Sri G.dharama Rao

1 ORIGINAL SUIT No.92/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT: AT YELLAMANCHILI

Present: Sri.G.Dharmarao,

Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamanchili

(FAC) Prl.Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamanchili

Friday, the 05th day of March, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT No.92/2017

Between:

Jampa Jogarao, s/o Ramana, Hindu, aged 45 yrs, cultivation cum business, r/o Thimmapuram village, S.Rayavaram mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist.

…Plaintif

And

1.Bonda Lakshmi, w/o late Ramana Murthy @ Thatha Rao, Hindu, aged about 54 yrs, cultivation, Thimmapuram village, S.Rayavaram mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist.

2. Bonda Sreenivasa Rao, s/o late Ramana Murthy @ Thatha Rao, Hindu, aged about 28 yrs, cultivation, Thimmapuram village, S.Rayavaram mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

...Defendants

This suit coming on 24.02.2020 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.Nageswararao, Advocate for the plaintif and Sri S.S.Patnaik, Advocate for the defendants and the same having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The present suit is fled by the plaintif against the defendants by praying this court to pass decree and judgment in favour of the plaintif against the defendants for recovery of suit amount of Rs.1,44,216/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and also costs of the suit.

2. The averments of the plaint are that the defendants jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.85,000/- from the plaintif on 05.08.2014 for their family expenses and for the discharge of their small debts and on the same date the defendants jointly executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintif with an undertaking to repay the suit amount with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. whenever the plaintif demands them. The plaintif 2 ORIGINAL SUIT No.92/2017 further started that the plaintif made several demands to the defendants for discharge of promissory note amount but the defendants did not pay the promissory note amount. Then the plaintif got issued legal notice dated 24.05.2017 to the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant received the said legal notice but they did not issue any reply notice. The plaintif further stated that the defendants are not come under Agricultural Relief Act. The defendants borrowed the amount for the purpose of family expenses and discharge of small debts and not for agricultural investment. Hence, this suit.

3. The 1st defendant fled written statement and the same was adopted by the 2nd defendant. The defendants denied the plaint averments in the written statement further stated that the plaintif is an LIC agent and he got acquaintance with the mother of defendants and also he got acquaintance with the defendants since 10 to 12 years. Due to acquaintance the plaintif got access with the fnancial afairs of the defendants. The plaintif stood as attestor in the transactions between the defendants and 3rd parties. On 18.11.2013 the plaintif made the defendants and their mother enter into the registered simple mortgage with him. However, no money transaction was taken place between plaintif, defendants and their mother. The plaintif took some sale deeds and pattadar pass books of the defendants and their mother stating that those documents are necessary for the purpose LIC Policies which were taken by the defendants. At the time the plaintif also obtained the signatures of the defendants and their mother on some blank and printed papers by afxing stamps stating that those are necessary for the purpose of processing LIC. Recently the defendants intend to sell the properties, the defendants asked the plaintif to return of original

Pattadar pass books pertains to the property then, the plaintif insisted some percentage in the sale transaction for which the defendants refused. On that the plaintif refused to give the original documents. The plaintif issued legal 3 ORIGINAL SUIT No.92/2017 notice to the defendants as the defendants entered into sale transaction with one Yaramathi Krishnaveni. The plaintif also issued three legal notices to the defendants with false and untenable allegations. The defendants further stated that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and no cause of action arose against the defendants. Hence dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the plaint and written statement the following issues were settled for trial.

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendants ?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled to seek pronote amount ?

3. To what relief ?

5. During the course of trial PW1 and PW2 were examined and

Ex.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the defendants DW1 and DW2 were examined and Ex.B1 to B11 were marked.

6. Heard the counsel for the plaintif.

7. Issue Nos.1 and 2: The plaintif submitted that the defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.85,000/- from the plaintif on 05.08.2014 for their family expenses and to discharge the Sundry debts and on the said date the defendants executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintif with an undertaking to pay the suit amount with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., whenever the plaintif demands them. The plaintif further submitted that the defendants failed to repay the suit promissory note amount in spite of oral demands. The Plaintif prayed this court to decree the suit. The defendants fled a written statement and denied the transaction. The argument of the defendants treated to be heard.

