Ms. Dara Sai Meghana

Page No.1 of 11 CC.No.545 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS (FOR PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES)-CUM-

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT NALGONDA

On this Monday, this the 18th day of May, 2026

Present: Ms. Dara Sai Meghana Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (For Proh. & Excise Offences) Nalgonda.

CC.No.545 of 2015

BETWEEN:

M/s. New Bhagyanidhi Finance Yarala Complex, D.V.K. Road, Nalgonda, Represented by its M.P. Male Venkat Reddy S/o.Janaki Ram Reddy, Age: 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.4-10-351/CS/1, Abbasia colony, Nalgonda town. …Complainant. AND

Mualakala Nagalaxmi D/o.Narahari, Age: 45 years, Occ: Electricity Employee, R/o.Nalgonda town and District.

…Accused

@@@

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri M. Venkat Reddy, Learned counsel for the complainant and Sri K.V.

Sudhakar, Learned Counsel for accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The complainant filed the present complaint against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act and Section 420 IPC, contending that he is the Managing

Partner of M/S New Bhagyanidhi Finance, a registered partnership firm carrying on finance business at Nalgonda. It is the case of the

Page No.2 of 11 CC.No.545 of 2015 complainant that the accused along with one Gangi Vishwakumar approached the complainant firm seeking financial assistance of

Rs.3,50,000/- for business and family necessities and accordingly the said amount was advanced on 08.08.2011. It is further alleged that the borrower executed a demand promissory note agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% per annum and the accused along with another stood as guarantors by executing jamin promissory notes.

2.It is further alleged that despite repeated demands, the accused failed to discharge the liability and ultimately issued cheque bearing

No.003223 dated 17.01.2013 for Rs.3,50,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank,

Nalgonda Branch towards part satisfaction of the legally enforceable debt. The said cheque, when presented for encashment, was dishonoured on 19.01.2013 with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, the complainant caused issuance of statutory legal notice dated 24.01.2013 demanding payment of the cheque amount within the stipulated period.

Though the notice was served on the accused on 31.01.2013, the accused neither replied to the notice nor paid the cheque amount. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed.

3.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished and substance of accusation was explained to the accused for the offences

Page No.3 of 11 CC.No.545 of 2015 punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and

Section 420 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To substantiate his case, the complainant examined himself as

PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. Ex.P1 is the original promissory note

dated 08.08.2011, Ex.P2 is the original cheque bearing No.003223 dated

17.01.2013, Ex.P3 is the cheque return memo dated 19.01.2013, Ex.P4 is the office copy of legal notice dated 24.01.2013, Ex.P5 is the postal receipt, Ex.P6 is the postal acknowledgement card, Ex.P7 is the certified copy of money lending licence and Ex.P8 is the certified copy of partnership deed. One Venkat Reddy was examined as PW2 in chief examination but the defence failed to cross examine PW2. Hence, upon awarding ample opportunities to the defence, the cross examination of

PW2 was closed. However, subsequently, upon allowing the petition filed for recalling PW2 for cross-examination and as PW2 remained absent despite several adjournments, the evidence of PW2 was eschewed vide docket order dated 24.01.2024.

5.After closure of complainant evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution, for

Page No.4 of 11 CC.No.545 of 2015 which he denied the same. Though opportunity was granted to adduce defence evidence, the accused failed to do so despite several adjournments and conditional orders. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

6.Perused the material on record and heard both sides. Upon such consideration, the following points for determination arise:

1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused issued Ex.P2

cheque dated 17.01.2013 for Rs.3,50,000/- towards discharge of

legally enforceable debt or liability and that the said cheque was

dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and thereby committed

the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act?

2. Whether the complainant further proves that the accused

committed the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC?

POINT Nos.1 and 2:

7.For a better appreciation of the evidence on record and inorder to avoid repetition, the points no. 1 and 2 are taken up together. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is imperative to refer to the statutory ingredients of the Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Section 138: Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in

the account.

1 [Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another

Page No.5 of 11 CC.No.545 of 2015 person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for 2[a term which may be extended to two years], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless—

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice; in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, 3 [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

Explanation -- For the purposes of this section, debt of other liability means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.

10.2 The legal requirements as mentioned under this section are as

Page No.6 of 11 CC.No.545 of 2015 follows:

1. A person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank.

2. The cheque must have been issued for discharge, whole or in part, of any debt or other legally enforceable liability.

3. The cheque must be presented in a bank within the period of 6 months (i.e; 3 months as per RBI Circular RBI/2011-12/251

DBOD AML BC No. 47/14.14.01.001/2011-12, dated 04-11-2011 w.e.f: April 1, 2012) from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.

