Smt D.Sri Bharani

1in DVC 20/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 ST CLASS, PROH

& EXCISE, SRIKAKULAM

PRESENT: Smt. D. Sri Bharani

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Proh. & Excise, Srikakulam

Monday, this the 21stday of April, 2025.

D D . . V V . . C C . . 2 2 0 0 / / 2 2 0 0 1 1 5 5

B e t w e e n :

1. Tadela Rupavathi, w/o Nagabushanam, Hindu, aged 29 years, Housewife, presently residing along with her mother and brother, Srikakulam.

2. Tadela Tarunesh, s/o Nagabushanam, Hindu, aged 3 years, rest – do.

(2nd petitioner being minor represented by his mother and natural guardian the 1st petitioner herein).

…. Petitioners.

A n d

1. Tadela Nagabushanam, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged 33 years, Private practitioner, Civil Engineer and Architect, residing at D.No.18-2-3,

Kavvalivari street, Near Kanaka Durga Temple, Tanuku-534211.

2. Tadela Suryanarayana, father’s name not known to the petitioners, Hindu, aged about 65 years, residing at D.No.18-2-3, Kavvalivari street, Near

Kanaka Durga Temple, Tanuku-534211.

3. Tadela Appalanarasamma, w/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged about 55 years, rest – do.

4. Tadela Venkata Ramana, s/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged about 30 years, rest – do.

…. Respondents.

This case is coming before me on 11.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.V. Usha rani, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri. M.

Kameswara rao, Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the Petitioners praying to grant following reliefs:-

a) To provide a separate portion of their household to the petitioners to reside by restraining the respondents from entering that portion of the shared household or in the alternative to direct them to pay a sum of 2in DVC 20/2015

Rs.5,000/- for an alternative accommodation under section 19 of Domestic

Violence Act.

b) To direct the respondents to pay a monthly sum of Rs.15,000/- each to the petitioners towards their maintenance which is inclusive of the medical and educational expenses of the 2nd petitioner from 1st respondent u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act.

c) To direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards compensation and damages for the mental torture and emotional distress caused to the petitioners by the acts of domestic violence including the deprecation of fatherly love and affection to the 2nd petitioner.

d) For costs of the petition.

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

It is submitted that the 1st petitioner is wife of 1st respondent and 2nd petitioner is their son. The marriage was performed on 12.05.2004 at TTD

Kalayana Mandapam at Tanuku as per Hindu rites and caste customs and their marriage is arranged marriage. The entire expenses of the marriage were meted by petitioner’s family. The 2nd and 3rd respondents are in-laws of 1st petitioner and 4th respondent is younger brother of 1st respondent. The petitioners family gave an amount of Rs.8 Lakhs towards dowry and 1,50,000/- towards Lanchanams.

The 1st respondent is a private employee by the date of marriage. Immediately after their marriage they lived at Tanuku with other respondents. The 3rd respondent started harassing her for not giving motor cycle at the time of marriage, when the 1st petitioner went to her parent’s house for first Aashadam and having no other alternative the mother of 1st petitioner gave an amount of

Rs.60,000/- for motor cycle. But 1st respondent did not purchase motor cycle and purchased gold for 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent got job at Hiramandalam,

Srikakulam District and they lived happily. The 1st respondent after some shifted to Devera Konda Village of Mehaboob Nagar District for doing job, accordingly they both lived happily. They used to go to Tanuku during occasions, the respondent No.3 and 4 used to raise disputes as 1st petitioner did not gave birth to children. Later the 4th respondent came to Mehaboob Nagar for searching job and used to instigate the 1st respondent. The 4th respondent used to misbehave with 1st petitioner in the absence of 1st respondent and used to say that he will get their marriage will be dissolved. In the month of December 2009, they came to Tanuku and on the instigation of 3rd and 4th respondents, the 1st respondent made a phone call to younger brother of 1st petitioner to take treatment for fertility. Accordingly the 1st petitioner took treatment at Doctor D.Sridhar by spending Rs.1,00,000/- by undergoing surgery and later she went to Mehaboob 3in DVC 20/2015

Nagar. Later the 1st petitioner was conceived and the 1st respondent left the 1st petitioner at Tanuku and she gave birth to 2nd petitioner on 19.04.2011 and the expenses were meted by petitioner’s family.

3. It is further submitted that after three months of her son’s birth she went to

Tanuku and at the instance of 3rd respondent, the 1st petitioner stayed at Tanuku but she used to harass her. The 1st respondent fallen sick at Mahaboob Nagar on 16.10.2011 and admitted at Hyderabad. The petitioner along with R.2 and R.3 went to Hyderabad and after recovery the R.1 decided to settled down at Tanuku and started private firm and he is earning an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per month from his professional services and other income from house properties, site etc.

At the instigation of R.2 to R.4, the 1st respondent used to pick up quarrel with 1st petitioner and started harassing her both mentally and physically. In December, 2012 the 1st petitioner was sent to matrimonial home with her younger brother.

Since then the 1st respondent started avoiding her by not attempting her phone calls.

4. It is further submitted that the 2nd petitioner was suffering with Kidney failure and the petitioners family is spending expenses for his treatment for more than Rs.3000/- per month and doctors also stated that he need Dialysis. Even though the respondents are well aware of the fact but they did not look after the welfare of both the petitioners by not sending any amount. Since December, 2012 the petitioners made several attempts to re-join with 1st respondent but he never responded. The 1st respondent sent a legal notice on 12.01.2015 for mutual divorce and the 1st petitioner issued a reply notice. The 1st respondent filed HMOP No.13/2015 on the file Honourable Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Tanuku seeking divorce. In the last week of March, 2015 Arbitration was held

before local elders of the community at Tanuku town between both the families

but the respondents did not heed their words. The respondents went to local police station and gave complaint that the elders are putting pressure to take the petitioners to their house. Later the 1st petitioner lodged a police report at

Srikakulam.

5. It is further submitted that the petitioners are residing at her parents house in Srikakulam. The 1st respondent is having private professional Firm and he is earning more than one lakh including income from the joint family properties. The petitioners prays the court to provide a portion for their house to reside and also to pay monthly amount of Rs.5000/- towards alternative accommodation and

Rs.15000/- each towards their maintenance. Hence, this petition.

4in DVC 20/2015

6. The brief averments of the counter are as follows:-

On the other hand the counsel for Respondents inter-alia denied the petition allegations and submitted that the above case against the 2nd petitioner is not maintainable under DVC act, male minor is not aggrieved person and liable to dismissed against 2nd petitioner. The 2nd respondent is having tea baddi and he is only earner in the family. The reliefs sought by the petitioners are not maintainable as R.1 is having no house and the distance between Srikakulam and Tanuku as faraway, providing house portion doesn’t arise. The petitioners filed FCOP No.11/2015 on the file of Family court, Srikakulam seeking

Rs.8,10,000/- and Rs.20,000/- per month to each petitioners and Rs.50,000/- towards legal expenses. Hence maintenance in DVC case is not maintainable, the petitioners cannot claim two reliefs in different proceedings. The 1st respondent is not having any means as alleged by the petitioners and he is depending on his father for his medical expenses. When R.1 undergone treatment at Hyderabad in October, 2011 at ICCU, the 1st petitioner and her family members enquired about the LIC policy and in whose name it was done.

The 1st petitioner used to spent more money and the same was continued after

R.1 lost his job also. The 1st petitioner used to pick up quarrels with R.1 to R.3 for petty issues and threatened them that she will file false criminal cases. The details of immovable properties was not mentioned by petitioner. Due to harassment made by 1st petitioner the respondents used to went to police station to save their lives. The R.1’s health condition is not proper and prayed this court to consider his health condition. The Respondent No.1 is not having any movable and immovable properties and having no capacity to maintain the petitioners.

The 1st respondent needs heart transplantation and due to ill health R.1 lost his job.

7. It is further submitted that the father of the 1st petitioner is having two wives, i.e., by names Kanthamma and Ammalamma. The 1st petitioner is 2nd daughter of 2nd wife. The father of the 1st petitioner i.e., Tankala Appalanaidu is having landed and house properties at Telikipenta village of Sarubujjili Mandal.

