G. Bullemma

C.C.No. 472 of 2018 Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum- Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 20.06.2025 (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

1 of 13

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JFCM-CUM-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE:

(JUNIOR DIVISION) :: PEDDAPURAM.

Present: Smt. G. Bullemma,

Addl. JFCM-Cum-Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Peddapuram.

Friday, the 20 th day of June, 2025.

C.C.No. 472 of 2018

Complainant:V.B.R. Chowdary, S/o Late Subbarao, 33 years, R/o Rayavaram Village, Rangampeta Mandal, E.G.Dt.

Represented by:Sri SK. Valli Babu, Advocate for complainant

Accused:1 P. Suri Babu, S/o Late Appala Swamy, 64 years, D.No.32/1, Gollaveedi, Bheemaili, Visakhapatnam- 531 163.

Represented by:Sri N. Ravi Kumar, Advocate for accused

This case is coming on this day i.e., 27.05.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri SK. Valli Babu, Advocate for Complainant and of Sri N. Ravi Kumar, Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a private complaint filed U/Sec.200 Cr.P.C. by the complainant viz., V.B.R. Chowdary against accused viz., P. Suri Babu for the offence punishable under Secs.138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Herein after referred as N.I. Act).

The facts leading to the presentation of the complaint is that:

2.On 15.08.2018, accused along with one M.T. Prasad Rao approached complainant and jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the

C.C.No. 472 of 2018 Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum- Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 20.06.2025 (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

2 of 13 complainant for their family necessities and discharge their sundry debts and jointly executed a demand promissory note in favour of the complainant on the same by agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% p.a., either to the complainant or his order on demand. Later, accused failed to repay the same and after repeated demands, accused issued a cheque bearing

No.100639 dated 11.02.2018 drawn on Andhra Bank, Dr. L. Bullaiah

College, Visakhapatnam for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards part satisfaction of the debt due by him to the complainant with a request to deposit the same in the 2nd week of March, 2018. Complainant presented the said cheque with his banker i.e., Andhra Bank, Rangampeta Branch on 07.03.2018 for collection but the said cheque was dishonoured due to “Funds insufficient” and the same was intimated to him by his banker through a memo, dt.08.03.2018. Thereon, complainant got issued a registered legal notice to the accused on 05.04.2018 demanding him for payment of the cheque amount and the same was received by the accused on 06.04.2018 and got issued a reply notice on 12.04.2018; for which complainant issued a rejoinder notice, dt.24.04.2018 to the accused. Hence, complainant presented the present complaint to punish the accused for the offence under Sec.138 of

N.I. Act.

3.On appearance of complainant before this court sworn affidavit was filed and cognizance was taken for the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act against accused.

4.On appearance of accused, he was furnished with the copies of the case documents as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., and accused was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. and the substance of the accusation made against him for the offence under Sec.138 of N.I. Act, was read over and explained to accused in his vernacular, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

C.C.No. 472 of 2018 Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum- Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 20.06.2025 (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

3 of 13

5.To support the case of the complainant, he herself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 documents on his behalf. Complainant also got examined 1st attestor of Ex.P7 promissory note as P.W.2. In the cross examination of P.W.1, the learned counsel for the accused by confronting some documents and they are marked inadvertently as Exs.X1 to X3 documents. But actually, the said documents have to be marked on defence side as Exs.D1 to D3. After completion of complainant side evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P7 documents were put forth to accused, for which he stated all as false and he did not commit any offence and he reported no defense evidence. Both the counsels filed their respective written arguments.

6.Having considered the arguments submitted by both the learned counsels and having perusal of the record thoroughly the point that arises for determination is:

1) Whether the complainant has established the Ex.P1 cheque was issued by the accused to the complainant towards legally enforceable debt?

2) Whether Ex.P1 cheque was dishonoured due to ‘funds insufficient’ in the account of accused?

3) Whether the complainant has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:-

7.In order to determine the above said point, the complainant has to prove the following ingredients:

C.C.No. 472 of 2018 Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum- Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 20.06.2025 (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

4 of 13

(i)Whether Ex.P1 cheque was issued towards legally enforceable debt?

(ii)Whether the complainant presented Ex.P1 cheque to he bank within stipulated period as required U/Sec.138 (a) of N.I. Act?

(iii)Whether the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused within the stipulated period of dishonour of Ex.P1 as required

U/Sec.138 (b) of N.I. Act? If so, whether the same was served upon the accused?

(iv)Whether the accused received the above said notice and make any reply to the complainant or not?

(v)Whether the accused is liable for conviction for the offence

U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.

(vi)Whether the complaint filed is within the jurisdiction or not?

8.In this juncture, it is pertinent to extract hereunder U/Sec.138 and 139 of N.I. Act-1881 which are as follows:

138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.—

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 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

C.C.No. 472 of 2018 Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum- Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 20.06.2025 (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

5 of 13 committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for 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, [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 or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.]

139. Presumption in favour of holder.—

It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.

9.Based on the oral testimony of P.W.1 coupled with documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P7 documents, learned counsel for complainant argued that accused and one M.T. Prasada Rao jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and after repeated demands made by the

C.C.No. 472 of 2018 Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum- Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 20.06.2025 (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

6 of 13 complainant, accused issued a cheque, dated 11.02.2018 bearing

No.100639 in favour of the complainant for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards part payment, but the same was dishonoured due to ‘insufficient funds’ and returned by Andhra Bank, Rangampeta branch on 08.03.2018.

Then complainant got issued a legal notice, dated 05.04.2018 was issued within the time prescribed U/Sec.138 (b) of N.I. Act calling upon the accused to make payment of cheque amount. But accused did not make any payment within the stipulated period and he replied to the complainant for copies and he alleged that he did not know the complainant at any time and accused has no necessity to borrow such huge amounts as he was retired earlier to that affect. Then the complainant served copies to the accused but accused again issued notice with false contents that he did nto receive any copies of cheque, promissory note, memo of return by the bank, except a letter in Telugu language which denotes that “Ayya tamaru dabbulu Teesukunnappudu ee matalu anukunnamo baakee teerchevaraku ave matalu vundaali.

Abaddamu aadakoodadu. Meeru maaku anyayam cheste maa usuru mee kutumbaaniki taguluthundi. Memu meeku anyayam cheste maaku tagulutundi. Meeru nijayateega maaku ivvavalasina baakee sommu mottam chellistaarani aasistunnanu.” Since begging of this case, accused only stated that he did not know the complainant and he did not borrow any amounts from the complainant and the promissory note is created by the complainant with the active collusion of an Advocate at

Visakhapatnam.

10.On the other hand learned counsel for the accused argued that

Ex.P7 got fabricated by complainant with active collusion of one advocate at Visakhapatnam and during the cross examination of P.W.1, accused marked Exs.X1 to X3 i.e., postal acknowledgments regarding notices

C.C.No. 472 of 2018 Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum- Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 20.06.2025 (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

7 of 13 send by the complainant’s counsel Sri A. Venkata Ramana and Exs.P3 and P4 replication notices to two acknowledgments are belongs to the postal covers of Exs.X1 and X2. Learned Counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the complainant stated in his cross examination that “I cannot say where the legal notice was posted, whether it was at

Mummidivaram or at Peddapuram”. But Exs.X1 and X2 clearly shows that one registered legal notice was posted at Visakhapatnam and another was posted at Bhiminipatnam but not Mummidivaram and

Peddapuram. He alleged that Sri A. Venkata Ramana, Advocate practicing at Visakhapatnam but the reply notice and rejoinder notices send by the accused through his counsel to Mummidivaram address in which the address the counsel for the complainant viz., Sri A. Venkata

Ramana received above two notices i.e., Ex.P5 and Ex.X3. He further alleged that during cross examination of P.W.1, he stated that he did not receive the rejoinder notice to his replication notice. Learned counsel for the accused mostly concentrated about the counsel of complainant and residence of complainant’s counsel on that he alleges that the complainant fabricated Ex.P7 with the active collusion of Sri A. Venkata

Ramana who is Advocate practicing at Visakhapatnam. He further alleged that the dispute is between M.T. Prasada Rao and complainant and counsel Sri A. Venkata Ramana taking advantage of having secured the cheque from the accused bank in 2010, the said Advocate Sri A.

