Sri G.karthik

C.C. No.1424/2025 1 VI A.J.M.F.C FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026

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

FOR RAILWAYS :: VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT : SRI G.KARTHIK, III ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-III ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VISAKHAPATNAM

FAC VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS ::

VISAKHAPATNAM

Tuesday, this the 12th day of May, 2026

Calendar Case No. 1424 /2025

Between:

State : Inspector, Railway Protection Force Post, Duvvada. … Complainant

And

Kuppili Ramprasad, 26 years, S/o Kamayya, R/o D No. 1-91, SC Street, T R Rajupeta, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh. … Accused

This case has come before me on 05.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Public Prosecutor, Railway Protection Force, learned Advocate

for complainant and of Sri. P.Chandrabhushana Rao, Advocate for the

accused, upon perusing the material on record and hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following :

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

1. The Inspector, Railway Protection Force Post, Duvvada, filed complaint against the accused for the offences under Sections 154 & 160(2) of The

Railways Act, 1989 in Crime number C3C/55/2025 of RPF Post, Duvvada.

2. The case of prosecution is as follows:

C.C. No.1424/2025 2VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026

On 06.01.2025, at about 17:00 hours P.W.1/D.Ramakrishna/Assistant

Sub-Inspector received Telephonic information from Station Master, Vadlapudi regarding incident involving dashing LC gate SP5 by a Bolero goods carrier, due to which the gate break into two pieces and the crime vehicle fled from the scene. Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the spot there he noticed P.W.4 and

LW3 G.Srinath Kumar who led signal team. On being questioned, P.W.4 narrated the incident as while he attempted to close the gate for the passage of goods train KVL 4/G9, meanwhile the crime vehicle i.e., Bolero approached the gate at high speed ignoring the hooter and signal and dashed the gate.

Then he conducted a joint observation with the assistance of P.W.4 and LW3

G.Srinadh Kumar, Senior Technician/Singal/Vadlapudi. P.W.1 procured the

CCTV footage data from the office of SSE Telecom and after verification he got a lead to the crime vehicle and then registered a case in crime No.C3C 55/2025 for the offence under Section 154 and 160(2) of The Railways Act against unknown individual.

On 09-01-2025 acting upon credible information P.W.1 along with his team proceeded to A-II, Industrial Estate i.e., Crest office, on being asked LW6

Ch. Shiva disclosed ownership particulars of the crime vehicle who operates the business and further disclosed the accused is the driver of crime vehicle on the date of incident. P.W.1 secured independent witness LW7 M. Sriramulu and in his presence recorded the confession of accused. P.W.1 seized crime vehicle under cover of seizure list and apprehended the accused. On completing necessary inquiries P.W.2 B.V. Ramana, Inspector, filed complaint against accused alleging that, accused committed offence under sections 154 & 160(2) of The Railways Act, 1989. Hence, the Complaint.

3. After perusal of the record, this Court taken cognizance of the offence for the offences Under Sections 154 & 160(2) of The Railways Act against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of all documents were furnished to him. The accused was examined Under Section 269 (1) of

BNSS, for the alleged offence after dispensing with the enquiry under Section

C.C. No.1424/2025 3 VI A.J.M.F.C FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026 267 of BNSS as the record available discloses that there is a prima facie case against the accused for the alleged offence. The accused pleaded not guilty of the offence. After hearing both sides, charges Under Sections 154 & 160(2) of

The Railways Act, 1989 were framed against the accused, read over and explained the same to him in his Vernacular Language, he pleaded not guilty of the said charges and claimed to be tried.

4. On behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined, got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.14. The evidence of LW2 Nirmala Tirkey, LW3 G Srinath Kumar,

LW5 M. Ramana, LW6 Ch. Shiva, LW7 M. Sriramulu, LW8 S.S. Rajasekhar and LW10 Y.Lalitha was given up by learned Public Prosecutor on 07.04.2026 under Section 330 of BNSS. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused was examined Under Section 351 of BNSS, he denied the incriminating material found against him and reported no defense evidence.

5. Heard the arguments of both sides.

6. Point for consideration:

Whether the Prosecution has proved its case against the accused

for the offence punishable under Sections 154 & 160(2) of The Railway

Act, 1989 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

7.POINT:

(a)It is the case of the prosecution that on 06.01.2025, at about 17:00 hours, a white colour Tata Bolero bearing registration No. AP 39 UG 8866, driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner, hit Level

Crossing Gate No.SP-5, located at KM No. 877/10S – 11S, as a result, damage was caused to the gate, thereby the accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Sections 154 & 160(2) of The

Railways Act, 1989. The defence of the accused is a complete denial of the prosecution’s case.

(b)To prove the allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 4. PW.1 is the inquiry officer, who arrested the accused

C.C. No.1424/2025 4VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026 and seized the vehicle. P.W.2 is the further inquiry officer who after completing the necessary inquiries, filed the complaint. PW.3 is also a inquiry officer who examine the witnesses and issued requisition for loss report and handed over the case to P.W.2. P.W.4 is an eyewitness and the gate man who was present at the scene of the offence.

(c)To establish the above offences, the prosecution must first prove that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., white colour Tata

Bolero bearing registration No. AP 39 UG 8866, on the date of the incident.

Furthermore, it must be established that the damage to the level crossing gate was caused due to the negligent act of the accused.

(d)In order to prove that the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle on the date of the accident, the prosecution relied on the oral testimonies of PW.1 and PW.4 and on documentary evidence namely, the confessional statement of the accused Ex.P3, the vehicle seizure report Ex.P4 and the damage certificate Ex.P13. The evidence of PW.4, the gate man, discloses that on 06.01.2025, at about 5:00 P.M., while he was closing the gate for clearance of traffic, the accused, driving a white colour Tata Bolero bearing registration No. AP 39 UG 8866 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the LC gate. Following the collision, the accused did not stop the vehicle and fled away from the spot. Subsequently, on 09-01-2025, on credible information P.W.1 along with his team proceeded to Crest office after verifying the CCTV footage and there LW6 Ch.Shiva was present who operates the business and stated that accused is his employee and on the date of incident accused was the driver of the crime vehicle. P.W.1 secured

LW7 M. Sriramulu an independent witness and seized the crime vehicle under

Ex.P4, and recorded the confessional statement of the accused under Ex.P3.

The testimony of P.W.1 is corroborated by Ex.P8. Ex.P8 discloses that LW7

M. Sriramulu also confirmed his presence during the inquiry and attested the confessional statement of accused. Although the defence counsel cross- examined P.Ws 1 and 4 on the circumstances of the incident, nothing material

C.C. No.1424/2025 5 VI A.J.M.F.C FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026 was elicited to discredit or contradict their testimonies. Accordingly, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 remains consistent, reliable, and unrebutted.

(e)With respect to the alleged negligence on the part of the accused, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.4 is of significant importance. PW.4, the eyewitness, as discussed earlier, categorically stated that the driver of the crime vehicle came in a high speed, was driving the vehicle in a negligent manner and dashed the LC gate boom barrier resulting complete damage, while closing the gate at the time. The testimony of PW.4, an eye witness who witnessed the incident, corroborates the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the occurrence of the incident. Furthermore, the confession made by the accused to PW.1 was voluntary, as demonstrated by PW.1’s testimony detailing the manner in which the inquiry was conducted and the voluntary nature of the admission. In addition to this oral evidence, to establish the fact of damage and the liability of the accused, the prosecution relied on Ex.P13 the damage certificate issued by SSE, Signal, Duvvada. The certificate clearly indicates that the Railways sustained a financial loss of Rs. 20,000/- due to the incident.

The combined evidence of P.Ws 1 and 4 convincingly establishes that, despite having sufficient opportunity to control the vehicle, the accused failed to take any precautionary action. His inaction despite being aware that the vehicle was approaching an open level crossing gate directly led to the collision and resulting the damage. The defence did not produce any credible rebuttal to this evidence.

(f)The evidence of PW.2 and P.W.3 reveals the manner in which the inquiries were conducted, and their testimonies are fully supported by the evidence of all other prosecution witnesses. No contrary evidence was elicited from the testimony of PW.2 and P.W.3 regarding the manner of the enquiries.

Ex.P3 is the confessional statement of the accused, which contains an admission about the alleged occurrence. This is also an admissible piece of evidence, as P.W.1, the Railway Protection Officer Assistant Sub-Inspector, is not a police officer under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The principle held in Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra (1981 AIR 379,

C.C. No.1424/2025 6VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026 1981 SCR (1) 175, 1980 SCC (4) 600) applies here. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that an officer of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) conducting an enquiry under Section 8(1) of the 1966 Act is not invested with all the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station making an investigation under

Chapter XIV of the Code. Specifically, they do not have the power to initiate prosecution by filing a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code, which is a defining characteristic of a 'police officer'. Therefore, the Railway Protection

Officer is not considered a 'police officer' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and any confessional or incriminating statement recorded by him during an inquiry under Section 8(1) of the 1966 Act cannot be excluded from evidence under that section.

(g)Hence, corroborating to prosecution witnesses, Ex.P3

Confessional statement of Accused which is admissible piece of evidence under section 8 of Act cogently establishes that, he negligently hit LC Gate

No.SP-5, located at KM No. 877/10S – 11S on 06.01.2025.

(h)The learned counsel for the accused submitted that there is no intention on part of accused to commit the alleged offence and it was happened accidentally and to punish the accused U/Sec.160 of Railway Act, the intention of the accused is relevant and for which the counsel for the accused relied upon the judgment reported in 2007 Criminal Law Journal

Page 4263 in between Union of Indian Vs State of Punjab and another

decided on 24-04-2007. The counsel for the accused prayed the Honourable

Court by considering the above facts and circumstances there is a evidence against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.154 of Railway act but not for the offence U/Sec.160 (2) of The Railways Act.

