G. Rukmini

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE,[JR.DIVN] BAPATLA.

Present: Smt. G. Rukmini,

Principal Civil Judge, Bapatla

FAC Addl. Civil Judge, Bapatla Thursday, this the 11th day of July, 2024.

CC 329/2023

Between:

State : Special Enforcement Bureau Sub Inspector, Bapatla ... complainant

Vs

Mekadevala Veena @ Makadavale Veena, w/o Gangadhar, SC , aged 41 years,

r/o China Bethapudi village, Bapatla Mandal .. Accused

This case coming on 8-7-2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri M. Sambasiva Rao , Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1]The Inspector of police, Special Enforcement Bureau Police Station,

Bapatla filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No. 242/2021 for the offence punishable under section 7 A read with 8 [e] of A.P. Prohibition Act.

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

On 5-11-2021 LW 3 SEB Sub Inspector along with L.W. 1 SEBHead constable and LW 2 SEB constable conducted raids, at about 4-00 pm they reached the scene of offence i.e. vacant place in front of accused house in Rail station road, China Bethapudi village, Bapatla mandal and noticed one female person stood with one white plastic can in her right hand and on seeing them she tried to skulk away by dropping the can from her hand. . LW 3 SEB Sub Inspector on suspicion tried to caught hold of accused with the help of staff but invain.

LW 3 identified the accused who are escaped from there in previous case and her details identified the above noted accused. In order to verify the can , LW 3 sent

LW 1 SEB constable to secure mediators. After some time LW 1 constable returned and informed that village officials were not available and none came forward to act as mediators. Then LW 3 SEB Sub Inspector decided to verify the can under special report and on verification it is a 10 Lts., capacity can 2 containing full of ID liquor. Then LW 3 SEB Sub Inspector drawn 180 ml of ID liquor as sample, sealed , affixed identity slips to sample bottle duly signed by him and seized contraband. On the same day, LW 3 SEB Sub Inspector returned to police station and registered the special report as Cr. No. 242/2021 u/sec. 7A read with 8 [e] of A.P. Prohibition Act submitted original FIR to all concerned.

B]During the course of investigation LW 3 Sub Inspector of police,sent the sample bottle for analysis, and addressed a letter to Deputy Commissioner,

SEB, Nellore for confiscation/destruction orders for remaining property and later

LW 4 took up further investigation, verified the investigation done by LW 3 SEB

Sub Inspector and arrested the accused on 7-3-2022 and after completion of investigation LW 4 SEB Inspector of police filed charge sheet.

3].This case was taken on file for the offence under section 7 A read with 8 [e] of A.P. Prohibition Act against the accused . On appearance of accused, copies of the documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4].Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. A Charge under section 7A read with 8 [e] of A.P. Prohibition Act was framed against her , read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5].On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 and 2 were examined and

EX. P1 to Ex.P3 and Mo.1 the sample bottle were marked. L.W. 2 and 4 evidence was given up by learned APP.

6]After closure of the prosecution evidence,the accused was examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which she denied and reported no defence.

7]Heard the arguments of the both sides.

3 8]Now the point for determination is :

whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused ` for an offence U/sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act or not?

9]POINT ; It was the case of the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of 10 liters of I.D. Liqour with out license and permission there by the accused committed the offence under section 7A r/w8(e) of A.P.P.Act.

10]In order to substantiate the case the prosecution examined the

P.W.1 and 2 who are the police officials and Ex.P1 to P3 and M.O.1 are marked as exhibits.

11]P.W.1 SEB constable deposed on 5-11-2021 he along with

L.W.2 and 3 conducted raids and reached scene of offence at vacant place in front of the house of Mekadevala Veena’s house in Railway station road, China

Bethapudi village, Bapatla mandal,there they noticed a female person holding plastic can in her right hand on seeing them,she tried to escape. L.W.3 on suspicion tried to detain her but invain. LW 3 identified the accused on verification of previous records. Then L.W.3 sent him to secure mediators. After some time, he returned and informed to LW 3 no village officials available and no persons came forward to act as a mediators. Then L.W.3 proceeded with special report and verified the said can, it is 10 litres capacity and contains full of I.D. liquor.

Then LW 3 drawn one 180ML as a sample for analysis and remaining liquor in the same can affixed identity slips duly signed by him . LW 2 scribed special report.