Venkata Ramana misused the same and filed this foisted case through his brother-in-law i.e., complainant. In reality no transaction took place between the complainant and accused and there exists no relationship between them. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India and Hon’ble High Courts States in India. (1) Criminal

Appeal No.4/2023, dt:09.04.2025 of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

C.C.No. 472 of 2018 Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum- Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 20.06.2025 (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

8 of 13

Pradesh, (2) Criminal Appeal No.10/2018 dated 30.04.2024 of Hon’ble

High Court of Telangana, (3) AIR ONLINE 2013 SC 483, AIR ONLINE SC 423, dated 07.02.2013 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, (4) Criminal

Appeal No.1978/2013 and Criminal Appeals No.1990/2013, 10500/2013, 10501/2013, dated 18.01.2023 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, (5) In

Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa, dt:09.04.2019 in Crl. Appeal

No.636/2019 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, (6) 2007 (3) ALL MR 823 (SC), (7) CRP No.3763/2024, dt.20.12.2024 of Hon’ble High Court of

Telangana, (7) Crl. Appeal 1543/2017, dt:30.09.2024 of Hon’ble High

Court of Telangana, (8) CRP No.2710/2024, dt:22.01.2025 of Hon’ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (9) CRP 2023/2021, dt:25.04.2022 of

Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, (10) CRP No.1932/2024, dt:21.08.2024

of Hon’ble High Court of Telangana and (11) CRP No.375, 379/2024,

dt:28.03.2025 of Hon’ble High Court of Telangana.

POINT NOs.1 to 3:-

11.In order to prove the case of the complainant, he filed his chief examination affidavit which is nothing but reiteration of complaint averments and he got marked Exs.P1 to P7 documents on his behalf.

Ex.P1 is Cheque bearing No.100639, dt.11.02.2018 for Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Visakhapatnam, Ex.P2 is Return Memo, dt.08.03.2018, Ex.P3 is Legal notice, dt:05.04.2018, Ex.P4 is Two postal acknowledgments, dt.06.04.2018, Ex.P5 is Reply notice, dt.12.04.2018,

Ex.P6 is Rejoinder notice and Ex.P7 is Photostat copy of promissory note, dt.15.08.2015 for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- executed by accused in favour of complainant. During cross examination of P.W.1, learned counsel for the accused suggested him that one K. Ramakrishna Raju did not discuss about his case with A. Venkata Ramana, Advocate and same

C.C.No. 472 of 2018 Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum- Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 20.06.2025 (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

9 of 13 was admitted by the complainant. But A. Venkata Ramana got issued legal notice to the accused herein and acted behind the complainant and guiding the complainant herein. The learned counsel for the accused as per stated in his arguments and the same was answered by the complainant and finally the complainant admitted that his counsel Sri K.

Ramakrishna Raju who send the legal notice to the MT. Prasada Rao and

P. Suribabu and enquired his counsel whether both M.T. Prasada Rao and P. Suribabu received the legal notices or not. His counsel further stated that even though both persons received the legal notice only P.

Suribabu gave a reply notice and he did not file any acknowledgment and postal receipt to establish that M.T. Prasda Rao actually received his legal notice. There are some contradictions regarding to the statements of

P.W.1 in his cross examination and the same were filed by the learned counsel for the accused in his arguments. As per the evidence of P.W.1, accused issued Ex.P1 cheque after it was duly filled and signed. But quite contra to the complainant averments accused alleged that Ex.P7 was fabricated by Sri A. Venkata Ramana with active collusion of this complainant and he filed through this complainant against the accused but there is no legally enforceable debt between the complainant and accused. Moreover, complainant filed Exs.P1 to P7 to prove his case and he deposed as per his case and tried to prove his case before this court.

12.On perusal of Sec.251 Cr.P.C. examination, the accused answered

before this court that he received the copies and documents in this case

but he denied the complainant case. At the time of Sec.313 Cr.P.C.

examination accused filed written statement along with 18 documents which were filed only for consideration. On perusal of documents filed by the accused, it shows that complainant filed many N.I. Act cases and other cases at Visakhapatnam through A. Venkata Ramana who is

C.C.No. 472 of 2018 Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum- Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 20.06.2025 (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

10 of 13 counsel for the complainant at the time of giving notices. But in the present case A. Venkata Ramana is not the counsel for complainant and the allegations made by the accused were not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Moreover, the accused failed to take steps against the fabrication of Ex.P7 as the complainant produced photostat copy of promissory note i.e., Ex.P7 before this court. Except made allegations by the accused that the cheque was got by the complainant through A.

Venkata Ramana, he did not take any steps like misuse of cheque by the complainant or A. Venkata Ramana by giving report before the concerned. Even though learned counsel for the accused filed various citations of Hon’ble Courts and they are not applicable to the present case on hand. Therefore, this court observed that complainant successfully established his case beyond all reasonable doubt and accused failed to establish his pleadings and did not give any report or take appropriate steps regard to the misuse of Ex.P7and he did not take any steps how the cheque was came to the hands of complainant which was from alleged

A. Venkata Ramana. If any fabrication or misusing of cheque is actually done, the accused has to take steps like police report or publication etc., to curtail fraud and misuse of cheque from others but accused did not take any steps and bare allegations made by him to evade the debt. It is a settled principal of Law that once the cheque is issued and its signature is admitted the presumption of legally enforceable liability arises

U/Sec.139 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh Vs.

Mukesh Kumar reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 categorically held that “Even if a blank cheque is signed and handed over voluntarily the presumption U/Sec.139 applies, the burden of rebuttal lies on the accused”. In the present case the accused denied the issuance of cheque but he did not state that the signature on the cheque is not belongs to him at any time. It means the cheque was issued by the

C.C.No. 472 of 2018 Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum- Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 20.06.2025 (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

11 of 13 accused to the complainant to discharge legally enforceable debt only.

Therefore, the complainant successfully proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently accused is liable to be convicted. Accordingly, all the points are answered in favour of the complainant and against the accused.

13.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he is convicted under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C.

Partly typed and partly dictated to my dictation to the Grade

II Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me, in the open Court, on this the 20 th day of

June, 2025.

Sd/- Smt. G. Bullemma

Addl. JFCM-Cum-Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

19.With regard to quantum of sentence accused is questioned for which he stated that he is suffering from heart problem and requested to give lenient view and pleaded for mercy. Having regard submissions made by accused and on considering the age of the accused, this

Court is inclined to invoke the provisions of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C.

and inclined to take any lenient view in imposing only fine bearing in mind the avowed object of the provisions of the N.I. Act. Hence, accused is hereby sentenced to pay cheque amount i.e. Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakh only). Having due regard to the law laid down in the

Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in R.VIJAYAN v. BABY and MAINUDDIN ABDUL SATTAR SHAIKH VS VIJAY D SALVI accused is further directed to pay said amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakh only) along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the complainant towards compensation U/Sec.357 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C within

C.C.No. 472 of 2018 Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum- Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 20.06.2025 (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

12 of 13 one month from the date of this judgment. As per ratio laid down in

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in R.Mohan Vs A.K. Vijayain 2012 (3)

SCC (Crl.) 1013 in default of payment of above ordered amount as compensation to complainant accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for six (6) months.As the accused was not in judicial custody at any time during the pendency of this case, he is not entitled to claim any set off as contemplated under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C.

The accused is hereby informed that he has got a right of appeal to assail this Judgment. On enquiry, the accused stated that he got means to prefer appeal against this judgment.

Typed to my dictation by Grade II Stenographer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me, in the open Court, on this the 20th day of June, 2025.

Sd/- Smt. G. Bullemma

Addl. JFCM-Cum-Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For complainant:

PW.1/dt:26.09.2019 V.B.R. ChowdaryComplainant

PW.2/dt:03.04.2023 Nalamati Venkannababu1st attestor of Ex.P7

For defence: NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For complainant:

1Exhibit P-1/P.W.1 Cheque bearing No.100639, dt.11.02.2018 for Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Visakhapatnam.

