Then LW6 caught hold of him with the help of staff and enquired him. On enquiry he revealed his name and identity particulars as VAIKUNTAM MALLIKARJUNA.

Then LW6 searched the plastic bags and found 02 carton boxes of 96

Bangalore whisky of 180 ml, total 96 packets and 7 boxes of Bangalore

whisky tetra packets of 90 ml, total 672 from his possession. Then LW6 arrested him under cover of police proceedings and also drawn samples from each variety for chemical analysis and seized two wheeler. Later LW6 himself typed seizure mahazar.

5 iii) PW.4: M.Sreekanth, Inspector, deposed thaton 6-12-2020 at 1-00 PM, he received information about selling of liquor. Then he along with PWs 1 to 3 and other staff proceeded to and reached bricks factory of Pakkira Reddy, Santhuguru

Ravidas colony, Upparapalli and they found one male person coming on a motor cycle by possessing one bag infront and one bag back side and on seeing thyem, he stopped the motor cycle and tried to skulk away. Then he caught hold of him with the help of staff and enquired him. On enquiry he revealed his name and identity particulars as VAIKUNTAM MALLIKARJUNA. Then he searched the plastic bags and found 02 carton boxes of 96 Bangalore whisky of 180 ml,

total 96 packets and 7 boxes of Bangalore whisky tetra packets of 90 ml, total

672 from his possession. Then he arrested him under cover of police proceedings and also drawn samples from each variety for chemical analysis and seized two wheeler (Bajaj XCD 125) bearing No.AP02-S-4718. Later he typed Ex.P3 which is

Confession, Arrest cum Seizure mahazarnama. Late they brought the accused to police station along with contraband,

Basing on the strength of Ex.P3 and registerd a case in

Cr.No.191/2020, U/sec.34(a) of of A.P.Excise Act and Sec.8(b)(ii) of A.P.P.Act.

Submitted copies of FIR to the court concerned, on the same day produced the accused before this court for judicial remand. Ex.P4 is FIR. He forwarded the samples under letter of advice to chemical examiner Chittoor, Ex.P5 is Letter of

Advice. After receipt of analyisis report he filed charge sheet. Ex.P6 is Ananlysis

Report. On the instructions of SP vide proceedings No.C.No.545/SEB-ATP/2022,

dated 18.05.2022 for confiscation and distructions orders, he obliged the same.

6 Later as per the orders of SP Ananthapur, he auction the crime vehicle vide

C.No.2012/SEB-ATP/2021, dated 06.05.2022.

13)To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and Sec.8(b)(ii) of A.P.Prohibition Act, the prosecution shall prove that the accused found in possession of " 02 carton boxes of 96

Bangalore whisky of 180 ml, total 96 packets and 7 boxes of Bangalore whisky tetra packets of 90 ml, total 672 and also seizedtwo wheeler (Bajaj XCD 125) bearing No.AP02-S-4718.

14)Before adverting to the rival contentions made on both sides and also before delving into the evidence adduced by the prosecution witness, it is necessary to have a look at section 42 of the AP Excise Act, 1968 which deals with regard to the presumption as to the commission of the offence in certain cases. The said Section reads as follows; “Sec.42 : Presumption as to commission of offence in certain cases:- In prosecutions U/s.34, [Sec.37 and 37-A], it

shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the

accused person has committed the offence punishable

under that section in respect of -

(a) any intoxicant, or

(b) any still utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever

in the manufacture of any intoxicant other than toddy, or

(c) any materials which have undergone any process

towards the manufacture of an for the possession of

which he is unable to account satisfactorily”.

The above said section would make it clear that there is shall presumption stood in favour of the prosecution for the offences U/s.34, 37, 37-A, which 7 mandates that it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that the accused person has committed the offence punishable under that section in respect of any intoxicant, any utensil, implement or apparatus in the manufacture of any intoxicant other than toddy or any materials which have undergone any process to the manufacture of an intoxicant and from which intoxicant has been manufactured when the accused is unable to account satisfactorily. To avail the said presumption, it is initially for the prosecution to establish that the accused was in possession of liquor bottles. To prove the same, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to 4.

15) On reading of the testimony of P.W.4, this Court does not find any inconsistent statement made by him with regard to seizure of the property from the possession of accused and the ocular evidence of P.W.4 is corroborated by the documentary evidence under Exs.P.1 to P.6 and as such the prosecution has successfully discharged the initial burden and as such, the prosecution is entitled to the presumption under Section 42 of the A.P. Excise Act.

16) The burden of rebutting the presumption by the accused is not as high as that of the burden of proving the case by the prosecution. If the accused succeeds in placing positive evidence, the presumption will be disappeared and again the prosecution is not entitled to the said presumption and it has to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

17) Before conducting any search as per sub-section (4) of Section Sec.100 of

Cr.P.C, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or willing to be a witness to the search to attend and witness the search 8 and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

The above said section would deal about before making the search under that chapter i.e., Chapter VII the procedure to be followed by the Investigating

Officer.

18)In the present case P.W.2 and 3 who are the mediators deposed that the police did not arrest the accused and did not seize the contraband in their presence. The evidence of mediators creates a doubt in the mind of the court as to the very case of the prosecution and the same would be sufficient to rebut the presumption stood in favour of the prosecution and as such the accused has successfully rebutted the presumption stood in favour of the prosecution. Now, it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The entire testimony of P.W4 is silent as to from which shop the accused person purchased the liquor bottles and no investigation was done to that effect to drag the accused into the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and Sec.8(b)(ii) of

A.P.Prohibition Act. Admittedly no identity slips were affixed on the seized property and no explanation has been offered to that effect. The reasonable doubt left by the prosecution with regard to the very seizure of the bottles from the possession of the accused persons creates doubt in the mind of the court as to the entire case of the prosecution.

19) At this juncture it is pertinent to refer a decision made in 1994 (2) ALT (Crl.

P.69 (AP) Botcha Raju VS State Rep. By the Inspector of Police,Vizianagaram

Rural Circle. Where in it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officer without corroboration by disinterested witnesses. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused 9 persons for the offence punishable U/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act and Sec.8(b)(ii) of A.P.Prohibition Act. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution.

20) In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and Sec.8(b)(ii) of A.P.Prohibition Act and he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force till six months as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.PC. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 04th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-Smt.D.Pavani

Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

A ppendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence

PW1 : K.Vijay Kumart -Nil- PW2 : M.Chiranjeevi PW3 : M.Sai Sateesh PW4 : M.Sreekanth

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 : The Signature of PW.1 on Mahazarnama.

Ex.P2 : The Signature of PW.2 on Mahazarnama.

Ex.P3 : Confession, Arrest cum Seizrue Mahazarnama.

Ex.P4 : First Information Report

Ex.P5 : Letter of Advice

Ex.P6 : Analysis Report 10

Exhibits marked for Defence:Nil

Mos marked on behalf of Prosecution -NIL-

I/d-D.P., Spl. J.M.F.C P&E/ATP. //True Copy//

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Anantapuramu 11

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTHAPURAMU.