(i)For better understanding Sections 160(2) and 154 of the Railways

Act, 1989, are reproduced below :

“Section 160 of the Railways Act, 1989: (1) If any person, other than a railway servant or a person authorized in this behalf, opens

C.C. No.1424/2025 7 VI A.J.M.F.C FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026 any gate or chain or barrier set up on either side of a level crossing which is closed to road traffic, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years.

(2) If any person breaks any gate or chain or barrier set up on either side of a level crossing which is closed to road traffic, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years.

Section 154. Endangering safety of persons traveling by railway by

rash or negligent act or omission: If any person in a rash and negligent manner does any act, or omits to do what he is legally bound to do, and the act or omission is likely to endanger the safety of any person traveling or being upon any railway, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

(j)It appears that section 160(2) of the Act is intended to punish deliberate conduct by a person to open the gate or cause damage, in other words, it does not cover rash or negligent behavior.

(k)The Honourable High Court of Punjab in Union Of India (UOI) vs

State Of Punjab And Anr. on 24 April, 2007 reported in 2007 Criminal Law

Journal Page 4263 held as follows:

“The nature of offence created under Section 160(2) can further be appreciated by making reference to the contents of Section 160(1).

It provides that "if any person, other than a railway servant or a person authorized in this behalf opens any gate or chain or barrier set up on the either side of a level crossing, which is closed to road traffic, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years." Obviously, opening of gate or chain etc., by any person who is not a railway servant or not authorized in this behalf commits an offence under Section 160(1) of the Act. On the

C.C. No.1424/2025 8VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026 face of it, this Section is meant to punish the deliberate conduct on the part of such person to open the gate etc. In other words, it would not include any rash or negligent conduct. Section 160(1), thus, provides an act of opening of the gate etc. and Sub-section (2) of

Section 160 of the Act creates an offence on the part of any person who breaks any gate or chain or barrier. This whole Section, as such, would exclude the element of rash or negligent act or omission meaning thereby that the Section is meant to punish an intentional misconduct. A doubt, if any, in this regard, can be set at rest by making a reference to the provisions of Section 154 of the

Act, which punishes a rash or negligent act or omission on the part of any person which endanger safety of any person traveling or being upon the railway etc. Similarly, a willful act or omission on the part of any person, which endanger or causes endanger to the safety of traveling of any person on or being upon any railway, has been made punishable under Section 153 of the Act. A distinction between a willful and a negligent or rash act, as such, is clearly legislated. No indication can be gathered from the contents of

Section 160 of the Act that this Section is meant to punish any act which is rash or negligent to exclude intention.

(l)In the present case, the allegation against the accused pertains to driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. However, such an act does not fall within the scope of Section 160(2) of The Railways Act, 1989.

Therefore, the provision of Section 160(2) is not applicable to the prosecution’s case, whereas section 154 is applicable to the case of prosecution.

(m)In view of the said discussion this court holds that, the prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of accused for the alleged offence under section 154 of Railways Act beyond all reasonable doubt but failed to establish guilt of accused for charge U/Sec.160(2) of the Act.

C.C. No.1424/2025 9 VI A.J.M.F.C FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026

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

U/Sec.160(2) of The Railways Act, 1989 and accordingly, he is acquitted

U/Sec.271(1) of BNSS. But the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.154 of The Railways Act, 1989 and accordingly, he is convicted U/Sec.271(2) of BNSS.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 12th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- G. Karthik

III Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division),VSP FACVI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

When questioned on sentence, the Accused pleaded mercy of court and submitted that he is a private driver and earning meager income and his family depends on his sole earnings.

In view of the facts and circumstances in this case, this is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of section 3 or 4 of Probation of offenders Act and

Section 401 of BNSS. Considering the financial capacity of accused, compensation is not awarded Under Section 395 of BNSS. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion to take lenient view while sentencing the accused by imposing fine, which meets the ends of Justice.

Accordingly, the Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) for the offence Under Section 154 of The

Railways Act, 1989, in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused is informed about his right to appeal against this Judgment before the Hon’ble Sessions Court and also informed about the right to get Legal Aid as contemplated under Section 341 of BNSS through Hon’ble Chairman, District Legal Services Authority,

Visakhapatnam. The unmarked Goods carriage LMV Bolero Pickup FB CBC

PS 1.7T XL closed type bearing registration No.AP 39 UG 8866 which was

C.C. No.1424/2025 10VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026 returned to interim custody of its owner vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.218/2025 dt.21.01.2025 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time, if appeal is not preferred.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 12th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- G. Karthik

III Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division) VSP FACVI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :

ProsecutionName of WitnessDescription Witness No.

P.W.1D. RamakrishnaEnquiry officer

P.W.2B.V. RamanaFurther enquiry officer

P.W.3S.V. RaoFurther enquiry officer

P.W.4D. Venkata Appa RaoOn duty L.C. Gate man

For Defence: Nil

Documents Marked

For Complainant:

ExhibitDescription of the ExhibitProved by/ No.Attested by

Ex.P1 :Joint observation reportPW.1

Ex.P2 :Photos (4 in number).PW.1

Ex.P3 :Confessional statement of accused.PW.1

Ex.P4 :Seizure list PW.1

Ex.P5 :CD along with photographsPW.1

Ex.P6 :Statement of P.W.1 PW.1

Ex.P7:Statement of LW6 Ch. Shiva PW.2

Ex.P.8:Statement of LW7 M. SriramuluPW.2

Ex.P9:Statement of P.W.3PW.2

C.C. No.1424/2025 11 VI A.J.M.F.C FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026

Ex.P10:Statement of LW5 M. RamanaPW.2

Ex.P11:Statement of P.W.4PW.2

Ex.P12:Requisition to issue loss reportPW.3

Ex.P13:Loss reportPW.3

Ex.P.14:Statement of LW3 G. Srinath KumarPW.3

For Defence: -Nil-

Material Objects

For Complainant: -Nil- For Defence: -Nil-

Sd/- G. Karthik

III Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division) ,VSP FACVI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

C.C. No.1424/2025 12VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.1424 of 2025 on the file of VI Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam

1. Date of Offence: 06.01.2025

2. Date of report: 06.01.2025

3. Date of arrest of accused: ---

4. Date of release on bail : ---

5. Date of commencement of trial : 04.08.2025

6. Date of close of trial: 28.04.2026

7. Date of judgment: 12.05.2026

8. Complainant : Inspector, RPF Post, Duvvada

9. Accused : Kuppili Ramprasad, 26 years, S/o Kamayya, R/o D No. 1-91, SC Street, T R Rajupeta, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh.

10. Offence : Under Sections 154 & 160(2) of The Railway Act

11. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court : Found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 160(2) of The Railways Act, 1989 and found guilty for the offence U/sec.154 of The Railways Act, 1989.

13. Sentence or order : The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.160(2) of The Railways Act, 1989 and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.271 (1) of BNSS. But the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.154 of The Railways Act, 1989 and accordingly, he is convicted U/Sec.271 (2) of BNSS.

C.C. No.1424/2025 13 VI A.J.M.F.C FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026

Accordingly, the Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) for the offence Under Section 154 of The

Railways Act, 1989, in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused is informed about his right to appeal against this Judgment before the Hon’ble Sessions Court and also informed about the right to get Legal Aid as contemplated under Section 341 of BNSS through Hon’ble Chairman, District Legal Services Authority,

Visakhapatnam. The unmarked Goods carriage LMV Bolero Pickup FB CBC

PS 1.7T XL closed type bearing registration No.AP 39 UG 8866 which was returned to interim custody of its owner vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.218/2025 dt.21.01.2025 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time, if appeal is not preferred.

14. Explanation for the delay: This case was taken on file on 11.07.2025 for the offences under Sections 154 & 160(2) of The Railways Act, 1989 against the accused. On 21.07.2025 Copies of all documents were furnished to him

Under Section 230 of BNSS. On 28.07.2025 the accused was examined

Under Section 269(1) of BNSS, he pleaded not guilty, charges were framed

Under Sections 154 & 160(2) of The Railways Act, 1989 against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, he denied the charges and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.14 were marked. On 28.04.2026 the accused was examined Under

Section 351 of BNSS, he denied the incriminating material against him and reported no defence evidence. On 05.05.2026 heard arguments of both sides. On 12.05.2026 Judgment pronounced vide separate judgment. Hence the delay.

Sd/- G. Karthik

III Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division) ,VSP FACVI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

C.C. No.1424/2025 14VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026 // TRUE COPY //

Sd/- G. Karthik

III Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division) ,VSP FACVI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

Page No.1 I.A.No.477/2022 in OS.No.962/2022, III ACJ (JD)/VSP

APVS020013882022 //FAIR//

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

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : Sri. G.Karthik, III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

I.A.No.477/2022 in OS.No.962/2022

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2026 Between :

Mallemadugula S.S.R.K.N.Sarma, S/o Late Kameswara Rao, Age 43 years, R/o Flat No.308 & 309, 2nd Floor, D.No.58-15- 114/50, Shanti Nagar Fort @ Gajanana Fort, Shanti Nagar, NAD Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam-530009, Aadhar No.4062-1241- 7757, Mobile No.9642442018.

...Petitioner/Plaintiff

And :

1. U.V.S.Sarma, S/o Not known to the petitioner/plaintiff, Age 62 years, Retired Railway Employee, R/o Flat No.318, D.No.58-15- 114/59, Shanti Nagar Fort @ Gajanana Fort, Shanti Nagar, NAD Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam-530009, Mobile No.9885336808.