4. The cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either due to insufficient funds or it exceeds the arrangement made with the bank.

5. The payee or holder in due course of the cheque must issue a statutory demand notice in writing to the drawer within 30 days from the date of receipt of intimation regarding the return of the cheque.

6. The drawer fails to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of said notice.

Presumptions: -

a)Section 118 NI Act, lays down presumptions that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. Unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that such instrument was made, drawn, accepted, endorsed, or transferred for consideration.

b) Further, Section 139 of NI Act provides that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.

Page No.7 of 11 CC.No.545 of 2015

8.These presumptions are statutory in nature and are rebuttable.

However, the burden of rebutting these presumptions lies on the Accused.

The Accused must raise a probable defence, either by bringing on record credible evidence or by eliciting material inconsistencies in the

Complainant’s case during cross-examination, to displace the presumption under Section 139 of NI Act.

9.PW1 reiterated the averments made in the complaint and deposed regarding advancement of loan, execution of promissory note, issuance of cheque and dishonour thereof. Ex.P2 cheque and Ex.P3 cheque return memo disclose that the cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Exs.P4 to P6 further disclose that statutory notice was issued within the prescribed period and the same was served upon the accused.

10.It is settled law that once issuance of cheque is admitted or proved, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act operate in favour of the complainant. However, the said presumptions are rebuttable in nature and the accused can rebut the same either by adducing defence evidence or through effective cross- examination of the complainant.

Page No.8 of 11 CC.No.545 of 2015

11.In the present case, during cross-examination, PW1 admitted that there are 20 partners in the complainant firm and that all the partners have to authorize advancement of loan amounts. However, no authorization letter or resolution authorizing PW1 to prosecute the present complaint on behalf of the partnership firm has been filed before the Court. PW1 further admitted that no application form, inquiry report, account books, bank statements or income tax returns were filed to establish advancement of the loan amount by the complainant firm.

12.Further, PW1 admitted that Ex.P1 contains the name of “M. Venkat

Reddy” as lender and also admitted that the accused stood as guarantor to the loan transaction. Though PW1 subsequently explained that the name of New Bhagyanidhi Finance was also mentioned in Ex.P1, he admitted that there was overwriting relating to the name of Bhagyanidhi Finance and that no signatures of borrower were obtained on such overwriting.

The complainant also failed to examine any competent witness to clarify the said discrepancies, as the evidence of PW2, who was allegedly the scribe and attestor of Ex.P1, was eschewed.

13.Though no independent defence evidence was adduced by the accused, the material elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 creates serious doubt regarding the exact nature of transaction and whether the

Page No.9 of 11 CC.No.545 of 2015 alleged debt was legally enforceable in favour of the complainant firm.

Once such probable defence is established, the burden shifts back upon the complainant to prove the transaction through cogent and satisfactory evidence. In the present case, the complainant failed to produce the best available evidence such as books of accounts, authorization documents, bank records and other supporting material to substantiate the alleged transaction.

14.Insofar as the offence under Section 420 IPC is concerned, except the bald allegation that the accused acted with dishonest intention, no independent evidence is placed before the Court to establish fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of transaction. Mere dishonour of cheque would not by itself constitute the offence of cheating.

15.Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the complainant failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act and Section 420 IPC. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered against the complainant.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and

Page No.10 of 11 CC.No.545 of 2015

Section 420 IPC and is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds shall remain in force for 6 months from the date of judgment U/sec.437 A

Cr.P.C.

(Typed, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 18 th day of May, 2026).

Sd/-

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (For Proh. & Excise Offences)-Cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class

Nalgonda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW-1: M. Venkat Reddy

FOR DEFENCE: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1: Original Promissory note dt: 08.08.2021 Ex-P2: Original Cheque No.003223 dt: 17.01.2023 drawn on ICICI Bank, Nalgonda branch. Ex-P3: Cheque return memo dt: 19.01.2013 of ICICI Bank, Nalgonda Branch Ex-P4: Office copy of legal notice dt: 24.01.2013 Ex-P5: Postal receipt Dt: 24.01.2013 Ex-P6: Postal acknowledgement card Ex-P7: CC of money lending license dt: 24.01.2011, Ex-P8: CC of partnership deed dt: 09.07.2010

Page No.11 of 11 CC.No.545 of 2015

FOR DEFENCE: Nil

Sd/-

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (For Proh. & Excise Offences)-Cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class

Nalgonda

//TRUE COPY//

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(For Proh. & Excise Offences)-Cum-

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class

Nalgonda

Page No.12 of 11 CC.No.545 of 2015 Page No.13 of 11 CC.No.545 of 2015

Page No.1 of 10 O.S.No.583 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS (FOR PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES) –CUM-

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NALGONDA

On this Tuesday, this the 5th day of May, 2026.