12]P.W.2 deposed on 5-11-2021 at about 4:00 P.M., he along with P.W.1 and PW 1 and L.W.2 conducted raids and scene of offence at vacant place in front of the house of Mekadevala Veena’s house in Railway station road,

China Bethapudi village, Bapatla mandal, there they noticed accused sat infront of her house with white plastic bottle. On seeing them, accused tried to escaoe but with assistance of staff, he tried to detain her but invain. Then LW 3 identified 4 she is an habitual offender then he shown her name then he deputed PW 1 for securing mediators. After some time, PW1 returned and reported and none came forward to act as mediators. Then he verified the said plastic can 10 litres capacity and it contains 10 liters of I.D. arrack, Then he drawn one 180ML as a sample for analysis and got it sealed, labelled and affixed identity slips under cover of special report scribed by L.W.2. which was marked as Ex.P1. Then he brought the seized contraband and sample to police station , basing on Ex.p1, he registered the case as Cr. No. 242/21 and issued Ex.P2 is the FIR. During investigation he sent MO1 sample bottle to the chemical examiner for analysis and obtained the analysis report which was marked as Ex.P3. He obtained orders from Ebnforcement Superintendent , SEB, Nellore. After completion of investigation he filed the chargesheet against the accused.

13]In the present case, the prosecution rerelying only on the evidence of PW.1 and 2 who are the police officials. Now it has to see whether

P.w.1 tried to secure mediators or not. It is true PW.2 send P.W.1 to secure mediators but no government officials present at that time and nobody came forward to act as a mediators. But, the names of the persons whom P.W.1 was requested to act as mediators were not stated and no notice was issued to the persons who refused to act as a mediators. In Ex.P1 also does not mentioned about names of the persons who refused to act as mediators Thus, the evidence of Pw.1 requires corroboration from an independent witness. But, the same is lacking in this case. Further the said act of PW.1 that not securing independent mediators at the scene of offence makes the search illegal for non-compliance of

Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. The same was laid down in a decision reported in

GAJAMKER NARAYANA V. STATE OF A.P., 2005(3) ALT (CRL.) 1 (A.P) wherein it was held at paragraph No.5 as follows:

Here, in the case on hand, the accused was found in possession of I.

D. Liquor at Bypass Road, Rangadampalli, near Siddipet. The evidence of PW.1, 5 the Excise Sub Inspector, discloses that there are residential houses at a distance of 25 yards from the scene of offence. There are hotels also near the scene of offence. As per the evidence of PW.1, they took the panch witnesses along with them to the scene. The distance between the scene of offence and the police station is about three kilometers as per the evidence of PW.3, the then

Excise Inspector, Siddipet. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the excise officials picked up panch witnesses at the police and took along with them to the scene of offence situated at a distance of three kilometers. Neither the testimony of PW.1 nor that of PW.3 discloses that they tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex.P1, panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by excise officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality. Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. are not followed by the excise officials while seizing the plastic can containing I.D. Liquor. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.

14] In the present case also, the seizure was made at the place of offence which is vacant place in front of the house of accused in China Bethapudi village, Railway station road, Bapatla mandal which was a residential locality and without securing independent mediators. Hence the seizure made in this case is illegal in view of the above decision of our Hon’ble High Court. The only basis for the prosecution for its case against the accused is the confession of the accused, but the same is hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and hence, it cannot be taken into consideration.

15]In the view of the above discussion, the police have not followed the mandatory provisions of section 100(4)Cr.P.C, and no independent witnesses were also examined. So, the court is of the opinion that the prosecution 6 failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges under section 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P.Act. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquitted.

16]In the result, the accused was found not guilty for the charge under section 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P.Act and she was acquitted under section 248(1)

Cr.P.C for the said charge beyond reasonable doubt. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months. MO.1 sample bottle which was deposited in the court with CPR.No 53-A/23 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 11th day of July , 2024.

Prl. Civil Judge,[Jr. Divn] Bapatla FAC Additional Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] Bapatla.

For PROSECUTION Appendix of Evidence For accused Witnesses examined -None- PW 1/ G. Sandeep SEB constable PW 2/ D. Prabhudas, SEB SI

For prosecution Documents marked.

Ex.P1/-- :Special Report Ex.P2/ – : First Information Report Ex.P3/ : Analysis Report.

For accused : NIL

Material objects marked MO1 / sample bottle.

FAC ACJ,[JD] Bap.

Copy to : The Chief Judl. Magistrate cum PSCJ, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE,[JR. DIVN.] BAPATLA.