C.C.No. 472 of 2018 Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum- Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 20.06.2025 (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

13 of 13 2Exhibit P-2/P.W.1 Return Memo, dt.08.03.2018 3Exhibit P-3/P.W.1 Legal notice, dt:05.04.2018 4Exhibit P-4/P.W.1 Two postal acknowledgments, dt.06.04.2018 5Exhibit P-5/P.W.1 Reply notice, dt.12.04.2018 6Exhibit P-6/P.W.1 Rejoinder notice

7.Exhibit P-7/P.W.1 Photostat copy of promissory note, dt.15.08.2015 for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- executed by accused in favour of complainant.

For accused:

1.Exhibit X-1/P.W.1 Postal acknowledgment

2.Exhibit X-2/P.W.1 Postal acknowledgment 3Exhibit X-3/P.W.1 Rejoined notice

Sd/- Smt. G. Bullemma

Addl. JFCM-Cum-Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

// True copy //

Addl. JFCM-Cum-Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

C.C.No. 472 of 2018 Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum- Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 20.06.2025 (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

14 of 13

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JFCM-CUM-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE:

(JUNIOR DIVISION) :: PEDDAPURAM.

Present: Smt. G. Bullemma,

Addl. JFCM-Cum-Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Peddapuram.

Friday, the 20 th day of June, 2025.

C.C.No. 472 of 2018

Complainant:V.B.R. Chowdary, S/o Late Subbarao, 33 years, R/o Rayavaram Village, Rangampeta Mandal, E.G.Dt.

Represented by:Sri SK. Valli Babu, Advocate for complainant

Accused:1 P. Suri Babu, S/o Late Appala Swamy, 64 years, D.No.32/1, Gollaveedi, Bheemaili, Visakhapatnam- 531 163.

Represented by:Sri N. Ravi Kumar, Advocate for accused

Date of Offence:11.02.2018

Date of Complaint:17.05.2018

Date of apprehension of accused:----

Date of release of accused:----

Date of Commencement of evidence:26.09.2019

Date of closure of trial:21.04.2025

Date of the Judgment:20.06.2025

Date of the Sentencing Order, if any:20.06.2025

C.C.No. 472 of 2018 Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum- Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 20.06.2025 (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

15 of 13

Accused Details:

Rank Name of Accused Date of Date of Offences Whether Sentence imposedPeriod of of the ArrestRelease charged withAcquitted or Detention Accuson Bailconvictedundergone edduring Trial for purpose of section 428 Cr.P.C.

Pay fine of cheque amount of Rs.4 lakhs with simple interest @9% p.a., to the 1P. Suri Babu complainant towards----- U/Sec.138 ------compensation U/Sec. of N.I. Actconvicted 357(1) Cr.P.C. within one month from this date of judgment in default of payment of above amount, he shall under S.I. for six months.

Explanation for delay: Due to non production of witnesses and due to Covid-19 Pandemic

Offences: U/Sec. 138 of N.I. Act Plea of accused: Not guilty Finding: Found guilty

Sentence or Order :

In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he is convicted under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., and he is sentenced to pay cheque amount i.e.

Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakh only). Having due regard to the law laid down in the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in

R.VIJAYAN v. BABY and MAINUDDIN ABDUL SATTAR SHAIKH VS

VIJAY D SALVI accused is further directed to pay said amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakh only) along with simple interest at the

C.C.No. 472 of 2018 Addl. J.F.C.M-Cum- Addl Civil Judge’s Court, D.O.J: 20.06.2025 (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

16 of 13 rate of 9% per annum to the complainant towards compensation U/Sec 357 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C within one month from the date of this judgment.

As per ratio laid down in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in R.Mohan

Vs A.K. Vijayain 2012 (3) SCC (Crl.) 1013 in default of payment of above ordered amount as compensation to complainant, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for six (6) months.As the accused was not in judicial custody at any time during the pendency of this case, he is not entitled to claim any set off as contemplated under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. The accused is hereby informed that he has got a right of appeal to assail this Judgment. On enquiry, the accused stated that he got means to prefer appeal against this judgment.

Sd/- Smt. G. Bullemma

Addl. JFCM-Cum-Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

1.Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Prl. Senior

Civil Judge, Rajahmahendravaram; and

2.Copy to accused.

// True copy //

Addl. JFCM-Cum-Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

O.S.No. 127 of 2019 Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum

DOJ : 20.06.2025 Addl. J.F.C.M Court, Peddapuram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: PEDDAPURAM

PRESENT: SMT. G. BULLEMMA, Addl. Civil Judge-Cum-Addl. J.F.C.M, (Junior Division) Peddapuram.

Friday, the 20th day of June, 2025

O.S.No. 127 of 2019

Between

Jasthi Veerraju, S/o Pada Raju, 66 years, now at Lions Club, International Old Age Home, Chagallu (V & M), W.G.Dt. …Plaintiff

And

1.Jasthi Satyanarayana, S/o Padaraju, 70 years, cultivation, R/o Near Gubbalammavari Temple, Murari Village, Gandepalli Mandal, E.G.Dt.

2.Jasthi Venkata Siva Rao, S/o Padaraju, 68 years, cultivation R/o Near Gubbalammavari Temple, Murari Village, Gandepalli Mandal, E.G.Dt.

3.Jasthi Chakradhara Rao @ Abbanna, S/o Padaraju, 65 years, cultivation, R/o Near Gubbalammavari Temple, Murari Village, Gandepalli Mandal, E.G.Dt.

4.Jasthi Rambrahmam Chowdary @ Rambabu, S/o Padaraju, 60 years, cultivation, R/o Near Gubbalammavari Temple, Murari Village, Gandepalli Mandal, E.G.Dt.

5.Gangina Surya Prabhavathi, W/o Subrahmanyam, D/o Pada Raju, 69 years, R/o Ramalayam Street, Katheru Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural, E.G.Dt. ..…Defendants

This suit came on 17.06.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Dokala Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri D.V.N.S. Surya Prakasa Rao and Smt. B.(D). Uma Devi, Advocates for defendants 1 to 5 and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for partition of plaint schedule property into six equal shares with good and bad and allot one share to the plaintiff, five

O.S.No. 127 of 2019 Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum

DOJ : 20.06.2025 Addl. J.F.C.M Court, Peddapuram.

2 of 7 shares to the defendants and also account for the plaint schedule properties for all these years and for costs of the suit and such other reliefs as deems fit and proper of the case.

The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

2.The plaintiff and defendants are brothers and sister and children of late

Jasti Padaraju who died in 1995 and Jasthi Mangayamma died in April, 2014 by intestate leaving behind them and they all belongs to Hindu community governed by Hindu Law of Succession. During life time of Padaraju and

Mangayamma, the plaintiff and the defendants used to reside under one roof and out of earnings, late Padaraju purchased Ac.4.00 cents double crop wet land near Papayya Tank, Murari Village in the name of Mangayamma. Late

Padaraju also purchased a house site including tiled house under two registered Sale Deeds, dt:21.11.1960 vide Doc.No.1689/1960 and

dt:11.12.1967 vide Doc.No.1121/1967 and there is a joint family gold

ornaments about 160 grams which enjoyed by Mangayamma during her life time now the said gold ornaments are in the custody of defendants. The plaintiff personally and through elders demanded the defendants to effect partition of above said properties equally but in vain. On that plaintiff got issued a legal notice, dt:07.07.2016 to the defendants and the same was received by them but kept quiet and later, they colluded each other and tried to alter the joint properties; on that plaintiff again got issued another legal notice on 24.01.2017 and the same was received by 5th defendant and rest of the defendants did not receive the same. Hence, the suit.

3.On the other hand defendants 1 and 2 filed their written statement by denying the averments of the plaint which was adopted by defendant Nos.3 to 5 by contending that there is no property in joint between the plaintiff and defendants which is to be partitioned. It is further averred that the landed property of Paddaraju was settled among his sons i.e., plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 and the vacant site alone was remained to Jasti Paddaraju. Plaintiff

O.S.No. 127 of 2019 Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum

DOJ : 20.06.2025 Addl. J.F.C.M Court, Peddapuram.