Present: Ms D. Sai Meghana,

Spl. Judl. Magistrate Of First Class (For Proh. & Excise Offences)-Cum- II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

O.S.No. 583 of 2024

BETWEEN: - Prakya Deepali W/o.P. Santhosh, Age: 44 years, Occ: Home maker, R/o.Sri Mahalakshmi Mandira, 39 Justice, Rathinavel Pandian Road, Goden Gorge Nagar, Mogappar, East Chennai.

... Plaintiff

AND

1. Miridoddi Hemalatha W/o.Vinod Kumar, Age: 49 years, Occ: Home maker, R/o.H.No.Plot No.30, 2nd floor, Syndicate Bank colony, West Maredpally, Hyderabad-500026.

2. Rathnam Shailaja W/o.Shiva (D/o.Cholleti Sankaraiah), Age: 30 years, Occ: Home maker, R/o.8-1-981, Sathish Nagar, SBR Function Hall, Nalgo- nda town and District.

3. Cholleti Naveen S/o.Cholleti Sankaraiah, Age: 25 years, R/o. Koratikal Village of Munugode Mandal, Nalgonda District.

4. Jakkala Srinu S/o.Muthaiah, Age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.3-66/1, Thimmareddygudem, Thummalapally Village of Chan- dur Mandal, Nalgonda District.

5. Bijjala Sriramulu S/o.Somaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.2-61/5, Lenkalapally Village of Marriguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

6. Mandula Sujatha W/o.Yadaiah, Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.5-186, Koratikal Village of Nalgonda town and District.

…Defendants

Page No.2 of 10 O.S.No.583 of 2024

@@@

This Suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Narsimha Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.1 to 6 are remained set exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court passed the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Brief averments of the plaint are:

(i)The plaintiff and Defendant No.1 jointly purchased agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.5.00 guntas in Survey No.548 and Ac.1.18 guntas in

Survey No.549, totally admeasuring Ac.6.18 guntas, situated at Koratikal

Village, Munugode Mandal, Nalgonda District, under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.3003 of 2011 dated 19.11.2011 executed by B.

Venkateshwarlu and others.

(ii)Subsequent to the purchase, the revenue authorities mutated the names of the plaintiff and Defendant No.1 in equal shares, each to an extent of Ac.3.09 guntas, and issued separate pattadar passbooks and title deeds.

Despite such separate entries, the parties continued to remain in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, and no partition was effected between them.

(iii)As the plaintiff was residing at Chennai, the husband of Defendant

No.1 was managing the properties and used to share the agricultural yield with the plaintiff. After the death of the husband of Defendant No.1 on

Page No.3 of 10 O.S.No.583 of 2024

24.05.2024, the plaintiff approached Defendant No.1 on multiple occasions seeking amicable partition and separate possession of her half share.

Though Defendant No.1 initially agreed before elders, she subsequently evaded and refused to effect partition.

(iv)Upon obtaining revenue records and relevant documents, the plaintiff discovered that Defendant No.1 had, without her knowledge or consent and without any valid basis, got the entire suit lands mutated in her sole name by colluding with revenue authorities. On seeking information under the

Right to Information Act, the Tahsildar reported that no record was available explaining such transfer.

(v)Taking advantage of the said mutation, Defendant No.1 executed several registered sale deeds in favour of Defendant Nos.2 to 5 during the years 2020 and 2022 in respect of different extents of the suit schedule properties. Thereafter, Defendant Nos.4 and 5 further alienated portions of the property in favour of Defendant No.6 under registered sale deeds in the year 2022.

(vi)The plaintiff contends that Defendant No.1, being only a co-owner with an undivided half share and in the absence of any partition, had no right to alienate the entire extent of the suit properties. Therefore, the sale

Page No.4 of 10 O.S.No.583 of 2024

deeds executed by Defendant No.1 and the subsequent transfers are not binding on her share.

(vii)The cause of action arose on various dates when the plaintiff demanded partition, when the illegal mutations and alienations came to light on 20.11.2024, and when Defendant No.1 finally refused to effect partition.

3. Summons were served on the defendants. However, they remained absent and were set ex parte vide Order dated 19.01.2026.

4.The plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and another witness as PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A9 in support of her case.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.