Present: Smt. G. Rukmini

Principal Civil Judge, [Jr. Divn.] Bapatla

Additional Civil Judge, [Junior Division] Bapatla

Thursday, this the 18th day of July, 2024.

CC 470 /2016

Between:

State :Sub Inspector of Police, Bapatla Town PS ... complainant

Vs

Neela Babu Rao, s/o Yesubabu, @ Rambabu, aged 25 years, Mala, r/o Bharathpet, 9th

lane, Amaravathi road, Guntur .. accused

This case coming on 16-7-2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri Y. Naresh Babu, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1]The Sub Inspector of Police, Bapatla Town PS filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.150/2016 under sections 419,205 of IPC .

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

The defacto complainant/LW 1 is working as Police Constable No. 3904 in

Bapatla Town Police Station since 11-4-2012. A petty case No. 90/16 was booked against Pogatti Sai s/o Srinu u/sec. 185[A] of MV Act. Subsequently charge sheet was filed before the court and it was numbered as STC 194/2016 . National Lok Adalat was held on 10-9-2016 and L.Ws. 1 to 4 is attended to do their duties in court. On 10-9-2016 at 15-00 hours LW 3 Pogartti Sai , above named accused was called in petty case and meanwhile LW 4 also called the above named accused in three times. Then accused went inside the court and stood in the place of accused. Then LW 3 asked the accused name. The accused stated that Pogatti Sai. Mean while, LW 1 saw the accused and asked the accused that name of accused is not Pogatti Sai. LW 1 questioned the accused about the reasons to enter into court. Then Hon’ble Judge told to the accused that LW 1 appraised that accused is not Pogatti Sai and questioned the accused what is the name of the accused. On that accused appraised the name of accused as Neela

Babu Rao s/o Yesubabu @ Rambabu. Accused also appraised that motor cycle in the above petty case is relating to accused and on that accused stood before the court 2 instead of Pogatti Sai. Then Hon’ble Judge ordered to take the accused into custody.

Meanwhile, L.Ws. 1 and 2 taken the accused into custody. Accordingly, L.Ws. 1 and 2 brought the accused and LW 1 submitted report and handed over the accused in

Bapatla Town Police Station. Based on the report of LW 1, LW 5 in turn registered it as

Cr. No. 150/2016 u/sec. 419 and 219 IPC and issued FIR to all concerned , kept the accused under surveillance about 20-30 hours with help of PC 4022, took up investigation, visited scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined L.Ws. 1 to 4 and recorded their statements . On 10-9-2016 at 22-00 hours LW 5 SI of police arrested the accused in police station, sent him for remand. Originally it is a case of Sec. 419, and 205 IPC mistakenly LW 1 registered it as Cr. No. 150/16 u/sec. 419, 219 IPC .

Hence LW 1 filed memo before court to consider the section of law as 419,and 105 IPC .

After completion of investigation LW 5 SI of police filed charge sheet against the accused u/sec. 419 and 205 of IPC.

3]The case was taken on cognizance against the accused for the offence u/secs 419 and 205 IPC and after appearance of the accused copies of the documents were furnished to him as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

4]The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charges under sections 419 and 205 IPC were framed. Read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5]To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined P.W's.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4, on its behalf. The evidence of L.Ws.2 and 4 was given up by the prosecution.

6] The Accused was examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence found against the accused by the prosecution witnesses, for which the accused once again denied the offence and no defence evidence was marked.

7]Heard the arguments on both sides.

8]Now the point for determination is:

Whether prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the

accused for the offences punishable U/Secs. 419 and 205 IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?

3 9]POINT ;

In order to prove its case the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and

Ex. P1 to P4. PW 1 to 3 are police officials .

10]On 10-9-2016 when National Lok Adalath was conducted PW 1 and

L.Ws. 2 to 4 were present in the court, one Pogati Sai was charged with Sec. 185-A of

MV Act in STC 194/16 was called . Instead of Pogati Sai, Neela Babu rao [accused herein] appeared before the court. When he asked the accused why the accused appeared instead of P. Sai then he stated that motor vehicle involved in STC 194/16 belongs to him. Then the Hon’ble Judge ordered him to take the accused into custody.

11]PW 1 in his evidence deposed that on 10-9-2016 when National Lok

Adalath was conducting he along with L.Ws. 2 to 4 present in the court, one Pogati Sai was charged with Sec. 185-A of MV Act in STC No. 194/2016 was called. Instead of

Pogati Sai, Neela Babu Rao appeared before the court. When he asked the accused why you have appeared instead of P. Sai, then the accused stated that the motor vehicle involved in STC 194/2016 belongs to him. So the accused appeared before the court.