CALENDAR CASES TRIED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CASES, ANANTAPURAMU.

Date ofReport orApprehensionReleasedCommenceClose ofSentence OffenceComplaintof accused on bailment of trialtrialOrder 6.12.202006.12.20207.12.202010.12.202027.02.20243.4.202504.4.2025

Calendar and Judgement in C.C.No.1252/2022 on the file of Special Judicial First

Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu

Complainant: The Sub-Inspector of Police Station, Itukalapalli P.S

Crime No:191/2020

Name of the Age Father's Name Religion Calling Residence Mandal Accused

Anantapur Upparapalli Gram V.Mallikarjuna32 yrsV.ObulesuHindu---Rural Panchayath Mandal

Offence: U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and Sec.8(b)(ii) of A.P.Prohibition Act. Finding: Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and Sec.8(b)(ii) of A.P.Prohibition Act and he is acquitted

U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force till six months as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.PC. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Smt.D.Pavani,

Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, Prohibition & Excise Court, Ananthapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

//True Copy//

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Anantapuramu. Dis. No. Dt.

12

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Prohibition and Excise Cases), Anantapuramu

Present: Smt.D.Pavani

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Prohibition and Excise Cases), Anantapuramu

Monday, the 03 rd Day of February, 2025

Calendar Case No.916 of 2022

Between:-

State Represented Sub-Inspector of Police, Annathapuramu Rural Police Station…Complainant. AND

1. V.Suryanarayana, aged 28 years, S/o.Late Bayapu Reddy, D.No.1/188, Kodimi Village, Ananthapuramu Rural Mandal.

2. G.Bayanna, aged 28 years, S/o.G. Nagabhushan, R/o. Narpala Village, Now at Giri Prasad Colony, Old Town, Ananthapuramu Town.…Accused 1 & 2

This case came before me on 03.02.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of APP for the state and of Sri A.Sreekanth Reddy, Advocate for accused 1 & 2 and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following:

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1)The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu Rural P.S., filed charge sheet against the accused 1 and 2 in Cr.No.183/2020 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of AP Excise Act.

2)The case of the prosecution is that on 05.06.2020 at about 10.00AM, LW.6 received credible information about the sale of liquor bottles, immediately LW.6 along with his staff reached at Kodimi Village Cross, Ananthapuramu Rural Mandal and found accused is having in possession of liquor bottles in a urea bag on seeing the police, the accused ran away from the spot. Immediately LW.6 chased and caught hold the accused 1 & 2 with the help of LW.1 to LW.5 examied the urea bag 13 and found total 08 imperial blue finest grain whisky 750ml and 02 Mansion House

XO brandy 750ml, total 10 full bottles with contents of (750ml) quantity in a urea bag. LW.6 arrested the accused and seized the property from their possession under cover of police proceedings. LW.6 registered a case in Cr.No.183/2020,

U/sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act of Ananthapuramu Rural P.S., and accused were sent to judicial custody. LW.6 drawn sample from one bottle and sent for chemical analysis Report to Chemical Examiner,Govt., Regional Excise Laboratory, Chittoor, vide C.E.No.1304/2020, dated 18.09.2020, and he opined that “The sample is

Indian Made Liquor”. The contraband which was seized and destroyed as per orders vide C.No.238/2021/SEB/C1, dated 05.05.2022. After completion of investigation LW.7 filed charge sheet in this case.

3) After filing charge sheet and required documents, the cognizance was taken for the offence U/s.34(a) of A.P Excise Act.

4)On appearance of accused, copies of case records were furnished to him as required u/s.207 Cr.PC.

5) On 17.10.2023accused 1 & 2 were examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation levelled against them in the charge sheet, for which, they denied. Having considered the submissions of both sides and also taking into consideration the material placed before this Court. Charge was framed against accused for the offence punishable U/s.34 (a) of AP Excise Act. Charge was read over and explained to them in Telugu language. For which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.

6)In order to prove the case, prosecution got examined Pws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4, on behalf of the prosecution and on the other hand, no 14 witnesses were examined and no documents are marked on behalf of accused.

7)After closure of the prosecution side evidence, on 03.02.2025, accused 1 & 2 were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked by the defence.

8)Heard arguments of prosecution and defence. Perused the entire record.

9)The contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is that the prosecution has examined PW.1 and 2 to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.34 (a) of AP Excise Act and that without having any license, the accused was in possession of the liquor bottles which were seized by PW.2, that no inconsistent statement was made by PW2 and as such the accused 1 and 2 are liable to be convicted for the offence U/s.34 (a) of AP Excise Act.

10) Per contra, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused 1 & 2 are that the accused were falsely implicated in this case only for statistical purpose and nothing else and the entire proceedings were drafted in the Police Station itself and prayed this court to acquit the accused.

11)Now the point arose for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused 1 & 2 for the offence punishable U/Secs.34 (a) of AP Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

12)POINT:-

i).P.W.1 and 2 who are police officials at the time of arresting the accused 1 & 2 and seizing the contraband deposed that no mediators were present as none of them came forward.

15 ii). PW.1-B.Jayakar, Head Constable, deposed that on 5-06-2020 at 11-00AM,

LW6/Nabi Rasool, SI of police, received information about selling of liquor bottles.

Then LW6 along with him and other staff proceeded to Kodimi Village Cross,

Anantapuramu rural mandal and found one person having in possession of one plastic bag and on seeing them, he tried to kulk away. Then LW6 with the help of him and other staff detained them and questioned, on enquiry they revealed their names and identity particulars as SURYANARAYANA REDDY AND BAYANNA.

Then LW6 searched the bag and found 08 IMPERIAL BLUE FINEST GRAIN

WHISKY 750 ML AND 02 MANSION HOUSE XO BRANDY 750 ML, TOTAL 10

BOTTLES from their possession.Then LW6 drawn two samples from the seized property under cover of police proceedings. Then LW6 himself typed police proceedings. He attested the arrest, seizure police proceedings. Ex.P1 is seizure proceedings.

iii). PW.2-B.Nabi Rasool. Sub-Inspector, deposed that on 05.06.2020 at about 10 AM. He received credible information about the selling of liquor bottles. Then he along with other staff proceeded to Kodimi village cross Ananthapuramu rural mandal and found one person having in possession of one plastic bag and on seeing them, he tried to skulk away. Then he with the help of other staff detained them and questioned, On enquiry they revealed their names and identity particulars as SURYANARAYANA REDDY AND BAYANNA. Then he searched the bag and found 8 IMPERIAL BLUE FINEST GRAIN WHISKY 750 ML and 2 Mansion House

XO Brandy 750 ml, total 10 bottles from their possession. Then he drawn two samples from the seized property under EX.P1. He arrested the accused after 16 informing the grounds of arrest and also given information to his family members about his arrest. Later they brought him to the police station. Basing on EX.P1. He registered a case in Cr.No.183/2020 U/sec. 34 (a) AP Excise act and submitted copies of FIR to the court concerned, on the same day he forwarded the accused to the Judicial remand. EX.P2 is FIR. He forwarded the samples to chemical examiner under the letter of advice. EX.P3 is Letter of advice. After receipt of analysis report he filed charge sheet. EX.P4 is analysis report.