6.Upon such perusal, the following points for determination arise:

(I) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled to half share in

the suit schedule properties?

(II) Whether the plaintiff proves that the registered sale deeds

executed by Defendant No.1 and subsequent sale deeds are not

binding on her share?

(III) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary decree for

partition and separate possession?

(IV) To what relief?

7.For an effective appreciation of the evidence on record and to avoid repetition, the points number 1 to 3 are taken up together.

Page No.5 of 10 O.S.No.583 of 2024

8.The plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and another witness as PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. The oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 is in consonance with the averments made in the plaint. Ex.A1 is the True copy of Amendment for the year 2012-13, Ex.A2 is the True copy of Registered sale deed No.3003/2011, Ex.A3 is the True copy of Registered sale deed

No.2016/2020, Ex.A4 is the True copy of Registered sale deed

No.2017/2020, Ex.A5 is the True copy of Registered sale deed No.63/2022,

Ex.A6 is the True copy of Registered sale deed No.64/2022, Ex.A7 is the

True copy of Registered sale deed No.873/2022, Ex.A8 is the True copy of

Registered sale deed No.893/2022 and Ex.A9 is the Letter No.1132/2024 regarding information under RTI Act.

9.Ex.A2 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing Document

No.3003 of 2011 dated 19.11.2011, which clearly establishes that the plaintiff and Defendant No.1 jointly purchased the suit schedule properties admeasuring Ac.6.18 guntas. The said document forms the root of title and conclusively proves that both the plaintiff and Defendant No.1 are co- owners of the suit properties.

10.Ex.A1, being the revenue record (pahani), discloses that subsequent to the purchase, the names of the plaintiff and Defendant No.1 were mutated in equal shares, each to an extent of Ac.3.09 guntas. This supports

Page No.6 of 10 O.S.No.583 of 2024

the case of the plaintiff that both parties were recognized as joint pattadars.

There is no material on record to show that any partition has taken place between them.

11.Ex.A3 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing Document

No.2016 of 2020 dated 28.05.2020 executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2, whereby an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas in Survey

No.548/Aa2 was alienated.

12.Ex.A4 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing Document

No.2017 of 2020 dated 28.05.2020 executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.3, whereby land admeasuring Ac.0.22 guntas in Survey

No.548/Aa1 and Ac.0.29 guntas each in Survey Nos.549/Aa1 and 549/Aa2, totaling Ac.2.00 guntas, was alienated.

13.Ex.A5 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing Document

No.63 of 2022 dated 12.01.2022 executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of

Defendant No.4, whereby land in Survey No.548/Aa1/1 to an extent of

Ac.0.38 guntas and in Survey No.548/Aa2/1 to an extent of Ac.0.02 guntas was conveyed.

14.Ex.A6 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing Document

No.64 of 2022 dated 12.01.2022 executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of

Defendant No.5 in respect of part of the suit schedule property.

Page No.7 of 10 O.S.No.583 of 2024

15.Ex.A7 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing Document

No.873 of 2022 dated 30.04.2022 executed by Defendant No.4 in favour of

Defendant No.6 in respect of the property covered under Ex.A5.

16.Ex.A8 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing Document

No.893 of 2022 dated 05.05.2022 executed by Defendant No.5 in favour of

Defendant No.6 in respect of the property covered under Ex.A6.

17.A cumulative reading of Exs.A3 to A8 clearly establishes that

Defendant No.1 dealt with specific portions of the suit schedule properties and conveyed them in favour of third parties as if she was the absolute owner of the entire property.

18.It is a settled principle of law that a co-owner, in the absence of partition, is entitled to transfer only his or her undivided share and cannot convey title to any specific portion of the joint property. In the present case, there is absolutely no evidence to show that Defendant No.1 had acquired exclusive title over the entire suit schedule properties or that there was any partition between the parties.

19.Therefore, the alienations made by Defendant No.1 in favour of

Defendant Nos.2 to 5, and the subsequent alienations in favour of

Defendant No.6, cannot bind the share of the plaintiff. At best, such

Page No.8 of 10 O.S.No.583 of 2024

purchasers step into the shoes of Defendant No.1 and are entitled only to the extent of the share of Defendant No.1, subject to the result of partition.

20.It is also pertinent to note that the defendants remained ex-parte and did not choose to contest the claim of the plaintiff or rebut the evidence adduced on her behalf. Hence, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Exs.A1 to A9 remain unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.

21.In view of the foregoing discussion and upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court finds that the plaintiff has successfully established that she and Defendant No.1 are co-owners of the suit schedule properties, each entitled to half share, and that no partition has taken place.