Then Hon’ble Judge ordered him to take the accused into custody. Then he took him to police station and he gave complaint against the accused. Ex.P1 is his report.

12]In Cross examination PW 1 admitted that he cannot identified the person name of Pogati Sai. He also admitted that there is no documentary proof to show that instead of Pogati Sai, the accused appeared before the court. PW1 deposed in cross examination that the incident happened at about 3-00 pm. About 4-00 pm he took the accused to police station and gave report against the accused. He admitted in cross examination that accused came to police station four to five times to take back his motor bike which was seized in STC case. He admitted that he do not know whether the accused came to police station and requested the SHO to return his motor bike.

13]PW 2 Ch. Gopichand, Rtd. Employee deposed that about 8 years back he came to know that impersonation was taken place during the time of Lok

Adalath and he was present in the court. He turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

14]PW 3 Rtd. SI of Police deposed that on 10-9-2016 at 7-00 pm while he was in SHO, Bapatla Town PS , PW 1 came to police station and gave report along 4 with accused and the same was registered as Cr. no. 150/16 u/sec. 419,219 IPC and submitted Ex.P3 FIR to all concerned, examined P.W. 1 and LW 2 and recorded their statements at police station, kept the accused under surveillance at police station. On the same day he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined PW 2 and LW 4 and recorded their statements at the scene of offence, returned to police station, arrested the accused on 11-9-2016 at 10-00 pm and produced before the court.

On 14-9-2016 he filed memo to alter section 219 IPC to 205 IPC before the court. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

15]PW 3 admitted in cross examination that there was delay of 4 hours and the reason for delay was not mentioned in Ex.p3 FIR. He admitted that scene of offence is 10 minutes distance from Bapatla Town P.S. He admitted that as per Ex.P4 rough sketch the the alleged incident was occurred outside court premises.

16]In this case no independent witness was examined . Even though

PW 1 in his chief examination admitted that he identified the person who is present in court hall as Neela Babu Rao but no corroborative evidence or independent evidence is produced by the prosecution to support the version of PW 1. Prosecution failed to examine the LW 2 constable and LW 4 the Process server who was on duty in court .

PW 2 who was bench clerk who was on duty on the date of alleged incident not identified the accused and nothing was elicited in his evidednce by the prosecution and he turned hostile . PW 3 who is the Rtd. SI deposed about his registration of FIR and investigation done by him. He admitted there is 4 hours delay in submitting FIR to the court.

17]In view of the foregoing reasons, this court is of the opinion that there is no evidence in this case to prove the guilt of the accused . Prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused is entitled for acquittal.

18]In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence u/sec. 419 and 205 IPC and he is acquitted u/sec. 248[1] Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused if any shall be cancelled after six months from the date of Judgment 5 as per section 437A of Cr.P.C. No property order needs to be passed as no property was seized in the case.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me this the 18th day of July, 2024.

AdditionalCivilJudge,

[Junior Division]. Bapatla.

For prosecution Appendix of Evidence For defence Witnesses examined

PW1/ G. Sarath Babu, Constable -none- PW 2/ Ch. Gopi Chand PW3/ A. Venkateswarlu, Rtd. SI

For prosecution Documents marked

Ex.P1/-- : Report of PW 1 given to police Ex.p2/ : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW 2 Ex.P3/ : First Information Report in Cr. No. 150/2016 Ex.P4/ : Rough sketch

For defence : - NIL-

Material objects marked - NIL-

PCJ,[JD] BAP FAC ACJ,[JD]BAP

Copies submitted to :

The Chief Judl. Magistrate cum Prl.Sr. Civil Judge, Guntur 6 //true copy//

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE,[JR. DIVN] .

BAPATLA

1

O.S.No.146 of 2025

AJCJ Court, Ponnur.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

PONNUR

Present: Smt.G. Rukmini Prl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur

Thursday, the 30th day of October, 2025

O.S.No.146 of 2025

Between:

Shaik Amar Jaha, W/o Shaik Karimulla, Muslim, aged 41 years, Business, R/o Door No.22-13-1, 27th Ward, Ponnur Town, Guntur District. ..…Plaintiff

and

Pathan Imran Khan, S/o Pathan Ayub Khan, Muslim, aged about 26 years, Business, R/o Door No.3-67, Arief Street, Chandole, Bapatla District. …Defendant

This suit is coming on 29/10/2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Pattan Khadar Khan, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant having remained ex-parte on 26/09/2025; and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.1,24,000/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 13/08/2024 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/- repayable with interest at 24% per annum and for costs.