13)To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act, the prosecution shall prove that the accused is in possession of 8

IMPERIAL BLUE FINEST GRAIN WHISKY 750 ML and 2 Mansion House XO

Brandy 750 ml, total 10 bottles for selling.

14)Before adverting to the rival contentions made on both sides and also before delving into the evidence adduced by the prosecution witness, it is necessary to have a look at section 42 of the AP Excise Act, 1968 which deals with regard to the presumption as to the commission of the offence in certain cases. The said Section reads as follows; “Sec.42 : Presumption as to commission of offence in certain cases:-

In prosecutions U/s.34, [Sec.37 and 37-A], it shall be

presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the

accused person has committed the offence punishable

under that section in respect of -

(a) any intoxicant, or

(b) any still utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever

in the manufacture of any intoxicant other than toddy, or

(c) any materials which have undergone any process

towards the manufacture of an for the possession of

which he is unable to account satisfactorily”.

17

The above said section would make it clear that there shall be a presumption stood in favour of the prosecution for the offences U/s.34, 37, 37-A, which mandates that it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under that section in respect of any intoxicant, any utensil, implement or apparatus in the manufacture of any intoxicant other than toddy or any materials which have undergone any process to the manufacture of an intoxicant and from which intoxicant has been manufactured when the accused is unable to account satisfactorily. To avail the said presumption, it is initially for the prosecution to establish that the accused was possession of liquor bottles. To prove the same, the prosecution has examined

PW.1 and 2.

15) On reading of the testimony of P.W.2, this Court does not find any inconsistent statement made by them with regard to seizure of the property from the possession of accused and the ocular evidence of P.W.2 is corroborated by the documentary evidence under Exs.P.1 to P.4 and as such the prosecution has successfully discharged the initial burden and as such, the prosecution is entitled to the presumption under Section 42 of the A.P. Excise Act.

16) The burden of rebutting the presumption by the accused 1 and 2 are not as high as that of the burden of proving the case by the prosecution. If the accused succeeds in placing positive evidence, the presumption will be disappeared and again the prosecution is not entitled to the said presumption and it has to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

17) Before conducting any search as per sub-section (4) of Section Sec.100 of 18 Cr.P.C, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or willing to be a witness to the search to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

The above said section would deal about before making the search under that chapter i.e., Chapter VII the procedure to be followed by the Investigating

Officer.

18) In the present case P.W.1 and PW.2 who are police officials deposed that except them no independent mediators participated in the raid creates a doubt in very case of the prosecution and the same would be sufficient to rebut the presumption stood in favour of the prosecution and as such the accused has successfully rebutted the presumption stood in favour of the prosecution. Now, it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The entire testimony of PW.1 and PW.2 are silent as to from which shop the accused person purchased the liquor bottles and no investigation was done to that effect to drag the accused into the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Admittedly no identity slips were affixed on the seized property and no explanation has been offered to that effect. The reasonable doubt left by the prosecution with regard to the very seizure of the bottles from the possession of the accused persons creates doubt in the mind of the court as to the entire case of the prosecution.

19) At this juncture it is pertinent to refer a decision made in 1994 (2) ALT (Crl.

P.69 (AP) Botcha Raju VS State Rep. By the Inspector of Police,Vizianagaram

Rural Circle. Where in it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on 19 the sole evidence of the police officer without corroboration by disinterested witnesses. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused person for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution.

20) In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) of

Cr.P.C and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused and their sureties shall remain in force till six months as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.PC. The unmarked case propery shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 03rd day of February, 2024.

Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, Prohibition & Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

A ppendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence

PW1 : B.Jayakar Nil PW2 : B.Nabi Rasool

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 : Seizure proceedings Ex.P2 : First information Report Ex.P3 : Letter of Advice Ex.P4 : Analysis Report

Exhibits marked for Delfence:Nil

Mos marked on behalf of Prosecution:NIL

Spl. J.M.F.C P&E/ATP.

20 21

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTHAPURAMU.

CALENDAR CASES TRIED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE(MOBILE), FAC-SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE FOR

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CASES, ANANTAPURAMU.

Date ofReport orApprehensionReleasedCommenceClose ofSentence OffenceComplaintof accused on bailment of trialtrialOrder 05.06.202005.06.202005.06.202005.06.202004.03.202419.12.20203.02.2025 4

Calendar and Judgement in C.C.No.916/2022 on the file of Special Judicial First

Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu. Complainant: The Sub-Inspector, Anantapuramu Rural Police Station. Crime No: 183/2020

Father's or Name of the Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal Husband’s Name Accused

V.Suryanarayana28 yrsLate Bayapu ReddyHindu---Kodimi VillageAnantapur

G.Bayanna28 yrsG.NagabhushanHindu---Old TownAnanthapur

Offence: U/Sec.34 (a) of AP Excsie Act. Finding: Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused and their sureties shall remain in force till six months as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.PC. The unmarked case propery shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, Prohibition & Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

Dis. No. Dt.

1

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Prohibition and Excise Cases), Anantapuramu

Present: Smt.D.Pavani

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Prohibition and Excise Cases), Anantapuramu

Friday, the 04th Day of April, 2025

Calendar Case No.729 of 2022

Between:-

State Represented Sub-Inspector of police,

Itukalapalli Police Station. ...Complainant.

AND

1. Pedda Katappa Gari Kesavaiah, aged 40 years, S/o.P.Kesanna,

2. Pedda Chennamma Gari Govindu, aged 36 years, S/o.Bala Venaktaramudu.

Both are residing at Chiyyedu Village, Ananthapur Rural Mandal. ...Accused

***

This case came before me on 04.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of APP for the state and of Sri C.Peddanna, Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following:

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1)The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Itukalapalli Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused 1 & 2 in Cr.No.145/2020 for the offences punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of AP Excise Act and Sec.8(b) of A.P.Prohibition Act.

2)The case of the prosecution is that on 12.08.2020 at 8.00AM, at North side of

Harijana Kadiranna fields, near Dorlakonda, Chiyyedu Village, Ananthapuramu

Rural Mandal, wherein the accused 1 & 2 were possessing ID arrack in plasatic two bottles each one liter containing two liters ID arrack meant for selling purpose.

LW.3 arrested the accused 1 & 2 and seized the said ID arrack of 2 liters under the 2 cover of confessional and seizure police proceedings. LW.3 registered a case in

Cr.No.145/2020, U/sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and Sec.8(b) of A.P.Prohibition Act, of Itukalapalli P.S and accused 1 & 2 are sent to judicial custody. Lw.3 drawn sample bottles and sent for chemical analysis report Chemical Examiner, Govt.,

Regional Excise Laboratory, Chittoor vide CE.No.1298/2020 in S.No.17,840, dated 13.05.2020 and opined that "the samples are Illicitly Distilled Liquor Unfit for Human

Consumption and injurious to health". Later the Superintendent of Police,

Ananthapuramu has issued proceedings C.No.873/SEB-ATP/2020, dated 28.10.2020. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case.