22.This Court further finds that Defendant No.1 had no right to alienate specific portions of the suit schedule properties as absolute owner, and therefore, the registered sale deeds executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant Nos.2 to 5 and the subsequent sale deeds executed in favour of Defendant No.6 are not binding on the half share of the plaintiff.

Accordingly, Point Nos.1, 2 and 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows:

(i)It is declared that the plaintiff is entitled to half (1/2) share in the suit schedule properties.

Page No.9 of 10 O.S.No.583 of 2024

(ii).A preliminary decree for partition is hereby passed declaring the shares of the plaintiff and Defendant No.1 as equal, i.e ½.

(iii).The registered sale deeds bearing Document Nos.2016 of 2020 and 2017 of 2020 dated 28.05.2020, Document Nos.63 and 64 of 2022 dated 12.01.2022, and Document Nos.873 of 2022 dated 30.04.2022 and 893 of 2022 dated 05.05.2022 are declared as not binding on the half share of the plaintiff.

(iv).No order as to costs.

(Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 5th day of May, 2026).

Sd/-

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(FOR PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES) –CUM-

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NALGONDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff s :-

PW1: P. Deepali PW2: P. Vinod Kumar

For Defendant s :- Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff s :-

Ex.A1: True copy of Amendment for the year 2012-13 Ex.A2: True copy of Registered sale deed No.3003/2011

Page No.10 of 10 O.S.No.583 of 2024

Ex.A3:True copy of Registered sale deed No.2016/2020 Ex.A4: True copy of Registered sale deed No.2017/2020 Ex.A5: True copy of Registered sale deed No.63/2022 Ex.A6: True copy of Registered sale deed No.64/2022 Ex.A7:True copy of Registered sale deed No.873/2022 Ex.A8:True copy of Registered sale deed No.893/2022 Ex.A9:Letter No.1132/2024 regarding information under RTI Act.

For Defendant s :- Nil

Sd/-

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(FOR PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES) –CUM-

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NALGONDA

Page No.1 of 7 CC.No.81 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS (FOR PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES) –CUM-

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NALGONDA

On this Monday, this the 18th day of May, 2026. Present: Ms. Dara Sai Meghana Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (For Proh. & Excise Offences)-Cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

CC No. 81 of 2024

Between: State:Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Chandur Police Station.

…Complainant.

AND

Balam Swamy S/o.Bixamaiah, Age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Solipuram Village, Munugode Mandal.

...Accused

@@@

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned APP and Sri M. Narayana Rao, Learned Counsel for accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that PW2 lodged a written complaint before the Prohibition and Excise Station, Chandur, on 27.04.2023 alleging that the accused had cut down toddy trees situated in her agricultural land bearing Survey No.20/4 of Kummandanigudem village, Chandur Mandal. Upon receipt of the said complaint, PW3, who was working as Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, along with his staff proceeded to the scene of offence on 04.05.2023 and secured the presence of PW1 and another mediator. During inspection, it was allegedly found

Page No.2 of 7 CC.No.81 of 2024 that 28 toddy trees were cut down. PW3 conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators and registered the present case for the offence punishable under Section 27 r/w Section 40 of the

Telangana Excise Act. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused.

2.Upon appearance of the accused, copies of prosecution documents were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 27 r/w Section 40 of the Telangana Excise Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same. No defence evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

4.Heard the learned APP and the learned defence counsel and perused the record. Upon such perusal, the following point for determination arises:

Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the

accused intentionally cut down toddy trees situated in Survey No.20/4 of

Kummandanigudem village without valid licence or permission and

Page No.3 of 7 CC.No.81 of 2024

thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 27 read with

Section 40 of the Telangana Excise Act?

POINT:

5.PW1, who acted as panchwitness for the scene of offence panchanama, deposed that about three years ago excise police called him to the agricultural land of PW2 and conducted panchanama as toddy trees were found cut down. He stated that he noticed 28 fallen toddy trees and identified his signature on Ex.P1/scene of offence panchanama. However, during cross-examination, PW1 admitted that he had not seen the accused at the time of panchanama. He further admitted that the contents of the panchanama were not read over to him and that boundaries were not mentioned in the panchanama. He also stated that he did not know about any land disputes between the accused and PW2.