2. M.Lakshmi, W/o M.Prasad Rao, Age 40 years, Beautician, R/o Flat No.407, D.No.58-15-114/68, Shanti Nagar Fort @ Gajanana Fort, Shanti Nagar, NAD Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam-530009, Mobile No.9989073102.

3. U.Usha Rani, W/o T.H.K.Prasad, Age 55 years, R/o Flat No.108, D.No.58-15-114/11, Shanti Nagar Fort @ Gajanana Fort, Shanti Nagar, NAD Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam-530009, Mobile No.7075643738.

Page No.2 I.A.No.477/2022 in OS.No.962/2022, III ACJ (JD)/VSP

4. The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam.

5. Gajanana Fort Flat Owners Welfare Association vide its Regd. No.1078/2003, NAD Junction, Visakhapatnam-530009, Represented by its President/U.V.S.Sarma, S/o Not known to the petitioner/plaintiff, Age 62 years, Retired Railway Employee, R/o Flat No.318, D.No.58-15-114/59, Shanti Nagar Fort @ Gajanana Fort, Shanti Nagar, NAD Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam-530009.

(The respondent/defendant No.5 was added as per the orders in I.A.No.825/2022, Dt.15-05-2023)

...Respondents/Defendants

This petition has come before me on 07-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. D.V.V.R.Pratap and Smt. R.Sarada, Advocates for Petitioner/ Plaintiff and of Sri. P.Ramji, Ms. P.Hemalatha and Sri. E.Appaiah, Advocates for Respondents/Defendants No.1 to 3 and 5 and Sri. Y.Chinnayya Dora, Advocate

for Respondent/Defendant No.4 and the matter having stood over for consideration

till this day, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to grant temporary injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants, their henchmen from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of renovation/construction activity inside the petition schedule property of the petitioner/plaintiff pending disposal of suit.

2.The brief averments of the affidavit filed along with the petition are as follows :

(a)The petitioner/plaintiff purchased the petition schedule property i.e.,

Flat No.308 and 309 in 2nd floor of GAJANA FORT apartment from his rightful vendor/Bhamidimarri Venkata Jagannadh on 22-04-2022 by paying valid sale consideration of Rs.53,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Three Lakhs only) to his vendor and obtained regular registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1485/2022. The vendor of petitioner/plaintiff purchased the petition schedule property from his vendor M/s.

Page No.3 I.A.No.477/2022 in OS.No.962/2022, III ACJ (JD)/VSP

Swagruha Developers Private Limited on 26-04-2002 by obtaining regular registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1754/2002. Since the date of purchase, the vendor of petitioner/plaintiff had been in occupation of suit schedule property till execution of registered sale deed in favour of petitioner/plaintiff i.e., on 22-04-2022, on that day, the vendor of petitioner/plaintiff delivered vacant possession to the petitioner/plaintiff. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner/plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.

(b)The entire apartment was constructed by a developer in an extent of 3194 square yards by way of obtaining approved plan from the respondent/defendant No.4 vide B.A.No.819/2000/ACP/III on 26-12-2001, according to the building permit order, the developer constructed the entire apartment in the said site i.e., stilt floor for parking + ground floor + 4 upper floors by submitting the typical floor plan to the respondent/defendant No.4. In fact, the entire apartment was constructed by raising columns, as such it is called as columns structure and inside walls of all 100 flats are not load bearing walls, which are flexible walls and as per the structural engineer design, the inside walls can be altered or changed according to vasthu of each flat, which will not cause any damage to the structure of the entire apartment.

(c)After purchasing the suit schedule flats by the petitioner/plaintiff, he intended to alter as well as renovate inside walls of petition schedule flats as per vasthu and other family necessities without altering any structural changes and without touching any columns by way of taking an advise from the structural engineer by name K.Ravi Kumar who inspected the schedule flats on 16-07-2022 and observed that the entire structure is framed structure and no load bearing walls on any side of apartment and all walls are partition walls on either external or internal. According to his advise, the petitioner/plaintiff is intended to change some internal partition walls only, to that effect there is no question of decreasing the strength of the apartment structure, which is also not causing any disturbance as well as not causing any damage to the structural strength of the said apartment.

Page No.4 I.A.No.477/2022 in OS.No.962/2022, III ACJ (JD)/VSP

(d)According to his structural soundness certificate, the petitioner/plaintiff is trying to change some of the internal partition walls and doing the work also.

While the matter is stood thus on 12-7-2022, the respondents/defendants No.1 to 3 including other flat owners have raised objection and submitted a representation to the respondent/defendant No.4, in which they have raised false allegation that the petitioner/plaintiff demolished the inside walls of his flats and constructing new walls at new alignments, which may decrease the strength of the flats and danger to the lives to the residents. Then, the petitioner/plaintiff also submitted representation along with structural soundness certificate of consulting civil engineer namely

K.Ravi Kumar to the defendant No.4 as well as the defendant No.1. Even after receiving the structural soundness certificate, the respondents/defendants No.1 to 3 are trying to interfere with his lawful construction activities highhandedly and illegally by influencing the authorities of respondent/defendant No.4. Hence, this petition.

3.The brief averments of counter filed by the respondent/defendant No.1 and the same was adopted by the respondents/defendants No.2, 3 and 5 are as follows :

(a)As per bye-laws of association, no owner/tenant shall construct a wall, make wooden structure or fix iron grill in corridors or common areas without express permission in writing from the association. Similarly, inside the flat, no structural modifications are permitted to be done endangering safety of the apartment unless otherwise association gives specific permission, as such the petitioner/plaintiff has no right to make any modification, destruction, alteration, alignment and construction of walls inside or outside of the apartment. The petitioner/plaintiff being a member of Sri Gajanan Fort Owners Welfare Association has to obey the bye-laws of the association. The respondent/defendant No.1 submitted an application to the Association on 12-06-2022 for getting modification of the Flat Nos.308 and 309, but the executive committee of the association did not accept the same as the intention of the petitioner/plaintiff for getting modification of

Page No.5 I.A.No.477/2022 in OS.No.962/2022, III ACJ (JD)/VSP the flats is against to the bye-laws of association and more over the modifications will damage and endanger to the lives of the flat owners bearing Flat No.108, 109, 208, 209, 408, 409, 508 and 509, hence advised the petitioner/plaintiff get NOC letter from GVMC for modification/alteration of walls through a letter, Dt.22-06- 2022, but the petitioner/ plaintiff did not obtain any permission from GVMC to get modification of the flats.

(b)The Structural Engineer is not a competent person to grant permission to the petitioner/plaintiff to proceed with the modifications in the Flat No.308 and

309. The petitioner/plaintiff filed this petition without obtaining permission

from GVMC to carryout the alleged modifications who is competent to allow

the petitioner. The petitioner/plaintiff has no right to carry out the right renovation/construction activity inside the schedule flats in any manner as per bye- laws of the association, as such the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondents/defendants No.1 to 3.

4.The brief averments of counter filed by the respondent/defendant No.4 are as follows :

No mandatory notice under Section 685 of AP Municipal Corporation Act was issued to the respondent/defendant No.4 prior to filing of this suit. The respondent/ defendant No.4 was dragged into the litigation even though it has no role to play.

The respondent/defendant No.4 cannot interfere with the remodeling of

interiors of flat. The respondent/defendant No.4 received representation from the respondents/ defendants No.1 to 3 and other flat owners in the apartment venting their objection to dismantle the existing walls and remodeling the flat, apprehending the construction of new walls at new alignment may effect the strength of other flats in the apartment and endanger their lives. The petitioner/plaintiff in turn submitted a representation to the respondent/defendant No.4 stating that the entire structure is a framed structure and no load bearing walls on any side of the apartment and also he is following the advice of a structural engineer and obtained a certificate from him.

Page No.6 I.A.No.477/2022 in OS.No.962/2022, III ACJ (JD)/VSP

5.During the course of enquiry, no oral evidence is adduced on either sides. On behalf of petitioner/plaintiff, Ex.P1 to P9. On behalf of respondents/defendants,

Ex.R1 and R2 are marked. Commissioner report is marked as Ex.C1.

6.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7.Now, the point for consideration is :

Whether the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for ?

8.P O I N T :

(a)It is well-settled law that the grant or refusal of a interim injunction is covered by three well established principles viz., (1) whether the petitioner has made out a prima-facie case, (2) whether the balance of convenience is in his favour i.e., whether it would cause greater inconvenience to him if the interim injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the respondent would be put to if the interim injunction is granted and (3) whether the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in monetary terms. With the first condition as sine qua non, at least two conditions should be satisfied by the petitioner conjunctively and a mere proof of one of the three conditions does not entitle the petitioner to obtain an interim injunction in his favour.

(b)To prove case of petitioner/plaintiff, she got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9.

Ex.P1 is Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed, Dt.22-04-2022, Ex.P2 is Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed, Dt.26-04-2002, Ex.P3 is Encumbrance Certificate,

Dt.23-06-2022, Ex.P4 is Representation of Defendants No.1 to 3 and other flat owners before defendant No.4 corporation, Dt.12-07-2022, Ex.P5 is Structural

Soundness Certificate, Dt.16-07-2022, Ex.P6 is Written representation Dt.17-07- 2022 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant No.5 along with postal receipts, Ex.P7 is Letter, Dt.12-06-2022 addressed by the plaintiff to defendant No.5, Ex.P8 is

Letter, Dt.12-06-2022 addressed by the plaintiff's elder brother to defendant No.5 and Ex.P9 is Reply, Dt.22-06-2022 issued by the defendant No.5 to the plaintiff.