2. The averments mentioned in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

The defendant approached the plaintiff borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 13.08.2024 for his family expenses purpose and evidencing the said borrowal and acknowledging his liability the defendant on the same day got executed a demand promissory note in 2

O.S.No.146 of 2025

AJCJ Court, Ponnur.

favour of the plaintiff at Ponnur Town undertaking to repay the said sum on demand together with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through his mediators the defendant postponing the same on some pretext or the other and did not choose to repay the said amount of the suit promissory note, dt.13/08/2024. The defendant did not pay promissory note debt amount till date. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 01.08.2024 calling upon him to pay the above said promissory note debt amount within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The said notice was refused by defendant the said notice was returned on 05.08.2025, no response from defendant. The defendant kept quite without making any payment to the plaintiff or gave any reply to that affect. Having no other go, the plaintiff is constrained to file a suit for recovery of the suit promissory note debt. Hence, the suit.

3.Though summons was served on the defendant, he failed to appear

before the court to file his written statement and remained ex-parte on

26/09/2025.

4.In order to establish his claim, on behalf of plaintiff, she herself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked.

5.Heard learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the material available on record.

3

O.S.No.146 of 2025

AJCJ Court, Ponnur.

6. Now the point that arises for consideration is___

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

7. Point: According to plaintiff, the defendant approached the plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 13.08.2024 for his family expenses purpose and evidencing the said borrowal and acknowledging his liability the defendant on the same day got executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at Ponnur Town undertaking to repay the said sum on demand tohether with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through his mediators the defendant postponing the same on some pretext or the other and did not choose to repay the said amount of the suit promissory note, dt.13/08/2024. The defendant did not pay promissory note debt amount till date. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 01.08.2024 calling upon him to pay the above said promissory note debt amount within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The said notice was refused by defendant the said notice was returned on 05.08.2025, no response from defendant. The defendant kept quite without making any payment to the plaintiff or gave any reply to that affect. Having no other go, the plaintiff is constrained to file a suit for recovery of the suit promissory note debt.

8.As already noted, in order to establish his claim, on behalf of plaintiff, she herself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. In her evidence affidavit in lieu of chief-examination, plaintiff as P.W.1 has reiterated the averments mentioned in the plaint and through P.W.1 Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. Ex.A1 is suit promissory note got executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff, dated 13/08/2024. Ex.A2 is office copy of 4

O.S.No.146 of 2025

AJCJ Court, Ponnur.

legal notice, dated 01/08/2025 got issued by plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.A3 is postal receipt, dated 01/08/2025. The contents of Ex.A1 go to show that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 13/08/2024 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum.

The contents ofEx.A1 further go to show that defendant borrowed the amount from plaintiff for his family expenses. Exs.A2 and A3 show that plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant, but the defendant did not choose to repay the same. As already noted, in spite of receipt of summons, the defendant failed to appear before the Court and remained ex-parte on 26/09/2025 and thereby, the evidence of P.W.1 remains unchallenged.

9.On a perusal of the unchallenged evidence of P.W.1 coupled with

Exs.A1 to A3, this court is of the view that plaintiff has established not only about the lending of Rs.1,00,000/- to defendant, but also established about the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note in her favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Since the plaintiff has established the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by defendant, this Court is of the view that plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.1,24,000/- to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization.

Directly typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 30th day of October, 2025.

Sd/- G. Rukmini

PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PONNUR.

5

O.S.No.146 of 2025

AJCJ Court, Ponnur.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1: Shaik Amar Jaha Ex-parte

Documents Marked For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: is suit promissory note got executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff, dated 13/08/2024

Ex.A2: is office copy of legal notice, dated 01/08/2025.

Ex.A3: is postal receipt, dated 01/08/2025.

For Defendant: Nil.

Sd/- G. Rukmini

PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PONNUR.