After death of Appalanaidu, properties were devolved upon their children. The 1st petitioner is financially sound than respondents. The 1st petitioner know tailoring and hand work like painting and stitching and embroidery. Due to her properties and financial earnings the 1st petitioner deserted the 1st respondent and hence started harassing the respondents for grabbing money. The reliefs claimed by the petitioners are not tenable and in order to torture, distress the respondents the above case was filed. The 1st petitioner kept the 2nd petitioner from away to R.1 in 5in DVC 20/2015 order to keep the distance between 2nd petitioner and R.1 and to loss father affection. The petitioners filed maintenance case on the file of Honourable Family

Court, Srikakulam. Hence prayed the court to dismiss the DVC is false.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents addressed arguments. The learned counsel for the petitioner not addressed arguments, hence it is treated as heard.

9. Now the point that arise for determination are ?

1) Whether there is any domestic relationship between the Petitioners and

Respondents?

2) Whether the 1st petitioner suffered domestic violence in the hands of

Respondents?

3) Whether the Petitioners are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

4) To what relief?

10. POINT NO.1:-

Section 2 (f) of the Act defines domestic relationship. As per it, domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.

11. The marriage of 1st petitioner with respondent No.1 was performed on 12.05.2014 as per Hindu Rites and customs. The respondents haven’t dispute it.

Ex.P1 is the marriage photo showing that the 1st petitioner married respondent

No.1. Therefore, there is a relationship between 1st petitioner and the respondents. Now it is to be seen whether such relationship is domestic relationship or not. It is the case of the respondents that they lived happy conjugal life for some time and during that period she was blessed with 2nd petitioner. After that both the petitioners and respondents never resided under one roof at any point of time and 1st petitioner left the matrimonial home with her own accord by addicting to luxurious life and hence there is no domestic relationship between them. Since then the Respondents are disputing such relationship, it is for the 1st petitioner to establish it. In order to prove such relationship as domestic relationship, the 1st petitioner is examined herself as

PW.1. The ocular evidence of PW.1 speaks that she resided with the respondents in shared household at Tanuku, Mehaboobnagar. The ocular evidence of PW.1 speaks that she stayed at her in-laws house at Tanuku. With regard to Respondent No. 2 to 4 no specific question was posed during cross 6in DVC 20/2015 examination of PW.1 about domestic relationship with respondents No.2 to 4.

When there is pleading to establish domestic relationship with regard to

Respondents 2 to 4, it can be said that there is domestic relationship between

Petitioners and Respondents No.1 to 4 and they lived in a shared household.

Hence, it can be said that the petitioners resided with Respondent No.1 to 4 in a shared household and the relationship between them is domestic relationship.

The Point No.1 is accordingly answered in favour of the Petitioners and against the respondents.

12. POINT NO.2:-

Section 3 of the Act defines domestic violence, which includes physically abuse, sexual abuse, verbal abuse, emotional abuse and economic abuse meted out by the aggrieved person in the hands of Respondents.

13. The petitioners approached this court by making allegations of domestic violence against Respondents and also seeking various reliefs under the Act.

Hence, as per Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act. The initial burden lies on the petitioners to prove that they have meted out domestic violence in the hands of

Respondents and thereby they are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for.

14. It is the case of the petitioners that at the time of marriage the parents of 1st petitioner presented an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Eight Lakhs only) dowry as demanded by the respondents besides Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh

FiftyThousand only) towards other expenses. PW.1 filed chief examination affidavit reiterating the same. The ocular evidence of PW.1 speaks that there is no written document to show that 1st petitioner’s parents gave dowry by selling land. The 1st petitioner did not choose to examine any of the marriage elders or her parents on her behalf to prove that there was a demand from respondents regarding dowry and respondents received Rs.8 Lakhs (Rupees Eight lakhs only) cash and Rs.1,50,000/- towards other expenses. During course of cross examination of PW.1, she overwhelmingly admitted that the marriage expenses were incurred by respondents. The counsel for the respondent’s submitted that the parents of PW.1 has no capacity to give such huge amount of dowry and hence the question of presenting dowry doesn’t arise. As per admission made by

PW.1, it can be assumed that the respondents meted out the marriage expenses.

PW.1 did not even submitted any documentary proof or source of income of her father. The 1st petitioner even did not choose to examine her parents or any other relative to prove that they are having income i.e., sources to present the dowry to the respondents by selling land. Regarding source of income i.e., for presenting dowry no scrap of paper filed by the 1st petitioner to that effect.

7in DVC 20/2015

Moreover she admitted in her cross examination that the marriage expenses were incurred towards dowry and lanchanams, which itself is sufficient.

15. In respect of consummation of marriage, out of their wedlock 1st petitioner gave birth to 2nd petitioner. The pleadings and evidence of PW.1 and counter averments also show that the matter was placed before the elders. Admittedly neither 1st petitioner nor Respondents examined the elders to prove their respective pleadings. In order to disprove the contention of the case of the respondents, the petitioners not choose to cross examine R.W1 except mere pleading.

16. During the cross examination of PW.1, she admitted that she is willing to join with respondent No.1 to lead marital life. This itself shows that she is willing to lead marital life with 1st Respondent. But she did not made any attempt to file restitution of conjugal rights petition except admission made by her during cross examination. PW.1 admitted that she made allegations against R3 and R4, she has no grievance against the respondents No.1 and 2. It is PW.1 who admitted she has no grievance against R1 and R2, so the very purpose of filing the above case is of no useful and it seems that she intentionally got filed the above case against the respondents.

17. It is also the case of the 1st petitioner that the respondent No.1 is having sufficient means to provide maintenance to both the petitioners. But, the 1st respondent failed to pay the maintenance to her and to her child and thereby the respondent No.1 committed economic abuse on the part of the Petitioners. In this regard the respondent No.1 pleaded that he is not having any income and moreover the respondents pleaded that the 1st petitioner filed FCOP No. 11 of 2015 on the file of Hon’ble III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam for seeking maintenance. The two proceedings are not maintainable under law. I see no force in the argument submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, as per Section 20 of PWDV Act, it speaks as follows Monetary reliefs:- (1)While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the

Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the

expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include, but not limited to,

(a)the loss of earnings;

(b)the medical expenses;

(c)the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and

(d)the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any 8in DVC 20/2015 other law for the time being in force. (2)The monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. (3)The Magistrate shall have the power to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. (4)The Magistrate shall send a copy of the order for monetary relief made under sub-section (1) to the parties to the application and to the in charge of the police station within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the respondent resides. (5)The respondent shall pay the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved person within the period specified in the order under sub-section (1). (6)Upon the failure on the part of the respondent to make payment in terms of the order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may direct the employer or a debtor of the respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the Court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent. From the above proposition, it is made clear that claiming maintenance under above act is ancillary relief. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents can be brushed aside.

18. It is noteworthy to mention here that as rightly contended by respondents counsel that respondent No.1 has no income is absolutely right. Ex.R7 to R12 shows that he is suffering from heart problem and the same was even admitted by PW.1 during cross examination. Hence, when R.W1 is suffering from health issues and moreover PW.1 itself admitted that she has no grievance towards R1 is sufficient that R1 not committed any economic abuse on petitioners. It is PW.1 who admitted that she is receiving AMMA VODI scheme benefits for an amount of Rs.12,000/- per year and she is receiving Rs.3,000/- per month for medical expenses of her son. She further admitted that R.W1 is earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Hence, when PW.1 is receiving some sort of income from Government schemes, how she claimed a monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- each to both the petitioners is not appropriate. Even though R.W1 is not denying the relationship between them and moreover PW.1 herself admitted that she has no grievance against R1, it can be said that respondent No.1 not neglected PW.1.

Ex.R2 to Ex.R4 shows that the property stands in the name of the family members of petitioners and the same was admitted by petitioner. So, the contentions which were raised by respondents are absolutely right. Moreover, when petitioners not cross examined R.W1 which gives strength to the case of the respondents.