Page No.7 I.A.No.477/2022 in OS.No.962/2022, III ACJ (JD)/VSP

(c)To disprove the case of petitioner/plaintiff, the respondent/defendant got marked Ex.R1 and R2. Ex.R1 is Letter, Dt.12-06-2022 issued by the plaintiff to defendant No.5 and Ex.R2 is Letter, Dt.22-06-2022 issued by the defendant No.5 to the plaintiff.

(d)On perusal of both sides pleadings, this Court observed that there is no dispute with regard to the lawful possession and title of the petitioner/plaintiff over the petition schedule flats. The petitioner/plaintiff contended that the respondents/ defendants are trying to interfere with the renovation/construction activity inside the petition schedule flats. The petitioner/plaintiff contended that he obtained structural soundness certificate from the Civil Engineer which discloses that the renovation of partition walls inside the petition schedule flats will not cause any damage to the structure of the apartment and after obtaining the certificate he was proceeding with renovation/construction activity inside the petition schedule flats as per Vasthu and other family necessities. On the other hand the petitioner/plaintiff contended that as per bye-laws the petitioner/plaintiff shall not proceed with the modification of flats which endanger to the lives of other flat owners as such they advised the petitioner/plaintiff to obtain permission from respondent No.4/defendant No.4 authorities. But the respondent No.4/defendant No.4 authorities contended in their counter that they cannot interfere with the remodeling of interiors of flat. So, the contention raised by respondents/defendants No.1 to 3 and 5 in their counter regarding the requirement of permission from GVMC is not tenable.

(e)Further, Ex.P5 discloses that the licensed structural engineer namely

K.Ravi Kumar inspected the petition schedule flats and observed that there are no load bearing walls inside the petition schedule flats, all walls are partition walls on either external or internal and even if the internal walls are modified there will not be disturbance to the any structural strength of apartment. During pendency of suit, the petitioner/plaintiff got appointed an advocate commissioner with Structural Engineer of GVMC. After execution of warrant in the presence of Structural Engineer of

Page No.8 I.A.No.477/2022 in OS.No.962/2022, III ACJ (JD)/VSP

GVMC, the advocate commissioner filed his report along with enclosures and photographs which is marked as Ex.C1. Ex.C1 also containing the structural observation report given by Structural Engineer of GVMC, which discloses that alterations currently being carried out in petition schedule flats do not involve any modifications to the primary load bearing structural elements and the demolition observed is restricted only to internal non-load bearing masonry partition walls and the modifications undertaken by the petitioner/plaintiff do not affect the structural integrity of the RCC frame and further there is no adverse impact on the structural safety or serviceability of the flats above (408 and 409) and below (208 and 209) or adjacent flats (307 and 310). He further mentioned that no alterations shall be carried out to the existing vertical service ducts provided for bathroom pipelines, soil stacks, waste pipes and other utility services running through the central portion of the petition schedule flats and the petitioner shall ensure that all internal modifications are executed while retraining the original alignment, continuity and functionality of these ducts without obstruction or deviation. In view of observations made by the Structural Engineer of GVMC the objections raised by respondents/ defendants No.1 to 3 and 5 in the counter are not tenable.

(f)The petitioner/plaintiff reported no objections to the report of advocate commissioner which also contains the observation report given by the Structural

Engineer of GVMC. The respondents/defendants No.1 to 3 and 5 filed objections to the commissioner report stating that if the petitioner/plaintiff renovate the internal walls of his two flats, if there is any loss or damage caused to the upper floor flats or ground floor flats, the petitioner/plaintiff is liable for the damages, for which the petitioner/plaintiff has to submit undertaking affidavit for his liability to the damages.

Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff filed undertaking affidavit to that effect and the said undertaking affidavit is taken into record.

(g)In view of the above mentioned reasons and undertaking affidavit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, this Court is of the view that the petitioner/plaintiff has

Page No.9 I.A.No.477/2022 in OS.No.962/2022, III ACJ (JD)/VSP established all the three ingredients for grant of interim injunction in his favour.

Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled for grant of interim injunction as prayed for. However, it is appropriate to direct the petitioner/plaintiff to follow the observations made by the Structural Engineer of GVMC in Ex.C1 as he did not file any objections to the said observations. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of petitioner/plaintiff.

9.In the result, this petition is allowed by granting interim injunction in favour of petitioner/plaintiff by restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with construction/renovation activity of petitioner/plaintiff inside the petition schedule flats till the disposal of suit. However, the petitioner/plaintiff is directed to follow the observations made by the Structural Engineer of GVMC in Ex.C1.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- G.Karthik

III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

Appendix of Evidence

No. of Witnesses Examined

No oral evidence is adduced on either sides

No. of Documents Marked

For Petitioner/Plaintiff :

Ex.P1 : Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed, Dt.22-04-2022.

Ex.P2 : Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed, Dt.26-04-2002.

Ex.P3 : Encumbrance Certificate, Dt.23-06-2022.

Ex.P4 : Representation of Defendants No.1 to 3 and other flat owners before defendant No.4 corporation, Dt.12-07-2022.

Ex.P5 : Structural Soundness Certificate, Dt.16-07-2022.

Ex.P6 : Written representation Dt.17-07-2022 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant No.5 along with postal receipts.

Page No.10 I.A.No.477/2022 in OS.No.962/2022, III ACJ (JD)/VSP

Ex.P7 : Letter, Dt.12-06-2022 addressed by the plaintiff to defendant No.5.

Ex.P8 : Letter, Dt.12-06-2022 addressed by the plaintiff's elder brother to defendant No.5.

Ex.P9 : Reply, Dt.22-06-2022 issued by the defendant No.5 to the plaintiff.

Ex.C1 : Advocate Commissioner report along with its enclosures.

For Respondents/Defendants :

Ex.R1 : Letter, Dt.12-06-2022 issued by the plaintiff to defendant No.5.

Ex.R2 : Letter, Dt.22-06-2022 issued by the defendant No.5 to the plaintiff.

Sd/- G.Karthik

III ACJ (JD)/VSP

Page No.11 I.A.No.477/2022 in OS.No.962/2022, III ACJ (JD)/VSP

Date of Presentation : 22-07-2022 Date of Filing : 22-07-2022

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

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : Sri. G.Karthik, III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

I.A.No.477/2022 in OS.No.962/2022

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2026 Between :

Mallemadugula S.S.R.K.N.Sarma, S/o Late Kameswara Rao, Age 43 years, R/o Flat No.308 & 309, 2nd Floor, D.No.58-15- 114/50, Shanti Nagar Fort @ Gajanana Fort, Shanti Nagar, NAD Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam-530009, Aadhar No.4062-1241- 7757, Mobile No.9642442018.

...Petitioner/Plaintiff

And :

1. U.V.S.Sarma, S/o Not known to the petitioner/plaintiff, Age 62 years, Retired Railway Employee, R/o Flat No.318, D.No.58-15- 114/59, Shanti Nagar Fort @ Gajanana Fort, Shanti Nagar, NAD Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam-530009, Mobile No.9885336808.

2. M.Lakshmi, W/o M.Prasad Rao, Age 40 years, Beautician, R/o Flat No.407, D.No.58-15-114/68, Shanti Nagar Fort @ Gajanana Fort, Shanti Nagar, NAD Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam-530009, Mobile No.9989073102.

3. U.Usha Rani, W/o T.H.K.Prasad, Age 55 years, R/o Flat No.108, D.No.58-15-114/11, Shanti Nagar Fort @ Gajanana Fort, Shanti Nagar, NAD Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam-530009, Mobile No.7075643738.

4. The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam.

5. Gajanana Fort Flat Owners Welfare Association vide its Regd. No.1078/2003, NAD Junction, Visakhapatnam-530009, Represented by its President/U.V.S.Sarma, S/o Not known to the petitioner/plaintiff, Age 62 years, Retired Railway Employee, R/o

Page No.12 I.A.No.477/2022 in OS.No.962/2022, III ACJ (JD)/VSP

Flat No.318, D.No.58-15-114/59, Shanti Nagar Fort @ Gajanana Fort, Shanti Nagar, NAD Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam-530009.

(The respondent/defendant No.5 was added as per the orders in I.A.No.825/2022, Dt.15-05-2023)

...Respondents/Defendants

This petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to grant temporary injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants, their henchmen from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of renovation/construction activity inside the petition schedule property of the petitioner/plaintiff pending disposal of suit.

A fixed Court fee of Rs.2/- is paid under APCF and SV Act.

This petition has come before me on 07-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. D.V.V.R.Pratap and Smt. R.Sarada, Advocates for Petitioner/ Plaintiff and of Sri. P.Ramji, Ms. P.Hemalatha and Sri. E.Appaiah, Advocates for Respondents/Defendants No.1 to 3 and 5 and Sri. Y.Chinnayya Dora, Advocate

for Respondent/Defendant No.4 and the matter having stood over for consideration

till this day, this Court doth order ; and

D E C R E E T A L O R D E R

1. that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed by granting interim injunction in favour of petitioner/plaintiff by restraining the respondents/defendants No.1 to 5 from interfering with construction/renovation activity of petitioner/plaintiff inside the petition schedule flats till the disposal of suit.

2. that the petitioner/plaintiff be and is hereby directed to follow the observations made by the Structural Engineer of GVMC in Ex.C1.

3. that there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- G.Karthik

III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

No costs memo is filed on either sides

Sd/- G.Karthik

III ACJ (JD)VSP

Page No.1 I.A.No.163/2026 in I.A.No.567/2023 in OS.No.1559/2023, III ACJ (JD)/VSP

APVS020029232023 //FAIR//

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

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : Sri. G.Karthik, III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

I.A.No.163/2026 in I.A.No.567/2023 in OS.No.1559/2023

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2026 Between :

Abdul Kareem, S/o Abdul Salam, Age 42 years, R/o D.No.6-21-6, East Point Colony, Chinawaltair, Visakhapatnam.