6.PW2, who is the de-facto complainant, deposed that she owns agricultural land in Survey No.20 and that there were about 40 toddy trees in the said land. According to her, the accused cut down all the toddy trees and therefore she lodged Ex.P2 complaint. However, during cross- examination, PW2 categorically admitted that she had not personally witnessed the accused cutting down the toddy trees. She further admitted that the accused owns adjacent land in the same survey number and that

Survey No.20 is divided between her husband and brother-in-law. She also

Page No.4 of 7 CC.No.81 of 2024 admitted that another person by name Balam Atchaiah possesses land in the same survey number. PW2 further admitted that the toddy trees were not bearing toddy.

7.PW3, the investigating officer, deposed regarding receipt of complaint, inspection of the scene of offence, conduct of panchanama and registration of the case. According to him, during enquiry with neighboring farmers, it was revealed that the accused had cut down the toddy trees.

However, in the cross-examination, PW3 admitted that he had not mentioned the names of such neighboring farmers in the charge sheet.

None of the alleged neighboring farmers were examined before the Court.

PW3 further admitted that he had not conducted any determination test regarding the age of the toddy trees and that he did not know whether the fallen toddy trees were being tapped for toddy or not.

8.A careful appreciation of the entire evidence on record discloses that there is no direct evidence connecting the accused with the alleged act of cutting down the toddy trees. PW2, the complainant herself, admitted that she did not witness the accused committing the alleged offence. The evidence of PW3 regarding enquiry with neighboring farmers is only hearsay in nature, particularly when the names of such persons were neither mentioned in the charge sheet nor were they examined before the

Page No.5 of 7 CC.No.81 of 2024

Court. Further, material discrepancies are found regarding the number of trees allegedly cut down, as the prosecution case refers to 28 trees whereas

PW2 deposed about 40 trees. The admissions elicited regarding existence of land disputes and adjacent ownership of lands in the same survey number also create doubt regarding the prosecution version.

9.No evidence whatsoever is placed on record to show the proof of ownership for the land in Sy. No. 20/4 which, allegedly belongs to PW2, thereby creating a doubt pertaining the question of locus standi of the defacto complainant/PW2 to file this present case. As it can be seen from the record, the cutting down of 28 toddy trees is not disputed. However, the prosecution failed to place the accused in the scene of offence. Hence, the material allegation levelled against the accused does not stand substantiated.

10.It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case, the evidence placed by the prosecution falls short of proving beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who had intentionally cut down the toddy trees in question.

11.Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section

Page No.6 of 7 CC.No.81 of 2024 27 r/w Section 40 of the Telangana Excise Act. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the defence.

IN RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.27

R/w.40 of Telangana Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly acquitted under sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds shall remain in force for 6 months from the date of judgment U/sec.437 A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

(Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 18 th day of May, 2026)

Sd/-

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES) –CUM-

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NALGONDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW-1: P. Venu PW-2: G. Kalamma PW-3: M. Guruvaiah

For Defence: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P2: Complaint Ex.P3: PCOR

For Defence:Nil

Page No.7 of 7 CC.No.81 of 2024

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

Sd/-

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES) –CUM-

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NALGONDA

//TRUE COPY//

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES) –CUM-

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NALGONDA

Page No.1 of 7 CC.No.896 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS (FOR PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES) –CUM-

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NALGONDA

On this Thursday, this the 15th day of May, 2026. Present: Ms. Dara Sai Meghana Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (For Proh. & Excise Offences)-Cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

CC No. 896 of 2025

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Nalgonda.

…Complainant.

AND

A1: Bitla Karnakar Reddy S/o.Krishna Reddy, Age: 33 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.3-92/1, Gandimaillaram Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Rangareddy District. A2: Bitla Padmamma W/o.Krishna Reddy, Age: 54 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.H.No.3-92/1, Gandimaillaram Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Rangareddy District. A3: Bitla Krishna Reddy S/o.Sukka Reddy, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.3-92/1, Gandimaillaram Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Rangareddy District.

...Accused No.1 to 3

@@@

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned APP and Sri Md. Feroz, Learned Counsel for accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:

(a)The marriage of the complainant Smt. Bitla Radhika with accused

No.1 Lavuri Shiva was solemnized on 05.07.2018 in the presence of elders. At the time of marriage, it is alleged that, on the demand of the

Page No.2 of 7 CC.No.896 of 2025 accused, the parents of the complainant gave Rs.2,00,000/- cash, 2 tulas of gold and one motorcycle as dowry.

(b)After the marriage, the complainant joined the matrimonial home and initially led a happy marital life for a period of one year. Out of their wedlock, they had two child namely Ayanshureddy who is aged about 5 years and Anvi who is aged about 3 years.