3) After filing charge sheet and required documents, the cognizance was taken for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and Sec.8(b) of A.P.Prohibition Act.

4)On appearance of accused 1 & 2, copies of case records were furnished to them as required u/s.207 Cr.PC.

5) On 16.6.2023, accused 1 & 2 were examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation levelled against them in the charge sheet, for which, they denied. Having considered the submissions of both sides and also taking into consideration the material placed before this Court. Charge was framed against accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and

Sec.8(b) of A.P.Prohibition Act. Charge was read over and explained to them in

Telugu language. For which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.

6)In order to prove the case, prosecution got examined Pws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 on behalf of the prosecution and on the other hand, no witnesses were examined and no documents are marked on behalf of accused.

3

7)After closure of the prosecution side evidence, on 04.04.2025, accused 1 & 2 were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked by the defence.

8)Heard arguments of prosecution and defence. Perused the entire record.

9)The contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is that the prosecution has examined PW.1 & 2 to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence 34(a) of AP Excise Act and Sec.8(b) of A.P.Prohibition Act and that without having any license, the accused 1 & 2 were in possession of the liquor bottles which were seized by PW.2, that no inconsistent statement were made by PW2 and as such the accused 1 & 2 are liable to be convicted for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of

AP Excise Act and Sec.8(b) of A.P.Prohibition Act.

10) Per contra, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused 1 & 2 are that the accused were falsely implicated in this case only for statistical purpose and nothing else and the entire proceedings were drafted in the Police Station itself and prayed this court to acquit the accused.

11)Now the point arose for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused 1 & 2 for the offences punishable U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

12)POINT:-

i).P.W.1 and 2 who are police officials at the time of arresting the accused 1 & 2 and seizing the contraband deposed that no mediators were present at the time of seizure and arrest.

4 ii).PW.1-M.Mansoor, Police Constable, deposed that on 12.08.2020, while he was in police station LW.3 received credible information about the preparion of ID liquor outskirts of Dorlakonda, Chiyyedu Village. Himself LW.3 and staff proceeded to

Dorlakonda, Chiyyedu Village, Ananthapur Rural Mandal at 8.00AM, they reached there. They found two persons proceeding towards Chiyyedu village on seeing the police Jeep they tried to skulk away LW.3 with the assistace of staff caught hold of him and and enquired the identity particulars. On enquiry they revealed their identities as

A1-Keshavaiah and A2-Govindu and further enquiry they confessed that they were having possession of 2 liters of ID arrack in 21/2 liters water bottle. LW.3 drawn 180ml for chemical analyisis purpose duly sealed and labelled as no one came forward to act as mediator the accused were arrested and seized the property after informing the grounds of arrest under the cover of Confession, Arrest, cum seizure police proceedings. Later they brought the accsued to police station.

iii)PW.2-M.Sreekanth, Inspector, deposed that on 12.08.2020, while he was in police station, he received credible information about the preparion of ID liquor outskirts of Dorlakonda, Chiyyedu Village. he along with PW.1 and staff proceeded to

Dorlakonda, Chiyyedu Village, Ananthapur Rural Mandal at 8.00AM, they reached there. They found two persons proceeding towards Chiyyedu village on seeing the police Jeep they tried to skulk away he with the assistace of staff caught hold of him and and enquired the identity particulars. On enquiry they revealed their identities as

A1-Keshavaiah and A2-Govindu and further enquiry they confessed that they were having possession of 2 liters of ID arrack in 21/2 liters water bottle. He drawn 180ml for chemical analyisis purpose duly sealed and labelled as no one came forward to act as mediator the accused were arrested and seized the property after informing the grounds of arrest under the cover of Confession, Arrest, cum seizure police proceedings is marked as Ex.P1. Later they brought the accsued to police station.

5 Basing on the strength of Ex.P1, he registered a case in Cr.No.145/2020

U/s.34 (a) of AP. Excise Act and Sec.8(b) of A.P.Prohibition Act, submitted copies of

FIR to the court concerned, on the same day produced the accused before this court for judicial remand. Ex.P2 is FIR. He forwarded the sample to chemical examiner, Chittoor under letter of Advice under Ex.P3 is letter of advice. Later after receipt of analyisis report under Ex.P4 is analysis report. On the instructions of SP vide proceedings No.C.No.873/SEB-ATP/2020, dt.28.10.2020 for confiscation and distructions orders, he obliged the same vide orders of SP 950/SEB-ATP/2020,

dated 06.11.2020 and On 30.11.2020 at 5.30PM destroyed the property by

Inspector of Police, SEB, Ananthapur.

13)To bring home the guilt of the accused 1 & 2 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and Sec.8(b) of A.P.Prohibition Act, the prosecution shall prove that the accused 1 & 2 were found in possession of 2 liters of ID arrack in 21/2 liters water bottle for sale purpose.

14)Before adverting to the rival contentions made on both sides and also before delving into the evidence adduced by the prosecution witness, it is necessary to have a look at section 42 of the AP Excise Act, 1968 which deals with regard to the presumption as to the commission of the offence in certain cases. The said Section reads as follows; “Sec.42 : Presumption as to commission of offence in certain cases:-

In prosecutions U/s.34, [Sec.37 and 37-A], it shall be

presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the accused

person has committed the offence punishable under that

section in respect of -

(a) any intoxicant, or

(b) any still utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever in 6 the manufacture of any intoxicant other than toddy, or

(c) any materials which have undergone any process towards

the manufacture of an for the possession of which he is unable

to account satisfactorily”.

The above said section would make it clear that there shall be a presumption stood in favour of the prosecution for the offences U/s.34, 37, 37-A, which mandates that it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under that section in respect of any intoxicant, any utensil, implement or apparatus in the manufacture of any intoxicant other than toddy or any materials which have undergone any process to the manufacture of an intoxicant and from which intoxicant has been manufactured when the accused are unable to account satisfactorily. To avail the said presumption, it is initially for the prosecution to establish that the accused 1 & 2 were possession of liquor bottles. To prove the same, the prosecution has examined PW.1 & 2.

15) On reading of the testimony of P.W.2, this Court does not find any inconsistent statement made by him with regard to seizure of the property from the possession of accused and the ocular evidence of P.W.2 is corroborated by the documentary evidence under Exs.P.1 to P.4 and as such the prosecution has successfully discharged the initial burden and as such, the prosecution is entitled to the presumption under Section 42 of the A.P. Excise Act.

16) The burden of rebutting the presumption by the accused are not as high as that of the burden of proving the case by the prosecution. If the accused succeeds in placing positive evidence, the presumption will be disappeared and again the prosecution is not entitled to the said presumption and it has to prove its case 7 against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

17) Before conducting any search as per sub-section (4) of Section Sec.100 of

Cr.P.C, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or willing to be a witness to the search to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

The above said section would deal about before making the search under that chapter i.e., Chapter VII the procedure to be followed by the Investigating

Officer.