8. The plaintif examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3.

Ex.A1 is original promissory note dated 05.08.2014 executed by both defendants, Ex.A2 is ofce copy of legal notice dated 24.05.2017 and Ex.A3 4 ORIGINAL SUIT No.92/2017 is original postal acknowledgment signed by both the defendants. PW1 fled his chief evidence afdavit by reiterating the averments of the plaint. The plaintif further submitted that the defendants executed the promissory note on 05.08.2014 for their family expenses and for the discharge of their sundry debts and on the said date both the defendants executed suit promissory note in his favour with an undertaking to repay the suit amount with Interest at 24% p.a whenever he demands them. PW1 further deposed that the defendants postponing to pay the suit promissory note amount on one reason or other. PW1 prayed this court to decree the suit.

9. One Yerra Sathibabu examined as PW2. PW2 deposed that the defendants came to his house and request to prepare promissory note and later they called the plaintif. He obtained information from the plaintif and defendants and then he flled the promissory note, read over the contents and then he requested the Plaintif to pay cash to the defendants.

Accordingly, the plaintif gave cash to the defendants. The 1st defendant put her thumb impression across the revenue stamp and the 2nd defendant put his signature. Later he put his signature in the scribe column. Thereafter, he handed over the promissory note to the plaintif. Due to over site he noted in words only Rs.80,000/- but actually the defendants received Rs.85,000/- from the plaintif.

10. On behalf of the defendants the defendant No.1 examined as

DW1. The DW1 fled her chief evidence afdavit by reiterating the averements of the written statement. One Bonda Naresh examined as DW2 he fled his chief evidence afdavit by reiterating the averments of the written statement.

11. The learned counsel for the plaintif submitted that the defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.85,000/- from the plaintif and executed a demand promissory note. The Ieaned counsel for the plaintif further contended that the defendants failed to repay the suit amount in 5 ORIGINAL SUIT No.92/2017 spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif. The learned counsel for the plaintif prayed this court to decree the suit.

12. The arguments of the defendants treated to be heard.

13. The plaintif contended that the defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.85,000/- and executed a promissory note under Ex.A1 in the presence of Yerra Sathibabu and the said promissory note scribed by PW2. PW1 and

PW2 are examined on behalf of the plaintif. PW1 is the plaintif and PW2 is scribe of the promissory note. The plaintif got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is promissory note date 05.08.2014, Ex.A2 is ofce copy of legal notice dated 24.05.2017 and Ex.A3 is postal acknowledgment. The plaintif proved that the defendants executed promissory note by marking the documents under

Ex.A1 to A3 and by examining the scribe of the promissory note.

14. The initial burden lies on the holder of the promissory note to prove its execution and when once the execution is proved the onus shifts to the defendants to disprove it. The plaintif in a money suit need not prove the transaction in its entirety. Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act deals with presumptions as to negotiable instrument. One of such presumption appearing in section 118 (a) with which we would be concerned in this suit runs like this; “that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.”

At this juncture it is apt to rely on judgment reported in

Ponugupati Subbara Rao’s case, 1999 (3) ALD 446: Mallavarapu

Kasivisweswara Rao Vs. Thadionda Ramulu Firm and others, 2008

(8) ALD 15 (SC);

In Ponugupati Subba Rao’s case, (Supra), it was held that when the initial burden is discharged by the plaintif by showing that the document was executed, the burnden shifts to the defendant to prove that 6 ORIGINAL SUIT No.92/2017 the document is forged. In case of failure of discharge of the burden by the defendant, the suit is to be decreed. In this case on hand, this court has in evidence to show that the defendant failed to discharge his burden to believe Ex.A1 is forged. As we held in Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao’s case (Supra), mere denial by the defendant that no consideration had been passes is not sufcient to rebut the presumption under Section 118-A of NI

Act.

In Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. V. Amin Chand

Payrelal, 1999 (2) Supreme 187, while interpreting Section 118 (a) the

Court held that, after the initial burden is discharged by the plaintif of showing that the document was executed the burden shifts to the defendant. In the present case also the initial burden was discharged by the plaintif and the burden shifted to the defendant to prove that the document was forged. Since he has not discharged that burden therefore the trial court was right in decreeing the suit.