3 of 7 separated from the family and he never looked after the welfare of his parents.

Later, late Paddaraju settled his house property and vacant site in the name of defendants 1 to 3 and plaintiff by executing a Will, dt:08.01.1995 which is established the ownership of the father of the plaintiff and defendants herein.

After death of Paddaraju, defendants 1 to 3 succeeded the vacant site to an extent of Ac.0-11 ½ cents and house property and the plaintiff succeeded to vacant site to an extent of Ac.0-03 ½ cents. Later, defendants 1 to 3 got demolished house in Ac.0-11 ½ cents of site and partitioned the vacant site and that 1st defendant got Western side Ac.0-04 cents, 2nd defendant got middle Ac.0-04 cents and 3rd defendant got Eastern side Ac.0.03 ½ cents of site and later, defendants 1 and 3 constructed houses in their respective shares and Panchayat authorities mutated the names of defendants 1 and 3 and they are paying house tax in respect of their properties. Thereafter, the plaintiff who is greedy with an evil intention and to harass them and to grab the property without any manner of right filed this suit. The boundaries mentioned in the plaint are not correct and there is no property on ground within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint and this suit is for partition of partial partition of alleged property is not maintainable. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the pleadings of both parties, this court has framed the following issues for trial.

(1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition of the suit schedule property?

(2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share in suit schedule property?

(3)Whether the Will, dt:08.01.1995 is true, valid, genuine and binding on the plaintiff as claimed by the defendants?

(4)To what relief?

5.During trial, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked

Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 documents on his behalf. On behalf of the defendants, the

O.S.No. 127 of 2019 Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum

DOJ : 20.06.2025 Addl. J.F.C.M Court, Peddapuram.

4 of 7 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.B1 document on their behalf and the 1st attestor of Ex.B1 is examined as D.W.2 on behalf of the defendants.

6.Heard arguments. Perused the record. Since all the issues are involved based on the same set of facts, in order to avoid repetition of factual aspects all the issues are are taken up together for discussion.

Issues No.1 to 4:-

7.Based on the oral testimony of P.W.1 coupled with documentary evidence of Exs.A1 to A14 documents, learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaint schedule properties i.e., item numbers 1 and 2 are in possession of plaintiff and his brothers jointly and no separate deeds were executed by themselves except Ex.B1 Will which is established the ownership of the father of the plaintiff and defendants herein and he did not make any arrangements for partition of the plaint schedule properties i.e., Item Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that plaintiff has no objection to take Item No.2 of schedule property as per their Family Understandings and he has no objection to allot Item No.1 to his brothers i.e., 1st item of plaint schedule property i.e., Western side Ac.0.04 cents of site along with house situated in it which house was constructed by the 1st defendant herein is to be allotted to 1st defendant, middle portion of Ac.0.04 cents of site is to be allotted to the share of 2nd defendant and Eastern side of Ac.0.03 ½ cents of site along with house constructed by 3rd defendant is to be allotted to the 3rd defendant and rest of the defendants i.e., defendants Nos.4 and 5 will not get any share as they received amounts from their father. During cross examination, P.W.1 admitted that his father executed a Will, dt:08.01.1995 and he has no objection to take a share in the bequeathed property from the father of himself and defendants i.e., Ac.0.03 ¼ cents of land to him, the remaining properties a has to be allotted to defendants 1 to 3 as per the Will executed by his father and the property of plaintiff is bounded as in the Eastern side the

O.S.No. 127 of 2019 Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum

DOJ : 20.06.2025 Addl. J.F.C.M Court, Peddapuram.

5 of 7

Gubbalamma temple in some extent, house of Chava Bulli Dora is some extent, in Southern side Panchayat road, Western side House of Chava

Venkata Raju and Northern side House of Jasthi Munniyya. P.W.1 further stated that his father already paid amounts to defendant No.4 and hence, he has no share in the landed property and the 5th defendant has no right on the above two items and he admitted that the Will executed by his father and he has no objection to pass a preliminary decree as per the Will executed by his father.

8.On the other hand defendant No.1 himself is produced as D.W.1 and he filed his chief examination affidavit and further chief examination affidavit as same contended as per his written statement and he also produced notarized copy of Will, dt:08.01.1995 before this court which is established the ownership of the father of the plaintiff and defendants herein and plaintiff did not take any objection about the notarized Will/Ex.B1 to admit before this court. In his cross examination, D.W.1 deposed that his father executed a

Will, dt:08.01.1995 which is established the ownership of the father of the plaintiff and defendants herein and in 3rd Para of the Will in S.No.235/2 to an extent of Ac.0.03 ¼ cents of land is bequeathed to plaintiff herein i.e., Item

No.2 of plaint schedule property. He also expressed no objection to allot that extent to the plaintiff in Item No.2 of plaint schedule property as per the Will executed by his father. Further, defendants produced a third party to the suit proceedings viz., one Mummani Satyanarayana who is 1st attestor of Ex.B1

Will. By producing the 1st attestor of Ex.B1, defendants proved execution of

Will as per Sec.68 of the Indian Evidence Act and the Will executed by the father of the plaintiff and defendants at about 30 years back. It shows it is in a proper custody and the Will was proved by the attestor. The 1st defendant on behalf of the other defendants admitted for partition of schedule properties i.e.,

Item Nos.1 and 2 as per Will dated 08.01.1995.

O.S.No. 127 of 2019 Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum

DOJ : 20.06.2025 Addl. J.F.C.M Court, Peddapuram.

6 of 7

9.On perusal of the evidences of plaintiff and defendants, this court observed that though the Will executed by the father of plaintiff and defendants in the year 1995, they did not make any partition arrangements between them and they all are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties i.e., Item Nos.1 and 2 as per their respective shares under the Will, dated 08.01.1995, which is established the ownership of the father of the plaintiff and defendants herein and it seems that no partition was held till now. Therefore, this court answered above issues and specifically answered 3rd issue as the Will filed by defendant is binding on the plaintiff also. Accordingly, all the issues are answered.

10.In the result, suit is preliminarily decreed as per Will, dt.08.01.1995 executed by the father of the plaintiff and defendants into 4 shares i.e.,

Ac.0.03 ¼ cents in Item No.2 of plaint schedule property allotted to the share of plaintiff, Western side of Ac.0.04 cents along with house constructed by 1st defendant is allotted to the share of the 1st defendant and middle of Ac.0.04 cents of site is to be allotted to the share of 2nd defendant and Eastern side

Ac.0.03 ½ cents of site along with house which was constructed by 3rd defendant is allotted to the 3rd defendant. Rest of the defendants i.e., defendants 4 and 5 are not entitled to partition in Item Nos.1 and 2 as father of plaintiff and defendants gave amounts to them towards their share.

Dictated to the Gr.II Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected,

signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 20 th day of

June, 2025.

Sd/- G. Bullemma

Addl. Civil Judge-Cum- Addl.JFCM (Junior Division) Peddapuram.

O.S.No. 127 of 2019 Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum

DOJ : 20.06.2025 Addl. J.F.C.M Court, Peddapuram.

7 of 7

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff:

P.W.1/dt:15.04.2024: Jasthi Veerraju

For Defendants:

D.W.1/dt:16.05.2024: Jasti Satyanarayana

D.W.2/dt:17.06.2025: Mummani Satyanarayana

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed, dt:21.11.1960 vide Doc.No.1689/1960 Ex.A2: Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed, dt:11.12.1967 vide Doc.No.1621/1967 Ex.A3: Office copy of legal notice got issued by plaintiff to the defendants along with postal receipts, dt:07.07.2016 Ex.A4: Postal acknowledgment of 1st defendant, dt:12.07.2016 Ex.A5: Postal acknowledgment of 2nd defendant, dt:09.07.2016 Ex.A6: Postal acknowledgment of 3rd defendant, dt:11.07.2016 Ex.A7: Postal acknowledgment of 4th defendant, dt:12.07.2016 Ex.A8: Postal acknowledgment of 5th defendant, dt:11.07.2016 Ex.A9: Legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendants, dt:24.01.2017 Ex.A10: Returned cover from the 2nd defendant Ex.A11: Returned cover from the 3rd defendant Ex.A12: Returned cover from the 4th defendant Ex.A13: Postal acknowledgment from the 5th defendant, dt:28.01.2017 Ex.A14: Valuation certified number in two for plaint schedule properties issued by Sub Registrar, Rajanagaram, dt:07.02.2019

For Defendants:

Ex.B1-Notarized attested copy of Will, dt:08.01.1995 executed by Jasti Paddaraju who is father of the plaintiff and defendants.