6

O.S.No.146 of 2025

AJCJ Court, Ponnur.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

PONNUR

Present: Smt.G. Rukmini

Prl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur

Thursday, the 30th day of October, 2025

O.S.No.146 of 2025

Between:

Shaik Amar Jaha, W/o Shaik Karimulla, Muslim, aged 41 years, Business, R/o Door No.22-13-1, 27th Ward, Ponnur Town, Guntur District. ..…Plaintiff

and

Pathan Imran Khan, S/o Pathan Ayub Khan, Muslim, aged about 26 years, Business, R/o Door No.3-67, Arief Street, Chandole, Bapatla District. …Defendant

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.1,24,000/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 13/08/2024 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/- repayable with interest at 24% per annum and for costs.

Plaint presented on:19/08/2025 Plaint filed on:21/08/2025

Cause of Action:- Cause of action for the plaintiff arose on 13/08/2024, when the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the purpose of his family expenses from the plaintiff and got executed a demand promissory note on the same day to that effect at Ponnur, in spite of repeated demands and legal notice, dt.01.08.2025, No response from defendant kept quiet without making any payment to the plaintiff or gave any reply to that effect and the defendant did not choose to repay the promissory note debt and so on till today at Ponnur Town, where the suit transaction took place which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

Valuation: Since it is suit for recovery of debt due under the suit promissory note, dt.13.08.2024

(i) Principal amount of Rs.1,00,000-00

(i) Interest thereon from 13.08.2024 to 13.08.2025 @ 24% p.a. on Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.24,000-00 ------------------ Total amount of Rs.1,24,000-00 ------------------ 7

O.S.No.146 of 2025

AJCJ Court, Ponnur.

On which a Court fee of Rs.3,726/- is herewith paid under Sec.20 of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act, 1956.

The value for the purpose of jurisdiction is the same as above i.e., Rs.1,24,000/-.

This suit is coming on 29/10/2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Pattan Khadar Khan, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant having remained ex-parte on 26/09/2025; and upon perusing the material on record, the Court, Doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed;

2.that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,24,000/- with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum on Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of suit i.e., 19/08/2025 till the date of decree i.e., 30/10/2025 and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization; and

3. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.6,928/- towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil (CM and FC not filed). Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 30th day of October, 2025.

PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PONNUR.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendant Rs.Ps Ex-parte Vakalat 2-00 Advocate Welfare fund 250-00 Process fees 40-00(CM and FC not filed) Court fees 3,726-00 Advocate fees 2,710-00 Typing charges 100-00 Writing charges 100-00 Total 6,928-00 Nil

PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PONNUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE,[ JUNIOR DIVISION] BAPATLA.

Present: Smt. G. Rukmini,

Principal Civil Judge. Bapatla

FAC Additional Civil Judge, Bapatla Thursday, this the 11th day of July 2024.

CC 590 /2023

Between:

State :Sub Inspector of Police, Bapatla Town PS ... complainant

Vs

Kolagani Jagadeesh, s/o Nancharaiah, aged 36 years, Kaapu, r/o Naralasettypalem,

Bapatla Town .. accused

This case coming on 8-7-2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri K. Avinash, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1]The Sub Inspector of Police, Bapatla Town PS filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.154/2022 under section 498-A, of IPC .

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

About 13 years back LW 1 v iz., Kolagani Venkata Ratnam marriage was performed with accused and accused is living by doing car driving. LW 2 is father of

LW 1. After marriage LW1 and accused lived happily . LW 1 had one daughter and one son. About 2 years after marriage accused is habit of roaming and addicted drinking liquor under slave, daily beat LW 1 with scolding in filthy language. So many times panchayat before elders was held to lead the marital life by adjusting LW 1 with accused. About 6 months he has no need with LW 1 and left her away from house and demanded for divorce by harassing LW 1. LW 1 and accused residing at Vijaya

Lakshmipuram Bapatla in a rented house since 6 months. There also accused daily came to house in drunken state and beat LW 1 by saying to left the house of accused,.

LW 1 bore all the harassment of accused . On 20-4-2022 at `11-30 PM accused came to home in drunken state, and stated to left his house and beat with hands indiscriminately and kicked with legs on LW 1 stomach. Requests of LW 1 proved futile.

Accused beat LW 1 and kicked with legs on stomach , robs and demanded for divorce.

LW 1 did not bare the torture and shouted huge cries . Neighbours L.Ws. 3 to 5 came there and separated LW 1 from accused hands. Then LW 1 made phone call to LW 2 , 2 then LW 2 came there and shifted LW 1 to Area General Hospital, Bapatla and doctors treated her . LW 8 HC 3697 Outpost PS, AGH, Bapatla recorded the statement of LW 1 and handed over to LW 9 HC 2938 of Bapatla Town PS, who registered it as Cr. No.