15.In the present suit the plaintif fled the promissory note under

Ex.A1 and also examined scribe of the promissory note to prove his case and discharged his initial burden. The defendants pleadings shows that no transaction took place and suit promissory note is not support by consideration. The plaintif obtained signature of the defendants on some blank printed papers by afxing stamps for the purpose of processing LIC.

In the cross examination the DW1 deposed that the thumb impression on the promissory note Ex.A1 belongs to her and and the signature across the revenue stamp belongs to 2nd defendant. Therefore, the evidence of the

DW1 clearly shows that the thumb impression and the signature in Ex.A1 belongs to D1 and D2. Though the defendants took a plea that the plaintif obtained the signature and thumb impression of the defendants without their knowledge, but no evidence is adduced by the defendants to show that the plaintif falsely obtained signature and thumb impression of the 7 ORIGINAL SUIT No.92/2017 defendants. The PW1 and PW2 were cross examined by the defence counsel but nothing could be elicited in favour of the defence that the Ex.A1 obtained falsely and no consideration was passed under Ex.A1. The defence counsel marked exhibits Ex.B1 to B10 through PW1, the Ex.B1 to B10 are the

LIC policy bonds, but these exhibits do not establish anything against the plaintif. Therefore, I am of the view that the plaintif discharged initial burden whereas the defendants failed to rebut the evidence adduced by the plaintif. In these circumstance I am of the considered view that the plaintif is entitled for suit promissory note and the said promissory note is supported by consideration. The defendants failed to prove that no consideration was passed under promissory note.

16.The Ex.A1 promissory note shows in fgures as Rs.85,000/- but in words it shows that Eighty Thousand. As per Sec 18 of Negotiable

Instruments Act 1881, If the amount undertaken or ordered to be paid in stated diferently in fgures and in words, the amount stated in words shall be the amount undertaken or order to be paid. In view of Section 18 of

Negotiable Instrument Act the amount mentioned in words Eighty thousand in Ex.A1 shall be the amount undertaken or ordered to be paid by the defendants to the plaintif. Hence, the plaintif is entitled for Eighty thousand, which is mentioned in words in Ex.A1. I answer the issue Nos.1 and 2 accordingly in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants.

17.In the result the suit is partly decreed with costs of Rs.1,35,732/- with subsequent interest at 12% p.a on the principal amount of Rs.80,000/- from the date of fling of this suit till date of decree and thereafter, at 6% p.a from the date of decree till the date of relization.

Dictated to Personal Assistant and transcribed by him, Corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 05th day of March, 2020

Sd/-G.Dharmarao

Addl.Junior Civil Judge, FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Yellamanchili.

8 ORIGINAL SUIT No.92/2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Plaintif:

P.W.1: Jampa Jogarao P.W.2: Yerra Sathi Babu

For Defendants:

D.W.1: Bonda Lakshmi D.W.2: Bonda Naresh

No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of:

For Plaintif:

Ex.A1: Promissory note dt.05.08.2014 Ex.A2: Ofce copy of lawyer’s notice dt.24.05.2017 Ex.A3: Postal acknowledgment

For Defendants:

Ex.B1:LIC Policy Bond No.697219473 Ex.B2:LIC Policy Bond No.697219597 Ex.B3:LIC Policy Bond No.697219595 Ex.B4:LIC Policy Bond No.697219474 Ex.B5:LIC Policy Bond No.697219594 Ex.B6:LIC Policy Bond No.697219477 Ex.B7:LIC Policy Bond No.697219476 Ex.B8:LIC Policy Bond No.697219596 Ex.B9:LIC Policy Bond No.697219593 Ex.B10:LIC Policy Bond No.697219475 Ex.B11:Regd. Lawyer’s Notice dt.09.05.2017

Sd/-G.Dharmarao

Addl.Junior Civil Judge, FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Yellamanchili.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL Ist CLASS MAGISTRATE AT YELLAMANCHILI

Present Sri G.Dharmarao Prl. Junior Civil Judge FAC Addl.Judicial Ist Class Magistrate, Yellamanchili.