...Petitioner/Third Party

And :

1. Buthala Bhaskara Rao, S/o B.Ramprakasa Rao @ Rambabu, Aged about 44 years, R/o D.No.8-14-4/1, Netaji Nagar, Near Kanakamma Temple, China Waltair, Visakhapatnam.

...Respondent No.1/Plaintiff

2. Buthala Hemavathi, W/o Late Trimurthi, Aged about 65 years, R/o MIG-99, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam.

3. Buthala Srinivasa Rao @ Srinivas, W/o Late Trimurthi, Aged about 42 years, R/o MIG-99, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam.

...Respondents No.2 and 3/Defendants No.1 and 2

This petition has come before me on 11-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. B.J.R, Advocates for Petitioner/Third Party and of Sri. Viyyapu Murali Krishna, Advocate for Respondent No.1/Plaintiff and Sri. V.Chandra Sekhar and Sri. P.S.V.S.A.Raju, Advocates for Respondents No.2 and 3/

Page No.2 I.A.No.163/2026 in I.A.No.567/2023 in OS.No.1559/2023, III ACJ (JD)/VSP

Defendants No.1 and 2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner/third party under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to declare the petitioner/third party is the absolute owner of petition schedule property, having right, title and interest and consequently to raise the attachment made by the Court as per the order in I.A.No.567/2023 served on the Joint Sub-Registrar, Visakhapatnam on 20-01-2026.

2.The brief averments of the petition filed by the petitioner/third party are as follows :

(a)The petitioner/third party is the absolute owner of property to an extent of 37 square yards or 30.94 square meters being undivided and unspecified share out of total extent of 366 square yards or 306.02 square meters together with Flat

No.102 measuring 1050 square feet with electricity service connection No.

112204A504406088 in the ground floor and car parking measuring 100 square feet in the stilt floor of Swetha Residency bearing D.No.8-14-3/1, Netaji Street,

Chinawaltair, Revenue Ward No.17, covered by Block No.26, T.S.No.684 of Waltair

Ward, having purchased the same under registered sale deed, Dt.01-03-2024 bearing Doc.No.93709/2024 from Nallimilli Veeramohan Reddy and others.

(b)Originally, the respondent No.2/defendant No.1 sold the schedule property to the petitioner’s vendor vide sale deed, Dt.24-01-2022 bearing Document

No.638/2022 for which, the respondent No.3/defendant No.2 is the attestor, after due enquiry and after due verification of sale deed and their link documents, the petitioner/third party purchased the schedule property from the vendees of respondents No.2 and 3/defendants No.1 and 2. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner/third party has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of same, however the petitioner/third party is not physically present in the schedule property and the same was locked as it was intended to sell. The petitioner/third party sold

Page No.3 I.A.No.163/2026 in I.A.No.567/2023 in OS.No.1559/2023, III ACJ (JD)/VSP away the schedule property to Gurala Razia Sultana for his necessities and executed a sale deed and presented the same duly paying challans for

Rs.2,67,580/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty only) on 16-03-2026 to government account for registration of sale deed, then it was informed by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Visakhapatnam that this Court attached the said property as per the attachment warrant served to him in I.A.No.567/2023 in

OS.No.1559/2023 on 20-01-2026 and has not registered the sale deed and issued

a report showing the prohibition of registration. After due enquiry, the attachment was effected on the false statement made by the respondent No.1/plaintiff in the absence of petitioner/ third party and he has no knowledge of attachment as he was away from the schedule property. The respondents No.2 and 3/defendants

No.1 and 2 sold away the schedule property prior to the filing of suit and the respondent No.1/plaintiff knowingly got attached the property, even though the respondents No.2 and 3/defendants No.1 and 2 have no right. Thus, the attachment made by this Court is not valid and enforceable against the respondents No.2 and 3/defendants No.1 and 2 for realization of suit claim. Hence, this petition.

3.The brief averments of counter filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff are as follows :

(a)The present suit in O.S.No.1559/2023 was filed for recovery of amount due under the agreement, Dt.29-11-2018 executed by the respondents No.2 and 3/defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff. Along with the suit, the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed I.A.No.567/2023 seeking attachment before judgment of the schedule property under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 specifically pleading and establishing before this Court that the respondents No.2 and 3/defendants No.1 and 2 were attempting to alienate the schedule property with an intention to obstruct, delay and defeat the execution of decree likely to be passed in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff. After scrutinizing the pleadings, documents and material placed on record, being satisfied about the prima facie case and the conduct of respondents No.2 and 3/

Page No.4 I.A.No.163/2026 in I.A.No.567/2023 in OS.No.1559/2023, III ACJ (JD)/VSP defendants No.1 and 2, this Court was pleased to order attachment before judgment in respect of the petition schedule property.

(b)Originally, the entire extent of property admeasuring 450 square yards situated at Netaji Nagar, Visakhapatnam belongs to Late Buthala Krishnayya @

Krishnamma. After his demise, the property was devolved upon his sons namely

Buthala Ramprakasa Rao @ Rambabu, who is father of the respondent

No.1/plaintiff, and Late Buthala Trimurthi, husband of the respondent No.2/ defendant No.1 and father of the respondent No.3/defendant No.2. Out of the said extent, an extent of 84 square yards on the southern side was covered by a Will,

Dt.10-05-1970 executed in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff's father, whereas the remaining extent of 366 square yards continued to remain joint family property jointly enjoyed by the branches of Buthala Ramprakasa Rao @ Rambabu and

Buthala Trimurthi. The respondents No.2 and 3/defendants No.1 and 2 themselves admitted the joint nature of the property, accordingly they had entered into an understanding agreement, Dt.29-11-2018 with the respondent No.1/plaintiff and his family members for development of the joint property. Subsequently, all parties were jointly entered into a registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney with the developer namely Pullela Bala Gangadhar Tilak on 17-12-2018.

Thus, the respondents No.2 and 3/defendants No.1 and 2 are fully aware that the property was the subject matter of joint family rights and obligations.

(c)Under Angeekara Patram, Dt.29-11-2018, the respondents No.2 and 3/ defendants No.1 and 2 borrowed an amount of Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen

Lakhs only) from the respondent No.1/plaintiff and agreed to repay the same within three months and the respondents No.2 and 3/defendants No.1 and 2 also acknowledged part payment of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on 08-08- 2021 by making endorsement on the reverse side of the agreement. Despite repeated demands, the respondents No.2 and 3/defendants No.1 and 2 failed to discharge the balance amount of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs only) and instead, they started alienating the flats obtained in the developed property with an

Page No.5 I.A.No.163/2026 in I.A.No.567/2023 in OS.No.1559/2023, III ACJ (JD)/VSP intention to defeat the legitimate claim of the respondent No.1/plaintiff. The respondents No.2 and 3/defendants No.1 and 2 with full knowledge of the pending disputes and subsisting liability, intentionally alienated portions of the property to third parties in a clandestine manner. Any alleged purchaser claiming through the respondents No.2 and 3/defendants No.1 and 2 or through subsequent purchasers cannot claim any better title than that of the vendors. The alleged purchase was made by the petitioner/third party is pendente lite and subject to the doctrine of lis pendens and also subject to the lawful orders passed by this Court. The petitioner/ third party himself admits that he purchased the property through vendors, who derived title from the respondents No.2 and 3/defendants No.1 and 2. Therefore, the petitioner/third party is bound by the acts, liabilities and legal consequences arising from the transactions of his vendors. The petitioner/third party cannot plead ignorance of the pending disputes particularly when the property is situated in a developed joint family property and when the litigation pertains to the very same property rights and liabilities. The petitioner/third party claims to have purchased the property under registered sale deed, Dt.01-03-2024, whereas the suit and attachment proceedings were already pending before this Court. The petitioner/third party, being a subsequent purchaser, ought to have conducted proper legal due diligence regarding pending litigation and encumbrances effecting the property, but failed to do so, as such the petitioner/third party cannot now seek equity before this

Court. The petitioner/third party is intentionally suppressed material facts before this

Court and failed to disclose whether his vendors i.e., the respondents No.2 and 3/ defendants No.1 and 2 informed him about the pending disputes, litigation and liabilities and also failed to implead all necessary parties including his alleged vendors, thereby rendering the present petition defective. The attachment before judgment ordered by this Court is perfectly legal, valid and binding upon the respondents No.2 and 3/defendants No.1 and 2 and persons claiming through them. The petitioner/third party has no independent right superior to the rights of the respondents No.2 and 3/defendants No.1 and 2, therefore he is not entitled to seek

Page No.6 I.A.No.163/2026 in I.A.No.567/2023 in OS.No.1559/2023, III ACJ (JD)/VSP raising of the attachment. If the attachment is raised, the respondent No.1/plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and hardship and the very purpose of filing the suit and obtaining attachment before judgment would be defeated. On the contrary, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/third party if the attachment continues pending adjudication of the suit. The present application filed by the petitioner/third party in collusion with active assistance of the respondents No.2 and 3/defendants

No.1 and 2 with a view to harass the respondent No.1/plaintiff. The petitioner/third party has approached this Court with unclean hands and by suppressing material facts and therefore he is not entitled to any discretionary relief, as such the petition is not maintainable under law and it is liable to be dismissed under limine. The petitioner/third party filed this petition by suppressing the facts with a view to grab the amounts from the respondent No.1/plaintiff unlawfully. There are no tenable grounds to allow the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine with exemplary costs.

4.The learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3/defendants No.1 and 2 reported no counter across the bench on 13-04-2026.