9in DVC 20/2015

19. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondents raised a contention that the petition against petitioner No.2 who is male minor is not maintainable under

Domestic Violence act. As rightly contended by the learned respondents counsel, the aggrieved person can be only a female person. The PWDV Act has been enacted with a sole motive to give protection to a woman subjected to domestic violence and a male person, either minor or major, has not been given any protection by this statute and hence, a male person, minor or major, either through guardian or through attorney, cannot file any petition under the PWDV

Act. As the PWDV Act is enacted for the protection of the women, male cannot be added as petitioner either minor or major. Hence, the 2nd petitioner is not entitle to file the above petition. However, the 1st petitioner can claim reliefs against 2nd petitioner. When 1st petitioner failed to prove the reliefs against the respondents No.1 to 4, the reliefs sought for against 2nd petitioner is also not maintainable under law.

20. The above discussion leads me to conclude that the 1st petitioner failed toprove that she meted out domestic violence in the hands of Respondent No.1 to 4. The point is answered accordingly against Petitioners and in favour of respondents.

POINT NO.3:-

21. When the domestic violence is not established by petitioners in the hands of respondents, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs of shared household or alternative accommodation, monthly maintenance and compensation.

POINT NO.4:-

22. In view of the findings on point No.1 to 3 the reliefs sought by the petitioners were not granted by this court in favour of the petitioners.

23. IN THE RESULT, the petition is dismissed without costs against respondents No.1 to 4.

24. Office is directed to serve the copy of order on both parties at free of cost as per Section 24 of the Act.

25. Copy of this order shall be communicated to the concerned Protection

Officer and concerned Police for the purpose of assistance in its effective implementation.

Typed by me in my Laptop, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this, the 21st day of April, 2025.

10in DVC 20/2015

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of 1 st Class, (Proh & Excise) Srikakulam.

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

FOR PETITIONERS:-

PW.1:T. Rupavathi

FOR RESPONDENTS:-

R.W1: Tadela Nagabhushan

Documents marked :-

FOR PETITIONERS:-

Ex.P1: Original photograph of the petitioner and R1.

Ex.P2: Legal notice issued by the respondent to the petitioner.

Ex.P3: Reply notice issued by petitioner to the counsel of the respondent.

Ex.P4: Postal receipts and acknowledgment.

Ex.P5: Served copy of the petition in HMOP No.13/2015.

Ex.P6: Positive photographs showing the Firm of the respondent.

FOR RESPONDENTS:-

Ex.R1: Certified copy of ration card.

Ex.R2: Certified copy of 1-B Adangal issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh showing Ac.2.70 cents of landed property in the name of Smt. Tankala

Kanthamma, w/o Appalanaidu, who is the 1st wife of father of PW.1.

Ex.R3: Certified copy of 1-B Adangal issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh showing Ac.3-81 cents of landed property in the name of Smt.Tankala

Ammalamma, w/o Appalanaidu who is the 2nd wife of father of PW.1 ie., natural mother of PW.1.

Ex.R4: Certified copy of 1-B Adangal issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh showing Ac.1-32 cents in the name of Smt. Aadada Sudha rani, who is the elder sister of PW.1.

Ex.R5: Certified copy of petition copy in Divorce OP filed by respondent No.1 against PW.1, now pending as FCMOP No.7/2016 before Hon’ble Family Court,

Srikakulam.

11in DVC 20/2015

Ex.R6: Certified copy of the counter in FCMOP No. 7/2016 filed by respondent no.1.

Ex.R7: Original 3 sheets of Discharge summary (from 16-10-2011 to 27-10-2011) belong to Respondent No.1 issued by Care Hospitals.

Ex.R8: Original 2 sheets of Discharge summary (from 28-10-2011 to 29-10-2011) belong to Respondent No.1issued by care hospitals.

Ex.R9: Original sheet Doctor’s notes dated 06-01-2012 belong to Respondent

No.1 issued by Dr. Gopi Chand Mannam, Star hospitals.

Ex.R10: Original sheet of Doctor’s notes dated 07-01-2012 belong to

Respondent No.1issued by Dr. Ramesh Gudapati, Star hospitals.

Ex.R11: Original sheet of Doctor’s opinion dated 09-11-2016 belongs to

Respondent No.1 issued by Dr. Alla Gopala Krishna Gokhale, Appolo Heart

Institutes.

Ex.R12: Original 2 sheet AICD Implantation report dated 08-03-2019 belongs to

Respondent No.1 issued by Dr. G. Somasekhar, Aayush hospitals, Vijayawada.

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of 1 st Class, (Proh & Excise) Srikakulam.

1 DVC,.No.4/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 ST CLASS,

PROH & EXCISE, SRIKAKULAM

PRESENT: Smt. D. Sri Bharani

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Proh & Excise, Srikakulam

Monday, this the 21st day of April, 2025

D D . . V V . . C C . . 0 0 4 4 / / 2 2 0 0 1 1 8 8

B e t w e e n :

Arasavilli Bharati, W/o Janardha rao, aged 23 years, presently residing at C/o

Simhadri Kantamma, D.No.1-368, Adityanagar, Opp- Andhra Bank, Arasivilli,

Srikakulam Tow and District.

... Petitioner/ Complainant

A n d

1. Arasavilli Janardana, S/o Krishnamurty, aged 27 years, Labour, residing at

Sirisivada village, Near Anjaneya Temple, Kotturu Mandal, Srikakulam

District.

2. Arasavilli Krishnamurthy S/o not known, aged 65 years, Labour, residing at

Sirisivada Village, near Anjaneya Temple, Kotturu Mandal, Srikakulam

District.

3. Arasavilli Gajalaxmi, W/o KrishnaMurthy, aged 50 years, Labour, residing at

Sirisivada Village, Near Anjaneya Temple, Kotturu Mandal, Srikakulam

District.

4. Arasivilli Ramu, S/o Krishnamurthy, aged 37years, Labour, residing at

Sirisivada village, Near Anjaneya Temple, Kotturu Mandal,Srikakulam

District.

... Respondents

This case is coming before me on 17.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.S.Gandhi, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri S.Govinda

Rajulu (Gopi), Advocate for the Respondents No. 1 to 3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1. The petitioner filed this petition under section 12 of the protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondents and she prays the Honourable Court to pass an order in favour of the Petitioner and against the respondents in the following reliefs.

a) A protection order in her favour and prohibit the respondents for committing 2 DVC,.No.4/2018 the Act of Domestic Violence under Section 18 of D.V.C Act.

b) Prohibiting the respondents from causing violence to the petitioner and by the respondents under Section 18 of D.V.C Act.

c) Direct the officer in charge of the police station to assist implantation of the protection order that may be passed infavour of the petitioner.

d) Impose any additional conditions or pass any other directions which is

Honourable court may deem reasonable necessary to protect or provided for

the safety of the petitioner.

e) Require force the respondents to execute bond with/without sureties for preventing the commission of the Domestic Violence.

f) Directing the 1st respondent to pay maintenance for the petitioner Rs.9000/- per month under Section 20 of DVC Act.

g) An order directing the respondent to pay compensation and damages for mental torture and emotional distress caused by the act of Domestic violence committed by the respondents to a tune of Rs.2,00,000/- as per section 22 of

D.V.C Act.

2. The brief averments of the Petition/ Complaint are as follows:

The petitioner submit that the marriage of 1st petitioner and 1st respondent was performed on 23.05.2014 at respondent’s house of Sirisivada

Village, Kotturu Mandal, Srikakulam district and at the time of marriage the petitioner parents gave dowry of Rs.50,000/- towards cash, and adorned one

Tula gold to the 1st respondent, and adorned to the petitioner one and half

Tulas of gold Nallapusala Tadu, gold ring, Gold ear Rings in Total 5 Tulas. After marriage the 1st respondent harassed the petitioner mentally and physically to bring additional dowry and did not provide food and the 1st respondent addicted to alcohol and came to house in late night and frequently harassed the petitioner to bring additional dowry and the same is informed to the 3rd respondent she stated that, it is common and do you like it (his demand) stay here, if not go out. The petitioner question them it is not good in nature, then the 4th respondent beat the petitioner and pushed her out. And looted 5 tulas gold from the body of petitioner.

3. The petitioner further submits that due to unbearable situation she left to

Srikakulam to her parents house, later the petitioner made a phone call to the 1st respondent so many times. The 1st respondent stated that, if the petitioner want to reside in matrimonial house, they asked her to bring an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- as additional dowry, otherwise stated her not to come to the matrimonial house and he stated that he has illegal connection with another 3 DVC,.No.4/2018 lady. Only for the purpose of dowry he married the petitioner. The petitioner stated that, her mother has no capacity to pay such an huge amount as

additional dowry. The 1st respondent threatened the petitioner that, he will

marry another person and asked her to as her own will and accord. Later the petitioner approached the village elders and counseling him even though he could not change his version.