 Thursday, this the 23 rd day of August, 2018.

C.C 392/2014

Between:­

State Represented by the Sub­inspector of Police Payakaraopeta Police Station.

…... Complainant

And:­

Piradhi Shiva, S/o Darababu, Aged 20 years, Vadabalija, Fishing, Rajanagaram Village, Venkatanagaram Panchayat, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

…... Accused

This case coming on 21­8­2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri D.B.P.Ramarao, advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration and this court delivered the following.

JUDGEMENT

1. Accused was produced before me for the offences charged U/sec 341, 506, 509

 IPC by the Sub­inspector of Police, Payakaraopeta Police Station.

2. The succinct summary of the case of the prosecution as per the Chargesheet is as follows:

P.W­1 is studying 10 th Class at Z.P.H School, Rajanagaram Village,

Venkatanagaram Panchayat. Every day she used to go to school with L.W­4 Garika Jessi and L.W.5 Vanka Suguna who are her friends.

3. Since one week, the accused who is residing near by the ZPH School used to follow her by threating that if P.W­1 failed to love the accused, then he would die, the same was informed to P.W­2 and L.W 3 Vanka Seethamma who are her parents. On that they came to the school on 11­7­2014 and admonished the accused, at that time accused promised to

P.W­2 and 3 that he did not follow to P.W­1. But the accused did not change his attitude and on 15­7­2014 at about 2.00 pm he followed P.w­1 by threatening that if she failed to love him, then he would kill her by pouring acid on her, the accused wrote his cell number 9666755841 on a white paper and forcibly kept the same in the hands of P.W­1. On the same day in the evening at 18.00 hrs, P.W­1 came to the Police Station and complained to

L.W­6/Assistant Sub­inspector of Police, Payakaraopeta for taking necessary action.

­2­

4. Basing on the report of P.W­1, J.Nageswararao, Assistant Sub­inspector of Police,

Payakaraopeta Police Station registered F.I.R as Cr No. 156/2014 U/s 341, 506, 509 of

I.P.C and investigated into. After completion of entire investigation, L.W­8 Ch.

Harikrishna, Sub­Inspector of Police filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge sheet.

5. The case is taken cognizance by the Court for the offenses punishable under Sections 341, 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code.

6. On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of the documents were furnished to him, as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure and he was examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure and read over and explained the contents of the charges for the offenses punishable under Sections 341, 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code in Telugu to the accused and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In the trial afforded by both parties, prosecution cited 8 witnesses. Examined P.W­1 and 2 only. The remaining witnesses were given up by the prosecution.

Ex.P­1 to 3 are marked.

8. After completion of the trial, the examination U/s 313 is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material against the accused. 

9. Heard both sides.

10.Now the Point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence 

Charged U/s 341, 506, 509 of I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant, he deposed that at the instance of her village elders due to political rivals, she gave complainant against the accused. She was not examined by the Police. But she identified her signature on complainant, her signature is marked as Ex.P­1. So also P.W­2. P.W­2 deposed that he knows the accused but he does not know anything about the case and he was not examined by the Police.

12. As P.W­1 and P.W­2 did not support the case of the prosecution, They were cross examined by the prosecution and confronted with their inconsistent statements recorded

Under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and they are exhibited as Ex.P.2 and P.3. 

13. The evidence of J.Nageswararao, Assistant Sub­inspector of Police was closed after giving ample opportunity. No efforts were made by the prosecution to reopen the evidence of investigation officer which draws an adverse inference against the prosecution.

­3­

14. Hence in the light of the above discussions, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence charged under section 341, 506, 509 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. 

15. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence charged under section 341, 506, 509 of IPC. He is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. As there was no property, property order is not passed. Accused is directed to execute a bond for Rs.5000/­ with two sureties for alike sum as required under section 437­A of Cr.P.C to appear before appellate court, if preferred any appeal.

Typed to my dictation, typed by typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this Thursday, the 23rd day of August, 2018.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge FAC Addl; Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yellamanchili

Appendix of Evidence Witness Examined For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W­1/ 20­8­2018: Vanka Chinni ­­NIL­­ P.W­2/20­8­2018: Vanka Chandra Rao

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P­1: Signature of P.W­1 on the report ­NIL­ Ex.P­2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W­1 Ex.P­3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W­2

Material Objects : ­NIL­

Prl. Junior Civil Judge FAC Addl; Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yellamanchili

Calendar and Judgment Calendar Cases tried by the Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Yellamanchili.