18) In the present case P.W.1 and PW.2 who are police officials deposed that except them no independent mediators participated in the raid creates a doubt in very case of the prosecution and the same would be sufficient to rebut the presumption stood in favour of the prosecution and as such the accused have successfully rebutted the presumption stood in favour of the prosecution. Now, it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The entire testimony of PW.1 & P.W.2 are silent as to from which shop the accused person purchased the liquor bottles and no investigation was done to that effect to drag the accused into the offencea U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and Sec.8(b) of

A.P.Prohibition Act. Admittedly no identity slips were affixed on the seized property and no explanation has been offered to that effect. The reasonable doubt left by the prosecution with regard to the very seizure of the bottles from the possession of the accused persons creates doubt in the mind of the court as to the entire case of the 8 prosecution.

19) At this juncture it is pertinent to refer a decision made in 1994 (2) ALT (Crl.

P.69 (AP) Botcha Raju VS State Rep. By the Inspector of Police,Vizianagaram

Rural Circle. Where in it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officer without corroboration by disinterested witnesses. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused 1 & 2 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and Sec.8(b) of

A.P.Prohibition Act. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution.

20) In the result, the accused 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and Sec.8(b) of A.P.Prohibition Act and and they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused and their sureties shall remain in force till six months as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.PC. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 04th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-Smt.D.Pavani

Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

A ppendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence

PW1 : M.Mansur Nil

PW2 : M.Sreekanth 9

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 : Confession, Arrest cum Police proceedings. Ex.P2 : First information Report Ex.P3 : Letter of Advice Ex.P4 : Analysis Report

Exhibits marked for Delfence:Nil

Mos marked on behalf of Prosecution:NIL

I/d-D.P., Spl. J.F.C.M, P&E/ATP.

//True Copy//

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Anantapuramu.

10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTHAPURAMU.

CALENDAR CASES TRIED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CASES, ANANTAPURAMU.

Date ofReport orApprehensionReleasedCommenceClose ofSentence OffenceComplaintof accused on bailment of trialtrialOrder 12.8.202012.8.202012.8.202018.8.20202.4.202503.4.202504.04.2025

Calendar and Judgement in C.C.No.729/2022 on the file of Special Judicial First

Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu. Complainant: The Sub- Inspector of Police, Itukalapalli Police Station. Crime No: 145/2020

Name of the Age Father's or Name Religion Calling Residence Mandal Accused

Pedda Katappa 40 yrsP.KesannaHIndu---Chiyyedu (V)Ananthapur Gari Kesavaiah

Pedda Chenamma 36 yrsP.Bala Venata RamuduHindu---Chiyyedu (V)Ananthapur Gari Govindu

Offence: U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and Sec.8(b) of A.P.Prohibition Act. Finding: Accused 1 & 2 are found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and Sec.8(b) of A.P.Prohibition Act and and they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused and their sureties shall remain in force till six months as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.PC. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Smt.D.Pavani,

Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

//True Copy//

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Anantapuramu. Dis.No. Dt.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: J.SUJIN KUMAR,

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ananthapuramu, FAC-III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ananthapuramu.

Monday, this the 7th day of April, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 284 of 2023

UCO Bank, a corporate body constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head office at 10, B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata, with a branch office at Ananthapuramu, represented by its Branch Manager, Ananthapuramu. … Plaintiff

Vs.

1. S.Sayed Jabeer, S/o S.Shameer, aged 34 years, Muslim,

2. S.Shameer, aged 68 years, Muslim, Both are Residents of D.No.9C-59, Opp.Old Petrol Bunk, Main Road, Kalyandurgam, Ananthapuramu District – 515761.

… Defendants.

* * * * *

This suit came up on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri T.Raja Ram, Advocate for the plaintiffbankand defendants remained ex-parte and having stood over till this day for consideration. Upon perusing the material papers on the record and upon hearing learned counsel for plaintiff, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of a sum of ₹4,11,443/- from the defendants, with subsequent interest and for other appropriate reliefs.

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

2

The defendants approached the plaintiff bank for financial facility to a loan of ₹1,39,375/- for prosecuting 1st defendant’s B.Tech (CSE) in Sri Krishna Devaraya

Engineering College, Gooty under Education Loan Scheme. Accordingly, the plaintiff bank has agreed to sanction the loan in favour of the 1st defendant on 26.08.2008 for 1,39,375/-. The 2₹nd defendant also agreed to stood as co-borrower for the said loan transaction. Both defendants have agreed to abide by all the terms and conditions of the bank and also agreed to repay the said loan amount with interest at 13.75% per annum subject to fluctuations as per guidelines of RBI from time to time. The defendants further agreed to repay the loan amount with 60 monthly equal installments after completion of one year the course or six months after getting employment whichever is earlier, for which they have jointly executed an agreement for education loan and deed of Hypothecation on 27.08.2008 in favour of the plaintiff bank.

The plaintiff bank opened an account in the name of 1st defendant with account No.17500610002513 and permitted him to operate the account. The 1st defendant operated the account and availed the loan facility. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank, the defendants acknowledged the debt on 30.08.2012, 27.07.2015, 30.06.2018 and 25.05.2021 respectively agreeing to repay the outstanding loan amount. Later, they failed to repay the outstanding loan amount. As per the account extract, the defendants have to pay the outstanding amount of ₹4,11,443/- as on 31.10.2022. Hence, the plaintiff bank is constrained to file the suit for recovery of loan amount.

3.The defendants having received summons, failed to appear before this court and remained exparte to the suit proceedings on 26.09.2023 and 12.05.2023 respectively.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff bank, its Manager representing the said bank was examined as P.W.1 and also got marked Exs. A1 to A9. Ex. A1 is the Original loan application, dated 26.08.2008, Ex.A2 is the Original loan sanction letter, Ex.A3 is 3 the Original Agreement for education executed by the defendant Nos’.1 and 2,

Ex.A4 is the Original deed of hypothecation executed by the defendants, dated 27.8.2008, Exs.A5 to A8 are Acknowledgments of debt executed by the 1st defendant, dated 30.08.2012, 27.07.2015, 30.06.2018 and 25.05.2021 respectively and Ex.A9 is the Account statement of the 1st defendant vide account

No.17500610002513 dated 31.10.2022.

5.Heard the arguments of learned Advocate for Plaintiff Bank. Perused the entire record.

6.Now the point for consideration is that:

Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of entire suit amount

from defendants as prayed for ?