4. The petitioner further submits that the 1st respondent at present he is doing (skilled) carpenter works and he is getting 1000/- per day. The 1st respondent is able bodied person to maintain petitioner and he willfully and deserved and neglected the petitioner with an evil view to driven out from his house. The petitioner is subjected to cruelty in the hands of the respondents and they are also used to harass in many fold devices by not providing food, shelter and medical requirement etc, to the petitioner.

5. The brief averments of the counter of respondents are as follows:-

On the other hand the counsel for respondents filed counter and denied the petition allegations and submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was performed out of close relationship between the families and the respondents did not took any dowry. Immediately after the marriage the petitioner joined with 1st respondent at Sirusuvada

Village, the petitioner refused to participate in the nuptial ceremony and stated that she loved another person before marriage for which the 1st respondent excused the same. Whenever the 1st respondent tried to cohabit with her, the petitioner used to threaten her by showing the Knife and blade that she will cut with those items, hence there is no consummation of marriage between them.

The 1st respondent placed the said matter between parents for which she asked 6 months time. Since the 1st respondent is doing cooli works, the petitioner used to use harsh words as he is uneducated. The petitioner used to abode the 1st respondent and used to go for her parents house, in which the 1st respondent went to petitioner house for several times and she used to refuse to come with him. In the first Aashadam, the petitioner went to her parent’s house and remain there even after completion of Aashadam, though the 1st respondent personally and through elders requested the petitioner to come and join him and at last the petitioner came to the house of the 1st respondent on 10.10.2014 at the advice of the elders i.e., Boddepalli Anjaneyulu, Malla

Balachandrudu, Valurothu Polinaidu etc, with whom the 1st respondent raised dispute and during the short stay of the petitioner with the 1st respondent the petitioner is in the habit of demanding the 1st respondent for costly cloths, 4 DVC,.No.4/2018 cosmetics and other comfort life with latest equipment and electronic items, which is not possible to the 1st respondent to provide because of his poorness and other reasons such as his family position in the interial village and that was caused to the petitioner further aversion towards the 1st respondent.

6. The petitioner is in the habit of demanding the respondent for separation with his parents and to come to her parents house for that the petitioner is causing much harassment, by not preparing and serving food etc., and the respondent further submits that the petitioner further harassing the respondent by not accepting him for conjugal life also and used to point out about his ugliness and the style of clothes even on his very face and before the relatives and thereby caused harassment and mental pain. The petitioner used to taunt the 1st respondent about his lack of financial self-sufficiency in front of relatives and subjected the 1st respondent with mental cruelty. The petitioner used to threaten the 1st respondent that she will initiate criminal proceedings for dowry harassment. The 1st respondent is getting an income of Rs.150/- per day, the petitioner used to compare with her lover and his status.

7. They were surprised to note that the petitioner was disappeared on date on 17.10.2014 after the respondent returns from his coolie work and further surprised to note that the petitioner left the house along with gold and cash valuables and went away by an auto, brought by her lover and by knowing the same the respondent lodged complaint before police. The 1st respondent came to know the petitioner was at Arasavilli and the 1st respondent made his efforts to bring petitioner to his matrimonial home but she refused to come with him.

The 1st respondent raised several disputes between caste and village elders i.e., Valaurothu Phalguna, Valurothu Bheemudu, Kotilingala Poorna,

Damodara Lokesh, Valurothu Venkati, Kotilingala Sannarao, Allaka

Appalaswamy etc., but the petitioner refused to join with him. The 1st respondent lived with petitioner separately, but the petitioner refused to lead conjugal life with him and treated as slave. The 1st respondent raised a dispute

before elders in the month of April, 2017 inviting the petitioner but she refused

to join him and more over the petitioner’s mother and brother refused to send the petitioner to the house of the 1st respondent and petitioner also demanded him for divorce as the petitioner dislike the 1st respondent and intent to go for marriage with her lover or with any other wealth and handsome person, for which the respondent refused to give divorce, having full of love and affection towards the petitioner.

8. The 1st respondent is having no movable and immovable properties and 5 DVC,.No.4/2018 she is having no sources of income even for his maintenance whereas the petitioner’s parents are very wealthy people, having both movable and immovable properties and like wise the petitioner’s brother is also well settled with properties and also the petitioner is having separate properties and the petitioner is running bangle shop and also doing financial business and thereby earning an minimum amount Rs.30,000/- per month and having means for her maintenance. The respondents further submits that having full of love and affection the 1st respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of

Hindu Marriage Act OP No.22/2017 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Srikakulam and after giving appearance in the said case the petitioner filed the above DVC against all the respondents with all false allegations, as of counter blast to the genuine case filed by the 1st respondent. The 4th respondent got separated with the parents even before marriage of the petitioner with the 1st respondent. As per the demand of the petitioner the 1st respondent separated with his parents but the petitioner failed to withstand her demand. Hence, the petitioner left the matrimonial house without any good reason, hence the question of domestic violence doesn’t arise. The petition is having no merits and the petitioner is having no cause of action to file the petition against the respondents and the petition is not maintainable under law and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

9. To prove her contention, the Petitioner was examined herself as PW.1.

The petitioner also got examined her mother/ Tamada Parvathi as PW.2. The petitioner also got examined one K.Mukunda Rao as PW.3. In order to substantiate the case of the respondents, the 1st respondent was examined as

RW.1 and the respondents also got examined one Changala Ajay as R.W2. No documents were marked on behalf of the petitioner and respondents.

10. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and respondents.

11. Now the points for determination are:-

1. Whether there is any domestic relationship between petitioner and respondent’s and the alleged acts constitute the domestic violence against the petitioner ?

2. Whether the petitioner suffered domestic violence in the hands of

Respondents?

3. Whether the Petitioner are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

P O I N T NO.1:- 6 DVC,.No.4/2018

12. POINT No.1:- Section 2 (f) of the Act defines domestic relationship:- As per it, domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.

13. The marriage of petitioner with respondent No.1 was performed on 23.05.2014 as per Hindu Rites and customs. The respondents haven’t dispute it. But pertaining to that no documents were marked on behalf of the petitioner.

However, there is a relationship between petitioner and the respondents. Now it is to be seen whether such relationship is domestic relationship or not. It is the case of the respondents that since marriage the petitioner never resided in the house of respondents properly and she used to reside frequently at her parents house. During cross examination of PW.1, she admitted that she resided with 1st respondent for a period of three months. When there is relationship for some extent as they both resided under one roof even for a short span is self sufficient to establish that there is domestic relationship with 1st respondent. In order to prove such relationship as domestic relationship, the 1st petitioner examined herself as PW.1. With regard to Respondent No. 2 to 4 there is no specific pleading and so also no specific question was posed during cross examination of PW.1 about domestic relationship with respondents No.2 to 4. Also, the petitioner specifically not established about the domestic relationship with respondents No. 2 to 4. When there is no specific pleading by petitioner to establish domestic relationship with the

Respondents 2 to 4, it can be said that there is no domestic relationship between Petitioner and Respondents No.2 to 4. In respect of respondent No.1, the ocular evidence of P.W1 shows that respondent No.1 lived with PW.1 in a shared household. The counter averments of respondents also speaks that the 1st petitioner stayed with respondent No.1. As per Section 58 of Indian

Evidence Act admitted facts need not be proved. Hence, it can be said that the petitioners resided with Respondent No.1 in a shared household and the relationship between them is domestic relationship. The Point No.1 is accordingly answered in favour of the Petitioner in part and against the respondents.

14. POINT NO.2:-

Section 3 of the Act defines domestic violence, which includes 7 DVC,.No.4/2018 physically abuse, sexual abuse, verbal abuse, emotional abuse and economic abuse meted out by the aggrieved person in the hands of Respondents.

15. The petitioner approached this court by making allegations of domestic violence against Respondents and also seeking various reliefs under the Act.

Hence, as per Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act. The initial burden lies on the petitioners to prove that they have meted out domestic violence in the hands of Respondents and thereby they are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for.

16. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of marriage the parents of petitioner presented an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) dowry towards cash, one Tula of Gold to the 1st respondent and 5 Tulas of gold to the petitioner. PW.1 filed chief examination affidavit reiterating the same. The ocular evidence of PW.1 speaks that there is no written document to show that petitioner’s parents gave dowry, Gold ornaments to petitioner and 1st respondent. The petitioner also got examined her mother as PW.2 and the marriage elder was examined as PW.3. The ocular evidence of PW.1 clearly establishes that she did not even submitted any documentary proof or source of income of her parents. Pertaining to presentation of dowry no specific evidence was established either by PW.1 and by examining PW.2, PW.3.

Regarding source of income i.e., for presenting dowry, gold articles to PW.1 and R.W1 no scrap of paper filed by the petitioner to that effect.

17. It is pertinent to mention here that from the pleading of petitioner, the petition is silent about the specific harassment made by the respondents and the date and time in which she was specifically harassed. It is also specifically not mentioned that when petitioner was necked out of the matrimonial house or when she left the matrimonial house. From the ocular evidence of PW.1 to

PW.3 in one voice they spoke that she lived for a period of three months. PW.1 categorically deposed that after marriage she lived for a period of 3 months and among three months she lived for about one month on the eve of

Aashadam. PW.1 further admitted that after that the parents of 1st respondent came to petitioner’s house to take back the petitioner to matrimonial house.

So, it can be assumed that initially petitioner resided with 1st respondent for a period of two months and later period for how long she resided was not mentioned anywhere either in the ocular evidence of PW.1 or in the pleading of petitioner. When the pleading of petitioner is silent for how long PW.1 resided with 1st respondent in matrimonial home is very doubtful circumstance. Even if we assume for a while petitioner resided with 1st respondent for a period of two 8 DVC,.No.4/2018 months, that itself is not sufficient to come to a just conclusion to establish that respondents committed domestic violence. The understanding between wife and husband is not sufficient for a short span of two months. Hence, without any specific date of harassment and in what she meted out harassment in the hands of respondents was not established by petitioner.

18. It is noteworthy to mention here that the marriage of petitioner with 1st respondent was performed on 23.05.2014. The ocular evidence of PW.1 to

PW.3 speaks that petitioner filed Sec. 498-A case against respondents. PW.2 categorically admitted that in the year 2014, Sec. 498-A case was filed. The marriage was performed in the year 2014 and criminal case was foisted in the year 2014. After performing marriage it seems that she filed the criminal case within short period and that too in the same year. It also seems that petitioner foisted the above case intentionally. However, when petitioner filed

Maintenance case and Sec. 498-A case against the respondents, the said fact was not mentioned in the petition averments.

19. Per contra, it is to be mention here that the 1st respondent filed HMOP

No.22/2018 u/s Sec.9 of HM Act. As rightly contended by respondents that itself shows the 1st respondent made every attempt to get re-union with petitioner. The said case was filed in the year 2018, the petitioner waited for a period of 4 years after marriage didn’t even file any case u/s 9 of HM Act. If she really interested to lead marital life she might have filed the case u/s 9 of

HM Act soon after leaving the matrimonial society unlike she filed the case against 1st respondent u/s 498-A of IPC and Maintenance case. Admittedly both parties lead evidence by examining elders, but it is no way helpful to the case of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner cross examined at length to R.W1 and R.W2, but nothing was established. There are several discrepancies in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3.

20. In the present case, the petitioner did not lead any evidence to prove that she is an aggrieved person and subjected to domestic violence by the 1st respondent and his other family members. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the cross examination of R.W1 is sufficient to establish the case of the petitioner. It is a settled law that a party who asserts a positive act, has to prove the same by leading evidence and the party has to stand on his own legs. The party cannot claim to prove his case on the basis of the cross-examination of the other party. Even otherwise, I have seen the cross- examination of the R.W1 wherein he denied all the assertions of the petitioner regarding the incidents of domestic violence upon her by 1st respondent and 9 DVC,.No.4/2018 his family members. The averments of domestic violence which are pre condition for grant of any relief under the Act, were required to be proved by the petitioner by leading her evidence and since the petitioner has not led any evidence, she has failed to prove her case.

21. For claiming any relief under the Act, the petitioner is required to prove that (i) she is an aggrieved person, (ii) she is in a domestic relationship, and

(iii) she has been subjected to domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of the Act. In case the petitioner, claiming to be aggrieved person who has been subjected to domestic violence, does not lead evidence in support of her claim, she will not be entitled to any relief claimed by her under any provisions of the

Act. From the above case in hand, the petitioner did not even establish any domestic violence meted out in the hands of the respondents. The petitioner categorically pleaded that 4th respondent beat her and necked out her from the matrimonial home. If 4th respondent really beat her, there might be any injuries which were sustained by her and soon after the incident she might joined in the hospital for treatment. Unlike there is no formal proof established by her except her ocular evidence and mere pleading.

22. The above discussion leads me to conclude that the petitioner failed to prove that she meted out domestic violence in the hands of Respondent No.1 to 4. The point is answered accordingly against Petitioner and in favour of respondents.

POINT NO.3:-

23. When the domestic violence is not established by petitioner in the hands of respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs of protection order, monthly maintenance and compensation.

POINT NO.4:-

24. In view of the findings on point No.1 to 3 the reliefs sought by the petitioners were not granted by this court in favour of the petitioners.

25. IN THE RESULT, the petition is dismissed without costs against respondents No.1 to 4.

26. Office is directed to serve the copy of order on both parties at free of cost as per Section 24 of the Act.

27. Copy of this order shall be communicated to the concerned Protection

Officer and concerned Police for the purpose of assistance in its effective implementation.

10 DVC,.No.4/2018

Partly Typed by me in my Laptop and partly typed by Typist, signed and

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this, the 21st day of April, 2025.

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of 1 st Class, (Proh & Excise) Srikakulam.

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

FOR PETITIONER:-

PW.1:Arasavilli Bharathi

PW.2: Tamada Parvathi

PW.3: K.Mukunda Rao

FOR RESPONDENTS:-

R.W1: Arasavilli Janardhana

RW.2: Changala Ajay

Documents marked :-

FOR PETITIONERS :-

– Nil –

FOR RESPONDENTS:-

– Nil –

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of 1 st Class.

Proh & Excise, Srikakulam.

CC.27/2022 //1//

Dt.22.05.2023

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SOMPETA

Present:- Sri. A.RAMU,

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Sompeta

Monday, this the 22nd day of May, 2023

C.C.No.27 of 2022

Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mandasa P.S. Complainant

And :

1. Savara Sankararao, S/o late Bariki @ Gunnayya, 27 years, Savara by caste, Chinnakosta village, Mandasa Mandal.

2. Savara Prasanth, S/o Kamaraju, 24 years, Savara by caste, Bondikari village, Mandasa Mandal.

3. Palli Sivasankara Varaprasad, S/o Polayya, 24 years, Kapu by caste, Kotta veedi, Mandasa village and mandal.

4. Nallabariki Vidyasagar, S/o Thoudu, 22 years, SC by caste, Kotta veedi, Mandasa village and mandal.

ACCUSED

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for State; and of Sri D.Joga Rao, Advocate for accused No.1 to 4; and upon hearing both sides, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Mandasa filed charge sheet in

CR.No.84/2021 Under Section 7(B) read with 8 (B) 8(c) (a) of

A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 against accused No.1 to 4.

2. The Brief facts of the prosecution case are :

On 19.05.2021 morning, the accused No.1 to 4 procured 600 liters of I.D. arrack in 14 plastic tubes and transporting the same in

Swift car No.AP 31 ER 7340 and motor cycle bearing No.AP 39 GP 7340

CC.27/2022 //2//

Dt.22.05.2023 meant for selling and on receipt of information, on 19.05.2021 at 5.00 hours, LW.6-Sri B.Rama Rao, S.I., of Police, Mandasa along with his staff rushed to Cheepi village road junction of Mandasa Mandal, caught the accused No.1 to 4 red handedly while they were found in possession of 600 liters of I.D. arrack in 14 plastic tubes total worth of

Rs.60,000/- and transporting the same for sale at higher prices to gain profit without any valid license and permit and LW.6-Sri B.Rama Rao,

S.I., of Police, Mandasa arrested the accused No.1 to 4 and collected sample from the seized contraband under cover of occurrence report.