Date of offence : 15­07­2014

Report or complaint : 15­07­2014

Apprehension of accused : 15­07­2014

Commencement of trial : 20­08­2018

Close of trial : 20­08­2018

Sentence of order : 23­08­2018

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

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.392/2014 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of I Class Court,

Palasa

Name of the complainant : State represented by the Sub­inspector of police, Payakaraopeta.

Name of Father’s name Age, Callling, Religion, Village Mandal accused

Piradhi Shiva, S/o Darababu, Aged 20 years, Vadabalija, Fishing, Rajanagaram Village, Venkatanagaram Panchayat, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

Offences:­ 341 : Punishment for wrongful restrain 506 : Punishment for Criminal intimidation 509 : Punishment Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman

Finding:­ : Found not guilty. 

Sentence of order:­ In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence charged under section 341, 506, 509 of IPC. He is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. As there was no property, property order is not passed. Accused is directed to execute a bond for Rs.5000/­ with two sureties for alike sum as required under section 437­A of Cr.P.C to appear before appellate court, if preferred any appeal.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge FAC Addl; Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yellamanchili

Copy to The Hon'ble Addl District Court, Visakhapatnam.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL Ist CLASS MAGISTRATE AT YELLAMANCHILI

Present Sri G.Dharmarao Prl. Junior Civil Judge FAC Addl.Judicial Ist Class Magistrate, Yellamanchili. Friday, this the 28 th day of September, 2018.

C.C 40/2018

Between:­

State Represented by the Sub­inspector of Police S.Rayavaram Police Station.

…... Complainant

And:­

Adapa Gangadhara Rao, S/o Surya Rao, Aged 45 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Kagitha Village, Nakkapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Driver of Car AP 31 AU 8889.

…... Accused

This case coming on 20­9­2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri D.Nookaraju, advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration and this court delivered the following.

JUDGEMENT

1. Accused was produced before me for the offence punishable U/sec 304­A and 279 IPC by the Sub­inspector of Police, S.Rayavaram Police Station.

2. The succinct summary of the case of the prosecution as per the Chargesheet is as follows:

On 08­09­2017 at about 9.30 pm while deceased was coming on cycle from

Geddapalem Road, the crime vehicle i.e., car bearing No.AP 31 AU 8889 driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner in the same direction, dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased thrown away and sustained server bleeding injury on his head and body but the accused fled away taking the car from the scene of offence. Thereafter, P.W­2 and 3 who are coming on the same way, witnessed the incident, shifted the deceased to

Primary Health Centre, Nakkapalli for treatment. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to

KGH, Visakhapatnam for better treatment, there, he succumbed to injuries on 12­09­2018 while under going treatment. Thereafter, P.W­1 gave the report the Police.

4. Basing on the report of P.W­1, L.W­17/S.Arun Kumar, Sub­Inspector of Police,

Rambilli Police Station registered F.I.R as Cr No. 95/2017 U/s 304­A and 279 of I.P.C and investigated into. After completion of entire investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

Hence, the charge sheet.

5. The case is taken cognizance by the Court for the offenses punishable under Sections 304­A, 279 of Indian Penal Code.

6. On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of the documents were furnished to him, as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure and he was examined under Section 251 of Code of Criminal Procedure and read over and explained the contents in Telugu to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In the trial afforded by both parties, prosecution cited 17 witnesses. Examined

P.W­1 to 4 only. The remaining witnesses were given up by the prosecution.

Ex.P­1 to 5 are marked.

8. After completion of the trial, the examination U/s 313 is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material against the accused. 

9. Heard both sides.

10.Now the Point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence 

Charged U/s 304­A of I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant who is the father of the deceased, he deposed that I came to know the incident through one person that my son (deceased) met with an accident. Immediately, I went to K.G,H Visakhapatnam. After two days of the accident, while undergoing treatment the deceased was died. Thereafter, I gave report to the Police.