5.During the course of enquiry, no oral evidence is adduced on either sides. On behalf of petitioner/third party, Ex.P1 and P2 are marked. On behalf of respondent

No.1/plaintiff, no documentary evidence is adduced.

6.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7.Now, the point for consideration is :

Whether the petitioner/third party is entitled to the relief as prayed for ?

8.P O I N T :

(a)Perusal of the record discloses that the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs only) together with subsequent interest at 24% p.a from the date of suit to till the date of

Page No.7 I.A.No.163/2026 in I.A.No.567/2023 in OS.No.1559/2023, III ACJ (JD)/VSP realization basing on a understanding agreement said to be executed by the respondents No.2 and 3/defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of respondent No.1/ plaintiff, Dt.29-11-2018. Along with the suit, the respondent No.1/plaintiff also filed a petition under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 vide

I.A.No.567/2023 to attach the immovable properties of respondents No.2 and 3/ defendants No.1 and 2, which consists of the present claim petition schedule property also and another property. The said petition was numbered on 15-12-2023.

On that date, this Court ordered urgent notice, but not passed any attachment orders over the properties mentioned in I.A.No.567/2023.

(b)Ex.P1 discloses that the respondent No.2/defendant No.1 sold away item No.1 of I.A.No.567/2023, which is the claim petition schedule property to the vendors of the petitioner/third party on 24-01-2022 vide document No.638/2022, which is nearly two years before filing of I.A.No.567/2023. Ex.P2 discloses that the vendors of the petitioner/third party sold away the said property to the petitioner/ third party herein on 01-03-2024 vide document No.93709/2024. In

I.A.No.567/2023, this Court passed attachment order on 16-10-2025 and the item

No.1 and 2 of I.A.No.567/2023 were attached by the Field Assistant on 20-01-2026 for an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) each i.e.,

Rs.80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs only) in total.

(c)The record shows that the vendors of the petitioner/third party has purchased the claim petition schedule property, which is Item No.1 of

I.A.No.567/2023 from respondent No.2/defendant No.1 much prior to the filing of

I.A.No.567/2023. As on the date of filing of I.A.No.567/2023, the respondents No.2 and 3/defendants No.1 and 2 have no interest over Item No.1 of I.A.No.567/2023.

The contentions raised by the respondent No.1/plaintiff in the counter are not tenable for the reason that in I.A.No.567/2023, he has specifically pleaded that the item No.1 in I.A.No.567/2023 was belonged to respondents No.2 and 3/defendants

No.1 and 2. So, they are estopped from saying that the respondents No.2 and

Page No.8 I.A.No.163/2026 in I.A.No.567/2023 in OS.No.1559/2023, III ACJ (JD)/VSP 3/defendants No.1 and 2 had no better title over item No.1 of I.A.No.567/2023.

Therefore, the attachment made by this Court in respect of the said property is not valid and is required to be raised immediately, otherwise the petitioner/third party herein will suffer hardship and financial loss.

(d)Record discloses that the suit claim is for recovery of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs only) together with interest at 24% p.a from the date of filing of the suit i.e., from 13-12-2023 to till the date of realization, which may not exceed the value of Item No.2 of I.A.No.567/2023. So, even if the attachment over item

No.1 of I.A.No.567/2023 is raised, the respondent No.1/ plaintiff will not suffer any hardship or irreparable loss.

(e)The learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff submitted during the course of hearing that the petitioner/third party did not file supporting affidavit along with the present petition, as such the petition is not maintainable. Though the petitioner/third party has not filed supporting affidavit, the averments of the petition are verified by the petitioner/third party in the petition itself. Moreover, it is only a technical defect and the petition cannot be dismissed for mere technicalities.

(f)In view of the above mentioned reasons, this Court is inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of petitioner/third party.

9.In the result, this petition is allowed. No costs. The attachment over claim petition schedule property which is nothing but item No.1 of schedule property in

I.A.No.567/2023 is hereby raised/withdrawn. Office is directed to communicate the same to concerned Sub-Registrar Office for making necessary entries in their records on payment of process by the petitioner/third party.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- G.Karthik

III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

Page No.9 I.A.No.163/2026 in I.A.No.567/2023 in OS.No.1559/2023, III ACJ (JD)/VSP

Appendix of Evidence

No. of Witnesses Examined

No oral evidence is adduced on either sides

No. of Documents Marked

For Petitioner/Third Party :

Ex.P1 : Certified copy of registered sale deed, Dt.24-01-2022.

Ex.P2 : Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed, Dt.01-03-2024.

For Respondent No.1/Plaintiff : NIL

For Respondents No.2 and 3/Defendants No.1 and 2: NIL

Sd/- G.Karthik

III ACJ (JD)/VSP

Page No.10 I.A.No.163/2026 in I.A.No.567/2023 in OS.No.1559/2023, III ACJ (JD)/VSP

Date of Presentation : 30-03-2026 Date of Filing : 30-03-2026

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

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : Sri. G.Karthik, III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

I.A.No.163/2026 in I.A.No.567/2023 in OS.No.1559/2023

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2026 Between :

Abdul Kareem, S/o Abdul Salam, Age 42 years, R/o D.No.6-21-6, East Point Colony, Chinawaltair, Visakhapatnam.

...Petitioner/Third Party

And :

1. Buthala Bhaskara Rao, S/o B.Ramprakasa Rao @ Rambabu, Aged about 44 years, R/o D.No.8-14-4/1, Netaji Nagar, Near Kanakamma Temple, China Waltair, Visakhapatnam.

...Respondent No.1/Plaintiff

2. Buthala Hemavathi, W/o Late Trimurthi, Aged about 65 years, R/o MIG-99, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam.

3. Buthala Srinivasa Rao @ Srinivas, W/o Late Trimurthi, Aged about 42 years, R/o MIG-99, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam.

...Respondents No.2 and 3/Defendants No.1 and 2

This petition is filed by the petitioner/third party under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to declare the petitioner/third party is the absolute owner of petition schedule property, having right, title and interest and consequently to raise the attachment made by the Court as per the order in I.A.No.567/2023 served on the Joint Sub-Registrar, Visakhapatnam on 20-01-2026.

A fixed Court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under APCF and SV Act.

This petition has come before me on 11-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. B.J.R, Advocates for Petitioner/Third Party and of Sri. Viyyapu Murali Krishna, Advocate for Respondent No.1/Plaintiff and Sri. V.Chandra

Page No.11 I.A.No.163/2026 in I.A.No.567/2023 in OS.No.1559/2023, III ACJ (JD)/VSP

Sekhar and Sri. P.S.V.S.A.Raju, Advocates for Respondents No.2 and 3/ Defendants No.1 and 2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order ; and

D E C R E E T A L O R D E R

1. that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed.

2. that the attachment over claim petition schedule property which is nothing but item No.1 of schedule property in I.A.No.567/2023 is hereby raised/withdrawn.

3. that the office be and the same is hereby directed to communicate the same to concerned Sub-Registrar Office for making necessary entries in their records on payment of process by the petitioner/third party.

4. that there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- G.Karthik

III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

No costs memo is filed on either sides

Sd/- G.Karthik

III ACJ (JD)/VSP

C.C. No.1468/2025 1VI A.J.M.F.C FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026

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

FOR RAILWAYS :: VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT : SRI G.KARTHIK,

III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-III ADDL. JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VISAKHAPATNAM

FAC VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR

RAILWAYS :: VISAKHAPATNAM

Tuesday, this the 12th day of May, 2026

Calendar Case No.1468 of 2025

Between: State : Assistant Sub Inspector Railway Protection Force Post Visakhapatnam. …. Complainant

And

Bobba Tinku Babu, 45 years, S/o B.S. Rao, R/o D.No. 54-17-114/2, Bhanu Nagar, Opp SBI Bank, H.B Colony, Visakhapatnam. … Accused

This case has come before me on 05-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Public Prosecutor, Railway Protection Force, for the complainant and Sri V.V.Someswara Rao, Advocate for Accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :

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

1.The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Railway Protection Force,

Visakhapatnam filed a complaint in Crime No.C3C/5200/2025 for the offence under Section 143 (1) The Railways Act, 1989.

C.C. No.1468/2025 2VI A.J.M.F.C FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026

2.The case of prosecution is as follows :

On 08.10.2024 acting prabhal data report L.W.1 P.M. Kumar, Assistant

Sub-Inspector, RPF Post, Visakhapatnam along with his team and independent witness P.W.2 proceeded to the shop of the accused in the name and style of “Sri Star Travels cum Honey Enterprises” located at

Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam and seized 31 numbers of IRCTC e-tickets from D Appala Srinu as he confessed that he was having license and created personal user IDs to book e-tickets on commission basis and the accused herein and himself are doing business jointly and book the tickets. Basing on the special report P.W.1 registered a case in Crime No. C3C 5200/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 143 of the Railways Act and released

D.Appala Srinu, on station bail. Thereafter, P.W.1 issued notice to accused to appear before him. On 28-01-2025 accused appeared along with Dell

Laptop, on search in the presence of P.W.2, found 4 personal user IDs and one past IRCTC e-ticket and two numbers of past booked ticket history and he confessed that he booked tickets on commission basis i.e., Rs.150/- per head. P.W.1 seized Dell Laptop of the accused and recorded the confession of accused and released the accused on station bail. After completing all necessary inquiries, P.W.1 filed the present complaint against the accused.

3.After perusal of record, this Court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 143 of the Railways Act, 1989 against the accused.

Upon his appearance before the Court, copies of the relevant documents were furnished to him under Section 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita (in short BNSS).