Sd/- G. Bullemma

Addl. Civil Judge-Cum- Addl.JFCM (Junior Division) Peddapuram.

1 CC 2938/23 dt.05.05.26

AJMFC, PEDDAPURAM

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

PEDDAPURAM::

Present: Smt. G.Bullemma, Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Tuesday, the 5th day of May, 2026

Calender Case No.2938/2023

Between:

The state represented by its Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector

Rangampeta .….. Complainant

and

Simma Ratnam, W/o Srinu, A/36 years, C/Settibalija, R/o Nallamilli Village,

Rangampeta Mandal ….. Accused

This case having come up for hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri Sk.Valli Babu, Advocate for the Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector, Rangampeta has filed the charge sheet against the Accused for the offence punishable under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

2. The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that on 11.08.2022 at about 9.00 a.m, LW.1 to 3 conducted raid at Nallamilli village and that they found the accused in possession of 3 lts of ID arrack and arrested the accused and they lifted 300ml of ID arrack for chemical analysis and seized the remaining arrack in the presence of mediators and prepared mediators report.

3. On the basis of the Mediators report, L.W.2 registered as FIR in

Cr.No.1126/2022 under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment)

Act, 2020 and forwarded the sample for chemical analysis to Chemical Examiner,

Kakinada along with letter of advice for analysis purpose to chemical analyzer,

Kakinada. The chemical examiner who analyzed sample and opined in

CE.No.2367/2022 dt.17.09.2022 that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Placing reliance on the Chemical 2 CC 2938/23 dt.05.05.26

AJMFC, PEDDAPURAM

analysis report and after completion of entire investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the Accused.

4. The case is taken on file for the offence punishable under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the A.P.P Act against the Accused.

5. On appearance of the Accused, copies of case documents are furnished to the Accused under section 207 Cr.P.C.

6. Subsequently, the Accused was examined under Section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code and charge was framed for the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the A.P.P Act and read over and explained the contents of charge to the

Accused in Telugu language. After understood, the Accused denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In the course of trial, the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4, besides the material object M.O.1.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence against him that has come on record through the prosecution witnesses, which the Accused denied and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and the counsel for the

Accused and perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on record.

10.Now the point for determination “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the A.P.P Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. P.W.1/Reddy Bahavni, the then GMSK, Nallamilli villlage, she deposed that on 11.08.2022 at about 9.00 a.m, she received credible information about selling of ID arrack, as such she along with LW.2 and 3 reached Nallamill village,

Rangampeta Mandal and they have observed one person moving suspiciously and holding polythene covers in his hand and on seeing the police she tried to escape from that place and on that they caught hold the accused and on questioning accused revealed her identity and confessed that the accused 3 CC 2938/23 dt.05.05.26

AJMFC, PEDDAPURAM

purchased the ID arrack from unknown persons and sell away the same fro higher prices and they found 3 liters of ID arrack, later they lifted 300ml of sample from the ID arrack for analysis purpose and that she along with LW.2 singed on the slip attached tho the sample bottle. The admitted sample is marked as M.O.1.

On the confession of accused, she drafted the mediator report to that effect. The admitted special report is marked as Ex.P1. She along with LW.2 and LW.3 and accused signed on Ex.P1 then arrested the accused. During his cross- examination, she admitted that she did not visit the scene of offence and that did not seized the contraband and that accused did not commit any offence and she foisted a false case against the accused.

12. PW.2/J.Vijay Kumar, the then Sub-Inspector of SEB, Peddapuram he deposed that 11.08.2022 at about 9.00 a.m, he received credible information about selling of ID arrack, as such she along with LW.1 and 3 reached Nallamill village, Rangampeta Mandal and they have observed one person moving suspiciously and holding polythene covers in his hand and on seeing the police she tried to escape from that place and on that they caught hold the accused and on questioning accused revealed her identity and confessed that the accused purchased the ID arrack from unknown persons and sell away the same fro higher prices and they found 3 liters of ID arrack, later they lifted 300ml of sample from the ID arrack for analysis purpose and that she along with LW.1 and 3 singed on the slip attached tho the sample bottle. The admitted sample is marked as M.O.1. On the confession of accused, PW.1 drafted the mediator report to that effect. The admitted mediator report is marked as Ex.P1. He along with LW.1 and

LW.3 and accused signed on Ex.P1 then arrested the accused and he has registered the case in Cr.No.1126/2022 for the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.p.Prohibition Act (Amended Act) . The admitted FIR is marked as Ex.P2 then he produced the Accused before Hon’ble court for judicial remand. He also forwarded a letter of advice to the expert for analysis. The admitted letter of advice is marked as the Ex.P3. The admitted analysis report is marked as the

Ex.P4. Later, he has sent requisition for confiscation of the contraband and then he handed over the CD to LW.4 for further investigation. During his cross- examination, he admitted that without proper investigation Lw.4 registered the 4 CC 2938/23 dt.05.05.26

AJMFC, PEDDAPURAM

false case against the accused and that he had conducted table investigation in this case and they have foisted false case against the accused for statistical purpose only and that accused is no way concerned to this case.

13.PW.3/G.Venkata Lakshmi, the then Inspector, SEB, Peddapuram she deposed that she received CD from PW.2 verified the same and found to be in correct lines and filed the charge sheet against the accused. During his cross- examination, she admitted that without proper investigation she field charge shett against the accused and that they have foisted false case against the accused for statistical purpose only and that accused is no way concerned to this case

13.It is admitted that the alleged scene of offense is residential area. They try to secure independent mediators, but no one is come forward. He did not draft any rough sketch. They did not obtain any photographs at the scene. It is not true to suggest that he did not visit the scene of offense and that did not seize the contraband from him and that the accused did not commit any offense and he registered the case against the accused for statistical purpose and that he was deposing false.

14.On perusing the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, it came to light that PW.1 stated in his chief examination as he along with LW.2 signed on Ex.P1 and accused also signed on it, but the remaining police staff who accompanied PW.2 and 3, was not affixed their signatures of Ex.P1. P.W.1 admitted in his cross- examination as he did not mentioned in Ex.P1 that the physical features of the

Accused and the colour of the tin is also not mentioned in Ex.P1 report. P.W.2 admitted that in his presence police seized the I.D arrack and lifted 300 ml. of

Arrack for analysis purpose, but the M.O.1 bottle is obtained only 300 ml drink bottle.

15. In the cross-examination P.W.1 that the physical features of the Accused was not mentioned in Ex.P1 mediators report as per no identification of the accused in this case. P.W.1 admitted that he along with other mediator Sub-

Inspector of police, police constables were went to the alleged scene of offence, but on Ex.P1, Sub-Inspector SEB station, himself, other mediator and Accused affixed signatures, the remaining police constables were not affixed their 5 CC 2938/23 dt.05.05.26

AJMFC, PEDDAPURAM

signatures on Ex.P1. If the other constables are went to the scene of offence their signatures are crucial. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the

Accused as he has in possession of 3 liters of I.D.Liquor without having any valid license for the purpose of selling ID Arrack, so there is no serious material contradiction with respect to reaching the scene by P.W.1 and PW.2 who is alleged mediators in this case.

