Sri G. Sai Krishna

C.C.No.382/2008 Dt.20.04.2023 Page 1 of 12 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL., METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri G.Sai Krishna, I Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

Thursday, the 20th day of April, 2023

Calender Case No.382/2008

Between:

State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Drugs Inspector, Visakhapatnam …Complainant

And:

A-1: M/s Pharmaids Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Kondamadugu Village, Bibinagar Manda, Nalgonda District Represented by Dr.Ghisulal Jain, Managing Director.

A-2: Dr.Ghisulal Jain, S/o late B.M.Lalwani Age 45 years, Managing Director, M/s Pharmaids Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 4-3-55, K.S.Lane, Sultan bazaar, Hyderabad.

A-3: Mr.Subhash B.Lalwani, S/o Late B.M.Lalwani, age 35 years, Director, M/s Pharmaids Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,4-3- 55, K.S.Lane, Sultan bazaar, Hyderabad.

A-4: Mr.Hasunukh Jain, S/o late B.M.Lalwani, agee 40 years, Director, 4-3-55, K.S.Lane, Sultan bazaar, Hyderabad.

…Accused

This Case is coming on 12.04.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt.R.Vani, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

State/Complainant and of Sri M.Govinda, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

C.C.No.382/2008 Dt.20.04.2023 Page 2 of 12 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

J U D G M E N T

The Drugs Inspector, Visakhapatnam filed a private complaint against the accused A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

2.The gist of complaint is as follows:

The A.1 is a Drug Manufacturing Company and A.2, A.3 and A.4 represents the A.1. On 06.02.2002, LW.1/A.Gowri Shankar, Drug Inspector,

Visakhapatnam picked up sample Solbutamol tablet manufactured by A1 from Central Drugs Stores, APHMHIDC, Visakhapatnam, Nakkavanipalem in the presence of LW.2/R.Simhachalam, Pharmacist. The LW.1/A.Gowri

Shankar, issued Form-17 to the LW.2/R.Simhachalam, Pharmacist at the time of pick up of sample. Then one portion of the sealed sample was sent to

Government Analyst, as per Form-18 on the same date. Thereafter, the

Government Analyst i.e. Drugs Control, Hyderabad issued Form-13 report to the LW.3/Ravi Uday Bhaskar declaring the tablet as “not of standard quality”.

As the sample does not conform with Solbutamol tablet, LW.3/Ravi Uday

Bhaskar addressed a letter to Executive Engineer, Central Drug Store under section 18 A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940. In turn, on 19.12.2002, the

Executive engineer submitted sealed copy of invoice dated 03.01.2002 of A1 showing purchase of the above said tablet from A1. Then LW.3/Ravi Uday

Bhaskar addressed a letter on 26.12.2002 to A1 along with form-13 analyst report copy and sealed third part of sample through registered post with

C.C.No.382/2008 Dt.20.04.2023 Page 3 of 12 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

acknowledgment due. The letter was delivered on 30.12.2002. On 24.02.2002, LW.3/Ravi Uday Bhaskar received letter from the A1, wherein the

A1 questioned the test conducted by Government Analyst. LW.3/Ravi Uday

Bhaskar did not send the second portion of the sample to Director of Kolkata as it did not challenge the report within 28 days.

b) The A.1 represented by A.2 to A4 sold not of standard quality of Solbutamol tablet in violation of section 18(a)(i) of Drugs and Cosmetics

Act, 1940 punishable under section 27 (d) of the said Act.

3.Upon perusal of the private complaint and documents, the Court was satisfied that there is a prima facie case against the Accused for offence punishable under section 18(a) (I) and section 27(d) of Drugs and

Cosmetics Act, 1940. Hence, the Court took cognizance of offence under section 18(a) (I) and section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 against the Accused.

4. The case was transferred from the Honourable Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate’s court, Visakhapatnam as per proceedings of the

Honorable Metropolitan Sessions Judge’s court, Visakhapatnam in

Dis.No.1021/2008, dt.27.10.2008 to this court.

5.Summons was issued to the Accused. Upon receipt of summons, the Accused appeared before the Court. Copies of the complaint and documents were furnished to the Accused as per section 207 Cr.P.C.