(c)After that her husband listened to the words of A2 and A3, he was addicted to alcohol and cultivated agricultural land for livelihood, he has developed illicit intimacy with other Women and purchase money to his paramour, he demanded her to bring additional dowry Rs.5 lakhs from her parents. When she was talked to others, he suspected her character, he abused her in most filthy language and also beaten her. Due to intolerabale harassment of her husband and her in-laws, she has placed the matter

before the elders. But he did not change his attitude. He continued harassed

her both mentally and physically.

(d)The complainant further alleges that accused No.1 was highly suspicious of her character and beaten her infront of all public. He is stated to have abused her in filthy language and physically assaulted her on several occasions, thereby subjecting her to both mental and physical cruelty.

Page No.3 of 7 CC.No.896 of 2025

(e)On the basis of the complaint lodged on 30.06.2025, a case in Cr.

No.41 of 2025 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 352 r/w 3(5) of BNS and Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

2.This Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable

U/Secs.85, 115(2), 351(2) and 352 R/w.3(5) of BNS and Sec.4 of DP

Act against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of all the documents relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023.

3.Thereafter, upon hearing both sides, this Court framed charges against Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The contents of the charges were read over and explained to Accused Nos.1 to 3 in the language known to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3.

Page No.4 of 7 CC.No.896 of 2025

5.No reliable evidence to substantiate the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 were adduced by the prosecution. The examination of accused No.1 to 3 under sec.351 of BNSS is thus dispensed with.

6.Heard the learned APP and the learned defence counsel and perused the record.

7. Upon such perusal, the following point for determination arises for an efficient disposal of this case:

Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that

Accused Nos.1 to 3 committed the offences punishable under Sections

85, 115(2), 351(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act?

8.The defacto complainant, B. Radhika was examined as PW1. PW1 has not supported the case of the prosecution. She deposed that she had not filed a case against A1 to A3 and that she has been living together with A1 to A3. At this stage, learned APP requested to declare the witness as hostile and sought permission to cross examine the witness and permission was granted by this Court. During cross examination, PW1 deposed that she has not stated to the police as in her 180 BNSS statement/Ex.P1.

9.One D. Sai Reddy, who is the father of PW1, was examined as PW2.

PW2 in his deposition stated that PW.1 and A1 have been living together with A2 and A3 and that the police never examined him and recorded his

Page No.5 of 7 CC.No.896 of 2025 statement. PW2 was also declared hostile by this Court. PW2 in his cross examination stated that she has not stated to the police as in his Section 180 statement/Ex.P2.

10.One B. Bhupal Reddy, who is the panchayath elder was examined as

PW3. PW3 deposed on the same lines of PW2 and was declared hostile.

Ex.P3 was marked.

ANALYSIS OF THE COURT:

11.On a careful appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is evident that PW1 to PW3, including the de facto complainant, have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. Their testimony does not advance the prosecution case in any manner and, in fact, demolishes the very substratum of the allegations.

12.In view of the hostile nature of the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and in the absence of examination of the remaining material witnesses, there is no incriminating material available on record against the accused. Hence, the

Investigating Officer was not examined, and the examination of the accused under Section 351 BNSS was dispensed with.

13.Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and has not even succeeded in making out a

Page No.6 of 7 CC.No.896 of 2025 prima facie case against them. Hence, the point for determination is answered in negative, against the prosecution and in favour of the defence.

RESULT

In the result, the A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2) and 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961, and are accordingly acquitted under sec.271(1) of

B.N.S.S. Bail bonds shall remain in force for 6 months from the date of judgment U/sec.481 of BNSS. There is no property, hence no order in this regard.

(Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 15 th day of May, 2026)

Sd/-

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES) –CUM-

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NALGONDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: PW-1: B. Radhika PW-2: D. Sai Reddy PW-3: B. Bhupal Reddy

For Defence: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Sec.180 BNSS statement of PW.1

Page No.7 of 7 CC.No.896 of 2025

Ex.P2: Sec.180 BNSS statement of PW.2 Ex.P3: Sec.180 BNSS statement of PW.3

For Defence:Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

Sd/-

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES) –CUM-

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NALGONDA

Page No.1 of 6 CC.No.195 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS (FOR PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES) –CUM-

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NALGONDA

On this Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026. Present: Ms. Dara Sai Meghana Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (For Proh. & Excise Offences)-Cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

CC No.195 of 2025

Between: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Nalgonda.

…Complainant.

AND

A1: Saripelli Lingaswamy S/o.Ushaiah, Age: 32 years, Occ: Poojari, R/o.Thallasingaram Village of Choutuppal Mandal of Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District. A2: Kalali Rajitha W/o.Satish, Age: 27 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Bhaviran Dibba Village of Alladurg Mandal of Medak District, presently residing at Krishna Nagar, Choutuppal.