16. If really PW.1 went to the alleged scene of offence along with P.W.2 and the proceedings really conducted in his presence and he noted proceedings with hand writing. If any doubt arise from the prosecution evidence, benefit of doubt should always give in favour of the Accused. It is a fit case to give the benefit of doubt to the Accused. Accordingly it is my humble opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.P.Act, beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accordingly the Accused person is acquitted.

17.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.P.Act. Accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of accused shall in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the shorthand writer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court on this the 5 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- G.Bullemma,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:-

PW.1 : Reddy Bhavani, GMSK, Nallamilli PW.2 : J.Vijay Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB, Peddapuram PW.3: G.Venkata Lakshmi Inspector, SEB, Peddapuram

For Defence:-None.

6 CC 2938/23 dt.05.05.26

AJMFC, PEDDAPURAM

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1 : Mediators report Ex.P2 : FIR in Cr.No.1126/2022 Ex.P3 : Letter of Advice Ex.P4 : Chemical Analysis Report

For Defence:- Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : Sample bottle

Sd/- G.Bullemma,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram 7 CC 2938/23 dt.05.05.26

AJMFC, PEDDAPURAM

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

PEDDAPURAM.

Present: Sri G.Bullemma, Additional Judicial Magistrate ofFirst Class Tuesday, the 5th day of Mayl, 2026

Calender Case No.2938/2023

Date of Offence:11.08.2022 Complaint:11.08.2022 Appearance of Accused:28.08.2024 Arrest of the Accused : 11.08.2022 Released on bail: 12.08.2022 Commencement of trial:08.04.2025 Closure of trial:25.03.2026 Sentence/Order:05.05.2026 Reasons for delay: No delay. Name of the complainant:The state, rep by its Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector, Rangampeta. Name of the Accused:Simma Ratnam, W/o Srinu, A/36 years, C/Settibalija, R/o Nallamilli Village, Rangampeta Mandal Offence:under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act. Plea of the Accused : Not guilty.

Finding: The Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.P.Act Sentence :The Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.P.Act. Accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of accused shall in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C..

Sd/- G.Bullemma,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram

Copy submitted to the Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

1 CC 400/22 dt. 05.05.26

AJMFC, PEDDAPURAM

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

PEDDAPURAM

Present: Smt. G.Bullemma,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class , Peddapuram.

Tuesday, the 5th day of May, 2026

C.C.No. 400/2022

Between:

The state, rep. by the Sub- Inspector of Police,

Rangampeta Police Station. ..... Complainant

And

A1. Nookathattu Dasubabu, S/o Chanti, A/31 years, Subhadrampeta village, Rangampeta Mandal.

A2. Nookathattu Chanti, S/o Tatayya, A/60 years, Subhadrampeta village, Rangampeta Mandal.

A3. Nookathattu Nagamani, H/o Chanti, A/58 years, Subhadrampeta village, Rangampeta Mandal.

A4. Nookathattu Mani, D/o Chanti, A/27 years,

Subhadrampeta village, Rangampeta Mandal. ...Accused

This case having come up for hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri A.Prabhuji, Advocate

for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court

delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rangamepta Police Station, has filed Charge-

Sheet against the Accused in Crime No.49/2022 for the offence punishable under

Section 498-A, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act.

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

On 24.06.2021, the parents (LW.2/Perumalla Sara, LW.3 Prumalla Chinna

Babu) of LW.1/Nookathattu Mani performed marriage with A1/Nookthattu Dasubabu as per Christian customs and rites. At the time of marriage LW.1 parents given 2 CC 400/22 dt. 05.05.26

AJMFC, PEDDAPURAM

Rs.3,50,000/- towards dowry, Rs.5,000/- towards Adapaduchu dowry , 1 ½ sovereigngoldchain,1sovereigngoldringand

Titan watch to accused. A1 and LW.1 lead conjugal life happily for few days. Later the accused no.1 to 4 started harassing her both physically and mentally with a demand to bring additional dowry and they also threatened her with dire consequences. The issue was placed before village elders (LW.5/Kanipe

Veerendranadh, LW.6/Bommabathula Venkatarao, but accused did not change their attitude and A1 leave the LW.1 at her parent’s house.

Basing on the report of LW.1, LW.8/K.Nooka Raju, Asst. Sub-Inspector of

Police, Rangampeta Police Station registered the same as case in Cr.No.49/2021 under section 498-A, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and took up investigation of the case. During the course of investigation, LW.8 examined the LWs.1 to 7 and recorded their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C and inspected the same and prepared rough sketch. During examination, LW.1 handed over the marriage photo and copy of marriage certificate to the investigation office

LW.8. As per the evidence of A1 to A3, LW.8 added section 3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act.

Later, LW.9/T.Rama Krishna, Sub-Inspector of Police, Rangampeta Police

Station verified the investigation done by LW.8 and took up further investigation. IN the FIR, LW.1 raised allegations against A1 to A4and two others (alleged accused

Dubasi vara Prasad, Maddikonda Ernest Babu), but during investigation, the alleged accused (A5 & A6 as per FIR) along with other village elders are only trying to settled the matter in between accused and LW.1 and the offence not proved against alleged persons Dubasi Vara Prasad, Maddikonda Ernest Babu. Hence, LW.9 deleted the names of alleged persons A5 & A6 (as per FIR) in this case and intimated the same to this court through memo. On 09.03.2023 the accused A1 to

A4 voluntarily surrendered before LW.9 by admitting their guilt in their case. Later,

LW.9 served notices u/Sec. 41(A) Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against accused 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C and section 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act.

3. After perusing the material on record, the case is taken on file for the offence 3 CC 400/22 dt. 05.05.26

AJMFC, PEDDAPURAM

punishable under section 498-A, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C and section 3 & 4 of the D.P.

Act against Accused.

4.On appearance of Accused, copies of case documents are furnished to accused under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Subsequently, accused examined under section 239 Cr.P.C explaining the accusation in Telugu for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 506 r/w 34 of

I.P.C and section 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act , to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the accused.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence against them that has come on record through the prosecution witnesses, which the accused denied and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for accused and perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on record.

8.Now the point for determination:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C and section 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. Point:

During trial, the prosecution examined the witnesses PWs.1 to 4. P.W.1 deposed that she deposed that LWs.2 and 3 are parents, A1 is her husband, A2 to A4 are her in-laws and sister-in-law. Due to some petty disputes between herself and A1, she went to the police station and requested the police to admonish A1 to A4, police obtained her signature on an empty paper, she do not know the contents of that paper except her signature. Police never examined her nor recorded her statement. Since the P.W.1 did not depose about the harassment made by the accused against her, the learned

APP confronted the signature on the report, she admitted the same as in Ex.P1, 4 CC 400/22 dt. 05.05.26

AJMFC, PEDDAPURAM

Ex.P1 is her signature on the report, Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.1 respectively. Except that, nothing was elicited from her evidence by the Learned

A.P.P. The P.W.1, who is complainant in this case, did not support the case of the prosecution. Hence, the learned APP has opined that her evidence is no useful purpose would be served to the case of the prosecution.

10.PW.2 /Permualla Sara who is mother of PW.1, she deposed that PW.1 is her daughter, LW.3 is her husband, A1 is her son-in-law, A2 to A4 are her in-laws and sister-in-law of PW.1. Due to some petty disputes between PW.1 and a1 she went to the police station and requested the police to admonish A1 to A4 on that police foisted false case against A1 to A4. Police never examined her nor recorded her statement and she do not know anything about this case. But she did not choose to support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. There is no evidence on record to prove the guilt of accused for the offence with which the accused were charged.

11.PW.3 /Permualla Chinnabbai who is father of PW.1, he deposed that PW.1 is his daughter, LW.2 is his wife, A1 is her son-in-law, A2 to A4 are her in-laws and sister-in-law of PW.1. Due to some petty disputes between PW.1 and A1, PW.1 went to the police station and requested the police to admonish A1 to A4 on that police foisted false case against A1 to A4. Police never examined her nor recorded his statement and he do not know anything about this case. But he did not choose to support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. There is no evidence on record to prove the guilt of accused for the offence with which the accused were charged.