Ex.P­1 is the signature of the witness on the report.

12. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sought permission to cross examine to

P.W­1 as he was turned hostile, accordingly permission was granted.

13. During cross examination done by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, except bald suggestions, nothing was elicited from the evidence of P.W­1 to prove the guilt of the accused. The 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W­1 is marked as Ex.P­2.

14. The witnesses P.W­2 to P.W­4 also turned hostile. As P.W­2 to P.W­4 did not support the case of the prosecution, They were cross examined by the prosecution and confronted with their inconsistent statements recorded Under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and they are exhibited as Ex.P.3 to P.5. 

13. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the L.Ws2, 5 to 11 and

L.Ws 13 to 17.

­3­

14. Hence in the light of the above discussions, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 304­A, 279 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. 

15. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence charged under sections 304­A, 279 of IPC. He is acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. As there was no property, property order is not passed. Accused is directed to execute a bond for Rs.5000/­ with two sureties for alike sum as required under section 437­A of Cr.P.C to appear before appellate court, if preferred any appeal.

Typed to my dictation, typed by typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this Friday, the 28th day of September, 2018.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge FAC Addl; Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yellamanchili

Appendix of Evidence Witness Examined For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W­1/ 29­8­2018: Pangi Bhaskara Rao ­­NIL­­ P.W­2/29­8­2018: Bonda Diwanam P.W­3/29­8­2018: Pragada Lovaraju P.W­4/29­8­2018: D.N.V.S Narayana

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P­1: Signature of P.W­1 on the report ­NIL­ Ex.P­2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W­1 Ex.P­3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W­2 Ex.P­4:161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W­3 Ex.P­5:161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W­4

Material Objects : ­NIL­

Prl. Junior Civil Judge FAC Addl; Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yellamanchili

Calendar and Judgment Calendar Cases tried by the Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Yellamanchili.

Date of offence : 08­09­2017

Report or complaint : 12­09­2017

Apprehension of accused : 15­09­2017

Commencement of trial : 29­08­2018

Close of trial : 29­08­2018

Sentence of order : 28­09­2018

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

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.40/2018 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of I Class Court,

Yellamanchili

Name of the complainant : State represented by the Sub­inspector of police, S.Rayavaram

Name of Father’s name Age, Callling, Religion, Village Mandal accused

Adapa Gangadhara Rao, S/o Surya Rao, Aged 45 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Kagitha Village, Nakkapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Driver of Car AP 31 AU 8889.

Offences:­ 304­A : Causing death by negligence 279 : Rash Driving or riding on a public way

Finding:­ : Found not guilty. 

Sentence of order:­ In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence charged under section 304­A, 279 of IPC. He is acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. As there was no property, property order is not passed. Accused is directed to execute a bond for Rs.5000/­ with two sureties for alike sum as required under section 437­A of Cr.P.C to appear before appellate court, if preferred any appeal.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge FAC Addl; Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yellamanchili

1 OS.72/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: YELLAMANCHILI

Present : G. Dharma Rao

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Yellamanchili

Wednesday, the 10th day of October 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT No.72/2017

Between:

Panchadarla Venkata Lakshmi, w/o Suribabu, Hindu, age 40 yrs, Dr.No.3-309, r/o Kotturu village, H/o Chodapalli village, Atchutapuram mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist.

…Plaintif

And

1. Joga Apparao, s/o late Narayana, Hindu, aged about 50 yrs, Business, r/o Chodapalli village, Atchutapuram mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

2. Joga Appala Raju, s/o Apparao, Hindu, aged about 24 yrs, Business, r/o Chodapalli village, Atchutapuram mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

3.Joga Venkunaidu, s/o Apparao, Hindu, aged about 23 yrs, Business, r/o Chodapalli village, Atchutapuram mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

4.Joga Narayana rao, s/o Apparao, Hindu, aged about 22 yrs, Business, r/o Chodapalli village, Atchutapuram mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

...Defendants

This suit coming on 04.10.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Appalanaidu, Advocate for the plaintif and of Sri N.S.N.A, Advocate for defendant and the same having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,71,533-00 (Rupees One Lakh

Seventy One Thousand Five Hundrerd and Fifty Three only) being the

principal and interest due on a promissory note dt.04.05.2014 executed by

the defendants in favour of plaintif for Rs.1,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24 % p.a. for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are that defendants jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintif on 04.05.2014 for the purpose of their family expenses in the evidence of said transaction the 2 OS.72/2017 defendants executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintif, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., either to plaintif or his order on demand. Subsequently in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif to pay the debt due under the above promissory note but the defendants postpone to pay the same on one reason or other and protracting to pay the same. Hence, this suit.