7. POINT :

It is the contention of the plaintiff that defendants being the original borrower and co-borrower are jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding loan amount of ₹4,11,443/- as on 31.10.2022 with subsequent interest. To substantiate the same, the Manager of the plaintiff bank who is representing the said bank is examined as P.W.1. Her evidence is just replica of the pleadings. It shows that on 26.8.2008, the defendants have made an application for sanction of Education

Loan for ₹1,39,375/- for prosecuting Engineering education under Ex.A1. The plaintiff bank sanctioned the same to the defendants under Ex.A2 and the defendants availed loan amount of ₹1,39,375/- from the plaintiff bank agreeing to repay the same with interest at 13.75% per annum subject to fluctuations as per

RBI guidelines. As security, the defendants have jointly executed agreement for education loan and deed of hypothecation (Exs.A3 and A4) on the same day in favour of the plaintiff bank. The defendants have agreed for all the terms and conditions of the plaintiff bank, including the repayment of loan with the rate of interest and all other relevant particulars relating to loan transaction under Ex.A3.

His evidence further shows that later the defendants have executed 4 acknowledgments of debt on 30.08.2012, 27.07.2015, 30.06.2018 and 25.05.2021 (Exs.A5 to A8). But, the defendants did not repay the loan amount, except the amount shown in the account statement (Ex.A9) and hence, the plaintiff bank is constrained to file the suit for recovery of outstanding of ₹4,11,443/- with future interest at the rate of contract, as disclosed in the account statement of the 1st defendant(Ex.A9).

8.The contents of Ex. A1 -Original loan application, dated 26.8.2008, Ex.A2-

Original loan sanction letter and Exs.A3 to A8-Original agreement for education loan, deed of hypothecation and acknowledgments of debt executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff bank corroborate the version of PW.1 regarding receiving of education loan amount for prosecuting the 1st defendant Engineering education and that the 2nd defendant stood over as co-borrower for the said loan transaction and so, they are jointly and severally liable to discharge the loan amount to the plaintiff bank. Ex. A9- computerized statement of account of the 1st defendant shows that the defendants have to pay outstanding balance amount of ₹4,11,443/- as on 31.10.2022. Since the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the authenticity of Ex. A1 to A9 are undisputed and unrebutted by the defendants, the court finds no reason to discard the same.

9.In such circumstances, the court holds that the plaintiff is able to establish that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding balance amount of ₹4,11,443/- with subsequent interest, as agreed under Exs.A3 and A4-

Agreement for education loan and deed of Hypothecation with subsequent interest.

The Court has returned the plaint with objection that how the suit is within limitation as original agreement, dated 27.08.2008 and acknowledgment of D1 dated 30.08.2012 and the same was complied by the learned counsel for the plaintiff by stating that there is a specific term/condition agreed by the defendants that they have agreed to repay the loan amount within 60 monthly equal installments from the expiry of one year from the date of completion of course or six months after getting employment whichever is earlier. Apparently, the suit is filed with in the 5 period of limitation (three years) from the date of last acknowledgment of debt,

dated 25.05.2021. Since the defendants did not pay the loan amount and did not

even turn up to disprove the contentions of the plaintiff bank, regarding their liability, the court is inclined to draw an adverse inference against the defendants.

Therefore, the Court holds that the plaintiff bank is able to establish that the suit documents relied upon by the plaintiff bank are true, valid and binding on the defendants and thus, the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendants. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff bank, directing the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of ₹4,11,443/- (Rupees Four lakh eleven thousand four hundred forty three only) to the plaintiff bank with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization on principal amount of ₹1,39,375/-(Rupees one lakh thirty nine thousand three hundred seventy five only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer of this court, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 07 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- J.SUJIN KUMAR,

II Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ananthapuramu, FAC III Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS :

PW.1: Smt.P.Jyothi, Manager NONE (Exparte) 6

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex. A1: Original Loan application, dated 26.08.2008. Ex. A2: Original loan sanction letter. Ex. A3: Original agreement for education loan by D1 and D2. Ex. A4: Original deed of hypothecation by D1 and D2. Ex. A5: Acknowledgment of debt executed by D1 dated 30.08.2012. Ex. A6: Acknowledgment of debt executed by D1 dated 27.07.2015. Ex. A7: Acknowledgment of debt executed by D1 dated 30.06.2018. Ex. A8: Acknowledgment of debt executed by D1 dated 25.05.2021. Ex. A9: Account extract.

FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL

II Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ananthapuramu, FAC III Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ananthapuramu.

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: J.SUJIN KUMAR,

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ananthapuramu, FAC-III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ananthapuramu.

Monday, this the 7th day of April, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 284 of 2023

UCO Bank, a corporate body constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head office at 10, B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata, with a branch office at Ananthapuramu, represented by its Branch Manager, Ananthapuramu. … Plaintiff

Vs.

1. S.Sayed Jabeer, S/o S.Shameer, aged 34 years, Muslim,

2. S.Shameer, aged 68 years, Muslim, Both are Residents of D.No.9C-59, Opp.Old Petrol Bunk, Main Road, Kalyandurgam, Ananthapuramu District – 515761.… Defendants.

Suit for recovery of Rs.4,11,443/- being the amount due as per account extract and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 4.11.2022

Value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction of Rs.4,11,443/- and a court fee of Rs.6,626/- is paid U/sec.20 of APCF and SV Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on the date when the defendants approached the plaintiff bank for education loan of Rs.1,39,374 to the 1st defendant and on 27.08.2008 when the loan has been sanctioned to 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant agreed to stand as surety for the said loan and both the defendants agreed to abide by all the terms and conditions of the loan transactions and when they have agreed to repay the loan amount with interest at 13.75% p.a have jointly executed all necessary documents in favour of the bank and when the 1st defendant availed the loan facility, and when the defendants became defaulters in repayment of the loan installments and on the date when 1st defendant has fallen due and on 30.08.2012, 27.7.2015, 30.6.2018 and 25.5.2021 when the 1st defendant executed acknowledment of debt acknowledging the liability, and on all subsequent dates of demands on the defendants for repayment of the amount due, but in vain, all at Ananthapuramu, within the jurisdication of this Hon'ble court.

This suit coming on 07.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.Raja Ram, advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants having been called absent, remained exparte, this court doth order and pass a decree:-

i) that the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff bank, directing the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of ₹4,11,443/- (Rupees Four lakh eleven thousand four hundred forty three only) to the plaintiff bank with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization on principal amount of ₹1,39,375/-(Rupees One lakh thirty nine thousand three hundred seventy five only); ii) that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.6,628/- towards costs of the suit;

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 07th day of April, 2025.

FAC- III Addl.Junior Civil Judge Anantapuramu.

Table of costs for

Plaintiff Defendant

Stamp on plaint6,626.00--

Stamp on vakalat2.00--

Stamp on process-----

TOTAL:-6,628.00-Nil- (Fee and Cost Memo not filed)

FAC-III Addl.J.C.J./ATP

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)::

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Smt.D.Pavani III Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ananthapuramu.

Friday, this the 04th day of April, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.1213 of 2024

Canara Bank, Represented by its Authorized Officer & Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Marthadu Branch, Garladinne Mandal,

Ananthapuramu District. ...Plaintiff

Vs.