12.The investigating officer PW.4/T.Ramakrishna, the then SI of police, Rangampeta police station he deposed that on 04.02.2022 at about 2.00 p.m, LW.8 have received a report from PW.1 and based on the report he registered a case in Cr.No.49/2022 u/Sec.498-A, 506 r/w 34 IPC and section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. LW.8 recorded 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 at police station and issued FIR. On the same day, LW.8 visited the scene of offence inspected the same, prepared rough sketch and he have examined Pw.1, LWs.2 to 7 and prepared rough sketch, later he handed over the CD to him for further investigation. During the course of investigation, he forwarded the requisition of deletion of the accused no.5 and 6 to SDPO as offence is not proved. On 09.03.2023 A1 to A4 5 CC 400/22 dt. 05.05.26

AJMFC, PEDDAPURAM

surrendered before him and he issued 41-A notices to them and after completion of his investigation he have filed charge sheet against accused 1 to 4.The investigating officer in this case testified that he conducted detailed investigation in this case. Whatever the suggestion raised by the learned counsel for the accused did not affect the prosecution case, since there is no material contradiction or omission was established to the prosecution case.

13. As seen from the entire evidence, after filing of the complaint, the P.W.1 might have been compromised with the accused. So, the Pws.1 to 3 did not depose anything to connect the accused. In view of the facts and circumstances, the prosecution has failed to established that the accused harassed the P.W.1 physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry beyond all reasonable doubt.

14. In the result, Accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under

Section 498(A), 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and consequently A1 to A4 are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 4 shall in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A

Cr.P.C

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me on 5th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- G.Bullemma

ADDL. JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE

PEDDAPURAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: PW.1: Nukathattu Mani PW.2: Permualla Sara PW.3: Permualla Chinnabbai PW.4: T.Ramakrishna SI of Police, Rangampeta Police Station.

For defence: Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex:P1 : Signature of P.W.1 on the report Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 6 CC 400/22 dt. 05.05.26

AJMFC, PEDDAPURAM

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.2 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P5: First Information Report Ex.P6: Rough sketch

For Defence : Nil.

Sd/- G.Bullemma

AJMFC, PDP

7 CC 400/22 dt. 05.05.26

AJMFC, PEDDAPURAM

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

PEDDAPURAM.

Present: Smt. G.Bullemma Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Magistrate Tuesday, the 5rd day of May, 2026.

CALENDER CASE NO.400/2022

Date of Offence:04.02.2022 Complaint:04.02.2022 Appearance of accused:29.04.2024 Arrest of the accused:09.03.2022 Released on bail:09.03.2022 Commencement of trial:22.04.2026 Closure of trial:05.05.2026 Sentence/Order:05.05.2026 Reasons for delay: Due to non production of witnesses Name of the complainant:The state, rep. by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Rangampeta Police Station

Name of the accused:A1. Nookathattu Dasubabu, S/o Chanti, A/31 years, A2. Nookathattu Chanti, S/o Tatayya, A/60 years, A3. Nookathattu Nagamani, H/o Chanti, A/58 years, A4. Nookathattu Mani, D/o Chanti, A/27 years, all are Subhadrampeta village, Rangampeta Mandal. Offence:under section 498-A, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

Plea of the accused:Not guilty.

Finding:The Accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Sentence: In the result, Accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and consequently A1 to A4 are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 4 shall in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A Cr.P.C

Sd/- G.Bullemma,

Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class Peddapuram. Copy submitted to the Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

PEDDAPURAM.

Present: Smt. G.Bullemma

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate

Friday, the 1st day of May, 2026.

P.R.C.No.8/2025

Between:- State: Inspector of Police

Peddapuram Circle.... Complainant

And

1. Kalavala Prasad @ Bose, S/o Chinnarao, A/27 years, C/SC-Mala, D.No.7-12-103, Indira Colony, Balusulapeta, Samalkot.

2. Dudumpudi Vignesh Surya Kartik @ Kartik, S/o Raju, A/21 years, C/Kapu, Sainagar, Samalkot.

3. Ganta Srinivas @ Srinu, S/o Rambabu, A/22 years, C/Kapu, D.No.13-17, Durga Nagar, Vetlapalem village, Samalkot Mandal.

4. Gorrela @ Gorli Veerababu, S/o Srinu, A/22 years, C/Kapu, Jagananna Colony, Vetlapalem village, Samalkot Mandal.

5. Repalli Sri Satya Durga Vara Prasad @ Vara Prasad, S/o Sathibabu, A/20 years, C/Kapu, D.No.13-35,

Durga Nagar, Vetlapalem village, Samalkot Mandal. .... Accused

Birada Sai Datta @ Datta, S/o Rambabu, A/17 years 11 months and 9 days, C/kapu, D.No.18-8-20, Near Water Tank, Gandhinagar, Samalkot. ..Child in Conflict with law

This case having come before me for committal in the presence of the learned A.P.P. for prosecution and Sri N.Ravi Krishna, Advocate for the accused and on perusing the First Information report, Remand report and other material papers on record and upon hearing on both sides, this court delivered the following:-

COMMITTAL ORDER

1. The Inspector of police, Peddapuram circle filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 310(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 in Cr.No.355/2024 of Peddapuram P.S.

2.The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that on 16.11.2024 at about 3.00 p.m, LW.1/Elugubanti Gopalam left his home by his black colored Zip bag containing account note book and cash Rs.5000/- in the petrol tank cover of his

Hero Splendor Plus motor cycle bearing No.AP39 RY 5042 went to collections from his borrowers at Samalkot and Valu Thimmapuram village. LW.1 kept collection amount of Rs.38,900/- in his zip bag and that when reached to Onti Tadi metta located at the outskirts of Valu Thimmparuam village, A2 to A4 stopped their motor cycle bearing No.AP39JZ3870 and they stopped LW.1 motor cycle in the mean time A2 caught the shirt collar of LW.1 and utters as Biccavolulo Yekkuva

Chesthunavu Yemiti and so uttering, A2 to A4 dragged the LW.1 forcibly into the bushes nearby and among them, A2 took away POCO 5G cell phone having Sim

No. 9133949692 from the shirt pocket of LW.1, A1 and CCL taken away the daily cash collection zip bag containing Rs.43,900/- and then Accused 2, 3 and 5 fled away from the spot and proceeding towards Kondapalli village on a Hero Splendor

Plus Motor cycle bearing No.AP40R7907 with the robbed cell phone of Lw.1, the total robbed property is worth about Rs.47,900/-.

Basing on the report of LW.1, Lw.30/Sub-Inspector of Police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.355/2024 u/Sec. 309(4) BNS of Peddapuram on 16/17.11.2024 and issued express FIRs. LW.31/Inspector of Police, Peddapuram visited the scene of offence and examined and recorded their 180 BNSS statements in the presence of mediators (LW22/Bodireddi Venkateswarlu and

LW.23/Gadigatla Veerabhadra Rao). He prepared rough sketch, got drafted the scene observation report, examined and recorded the detailed statements of LW.3 to LW.12 u/sec 180 BNSS. During the course of investigation on 06.12.2024 he arrested the Accused 1 to 5 and seized the case property in cash Rs.22,500/- accounts note book, black colored zip bag, motorcycle plug, 4 cell phones, Honda

Dio Schooty bearing No.AP39JZ3870 and Hero Splendor Plus Motor cycle bearing

No.AP40R7907 from A1 to A5 in the presence of mediators on 06.12.2024. Further

LW.31 also searched about cell phone of Lw.1 in the bushes situated nearby

Godavri Canal Bridge way of Lord Bhimeswara Swamy temple, Samakot in the presence of mediators (LW.24 and 25), but not traced. In this connection LW.31 got drafted a separate mediators report on 06.12.2024.

According to the confessional statements of A1 to a5 and seized case property in this case a prima case made out against the accused 1 to 5 and CCL u/Sec 310(2) BNS instead of u/Sec.309 (4) BNS. On 09.12.2024, LW.31 produced the CCL before the district Probationary Office (Gr.1) Hon’ble Juvenile Justice

Board, kakinada in thepresence of father of CCL (LW.14). After completion of investigation the accused 1 to 5 are liable for punishment for the offence u/sec.