2(a).Basing on the occurrence report, LW.6-Sri B.Rama Rao,

S.I., of Police, Mandasa registered F.I.R. in Cr.No.84/2021 under

Section 7(B) read with 8(B), 8(C)(a) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act of Mandasa P.S. and during the course of investigation, LW.6-Sri

B.Rama Rao, S.I., of Police, Mandasa produced the arrest of the accused No.1 to 4 before the Judicial remand and also forwarded the seized sample to the Government Chemical Examiner of Prohibition and Excise, R.P.E.L., Visakhapatnam for analysis and also submitted the confiscation proposal of seized crime vehicles to Special

Enforcement Beauro, Srikakulam as per the latest directions of state

Government of Andhra Pradesh. LW.5-Smt P.Laxmi, Government

Chemical Examiner of Prohibition and Excise, R.P.E.L., Visakhapatnam analyzed the samples and issued laboratory analysis report with opinion vide C.E.No.1780/2021 that the sample Nos.14534 to 14547 are illicitly distilled liquor and unfit for human consumption and injurious to health and after completion of the investigation, LW.7-Sri

K.Venkatesh, S.I. of Police, Mandasa P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4.

CC.27/2022 //3//

Dt.22.05.2023

3.The case was taken on file for the offence Under Section 7(B) read with 8 (B) 8(c)(a) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

4.On appearance of the accused No.1 to 4, copies of documents was furnished as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the offence under Section 7(B) read with 8 (B) 8(c)(a)of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 read over and explained the contents to the accused No.1 to 4 in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution cited 7 witnesses and examined LW.6 as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.5 and M.O.1.

The remaining witness that is LW.1 to 4 and 7 (Sri M.Suryarao, Sri

B.Sasibhusanarao, Constables, Mandasa P.S., Sri P.Sanyasinaidu, Sri

T.Jagajeevanarao, Head Constables, Mandasa P.S., Smt P.Laxmi,

Assistant Chemical Examiner, R.P.E.L., Visakhapatnam and Sri

K.Venkatesh, S.I. of Police, Mandasa P.S.) were police witnesses and closed by the Court.

6.After completion of trial, accused No.1 to 4 were examined

U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and incriminating material were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied and reported no defence. No Exhibits were marked in “D” series.

7.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.

8.Now the point for determination is :

POINT :

Whether the prosecution has proved the charge against

the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence under Section 7(B)

read with 8 (B) 8(c)(a)of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act,

2020, as framed beyond all reasonable doubts?

To prove the case, the prosecution has examined PW.1-Sri

B.Rama Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, Mandasa.

CC.27/2022 //4//

Dt.22.05.2023

9.PW.1-Sri B.Rama Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, Mandasa deposed that on 19.05.2021 at about 5.00 hours, he received reliable information, he along with his staff and reached at Cheppi junction,

Mandasa mandal at that time they found four persons with a car bearing No.AP 31 ER 8037 and one motor bike bearing No.AP 39 GP 7340 along with 14 plastic cubs and he caught the accused No.1 to 4 with the help of his staff and then he verified the said bags contained 600 liters I.D. arrack and later he questioned the accused No.1 to 4 and they revealed that they purchased from Odisha state and he sent

LW.1 for securing mediators, but in vain and he collected 14 sample bottles from each cube each 250 m.l., for analysis and sent accused

No.1 to 4 and seized property to Mandasa Police Station and he affixed identification slips on the M.O.1. Ex.P.1 is the mediator report and he registered case in Cr.No.84/2021 for the offence under Section 7-B read with 8-B, 8(C)(a) of A.P.P. Amendment Act, 2020. Ex.P.2 is the

First Information Report and he arrested the accused No.1 to 4 on the same day and he send a letter to the chemical examiner Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam along with sample sachets.

Letter of advice is Ex.P.3 and chemical analysis report is marked as

Ex.P.4 and he destructed the seized property, Ex.P.5 is the destruction

Order. M.O.1 is 14 sample bottles and after completion of the investigation, LW.7-Sri K.Venkatesh, S.I. of Police, Mandasa P.S. filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4.

10.PW.1-Sri B.Rama Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, Mandasa did not depose that he destructed the remaining I.D. arrack in the presence of mediators, except the oral evidence of PW.1 and destruction panchanama has no other evidence of independent witness about the destruction of remaining I.D. liquor from the possession of the accused No.1 to 4. The above act of PW.1 is create a cloud with

CC.27/2022 //5//

Dt.22.05.2023 regard to the very seizure of I.D. arrack from the possession of the accused No.1 to 4. Further except the evidence PW.1 who is official of

Police Department, there is no other independent witnesses evidence against the accused No.1 to 4 that, PW.1 seized I.D. liquor from the possession of the accused No.1 to 4 while they were carrying.

11.Further, P.W.1 did not follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. to seize the liquor bottles from the possession of the accused No.1 to 4. Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:

“Before making a search under this chapter, 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 his willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue in order in writing to them or any of them so to do”.

12.The learned counsel for accused relied upon the following decisions.

 In between Pothabathula Abbulu Vs. The State of Andhra

Pradesh in Crl.Revision Case No.1758 of 2005, dated 06.07.2021 of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

Amaravathi, wherein it is held at para No.6 that:

“Even if local panch witnesses were not called at the time of recovery panchanama, it would not amount to non-compliance with sub-Sec.(4) or (5) of Sec.100 Cr.P.C., in view of presumption under illustration (e) of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act”.  In between Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2002(1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (Andhra Pradesh), wherein it it is held para No.5 that:

5. Adverting to the same, the offence under

Section 34 of the A.P. Excise Act is made cognizable offence and once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials. When once they

CC.27/2022 //6//

Dt.22.05.2023 become police officials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. Moreover,

Ex.P.5 panchanama is hit by Section 25, 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act and Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The benefit if any arise due to the invalidity of the investigation only goes to the accused and once the Ex.P.5 is hit by

Section 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and

Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Section 25 and 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act and Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt. Both the Courts have not looked into the evidence from proper angle.

The conviction and sentence awarded is, therefore, liable to be set aside due to the illegality of the proceedings drafted. Moreover, only one sample of sachet was produced before the Court and not all the sachets seized and it is for the prosecution to establish that all the samples of sachets seized contain. I.D.

Liquor and it is not proved.

13.The above decision aptly applicable to the present case on hand, since the investigating officer has not followed procedure as laid down under Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C., at the time of seizure of arrack from the possession of accused No.1 to 4 and alleged that the accused

No.1 to 4 made confession about possession of I.D., arrack as per the accused No.1 to 4 report.

14.Basing on the above foregoing discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that, it is not safe to

CC.27/2022 //7//

Dt.22.05.2023 attribute the offence against the accused No.1 to 4 as alleged by the prosecution basing on the evidence of P.W.1 who is Sub Inspector of

Police Department. Hence, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilty of the accused No.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused No.1 to 4 are entitled to acquittal under benefit of doubt.

15.In the result, accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 7(B) read with 8 (B) 8(c)(a) of A.P.

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and they are acquitted under

Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 4 and sureties if any shall continue for a period of 6 months and shall stands cancelled after 6 months, if no appeal is preferred. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

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

pronounced by me, in the open Court, this the 22nd day of May, 2023.

Junior Civil Judge-cum-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of 1s t Class, Sompeta.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: -

PW-1B.Rama Rao, Sub Inspector of PoliceNil

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1Occurrence report. Ex.P2First Information Report, dated 19.05.2021. Ex.P3Letter of advise. Ex.P4 Attested copy of Chemical analysis report. Ex.P5Destruction Order. For Defence: Nil

Material objects

M.O.1 : 14 sample bottles.

Junior Civil Judge-cum-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of 1s t Class, Sompeta.

CC.27/2022 //8//

Dt.22.05.2023

Calendar and Judgment

Calendar Cases tried by the Additional Junior Civil Judge – Cum –

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sompeta.