4.The accused was examined Under Section 269(1) of BNSS for the offence punishable offence under section 143 (1) of the Railways Act, 1989 after dispensing with the enquiry under Sec.267 of BNSS, on the memo filed by the learned public prosecutor as the record available discloses that there is a prima facie case against him for the alleged offence U/sec.143 (1) of the

C.C. No.1468/2025 3VI A.J.M.F.C FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026

Railways Act, 1989. The accused pleaded not guilty of the offence. After hearing both sides, a charge Under Section 143 (1) of The Railways Act, 1989 was framed against the accused, read over and explained the same to him in

Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty of the said charge and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove the case on behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.P1 to P19 and M.O.1 are marked. The evidence of P.M.

Kumar, V.S. Narayana, K.S.V. Kumar, I. Ramesh, G. Naga Sridhar, K.

Anjaneya Prasad, Bank Manager, The Assistant Manager and S. Sushmita was given up by the learned Public Prosecutor on 07.04.2026 under Section 330 of BNSS. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 351 of BNSS, explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused.

7. POINT:

Whether Prosecution is able to establish the guilt of Accused for

the offence under section 143 (1) of The Railways Act, 1989 beyond all

reasonable doubts ?

(a) According to the prosecution, the accused was engaged in illegal touting activity by selling railway reservation tickets from his shop, charging commission of Rs.150/- per ticket and normal railway e-tickets without holding any valid license or authorization from the IRCTC.

(b) To establish the allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2. PW.1 is the preliminary enquiry officer. P.W.2 is the

C.C. No.1468/2025 4VI A.J.M.F.C FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026 independent witness who witnessed the raid, search, seizure and confessional statement of accused.

(c) The evidence of P.W.1 reveals that on 08.10.2024 acting prabhal data report L.W.1 P.M.Kumar, Assistant Sub-Inspector, RPF Post,

Visakhapatnam along with his team and independent witness P.W.2 proceeded to the shop of the accused in the name and style of “Sri Star

Travels cum Honey Enterprises” located at Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam and seized 31 numbers of IRCTC e-tickets from D.Appala Srinu and he confessed that he was having license and created personal user IDs to book e-tickets on commission basis and the accused herein and himself are doing business jointly and book the tickets. Basing on the confession P.W.1 issued notice to accused to appear before him. On 28-01-2025 accused appeared along with

Dell Laptop, on search in the presence of P.W.2, he found 4 personal user IDs and one past IRCTC e-ticket and two numbers of past booked ticket history and confessed that he booked tickets on commission basis i.e., Rs. 150/- per head. He further disclosed that he used the following IRCTC user IDs to book tickets: i) anaresh99, ii) annebalaji, iii) Harela11979 and iv) tadisunil_30. All transactions were carried out through his own bank account. Based on his confession, P.W.1 retrieved and printed previously booked tickets generated through the above user IDs. These tickets were marked as Ex.P5. The seized documents were recorded under the seizure list marked as Ex.P6. The voluntary confession of D.Appala Srinu was documented as Ex.P2 and the confessional statement of accused Bobba Tinku Babu was documented as

Ex.P.4. During cross-examination, the defense questioned the procedure followed in securing mediators and the manner of the seizure. It was also alleged that the signatures of accused on Ex.P3 to P6 were obtained under duress. However, P.W.1 categorically denied these allegations.

(d) Furthermore, the evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the testimony of P.W.2, an independent witness who had accompanied with P.W.1

C.C. No.1468/2025 5VI A.J.M.F.C FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026 for seizure, recording of confessional statement and arrest of accused. P.W.2 fully supported P.W.1’s version. Although his testimony was subjected to cross-examination by the defense, nothing substantiate was brought out to discredit or undermine his version. His evidence remains consistent and credible, thereby strengthening the prosecution’s case and also conducted further inquiry, also deposed in detail about the inquiries he carried out. He was cross-examined, but no material was elicited to cast doubt on his testimony.

(e) As per the guidelines of Honorable Supreme Court, P.W.1 have dropped the case against accused No.1 i.e., D. Appala Srinu, as he is having license to book the tickets.

(f) In this case, the oral testimony of PWs.1 and 2, along with documentary evidence marked as Exs.P2 to P6 and the Prabal data report

Ex.P10, form the core of the prosecution’s case. Despite detailed cross- examination, P.W.1 and 2’s testimony remained consistent and credible. The documents clearly show that the accused generated railway tickets using 4

IRCTC user IDs without having any license or authority. P.W.2, an independent witness, corroborated this by confirming that he was witnessed all the seizure, recording of confessional statement and arrest of accused.

Ex.P10 further substantiates the charge by confirming that the accused lacked any valid license or authorization to book tickets on a commission basis. The defense argued that PW.1 obtained the signatures of accused on

Ex.P3 to P6 under coercion, but failed to provide any convincing evidence.

Given that the accused is literate and raised no protest at the time, the claim of coercion is unconvincing. The prosecution’s case is further supported by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2001 (2)

SCC 205), which holds that a voluntary and credible extra-judicial confession, corroborated by circumstances, can be the basis for conviction.

C.C. No.1468/2025 6VI A.J.M.F.C FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026

(g) In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ocular and documentary evidence presented clearly establishes that the accused was involved in the unauthorized procurement and sale of railway reservation tickets. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses, duly corroborated by the material documents, remains unrebutted and inspires confidence. Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution has successfully proven the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 143 (1) of The Railways Act, 1989, beyond all reasonable doubts.

8.In the result, the accused is found guilty of the offence under section 143 (1) of The Railways Act, 1989 and he is convicted Under Section 271 (2) of BNSS.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 12th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- G. Karthik

III Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-III Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Visakhapatnam

FACVI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

When questioned on sentence, accused pleaded mercy of court and submitted that he works as a private employee and earns a meager income.

His family members depends on his sole earnings.

In view of the facts and circumstances in this case, this is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of section 3 or 4 of Probation of offenders Act and

Section 401 of BNSS. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion to take lenient view while sentencing the accused by imposing fine, which meets the ends of Justice. Considering the financial capacity of accused, compensation is not awarded Under Section 395 of BNSS.

C.C. No.1468/2025 7VI A.J.M.F.C FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026

Accordingly, the Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), for the offence Under Section 143 (1) of The

Railways Act, 1989 in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused is informed about his right to appeal against this Judgment before the Hon’ble Sessions Court and also informed about the right to get Legal Aid as contemplated under Section 341 of BNSS through Hon’ble Chairman, District Legal Services Authority,

Visakhapatnam. MO.1 which was returned to accused towards interim custody vide orders in CrlMP No. 479/2026 dt: 12-05-2026 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time, if appeal is not preferred.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 12th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- G. Karthik

III Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-III Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Visakhapatnam

FACVI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :

ProsecutionName of WitnessDescription Witness No.

P.W.1S.C. BabuEnquiry Officer

P.W.2 P. Babu RaoIndependent witness

For Defence: Nil

Documents Marked

For Complainant:

ExhibitDescription of the ExhibitProved by/ No.Attested by

C.C. No.1468/2025 8VI A.J.M.F.C FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026

Ex.P1 :Special reportPW.1

Ex.P2 :Confessional statement of D. Appala SrinuPW.1 & 2

Ex.P3 :Identification report PW.1 & 2

Ex.P4 :Confessional statement of Bobba Tinku BabuPW.1 & 2

Ex.P5 :Tickets (3 in number)PW.1 & 2

Ex.P6 :Seizure listPW.1 & 2

Ex.P7:Requisition to Anti Fraud, IRCTC PW.1

Ex.P.8:Reply from Anti FraudPW.1

Ex.P9:Requisition to Cyber cell to furnish passenger ticketPW.1 transaction

Ex.P10:Received reply from Cyber cellPW.1

Ex.P11:Statement of LW1 P.M. KumarPW.1

Ex.P12:Statement of LW2 V.S. NarayanaPW.1

Ex.P13:Requisition to Bank manager for account statement ofPW.1 accused

Ex.P.14: Account statement of accused.PW.1

Ex.P.15: Statement of LW3 K.S.V. KumarPW.1

Ex.P.16: Statement of LW4 I. RameshPW.1

Ex.P.17: Statement of P.W.2PW.1

Ex.P.18: Statement of LW6 G. Naga Sridhar(passenger) PW.1

Ex.P.19: Statement of LW7 K. Anjaneya Prasad(passenger)PW.1

For Defence: -Nil-

Material Objects

For Complainant:

MaterialDescription of the Material ObjectProved by/ Object No.Attested by

M.O.1: Dell Laptop PW.1 and 2

For Defence: -Nil-

Sd/- G. Karthik

III Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-III Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Visakhapatnam

FACVI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

C.C. No.1468/2025 9VI A.J.M.F.C FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 1468 of 2025 on the file of VI Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam

1. Date of Offence: 10-10-2024

2. Date of report: 10-10-2024

3. Date of arrest of accused : 26-01-2025

4. Date of release on bail : 26-01-2025

5. Date of commencement of trial : 24.02.2026

6. Date of close of trial: 28.04.2026

7. Date of judgment : 12.05.2026

8. Complainant: State: Asst. Sub Inspector, RPF Post, Visakhapatnam.

9. Accused : Bobba Tinku Babu, 45 years, S/o B.S. Rao, R/o D.No. 54-17-114/2, Bhanu Nagar, Opp SBI Bank, H.B Colony, Visakhapatnam.

10. Offence : Under Section 143 (1) of the Railways Act, 1989

11. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court : Found guilty

13. Sentence or order : Accused is found guilty of the offence punishable Un- der Section 143 (1) of The Railway Act, 1989 and he is convicted under Sec- tion 271 (2) of BNSS.

Accordingly, the Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees

Five Thousand only), for the offence Under Section 143 (1) of The Railways

Act, 1989 in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused is informed about his right to appeal against this Judgment before the Hon’ble Sessions Court and also informed

C.C. No.1468/2025 10VI A.J.M.F.C FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026 about the right to get Legal Aid as contemplated under Section 341 of BNSS through Hon’ble Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam.