Buruga Kashim Peera, S/o.B.Lalu Saheb, aged 63 years, Muslim, Residing at D.No.3-37, Marthadu, Garladinne(M), Ananthapuramu District.515731. … Defendant.

* * * *

The Suit came on 04.04.2025for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Ramesh Babu , Advocate for Plaintiffand defendant having remained exparte and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,38,326/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Six only) from the defendant, with subsequent interest and for other appropriate reliefs.

02.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendant has approached the plaintiff bank made a application for sanction of Agricultural Loan sanction loan limit for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) to plaintiff bank. Then, the plaintiff bank sanctioned an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- on 11.05.2018, repayment of the amount was secured by Agreement of Hypothecation for Agriculrtural Loans executed by the Defendant on 11.05.2018.

The plaintiff bank credited loan amount to defendant loan account of Rs.79,000/- in 2 the name of defendant loan account vide AC.No.3606840003684. The defendant agreed to abide by all the terms and conditions of the Bank in repayment of the loan amount together with interest at 9.80% per annum, subject to fluctuations from time to time as per Reserve Bank rates, with half yearly rests. In the pursuance of the document of Agreement of Hypothecation for Agricultural Loan executed by the defendant and the plaintiff bank credited loan amount to defendant. The plaintiff bank opened account in the name of the defendant vide AC.No.3606840003684, permitted him to operate the loan account. The defendant has operated the loan account and availed the loan facility. Except the payments shown in account extract, no amount is paid by the defendant. Later, the plaintiff bank rescheduled the loan and credited the loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 22.05.2019,

Rs.1,00,000/- on 13.05.2020 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 25.05.2021 in the same loan account of defendant against the above said loan documents executed and submitted by the defendant earlier in favour of plaintiff bank and the defendant availed the rescheduled loan facilities. The defendant also agreed to abide by all the terms and conditions of the plaintiff bank in repayment of the loan amount.

Hence, the suit.

3.Despite receiving of summons, defendant failed to turnup and remained exparte to the suit proceedings on 03.09.2024.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff bank, its Manager representing the said bank was examined as PW1 and also got marked Exs.A1 to A5 i.e., Ex.A1 is Application for

Agriculrtural Loan, dated 11.05.2018, Ex.A2 is Sanction Memorandum, dated 11.05.2018. Ex.A3 is Agreement of Hypothecation for Agriculrtural Loans exeucted by defendant, dated 30.8.2022, Ex.A4 is Acknowledgment of debt executed by defendant, dated 30.08.2022 and Ex.A5 is Account Extract of loan Account

No.3606840003684.

5.Heard the arguments of learned Advocate for Plaintiff. Perused the entire record.

6.Now the point for consideration is that:

3

Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of entire suit amount

from defendant as prayed for ?

7. POINT :

It is the contention of the plaintiff that defendant being the borrower, is liable to pay the outstanding debt amount of Rs.1,38,326/- with subsequent interest. To substantiate the same, the Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank who is representing the said bank is examined as PW1. His evidence is just replica of the pleadings. It shows that on 11.5.2018 the defendant made an application for agricultural loan(Ex.A1) and availed loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff bank, under request for Sanctioned Memorandum(Ex.A2) with account operated by the defendant, with the permission of the plaintiff bank and in evidence there of the defendant executed Acknowledgment of debt (Ex.A4) in favour of the plaintiff bank on the same day by agreeing to repay the same with interest of 9.80% per annum, subject to the fluctuations in rate of interest as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. His evidence further shows that the defendant did not repay the loan amount, except the amount shown in the account statement (Ex.A5) and hence, the plaintiff bank is constrained to file the suit for recovery of outstanding amount of

Rs.1,38,326/- with future interest at the rate of contract rate, as disclosed in the account statement of the defendant(Ex.A5).

8.Since the evidence of PW1 as well as the authenticity of Ex.A1 to A5 are undisputed and unrebutted by the defendant, the Court finds no reason to discard the same. As discussed above, the contents of application form for agricultural loan,

Ex.A3 is Agreement of Hypothecation for Agriculrtural loans executed by defendant, Ex.A4 is Acknowledgment of debt executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank corroborate the version of PW1 regarding receiving of loan amount by the defendant and that he is liable to discharge the loan amount to the plaintiff bank. Ex.A5 - Account Extract of the defendant shows that the defendant is still liable to pay outstanding balance amount of Rs.1,38,326/- as on 24.05.2024.

4

Nothing was elicited that the defendant made any payment subsequent to 11.05.2018.

9.In such circumstances, when the evidence adduced by the plaintiff bank remains unchallenged, the Court holds that the plaintiff is able to establish that the defendant is liable to pay the outstanding balance amount of Rs.1,38,326/- with subsequent interest, as agreed under Agreement of Hypothecation for Agriculrtural loans /Ex.A3. Apparently, the suit is filed with in the period of limitation. Since the defendant did not pay the loan amount and did not even turn up to disprove the contentions of the plaintiff bank, regarding his liability, the Court is inclined to draw an adverse inference against the defendant. Therefore, the Court holds that the plaintiff bank is able to establish that the suit documents relied upon by the plaintiff bank are true, valid and binding on the defendant and thus, the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff bank and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,38,326/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Six only) to the plaintiff bank with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit to till the date of realization on principal sum of Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 04 th day of October, 2024.

III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, (JUNIOR DIVISION)

ANANTHAPURAMU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR defendant :

PW.1: Ramanjineyulu Exparte 5

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTFF:

Ex.A1: Application for Agriculrtural Loan, dated 11.05.2018.

Ex.A2: Sanction Memorandum, dated 11.5.2018.

Ex.A3: Agreement for Hypothecation for Agriculrtural Loans executed by defendant,

dt 30.8.2022

Ex.A4: Acknowledgment of debt executed by defendant, dated 30.8.2022.

Ex.A5: Account extract of loan Account No.3606840003684.

For defendant: NIL

III A.J.C.J/ATP

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)::

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Sri J.Sujin Kumar II Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ananthapuramu. FAC III Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ananthapuramu.

Friday, this the 04th day of October, 2024.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.1996 of 2023

Canara Bank, Represented by its Authorized Officer, D.Venkata Subbaiah, Manager & Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, Rapthadu Branch, Rapthadu Mandal,

Ananthapuramu District....Plaintiff

Vs.

Y.Ramana Reddy, aged 50 yrs, S/o. Y.Chenna Reddy residing at Raminepalli Village, Rapthadu, Ananthapuramu -515722. … Defendant.

Suit for recovery of Rs.3,67,160.92/- being the amount due as per account extract and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 18.12.2023

Value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction of Rs.3,67,160.92/- and a court fee of Rs.6,126/- is paid U/sec.20 of APCF and SV Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 30.07.2015 when the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for agriculture loan and executed Agreement for

Hypothecation for Agriculrtural loans and when the plaintiff bank after due scrutiny sanctioned loan to the defendant and credited the loan amount to the defendant account on 30.07.2015 and when the defendant availed the loan and when the defendant had acknowledged the debt on 07.07.2018 and 31.03.2021, agreeing to repay the outstanding loan amount and on all dates of payments and on the dates of demands were made to the defendant, all at Rapthadu Mandal, Ananthapuramu

District within the jurisdication of this Hon'ble court.