154/22 u/sec. 498-A IPC and took up investigation. LW 9 HC 2938 examined six witnesses , inspected the scene of offence, prepared rough sketches. LW 10 SI of police took up further investigation, verified the investigation done by LW 9 , servied notice to accused u8/sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. received wound certificate of LW 1 from LW7 Dr.

P. Sambasiva Rao, CAS, AGH, Bapatla and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3]The case was taken on cognizance against the accused for the offence u/secs. 498-A, IPC and after appearance of the accused copies of the documents were furnished to them as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

4]The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charges under section 498-A, IPC was framed. Read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5]To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined P.W's.1 and got marked Ex.P1and P2, on its behalf. The evidence of L.Ws. 2 to10 was was given up by the prosecution.

6]As there is no incrimianting evidence found against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused under section 313

Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

7]Heard arguments on both sides.

8]Now the point for determination is:

Whether prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable U/Secs.498-A, IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?

9]POINT : It is the case of the prosecution that PW 1 was given in marriage with accused and it is a love marriage and that accused and LW 1 lived happily for some time and there after accused did not take care of PW 1 and her children for that on questioned by PW 1, accused bet PW 1 with hands, kicked with legs on her stomach and ribs forwhich she raised cries loudly , neighbours came and 3 rescued PW 1 and later PW 1 gave report to police. The contention of the accused is total denial. Now the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

10]In order to substantiate its case the prosecution has examined

P.W.1 and marked the Ex.P1 and P2.

11]It is the evidence of P.W.1 that LW 2 is her father and he died one year back. Accused is her husband. About 15 years back her marriage with accused was performed at Bapatla by elders. After marriage she joined with accused to live matrimonial life. Later a small disputes arose between them. So she went to her parents house. Later elders obtained her signature on white paper and she do not know the contents of it. Ex.P1 is her signature.

12]PW 1 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. As there is no evidence to support the prosecution case , the prosecution given up the evidence to L.Ws. 2 to 10 as PW 1 did not support the prosecution case and no purpose would be even if the remaining witnesses were examined.

13] In view of the afore said reasons, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, there is no legal evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the offences. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the defence.

14] IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 498A, of Indian penal code and accordingly he is acquitted Under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties if any, shall stands cancelled after six months from the date of this judgment as per section 437A of Cr.P.C. No property order needs to be passed as no property is collected in the present case.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me this the 11th day of July, 2024.

Principal Civil Judge, [Jr. Divn]

Bapatla. FAC Addl. Civil Judge,[Jr. Divn.] Bapatla.

4

For prosecution Appendix of Evidence For defence Witnesses examined

PW1/ Kolagani Venkata Ratnam - None

For prosecution Documents marked

Ex.P1/-- : Signature of PW 1 on the report Ex.P2/-- : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW 1.

For defence : - NIL-

Material objects marked - NIL-

FAC ACJ,[JD].BPT

Copies submitted to : The Chief Judl. Magistrate cum Prl.Sr. Civil Judge, Guntur .

5

Fair 1 O.S.No.12/2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

BAPATLA

PRESENT: SMT. M.ANJANI PRIYADARSHINI,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur.

FAC Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bapatla.

Wednesday, this the 4 th day of December, 2024

O.S.No.12/2023

Between

Union Bank of India, Karlapalem Branch, Rep.by its Senior Branch Manager, Karlapalem, Karlapalem Mandal, Bapatla District, Bapatla JCJC. … Plaintiff AND

1. Marpu Kanaka Ratnam, S/o Bapaiah, Hindu, aged about 45 years, resident of Door No.12-38, Pedagollapalam Village, Karlapalem Mandal, Bapatla District, Bapatla JCJC.