310(2) BNS. Hence, the charge.

3. After perusal of the material documents, cognizance is taken under section 310(2) BNS.

4.Perused the record which shows a prima-facie case is made out against for the offence under section 310(2) BNS is exclusively triable by Hon’ble Sessions

Court, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram, this case committed to the Hon’ble

Sessions Court, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram as per the provisions of

Section 232 (a) of Cr.P.C. Case papers are furnished to accused as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C..

5.In the result, the case against accused 1 to 5 are committed to the Hon’ble

Court of Sessions Under Section 232 (a) of Cr.P.C. under section 310(2) BNS.

Accused 1 to 5 are directed to appear on receipt of summons from the Hon’ble

Court. The case record, documents and articles, if any shall be submitted to the

Court of Session Under Section 232 (c) Cr.P.C. The factum of commitment shall be notified to the Public Prosecutor Under Section 232 (d) Cr.P.C., when enquired accused stated that he has means to engage counsel in Sessions Court. Office is directed to intimate the same to Jail authorities.

Typed to my dictation by my personal assistant, corrected and pronounced by me on the 1st day of May, 2026.

Sd/- G.Bullemma

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Peddapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL.

Sd/- G.Bullemma

Addl. JMFC, PDP .

EXTRACT

Extract in P.R.C.No.8 2025 in Cr.No.355/2024 of Peddapuram Police Station on the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram

Number of the CaseP.R.C.No.8/2025

Name of the accusedA1) Kalavala Prasad @ Bose, A2). Dudumpudi Vignesh Surya Kartik @ Kartik, A3) Ganta Srinivas @ Srinu, A4). Gorrela @ Gorli Veerababu, A5). Repalli Sri Satya Durga Vara Prasad @ Vara Prasad,

3. Substance of the the On 16.11.2024 at about 3.00 p.m, LW.1/Elugubanti Gopalam left complainthis home by his black colored Zip bag containing account note book and cash Rs.5000/- in the petrol tank cover of his Hero Splendor Plus motor cycle bearing No.AP39 RY 5042 went to collections from his borrowers at Samalkot and Valu Thimmapuram village. LW.1 kept collection amount of Rs.38,900/- in his zip bag and that when reached to Onti Tadi metta located at the outskirts of Valu Thimmparuam village, A2 to A4 stopped their motor cycle bearing No.AP39JZ3870 and they stopped LW.1 motor cycle in the mean time A2 caught the shirt collar of LW.1 and utters as Biccavolulo Yekkuva Chesthunavu Yemiti and so uttering, A2 to A4 dragged the LW.1 forcibly into the bushes nearby and among them, A2 took away POCO 5G cell phone having Sim No. 9133949692 from the shirt pocket of LW.1, A1 and CCL taken away the daily cash collection zip bag containing Rs.43,900/- and then Accused 2, 3 and 5 fled away from the spot and proceeding towards Kondapalli village on a Hero Splendor Plus Motor cycle bearing No.AP40R7907 with the robbed cell phone of Lw.1, the total robbed property is worth about Rs.47,900/-.

4. Name of the complainantState: Represented by the Inspector of police, Peddapuram PS 5.Name of the witnesses for LW.1-Elugubanti Gopalam ProsecutionLW.2-Elugubanti Ayyappa LW.3-Elugubanti Anjaneyulu LW.4-Elugubanti Mani LW.5-Vanumu Veerababu LW.6-Arigela Gangadhar LW.7-Lolla Veerabhadrarao LW.8-Chandala Chinnababu LW.9-Adabala Veera Satyaveni @ Venu LW10-Dara Satyanarayana LW.11-Yarra Ammaji LW.12-Dammu Srinu LW.13-Shaik Janan LW.14-Birada Rambabu LW.15-Dadala Veerababu LW.16-Pilla Raju

LW.17-Meda Sujatha LW.18-Vasamsetti Sesharao LW.19-Chinthapureddy Sumathi LW.20-Valluri Seetha Mahalakshmi LW.21-Komarthi Nandini LW.22-Bodireddi Venkateswarlu LW.23-Gadigatla Veerabhadra Rao Lw.24-Pilli Kasi Viswanadh LW.25-Arugulla Naresh Kumar LW.26-Alternate Nodal Officer LW.27-Nodal Officer, Bharati Airtel Limited LW.28-P.Ch.Suresh, PC-1026 LW.29-D.Sreedevi Hon’ble III Addl. J.F.C.M, Kakinada LW.30-V.Mounika Sub-Inspector of Police, Peddapuram PS. LW.31-T.Kranthi Kumar DCRB, Kakinada LW.32-A.K.Bhagawan Inspector of Police, Samalkota PS Lw.33-P.Vijaya Sankar, Inspector of Police, Peddapuram Circle

6. Result of enquiryCase is committed to the Court of Sessions, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, U/Sec.232(a) of Cr.P.C.

7. Date of offence16/17.11.2024

8. Date of complaint16/17.11.2024

9. Apprehension of 15.12.2024 accused 10.Closing enquiry --

11. Explanation for the Issue summons to accused on 18.07.2025 and await summons of accused till 13.02.2026 and that produced sureties till delay 01.05.2026. Hence, the delay.

2.Remarks--

Sd/- G.Bullemma

Addl. J.M.F.C. Peddapuram

PROFORMA

INTIMATION OF COMMITMENT OF CASE TO SESSIONS COURT BY THE

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PEDDAPURAM

1. No. of P.R.C.: 8/2025

2. Name of the Police station : Peddapuram PS

3. Date of commitment : 01.05.2026

4. No. of persons committed: 5

5. No. of persons on bail:: 5

6. No. of P.Ws. cited Witnesses : 33 7.a) Whether any of the properties In this case were sent to the Chemical examiner : No

b) Whether the properties sent to The Chemical examiner has been received. : No 8.a) Whether the opinion of the radiologist has been required: --

b) Whether the accused report from Serologist has been received: --

9. Whether the accused has means to engage Lawyer to defend him/ them at trial : Yes

10. Special circumstances if only to be Taken into consideration in : -- posting the case.

Sd/- G.Bullemma

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

PEDDAPURAM

DOCKET ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PEDDAPURAM

P.R.C.8/2025

18.07.2025Await summons of accused call on 05.08.2025 05.08.2025Await summons of accused call on 11.09.2025 11.09.2025Await summons of accused call on 30.10.2025 30.10.2025P.O. is on C.L/O.H/M.L/E.L. Hence re-posted to call on 29.11.2025 29.11.2025Today being public holiday case posted 01.12.2025 01.12.2025A1, a2, A4, A5 present. A3 called absent. Await summons of a3 call on 12.01.2026 12.01.2026A1, A2, A4, A5 present remaining accused called absent. Await summons of accused call on 02.02.2026 02.02.2026A1 to A5 are present. For pending sureties call on 26.02.2026 26.02.2026A1 toA5 are present. For production of sureties call on 17.04.2026 17.04.2026A1 to A5 are present. For producing sureties call on 01.05.2026 01.05.2026A1 to A5 are present. Producing sureties and accepted.

Sd/- G.Bullemma

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

PEDDAPURAM

NOTICE OF COMMITMENT BY MAGISTRATE TO PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram, East Godavari District hereby gives notice that they have committed A1) Kalavala Prasad @ Bose, A2).

Dudumpudi Vignesh Surya Kartik @ Kartik, A3) Ganta Srinivas @ Srinu, A4). Gorrela @

Gorli Veerababu, A5). Repalli Sri Satya Durga Vara Prasad @ Vara Prasad, in

P.R.C.8/2025 for trial at the next sessions and the Magistrate hereby instructs the public prosecutor to conduct the prosecution of the said case. The charge against the accused under section 310(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Cr.No.355/2024 of Peddapuram

P.S.

Dated the 1st day of May, 2026.

Sd/- G.Bullemma

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class Peddapuram.