CALENDAR CASE No.27/2022

Date of offence19.05.2021 Date of Complaint or Report19.05.2021 Apprehension of the accused19.05.2021

Remand of the accused19.05.2021 Release on bail of accusedA.1 to A.3 Released on bail as per the Orders of the Hon’ble VI Addl. District Court,Sompetain

Crl.M.P.No.122/2021 in Cr.No.84/2021

of Mandasa P.S., dated 27.05.2021.

A.4 is released on bail as per the Orders of the Hon’ble VI Addl. District Court,Sompetain

Crl.M.P.No.123/2021 in Cr.No.84/2021

of Mandasa P.S., dated 27.05.2021.

Taken on file12.01.2022 Commencement of trial21.03.2023 Close of trial21.03.2023 Sentence of Order22.05.2023

Explanation for the delay :Due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Name of the complainant:State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mandasa.

Name of the Accused:1. Savara Sankararao, S/o late Bariki @ Gunnayya, 27 years, Savara by caste, Chinnakosta village, Mandasa Mandal.

2. Savara Prasanth, S/o Kamaraju, 24 years, Savara by caste, Bondikari village, Mandasa Mandal.

3. Palli Sivasankara Varaprasad, S/o Polayya, 24 years, Kapu by caste, Kotta veedi, Mandasa village and mandal.

4. Nallabariki Vidyasagar, S/o Thoudu, 22 years, SC by caste, Kotta veedi, Mandasa village and mandal.

CC.27/2022 //9//

Dt.22.05.2023

Crime No. :84/2021 Offence :Section 7(B) read with 8 (B) 8(c)(a)of A.P.

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) 8(C)(a) of A.P.P.Amendment Act, 2020:

“7-B.ProhibitionofBootLeggingActivities:Themanufacturing, transporting, setting, buying, importing, exporting or storing of any alcoholic liquor and supplying or transporting of any raw materials for the manufacture of alcoholic liquor illegally or clandestinely, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 is hereby prohibited.”) 8-B. Penalty for sale, export, import and transport of alcoholic liquor manufactured illegally and clandestinely:- whoever in contravention of section 7-B of this Act indulges in sale, export, import or transport of illicitly distilled alcoholic liquor shall on conviction be liable for imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend upto eight years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees two lakhs for the first offence adnw hich shall not be less than rupees five lakhs for the second offence; 8-C. Penalty for Conspiracy: When two or more persons agree-

(a) to commit any offence punishable under this Act, or

Sentence or order:-

In the result, accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the of - fence under Section 7(B) read with 8 (B) 8(c)(a) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 4 and sureties if any shall continue for a period of 6 months and shall stands cancelled after 6 months, if no appeal is preferred. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Junior Civil Judge-cum-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of 1s t Class, Sompeta

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam.

1

IN THE COURT OF SPL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 ST SRIKAKULAM.

(PROHIBITION AND EXICSE)

Present:- Smt. D.Sri Bharani,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of 1 st Class, Srikakulam.

Monday, this the 21 st day of April, 2025.

C.C. No.434/2025

BETWEEN:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Laveru Police Station …. Complainant

And:-

Kinthali Madhubabu, S/o Vishnumurthy, age 29 years, Resident of Adapaka village, Laveru mandal.

… Accused.

This case is coming on 19.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P, for Prosecution, and for Sri B.S.Reddy Learned Advocate for 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 State represented by Sub-Inspector, Laveru PS filed charge sheet against the accused under Section 34 (a) (i) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 in Cr.No.289/2024

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

On 24.12.2024 at about 18.00 hours, got credible information about the sale of illegal liquor bottles LW.4/B.Jaganmohanarao SI of Police along with other staff members went to Venkatapuram Junction of Laveru mandal, they caught the accused red-handedly by the LW.4 of police along with staff members in illegal 2 possession of the liqour bottles ie., 33 nip bottles of Classic Blue Finest whiskey and 10 nip bottles of Classic Blue Finest whiskey each of 180 and on interrogation, the accused admitted that he had purchased liquor bottles from unknown places.

Then L.W.4 Sub-Inspector of police, Laveru police Station seized the contraband and gunny bag after spearing two bottles towards sample to be sent to the Excise

Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for analysis. Later served U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. Basing on the occurrence report, the Sub Inspector of Police, Laveru

P.S registered a case in Cr.No.289/2024 under Section 34 (a) (i) of A.P. Excise

Amendment Act, 2020 and investigated into.

During the course of investigation L.W.4 Sub-Inspector of Police, Laveru,

Station sent the samples along with seized property liquor to the Government

Chemical Examiner, Visakhapatnam for analysis purpose. The Chemical examiner in turn after due analysis of the sample is Indian liquor.

3.This case taken on file against accused U/Sec. 34 (a) (i) of A.P. Excise

Amendment Act, 2020 against Accused.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of the documents were furnished to him under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused examined u/s 239 of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 34(a) (i) A.P. Excise Amendment Act 2020 for which they denied the prosecution allegation, Charge punishable under Section 34 (a) (i) of A.P. Excise Amendment

Act, 2020 against the accused has been framed, read over and explained to him in

Telugu for which he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In the course of trial, prosecution examined P.W.1 marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.3 are marked and produced MO.1 and MO.2 are the sample bottles to prove the case. The learned APP given up the evidence of L.Ws.1 to LW.3 and LW.5.

3

7.After completion of the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C on incriminating evidence is available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which they denied the same and report no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point of consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused U/Sec. 34 (a) (i) of A.P.

Excise Amendment Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.In order to prove this case, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and also MO.1 and MO.2 are sample bottles.

11. PW.1 Sub-Inspector of Police deposed that on receipt of Ex.P1/occurrence report and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. On 24.12.2024 at about 18.00 hours, on reliable information himself, Lws.1 and 2 members were proceeded to Venkatapuram Junction of Laveru mandal and they reached

Venkatpuram Junction they found one person aged about 29 years, on suspicion they caught hold that person. On examination he disclosed his name as Kinthali

Madhubabu on verification of gunny bag, they found 33 nip bottles of Classic Blue

Finest whiskey and 10 nip bottles of Classic Blue Finest whiskey each of 180 and they searched for mediators, but none were available. Ex.P1 is the occurrence report. Himself prepared occurrence report at the scene of offence, out of 43 of bottles, two bottles are taken separately for analysis, later served u/Sec.41(A) notice served the said person brought seized items and accused to police station.

He disclosed that the said liquor bottles were sold for higher price for his livelihood.

4

Himself and other staff members and accused inscribed their signatures on occurrence report. Basing on the same he registered a case in Cr.No.289/2024

U/Sec.34 (a) (I) of A.P.Excise Amendment Act 2020. Ex.P2 is the original FIR. On receipt of chemical analysis report, he filed charge sheet in this case. Ex.P3 is the chemical analysis report.

12. As seen from the evidence, P.W.1 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality. The efforts made by the investigation officer to secure the presence of mediators are not according to the procedure. Even as per the version of P.W.1, the scene of offence is not located in an isolated place. In the absence of serving of written notices either on the people gathered at the scene of offence or on the people. In the absence of serving of written notices either on the people gathered at the scene of offence or on the people who were residing in the locality, by compelling them to assist the raid party and in the absence of furnish names and other particulars of the people who were requested by the staff of P.W.1 to act as mediators, clouds the prosecution case with suspicion. For the reason of not making efforts to take independent respectable local mediators, the evidence of

P.W.1 loses its credibility.

13. Ex.P.3 Lab analysis report would establish that the MO.1 and MO.2 contains Indian Made liquor. By marking this document, the prosecution at best established the nature of the content that was sent to the chemical analysis but they failed to establish that it was seized from the conscious possession of the accused. Here it is pertinent to see relevant judgment of Hon’ble A.P High court on this aspect.

14. The Hon’ble High court of A.P in the case of ‘S.Babu saheb @babu Vs The

State of A.P’ reported in ‘2010(1) A.L.T(Crl.) 32 A.P’ wherein it is held that:

5 “When they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the

Excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C As referred to in the above provisions, the Excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under sub section (4) of section 100 of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100 of Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted”

15. By following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court and for the foregoing reasons, this court finds that it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of official witnesses i.e., PW1 when it is not supported by any other independent witness. The material produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused. In the present case on hand the prosecution failed to secure the independent mediators and failed to examine any independent witness, to establish the guilt of the accused and also failed to follow proper procedure prescribed under law. Hence, in any way there is no credibility to the prosecution witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused and their evidence cannot be believed. Therefore, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to believe the complicity of the accused in commission of the offence. In view of the above infirmities, this court finds that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. The material produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thereby, the point is decided in favour of the defence and against the prosecution.