2. Didla Anand Babu, S/o Sudarsanam, Hindu, aged about 46 years, resident of Door No.12-232, Yerravaripalem Village, Karlapalem Mandal, Bapatla District, Bapatla JCJC. … Defendants

This suit is coming on 03-12-2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Jaya Raju and Sri P.Vijaya Kumar, Advocates for the plaintiff, and the defendants were set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff-bank for recovery of an amount of

Rs.2,96,546/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Five hundred and forty six

Only) and against the defendants for House construction loan obtained by the defendants by mortgaging the plaint schedule property from the plaintiff-bank ; and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments mentioned in the plaint are that:

(a)The plaintiff bank is the Union Bank of India at Karlapalem, represented by its Senior Branch Manager, who is authorized and empowered to

Fair 2 O.S.No.12/2023 take sign on plaint. The plaintiff bank submitted that the 1st defendant acquired an extent of 484 Sq yrds of house site from his brother on 27.4.2011 under Gift Deed

No.1858/2011 from the Gramnpanchayat, Pedagollapalem and constructed of RCC

Roof Residential Building in schedule site. The defendants approached the plaintiff bank on 5.11.2016 with an application for house construction loan and the same was considered on the same day and sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- for the purpose of House Construction under loan Account No.353006620000026. The repayment of schedule for the said loan is in 11 yearly installments each

Rs.22,727/- plus interest and the 1st defendant executed Demand promissory note, housing loan agreement, interest agreement on 5.11.2016 and Mortgage Deed on 18.10.2016 under document No.4554/2016 SRO, Bapatla and title deed pertaining to an extent of 484S.yrds of Pedagollapalem village, Karlapalem Mandal.

(b) The 2nd defendant stood as Guarantor of the 1st defendant’s debt and executed Letter of undertaking from Guarantor in favour of the plaintiff bank on 5.11.2016. The defendants are jointly and severally liable for the amount and for the interest thereon. The 1st defendant executed the Composite Debit Balance

Confirmation on 20.10.2019 and 10.04.2021 in favour of the plaintiff bank.

(c)Inspite of repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff bank, the defendant failed to discharge the debt and committed default and did not choose to repay the installments as agreed to liquidate the debt even after repeated requests made by the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank issued legal notice through his advocate on 22.10.2022 and the defendant received legal notice and kept quite. A copy of the loan account of the borrower with the plaintiff is filed and executed in favour and deliver to the plaintiff at Karlapalem and the amount mentioned in the loan account was lent and advanced at Karlapalem and is repayable at

Karlapalem. The claim of the plaintiff is not barred by limitation. Hence, the suit.

3. Summons was issued to the defendants 1 and 2 through Court and registered post. Service of summons held sufficient. Defendants 1 and 2 called absent. No representation on their behalf. Hence, the defendants 1 and 2 were set exparte.

4. On behalf of the plaintiff-bank, one Kesana Manasa, who is the Branch

Manager of plaintiff-bank was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A14 are marked. The plaintiff reported no further evidence. Hence, plaintiff side evidence is closed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

Fair 3 O.S.No.12/2023

6.On perusal of material on record, the plaintiff by examining herself as

PW.1 and by marking Exs.A1 to A14 has proved his case. As the defendants were set exparte, the oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A14 remained unchallenged. The material on record is establishing the claim of the plaintiff. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree as prayed for.

7. In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.2,96,546/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Five hundred and forty six Only) with interest at 9.40% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on

principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty thousand Only).

Three months time is granted for redemption.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

Court this the 4th day of December, 2024.

Sd/-M.Anjani Priyadarshini

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Ponnur. FAC Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Bapatla.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1: Kesana Manasa - EXPARTE -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Loan application is executed by the defendants dated 5.11.2016.

Ex.A2: Letter of sanction executed by the bank authorities, dated 5.11.2016

EX.A3: Demand promissory note executed by the 1st defendant dated 5.11.2016.

Ex.A4: Housing Loan agreement executed by 1st defendant dated 5.11.2016.

Ex.A5: Interest Agreement executed by 1st defendant dated 5.11.2016.

Ex.A6: Letter of Undertaking from Guarantor executed by 2nd defendant, dated 5.11.2016.

Fair 4 O.S.No.12/2023

Ex.A7: Regd.Gift Deed No.1858/2011 in SRO, Bapatla in favour of 1st defendant

dated 27.4.2011.

Ex.A8: Approved Building Plan in favour of the 1st defendant dated 02.05.2011.

Ex.A9: Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed No.4554/2016 regd, dated 18.10.2016.

Ex.A10: Composite Debit Balance Confirmation executed by 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank dated 20.10.2019.

ExA11: Composite Debit Balance Confirmation executed by 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank dated 10.01.2021.

Ex.A12: Office Copy of the Regd.Legal Notice dated 22.10.2022.

Ex.A13: Served Postal Acknowledgment.

Ex.A14: Account Copy, dated 09.11.2022.

FOR DEFENDANTS: - N I L -

Sd/-M.Anjani Priyadarshini

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Ponnur.

FAC Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bapatla.