A3: Kalali Satish Goud S/o.Ambaiah goud, Age: 32 years, Occ: Plumber work, R/o.Bhaviran Dibba Village of Alladurg Mandal of Medak District, presently residing at Krishna Nagar, Choutuppal.

...Accused No.1 to 3

@@@

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned APP and Sri N. Ramulu, Learned Counsel for accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:

(a)The marriage of the complainant Smt. S. Anitha with accused No.1

Saripelli Lingaswamy was solemnized on 30.06.2019 at Arya Samajam elders. At the time of marriage, it is alleged that, on the demand of the

Page No.2 of 6 CC.No.195 of 2025 accused, the parents of the complainant gave Rs.4,00,000/- cash, one lakh rupee Kalyana Laxmi, 2 ½ tulas of gold, her sister gave 2.5 lakhs to her husband and other house hold artilces under pasupu kunkuma. After the marriage, the complainant joined the matrimonial home and initially led a happy marital life for a period of 20 days.

(b)Thereafter her husband did a centering work, he addicted alcohol, he has developed illicit intimacy with other women. After that her husband listened to the words of A2 and A3, he demanded her to bring additional dowry Rs.3 lakhs from her parents. He picked up quarrel her with small issued, he abuse her in most filthy language and also beaten her without care welfare of her. He warned her that he will be kill her. Due to she reported WPS, Nalgonda, where the police counselled them several times.

But they did not change their attitude. He continued harassed her both mentally and physically.

(c)On the basis of the complaint lodged on 10.10.2024, a case in Cr.

No.66 of 2024 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 352 r/w 3(5) of BNS and Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

2.This Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable

U/Secs.85, 115(2), 351(2) and 352 R/w.3(5) of BNS and Sec.4 of DP Act

Page No.3 of 6 CC.No.195 of 2025 against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of all the documents relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023.

3.Thereafter, upon hearing both sides, this Court framed charges against Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The contents of the charges were read over and explained to Accused Nos.1 to 3 in the language known to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses as PWs.1 and PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3.

5.No reliable evidence to substantiate the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 were adduced by the prosecution. The examination of accused No.1 to 3 under sec.351 of BNSS is thus dispensed with.

6.Heard the learned APP and the learned defence counsel and perused the record.

7. Upon such perusal, the following point for determination arises for an efficient disposal of this case:

Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that

Page No.4 of 6 CC.No.195 of 2025

Accused Nos.1 to 3 committed the offences punishable under Sections

85, 115(2), 351(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act?

8.The defacto complainant, S. Anitha was examined as PW1. PW1 has not supported the case of the prosecution. She deposed that she had not filed a case against A1 to A3 and that she has been living together with A1 to A3. Ex.P1 is the her signature placed on complaint. At this stage, learned APP requested to declare the witness as hostile and sought permission to cross examine the witness and permission was granted by this Court. During cross examination, PW1 deposed that she has not stated to the police as in her 180 BNSS statement/Ex.P2.

9.One K. Yadaiah who is the who is the panchayath elder was examined as PW2. PW2 deposed on the same lines of PW1 and no panchayath was held in his presence and was declared hostile. Ex.P3 was marked.

ANALYSIS OF THE COURT:

10.On a careful appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is evident that PW1 and PW2, including the de facto complainant, have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. Their testimony does not advance the prosecution case in any manner and, in fact, demolishes the very substratum of the allegations.

Page No.5 of 6 CC.No.195 of 2025

11.In view of the hostile nature of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and in the absence of examination of the remaining material witnesses, there is no incriminating material available on record against the accused. Hence, the

Investigating Officer was not examined, and the examination of the accused under Section 351 BNSS was dispensed with.

12.Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and has not even succeeded in making out a prima facie case against them. Hence, the point for determination is answered in negative, against the prosecution and in favour of the defence.

RESULT

In the result, the A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2) and 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961, and are accordingly acquitted under sec.271(1) of

B.N.S.S. Bail bonds shall remain in force for 6 months from the date of judgment U/sec.481 of BNSS. There is no property, hence no order in this regard.

(Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 15 th day of May, 2026)

Sd/-

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES) –CUM-

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NALGONDA

Page No.6 of 6 CC.No.195 of 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: PW-1: S. Anitha PW-2: K. Yadaiah

For Defence: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on complaint Ex.P2: Sec.180 BNSS statement of PW.1 Ex.P3: Sec.180 BNSS statement of PW.2

For Defence:Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

Sd/-

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES) –CUM-

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NALGONDA