6

16. In the result the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.

34 (a) (i) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 and accordingly he is acquitted for the same u/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. MO.1 and MO.2 are the sample bottles shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Grade III Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 21st day of April, 2025.

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, (Proh &Excise), Srikakulam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE:-

PW.1B.Jaganmohanarao Sub-Inspector of Police - None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1Occurrence report. ... NIL… Ex.P2 Original F.I.R. Ex.P3 Analysis Report 7

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 Sample bottle of Classic Blue Finest whiskey

M.O.2 Sample bottle of Classic Blue Finest whiskey

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, (Proh & Excise), Srikakulam.

2

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SRIKAKULAM.

PRESENT: Smt. D.Sri Bharani,

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.

(FAC) Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Monday, this the 31st day of July, Two Thousand and Twenty Three.

O O r r i i g g i i n n a a l l S S u u i i t t N N o o . . 6 6 2 2 7 7 / / 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 Between:

Meesala Simhachalam S/o. Krishnan Naidu, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Resident of Yarrayyagari Veedhi, Chinnamurapaka Village, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam District . . . Plaintiff.

and

Eppasi Srinu S/o. Lakshmana Rao, aged about 30 years, Business, Guntukupeta Village, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam District.

. . . Defendant.

This Case is coming before me for final hearing on 18.07.2023 in the presence of Sri K.Rambabu Naidu, Advocate for Plaintiff and the Defendant having remained Expartee and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G E M E N T

1. This is a Suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of suit amount of Rs. 5,78,400/- (Rupees five lakhs seventy eight thousand four hundred only) basing on a Promissory Note.

2. The brief averments of the Plaint are :

The Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs 4,00,000/- from the

Plaintiff on 05.01.2021 for the purpose of family expenses, clearing of sundry debts and executed a Promissory Note in favour of the Plaintiff on the same day in the presence of attestors and scribe and agreeing to repay the borrowed amount with interest @ 24% per annum to the Plaintiff or to his order on demand, and thereafter he failed to repay the amount accrued under the Promissory Note to the Plaintiff inspite of several demands made personally and also through mediators, but the defendant did not pay anything to the Plaintiff, due under the above said suit pronote. Later, the

Plaintiff got issued a legal Notice to the Defendant on 20.10.2022 ad the 2 same was received by the Plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to reply neither paid any amount under the Promissory Note. Hence, the Suit.

3. On the other hand, Sri. P.Santhi Swaroop, Advocate filed Vakalat for

Defendant and on several opportunities given by this court, the defendant failed to file written statement as such, the Defendant remained set expartee on 14.06.2023.

4. To prove his contention, the Plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit and examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs A1 to A3 and

P.W.2 examined on behalf of P.W.1.

5. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff.

6. Now, the point for determination is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the

Defendant as prayed for ?

P 0 I N T :

7. At the outset, this is a Suit filed by the Plaintiff against Defendant for recovery of suit amount basing on a Promissory Note. To prove his contention, the Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 i.e,. Original Suit Promissory Note dt.05.01.2021 for an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- as Ex. A1, Office Copy of legal Notice Dt.20.10.2022 as

Ex.A2. Postal Receipt along with postal track receipt as Ex.A3. P.W.2 examined on behalf of P.W.1.

8. It is the case of P.W.1 as per the contents of the Plaint that, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the Plaintiff on 05.01.2021 under Ex.A1/Promissory Note agreeing to repay the borrowed amount with interest @ 24% per annum and thereafter, failed to repay the same to the Plaintiff inspite of his several demands, hence P.W.1 filed the present Suit.

9. P.W.1 deposed that the Defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs 4,00,000/- from him under Ex.A1/Promissory Note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum to him or to his order on demand and thereafter, failed to repay the borrowed amount inspite of several demands made by him but the defendant did not pay the amount and he prayed to pass a decree in his favour. But, the Defendant did not appear before the

Court to deny the contention of the Plaintiff and cross examine him to discredit his evidence with respect to the borrowing of amount by him from the Plaintiff and execution of Ex.A1 by him in favour of the Plaintiff.

3

10. To disprove the contention of the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not appear before the Court and give evidence and he remained expartee. So, it is to be presumed that the Defendant admitted the case of the Plaintiff.

Further, the oral evidence of P.W.1 and documentary evidence under Ex.A1 establish that the Defendant borrowed amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the

Plaintiff under Ex.A1 and failed to repay even after several demands made by the Plaintiff, but the defendant did not give paid any amount to the plaintiff. To disprove Ex.A1 and oral evidence of P.W.1, the Defendant did not appear before court and remained expartee. So, the oral evidence of

P.W.1 and documentary evidence under Ex.A1 stand unrebutted and proved by the Plaintiff. Hence, it is held that the Suit Promissory Note dated 05.01.2021 is true, valid and binding on the Defendant and that the Plaintiff proved that the Defendant borrowed amount from him and executed

Ex.A1/Promissory Note in his favour after taking amount from him and failed to repay and that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the Defendant as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the Defendant.

11. In the result, the Suit is decreed with costs in favour of the

Plaintiff and against the Defendant, directing the Defendant to pay the

suit amount of Rs.5,78,400/- (Rupees five lakhs seventy eight thousand

four hundred only) to the Plaintiff together with subsequent interest at

6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs 4,00,000/- from the date

of suit till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 31st day of July, 2023.

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PROH & EXCISE COURT, SKLM.

(FAC) SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SRIKAKULAM .

4

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

P.W 1: 04.07.2023 : Meesala Simhachalam ---Nil--- P.W.2: 04.07.2023: Meesala Srinivasa Rao.

Documents Marked For PLAINTIFF :- Ex A1 : 05.01.2021 : Original Promissory Note for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only)

Ex.A2:20.10.2022 : Office Copy of Legal Notice.

Ex.A3: Postal Receipt along with Tract Receipt.

For DEFENDANT :- - - - None - - -

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PROH & EXCISE COURT, SKLM.

(FAC) SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SRIKAKULAM .

5

Date of Presentation: 15-11-2022 Date of Filing: 15-11-2022

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SRIKAKULAM.

PRESENT: Smt. D.Sri Bharani,

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.

(FAC) Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Monday, this the 31st day of July, Two Thousand and Twenty Three.

O O r r i i g g i i n n a a l l S S u u i i t t N N o o . . 6 6 2 2 7 7 / / 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 Between:

Meesala Simhachalam S/o. Krishnan Naidu, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Resident of Yarrayyagari Veedhi, Chinnamurapaka Village, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam District. . . . Plaintiff.

and

Eppasi Srinu S/o. Lakshmana Rao, aged about 30 years, Business, Guntukupeta Village, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam District.

. . . Defendant.

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery an amount of Rs.5,78,400/- being the principal and interest due under a suit promissory note dt.05-01-2021 for Rs.4,00,000/- and with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization and costs of the suit.

Value of the suit is Rs.5,78,400/- and a court fee of Rs.8,226/- is paid u/Sec.20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act, 1956.

This Case is coming before me for final hearing on 18.07.2023 in the presence of Sri K.Rambabu Naidu, Advocate for Plaintiff and the Defendant having remained Expartee and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and upon hearing both sides and on perusal of entire case material on record, the Court doth order and DECREE:- i.that the suit be and the same is here decreed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, directing the Defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs.5,78,400/- to the Plaintiff together with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs 4,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of realization.

ii.that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.12,298/- (Rupees Tweleve thousand two hundred and ninety eight only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 31st day of July, 2023.

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PROH & EXCISE COURT, SKLM.

(FAC) SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SRIKAKULAM .

6

Memorandum of costs

for Plaintiff For Defendant:

C.F on plaint … Rs. 8226-00 No costs memo filed. Vakalat … Rs. 2-00 Process … Rs. 70-00 Advocate fee … Rs. 4000-00 --------------- costs allowed .. Rs.12,298-00 --------------

Verified III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PROH & EXCISE COURT, SKLM.

(FAC) SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SRIKAKULAM

C.M.O.