3.Defendant No.4 filed his written statement the same is adopted by defendants 1 to 3. The defendants denied the plaint averments and further stated that the 1st defendant is father of the defendants 2 to 4. the 4th defendant worked as an agent in AGRI GOLD from 2006. The 4th defendant in the process of his agency he collected some amounts from the plaintifs herein, plaintif in OS.71/2017 by name Karukundi Appala Narasa and plaintif in OS.73/2017 by name Karukundi Simhachalam and some others and deposited the same in the AGRI GOLD company. The said AGRI

GoLD company is in deep finalcial crises past three years and the

Government have seized properties of the company. The plaintifs demanded the defendant to repayment of the amounts deposited in the

AGRI GOLD company. Then, the defendant expressed that the AGRI GOLD company is responsable for the amounts deposited by the plaintif. The plaintif herein and the other above said plaintifs bore grudge against the 4th defendant and filed false suit. The defendants never borrowed any amount from the plaintif at any point of time much less Rs.1,00,000/- on 04.05.2014 for the purpose of house construction and never executed the alleged promissory note in favour of plaintif. The defendants further stated that the promissory note is fabricated and forged document since, the signatures do not belolg to the defendants. The defendants never received the legal notice from the plaintif. There is no cause of action. The 3 OS.72/2017 defendnats are not liable to pay amount to the plaintif. Hence, the defendants prays the court to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the pleadings of both parties the following issues have been framed for tiral.

1.Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2Whether the plaintif is entitled to claim the suit amount ?

3.To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, plaintif himself examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A3 are marked on behalf of plaintif.

6.Heard both sides.

7. Issues Nos.1 & 2:

The learned council for the plaintif contended that the plaintif proved his case by adducing oral and documentary evidence. The Ex.A1 clearly established the case of the plaintif that the defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintif and the defendants unable to rebut the case of the plaintif. Therefore the defendants are liable to pay the suit amount.

8. The plaintif examined as PW.1. He reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief evidence affidavit. Cross examination of the PW1 is treated to be nil. Though the defendants filed written statement but did not turn up to cross examine the PW1. The defendants did not adduce any evidence in their favour. Therefore, the contest of the plaintif is remained unchallenged. The Ex.A1 and the chief evidence affidavit of the PW1 clearly proved the execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant in favour of the plaintif.

9.Issue No.3:In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.1,71,533/- against the defendants with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter, at 4 OS.72/2017 the rate of 6% p.a till date of realization on principal amount of

Rs.1,00,000/-

Dictated to Stenographer transcribed by him corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of October 2018

Sd/-G.Dharmarao

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Yellamanchili

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Plaintifs:

P.W.1: P.Venkatalakshmi

For Defendants:

--none--

No. of Documents Marked on behalf of:

For Plaintif:

Ex.A1: Pronote dt.04.05.2014 Ex.A2: Office copy of register Lawyers notice dt.17.03.2017 Ex.A3: Return postal cover.

For Defendant:

-- Nil--

Sd/-G.Dharmarao

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Yellamanchili

1 ORIGINAL SUIT No.194/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT: AT YELLAMANCHILI

Present: Sri.G.Dharmarao,

Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamanchili

(FAC) Prl.Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamanchili

Thursday, the 12th day of March, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT No.194/2019

Between:

Ummidi Parvathi, w/o Late Bangrraju, Hindu, aged 26 years, r/o Bangaramapalem village, Vakapadu Panchayat, S.Rayavaram mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist.