MO.1 which was returned to accused towards interim custody vide orders in

CrlMP No. 479/2026 dt: 12-05-2026 shall be made absolute after expiry of ap-

peal time, if appeal is not preferred.

14. Explanation for delay : This case was taken on cognizance for the offence Under Section 143 (1) of The Railways Act, 1989 against the accused on 20.08.2025. On 09.12.2025 the accused was present, copies of all documents were furnished to him Under Section 230 of BNSS. On 06.01.2026 the accused was examined Under Section 269 (1) of BNSS, he pleaded not guilty, charge was framed Under Section 143 (1) of The Railways

Act, 1989 against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, he denied the charge and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution PWs. 1 and 2 were examined, Exs.P1 to P19 and MO.1 were marked. On 28.04.2026 the accused was examined Under Section 351 of BNSS, he de- nied the incriminating material against him and reported no defence evidence.

On 05.05.2026 heard arguments on both sides. On 12.05.2026 Judgment

pronounced vide separate judgment. Hence the delay.

Sd/- G. Karthik

III Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-III Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Visakhapatnam

FACVI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

Copy Submitted to : The Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

C.C. No.1468/2025 11VI A.J.M.F.C FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 12.05.2026 // TRUE COPY //

III Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-III Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Visakhapatnam

FACVI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

1

APVS020025382023 //FAIR//

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : Sri. G.Karthik, III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), RCC-IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

OS.No.1649/2021

Wednesday, this the 10th day of September, 2025 Between :

Patoju Mohan, S/o. Late Varahalu, aged 50 years, Goldsmith, D.No.23-18-4/3, Ground floor, Madetivari Street, Visakhapatnam.

...Plaintiff

And :

Kandukuri Sri Ram, S/o. Late Bangarayya, Chinakada Village, Dathirajeru Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

...Defendant

This suit has come before me on 01-09-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. S.V.Prasad and Smt. P.V.Lakshmi, Advocates for Plaintiff and of Sri. Akula Veerabhadra Rao, Sri. U.Ramesh and Sri. P.Sankara Rao, Advocates for Defendant 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.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of

Rs.5,18,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighteen Thousand only) with subsequent interest at 24% p.a from the date of suit to till realization and for costs of the suit.

2

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

The defendant approached the plaintiff on 10-10-2018 and borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) from the plaintiff for the purpose of his family necessities and on receipt consideration in cash from the plaintiff, the defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the even date at Visakhapatnam agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Subsequently the defendant failed to repay either principal or interest to the plaintiff inspite of his repeated requests and demands. Therefore on 25-08-2021 the plaintiff got issued a

Regd. lawyer’s notice calling up on the defendant to repay the entire amount due on the above promissory note with accrued interest thereon within seven days from the date of receipt of notice and obtain stamped receipt from the plaintiff. The said notice was served on the defendant on 06-09-2021 but he did not chose to give any reply. The defendant is not an agriculturist therefore he is not entitled for any relief under the Act IV of 1938 or under the Act VII of 1977 or under any debt relief laws.

Hence, this suit.

3. The defendant made his appearance through his counsel, filed written statement by denying all the material allegations made against him by the plaintiff in the plaint except which are specifically admitted. The brief averments of the written statement are as follows:

The plaintiff purchased some landed property nearly 15 acres in Chinakada

Village and he raised mango garden in the said dry land which was purchased by him and the defendant is working as a form servant under the plaintiff from 2012 to 2016 and he used to drive the tractor of the plaintiff for watering the mango plant and he used to support in each and everything in the mango business of the plaintiff and the defendant is an illiterate and he learned his signature and he do not know writing and reading, during that period the plaintiff obtained the signatures of the defendant in some printed papers and one stamp paper to say that he will obtain driving license to drive the tractor and he obtained the signatures of the defendant 3 in order to apply for driving license. By believing his words the defendant signed on the said papers, but no consideration was passed with regard to the suit promissory note and he has no necessity to borrow such huge amount from the plaintiff or anybody. The father of the defendant possessed some landed property adjacent to the land of the plaintiff and the plaintiff demanded the defendant to sell away the said land and the defendant refused to sell the same to the plaintiff and the plaintiff bore grudge and fabricated the suit documents and filed the present suit. Hence this suit is liable to be dismissed. The defendant after receiving legal notice from the plaintiff raised a dispute before the ex-surpanch namely Penta Marayya and

D.Varma Raju about the notice and the plaintiff admitted his guilt and also promised

before the elders that he do not take any action basing on the suit promissory note

because the plaintiff never paid any amount to the defendant basing on the promissory note. By believing his words the defendant kept quite without issuing any reply notice to the said legal notice. As such, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial on 17-11-2022 :

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

2. Whether the suit promissory note is supported by lawful consideration ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim amount from the defendant as prayed for?

4. If so, to what relief ?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3 and also examined the scribe of Ex.A1 as P.W.2. On behalf of defendant, inspite of ample opportunities and conditional orders, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced. Hence, defendant side evidence is closed.

6.Heard the counsel for plaintiff. The defendant did not turn up to submit his arguments, hence treated as heard on behalf of defendant. Perused the record.

4

7.Issues No.1 and 2 :

These issues casts initial burden on the plaintiff to prove that the suit promissory note is executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff and it is supported by consideration. To discharge the initial burden, the plaintiff examined himself as

P.W.1 and filed his chief examination affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief by reiterating the averments of plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is original promissory note for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) executed by the defendant infavour of the plaintiff, Dt.10-10-2018. Ex.A2 is the Office copy of registered legal notice dt 25-08-2021. Ex.A3 is the original acknowledgment dt.06- 09-2021. Perusal of Ex.A1 discloses that it was executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) on 10-10-2018, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a to the plaintiff on his demand. The plaintiff also got examined scribe of Ex.A1 as P.W.2. P.W.2 also deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three

Lakhs only) from the plaintiff on 10-10-2018 for his family expenses and to clear sundry debts and executed Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff. Inspite of granting ample opportunities and conditional orders, the defendant did not turn up to cross examine

P.W.1 and P.W.2. The defendant also did not adduce any evidence to prove his contentions regarding the forgery and fabrication of promissory note. So, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is unchallenged by the defendant. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is credible and trustworthy. Perusal of the record discloses that at the stage of defendant side evidence, inspite of granting four opportunities, the defendant did not appear before the Court to adduce evidence on behalf of him, the defendant also did not turn up to submit arguments, as such defendant side evidence was closed and defendant side arguments are treated as heard. Therefore, this Court is of the view that Ex.A1 is executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff. Further, as per Section 118 (a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 presumption regarding consideration is drawn in favour of plaintiff. But as already stated the defendant did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the defendant executed Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff for the consideration mentioned in Ex.A1. Accordingly, these 5 issues are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

8.Issues No.3 and 4 :

P.W.1 and P.W.2 deposed that the defendant borrowed the amount under

Ex.A1 for his necessities, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a. but did not repay the same. As already stated the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is unchallenged. Further, the defendant is not an agriculturist or artisan of tools as such debt relief laws are not applicable in this suit. Therefore, in view of the findings given on above issues, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim as prayed for together with subsequent interest as mentioned below.

Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

9.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for Rs.5,18,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighteen Thousand only) along with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit to till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realization on the principal amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only).

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 10th day of September, 2025.

III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), FAC IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendant : NIL

P.W.1 : Pataoju Mohan (Plaintiff)

P.W.2 : Vailada Demullu (Scribe) 6

No. of Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 is original promissory note for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) executed by the defendant infavour of the plaintiff, Dt.10-10-2018.

Ex.A2 is the Office copy of registered legal notice dt 25-08-2021.

Ex.A3 is the original acknowledgment dt.06-09-2021.

For Defendant : NIL

III ACJ (JD)/VSP FAC.IV ACJ (JD)/VSP 7

Date of Presentation : 22-10-2021 Date of Filing : 14-12-2021

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : Sri. G.Karthik, III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), RCC-IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

OS.No.1649/2021

Wednesday, this the 10th day of September, 2025 Between :

Patoju Mohan, S/o. Late Varahalu, aged 50 years, Goldsmith, D.No.23-18-4/3, Ground floor, Madetivari Street, Visakhapatnam.

...Plaintiff

And :

Kandukuri Sri Ram, S/o. Late Bangarayya, Chinakada Village, Dathirajeru Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

...Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of

Rs.5,18,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighteen Thousand only) with subsequent interest at 24% p.a from the date of suit to till realization and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.5,18,000/- and Court fee of Rs.7,626/- is paid under Section 20, r/w Article I (b & c) of Schedule I of APCF and SV Act.

This suit has come before me on 01-09-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. S.V.Prasad and Smt. P.V.Lakshmi, Advocates for Plaintiff and of Sri. Akula Veerabhadra Rao, Sri. U.Ramesh and Sri. P.Sankara Rao, Advocates for Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and ;

D E C R E E

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for Rs.5,18,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighteen Thousand only) along with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit to till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realization on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only).

8

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.25,068/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Sixty Eight only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 10th day of September, 2025.

III Add. Civil Judge,(Jr.Div) (FAC) RCC-IV Addl.Civil Judge, (Jr.Div) Visakhapatnam.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

No costs memo is filed Vakalat: 2-00 Stamp on Plaint: 7,626-00 Stamp on Process: 100-00 Advocate fee: 17,240-00 Typing charges: 100-00 ----------------- Costs Allowed: 25,068-00 ----------------- III ACJ(Jr.Div)/VSP (FAC)RCC-IV ACJ(Jr.Div).

9