This suit coming on 04.10.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Ramesh Babu, advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant having been called absent, remained exparte, this court doth order and pass a decree:-

i) that the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff bank and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,67,160.92/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Sixty and Ninety

Two Paisa only) to the plaintiff bank with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit to till the date of realization on principal sum of Rs 1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only).; ii) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.12,605/- towards costs of the suit;

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 04th day of October, 2024.

FAC- III Addl.Junior Civil Judge Anantapuramu.

Table of costs for

Plaintiff Defendant

Stamp on plaint6,126.00--

Stamp on vakalat2.00--

Stamp on process70-00--

Typing charges-----

Pro.wrt.charges50.00--

Advocate’s fee (Senior)6,357.00--

Advocate’s fee (junior)-----

TOTAL:-12,605.00-Nil-

FAC-III Addl.J.C.J./ATP

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)::

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Sri J.Sujin Kumar II Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ananthapuramu. FAC-III Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ananthapuramu.

Monday, this the 07th day of April, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.98 of 2025

C.Chandra Sekhar, S/o.C.Ramakrishanaiah, aged about 50 years, Agriculture & Business, R/o.Maruru Village, Rapthadu Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.… Plaintiff

Vs.

G.Veera Brahamam, PC.No.1063, S/o.G.Veeraiah, aged about 40 years, C/o.14th Battalion, APSP, Janthaluru Post, B.K.Samudram Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. … Defendant * * * * *

The Suit came on 07.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Sri L.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiffand defendant remained exparte, and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

/ / J U D G M E N T / /

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of sum of

Rs.2,43,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Three Thousand only) being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dt 05.06.2022 for Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees

One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff and for costs.

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

2

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty

Thousand only) from the plaintiff on 05.06.2022 for his personal and family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a and executed a demand promissory note on the dame day in favour of the plaintiff. In spite of made several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay any amount either towards principal or interest due under the promissory note. Hence the suit.

The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 15.11.2024. Hence the suit.

3.On the other hand, despite deemed service of summons, the defendant did not appear before the court and remained ex-parte to the suit proceedings. Hence, the suit is posted for plaintiff’s evidence on 10.02.2025.

4.The plaintiff in support of his contentions got examined PW1. He also got exhibited the original promissory note dt.05.06.2022 as Ex.A1, Ex.A2 is Office copy of Legal Notice, dated 15.11.2024, Ex.A3 is Postal Receipt, dated 16.11.2024 and

Ex.A4 is Unserved Postal Cover.

5.Heard the arguments of learned Advocate for Plaintiff. Perused the entire record.

6.Now the point for consideration is that :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of entire suit amount from

defendant as prayed for ?

7. POINT:

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant is liable to pay

Rs.Rs.2,43,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Three Thousand only) under suit 3 promissory note dt. 05.06.2022 with subsequent interest. To substantiate the same, he got examined himself as PW1 and filed proof affidavit which is accepted on oath as his chief examination. The said chief examination is just replica of his pleadings.

The evidence of PW1 coupled with the contents of Ex.A1 promissory note, goes to show that on 05.06.2022, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as

Ex.A1 from the plaintiff (PW1) and he executed marked promissory note i.e., Ex.A1 for Rs.1,50,000/- as Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff (PW1), agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and inspite of his repeated demands, the defendant did not repay the debt amount.

8.Since the evidence of PW1 as well as the contents of Ex.A1, remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the defendant, the Court finds no reason to disbelieve the same. Therefore, the Court holds that the plaintiff with his evidence is able to establish that Ex.A1 suit promissory note is true, valid and binding upon the defendant. As the defendant did not repay the amount due under Ex.A1 promissory note inspite of several demands of the plaintiff, the court is inclined to draw an adverse inference against him. Apparently, the suit is filed within the period of limitation. Hence, the Court holds that the plaintiff is able to prove the suit claim and so, he is entitled to recover the suit amount. Accordingly, the Point is answered in favour of the plaintiff in the following manner:

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,43,000/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs Forty Three Thousand only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at the 4 rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of the suit to till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6 percent per annum till the date of realization on principal amounts of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Court, this the 07 th day of April, 2025.

II Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ananthapuramu. FAC- III Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT :

PW1 : C.Chandra Sekhar NONE.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTFF:

Ex.A1 : Original demand promissory note, executed by the defendant infavour of plaintiff for Rs.1,50,000/-.

Ex.A2 : Office copy of Legal Notice, dated 15.11.2024.

Ex.A3 : Postal Receipt, dated 16.11.2024.

Ex.A4 : Unserved Postal Cover.

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

II Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ananthapuramu. FAC-III Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ananthapuramu.

5

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)::

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Sri J.Sujin Kumar II Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ananthapuramu. FAC-III Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ananthapuramu.

Monday, this the 07th day of April, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.98 of 2025

C.Chandra Sekhar, S/o.C.Ramakrishanaiah, aged about 50 years, Agriculture & Business, R/o.Maruru Village, Rapthadu Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.… Plaintiff

Vs.

G.Veera Brahamam, PC.No.1063, S/o.G.Veeraiah, aged about 40 years, C/o.14th Battalion, APSP, Janthaluru Post, B.K.Samudram Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. … Defendant

Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,43,000/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note, dt: 5.06.2022 executed by the defendant infavour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,50,000/- agreeing to repay the same with 24% p.a. and claimed at the same rate as the defendant is not an agriculturist and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 06.01.2025

Value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued at

Rs.2,43,000/- and a court fee of Rs.4,926/- is paid u/sec 20 of APCF & SV Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 05.06.2022 at Maruru Village, Rapthadu

Mandal, Ananthpuramu District. When and where the defendant borrowed the amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- and executed the suti pronote in favour of plaintiff and on subsequent days when the plaintiff made several demands on the defendant on 15.11.2025, when the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant and the legal notice was not served on him but he managed him but the defendant failed to pay the amount. All these are happend at

Maruru Villag, Rapthadu Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, which situated within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble court.

6

The suit came on 07.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri

L.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiffand defendant remained exparte, and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and Decree;

1) that the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,43,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Three

Thousand only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of the suit to till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6 percent per annum till the date of realization on principal amounts of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh

Fifty Thousand only), and

2) that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 9,593/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 07th day of April, 2025.

II. ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC-III. ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANANTAPURAMU.

TABLE OF COSTS

PLAINTIFFDEFENDANT

Stamp on plaint4,926-00Stamp on plaint-

Stamp on vakalat2-00Stamp on vakalat-

Stamp on processStamp on process- 70-00 Proc.wrg.chargesProc.wrg.charges- 50-00 Typing chargesTyping charges- 50-00 Publication chargesPublication charges--

Advocate fee 4,495-00Advocate fee -

TOTAL9,593-00 TOTAL-NIL-

FAC-III AJCJ/ATP