…Plaintif

And

1.Garikina Srinivasa Rao @ Ramana, s/o late Apparao, Hindu, aged about 39 yrs, r/o Kothapatnam village, Rambilli mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

2.Garikina Danamma, w/o late Apparao, Hindu, aged about 54 yrs, r/o at Kothapatnam village, Rambilli mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

3.Koda Manga, w/o Suribabu, Hindu, aged about 35 yrs, r/o Vada Narasapuram village, Rambilli mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

4.Koyya Govindamma, w/o Nagaraju, Hindu, aged about 32 yrs, r/o at Revupolavaram village, S.Rayavaram mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

5.Milapalli Kasi Lakshmi, w/o late Kasulu, Hindu, aged about 29 yrs, r/o at Dummulupeta, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

...Defendants

This suit coming on 07.02.2020 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.A.N.Murthy, Advocate for the plaintif and defendants set ex parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.79,600-00 (Rupees Seventy Nine

Thousand Six Hundred only) from the 1st defendant and also from and out of estate of late Garikina Apparao which is now within the hands of defendants 1 to 5 being the principal and interest due on a promissory note 2 ORIGINAL SUIT No.194/2019 dt.08.02.2017 executed by Garikina Apparao along with 1st defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs.50,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24 % p.a. for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are that the husband of 2nd defendant as well the father of 1,3 to 5 defendants by name Garikina

Apparao borrowed an of Rs.50,000/- during his life time along with 1st defendant from the plaintif on 08.02.2017 for the purpose of their family expenes, in the evidence of said transaction the defendants executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintif, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., either to plaintif or his order on demand.

The said G.Apparao died by leaving the defendants as legal heirs and also schedule property. Subsequently in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif, the defendants did not choose to repay any amount either principal or interest and has postponing the same on some pretext or the other. The plaintif got issued legal noitce on 09.06.2019 for the payment of said debt together with intertest to all the defendants. The defendants received the same but kept quite. hence, this suit.

3.Summons served on the defendants 2 to 5 but they did not make their apperance hence, they were set exparte. The defendant No.1 failed to fle written statement inspite of granting several adjournments and the statutory period for fling written statement has elapsed therefore, the D1 was set ex parte.

4.In support of the suit claim, the plaintif himself examined as PW1 and

PW2 was examined and Ex.A1 to A4 were marked.

5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintif.

6.Now, the point for consideration is:

“ Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendants?” 3 ORIGINAL SUIT No.194/2019

7.Point: It is the case of the plaintif that the Garikina Apparao and his son/1st defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintif and executed a promissory note in favour of plaintif agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a subsequently the said Garikina Apparao died leaving the defendants as legal heirs and also schedule property. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif, defendants failed to repay the promissory note debt.

8.To substantiate the suit claim, plaintif examined himself as P.W.1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to A4. PW1 has reiterated the averments made in the plaint. The attestor of Ex.P1 is examined as PW2. Further on perusing the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintif, he got exhibited promissory note executed by Garikina Apparao and 1st defendant as Ex.A1, which proves the monetary transaction between the plaintif and the defendant No.1 and

Apparao. The contention of the plaintif is remained unchallenged as the defendants were set exparte. By adducing oral and documentary evidence, plaintif proved his case. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the plaintif.

9.In the result the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.79,600/- with subsequent interest at 12% p.a on the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- from the date of fling of this suit till date of decree and thereafter, at 6% p.a from the date of decree till the date of realization, shall be recovered from D1 personally and out of the estate of Late Garikina Apparao which is in the hands of D1 to D5.

Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 12th day of March, 2020.

Sd/-G.Dharmarao

Addl.Junior Civil Judge, FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Yellamanchili.

4 ORIGINAL SUIT No.194/2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Plaintifs:

P.W.1: Ummidi Parvathi P.W.2: Chinthakayala Nookaraju

For Defendants:

--None--

No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of:

For Plaintif:

Ex.A1: Original Pronote dt.08-02-2017 Ex.A2: ofce copy of legal notice dt.09.06.2019 Ex.A3: Bunch of Postal Receipts (5 in number) Ex.A4: 1-B Register dt.15-07-2019 (Mee Seva Copy)

For Defendants:

-- Nil--

Sd/-G.Dharmarao

Addl.Junior Civil Judge, FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Yellamanchili.