Subsequently, The Accused were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence under section 18(a) (I) and section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics

C.C.No.382/2008 Dt.20.04.2023 Page 4 of 12 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

Act, 1940 against the Accused and the sum and substance of complaint and documents was read over and explained to the Accused in English/Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, LW.1/A.Gowri Shankar, was examined as PW.1. Ex.P1 , P3 and M,O,1 were marked through PW.1.

LW.2/Simhachalam, Pharmacist was examined as PW.2. LW.3/Ravi Udaya

Bhaskar, Drug Inspector was examined as PW.3. Exs.P3 to P16 were marked through PW.3. Ex.P1 is Form No.17, dated 06.02.2002, Ex.P2 is Form No.18,

dated 06.02.2002.Ex.P3 is the Form-13, the report of Government Analyst

vide No.2904/DCL/2002, dated 28.11.2002, Ex.P4 is the 18-A Notice

R.C.No.497, dated 17.12.2002, Ex.P5 is the acknowledgment on Ex.P4, Ex.P6

is the Letter No.1/dated 19.12.2002 of E.E, Ex.P7 is the Invoice No.1037,

dated 03.01.2002, Ex.P8 is the Distribution particulars. Ex.P9 is the letter RC

No.497, dated 26.12.2002. Ex.P10 is the postal acknowledgment No.5234,

Ex.P11 is the letter dated 03.02.2003 of A.1’s firm. Ex.P12 is the batch record of sample drug, Ex.P13 is the Finished product analytical report,

Ex.P.14 is the Form-26 of A.1’s Firm. Ex.P15 is affidavit of A1’s firm, Ex.P16 is letter dated 01.02.2003. MO.1 is the sealed packet or cover consisting 50 tablets of Solbutamol.

7.On completion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating prosecution evidence was read over and explained to the accused in English/

Telugu as per section 313 Cr.P.C. The Accused denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.

C.C.No.382/2008 Dt.20.04.2023 Page 5 of 12 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

8.Perused the private complaint, documents and evidence on record. Heard both sides. The following points arise for determination of the

Court:

1.Whether the Accused manufactured not of standard quality Solbutamol Tablet for the purpose of sale and distribution in violation of section 18(a) (i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940.?

2.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.?

9.POINT No.1 :

As per the chief examination of PW.1 on 06.02.2002, when he was working as Drug Inspector in Visakhapatnam, he visited the Central

Drugs Stores, APHMHIDC situated in Nakkavanipalem, Visakhapatnam and at that time, PW.2 (Pharmacist) was present in the Store. PW.1 further deposed that upon suspicion, he lifted among other tablets, Solbutamol sample of 250 tablets. He further deposed that the sample 250 tables were divided into four parts, consisting of three parts each 50 tablets and one part 100 tablets. PW.1 further deposed that the samples were taken into a polythene cover and thereafter slips were pasted on them and then the signature of Pharmacist was obtained on them. It is stated that the said transaction was reduced to writing in Form-17 and one of the same was served on the Pharmacist.

10.During the cross examination, it is elicited from PW.1 that he did not send any intimation to the Manufacturer about the samples collected.

C.C.No.382/2008 Dt.20.04.2023 Page 6 of 12 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

The PW.2 deposed in chief examination that on 06.02.2002 the PW.1 visited the Central Drug Store where PW.2 was working and in his presence, PW.1 took samples of 4 drugs including Solbutamol tablets. PW.2 admitted his signature on Form-17 issued to him by the PW.1. PW.2 identified his signature on Ex.P.1. during the cross examination, PW.2 admitted that

Central Drug Stores is a Government organization and it maintains inward and outward stock register and the samples obtained by the Drug Inspector are noted in the register. PW.2 stated that the PW.1 did not seize any register from the Drug Store.

11.The contents of Form-17 marked through PW.1 is in the prescribed format and its contains the details of the Drugs and Solbutamol tablets picked up at Central Drug Stores on 06.02.2002. Form-17 also bears admitted signature of the PW.2. M.O.1 is one of the four parts of the samples of Solbutamol tablet marked through PW.1. The evidence of PW.2 corroborates with the evidence of PW.1 on all material particulars relating to the visit of PW.1 to the Drugs Stores, pick up of all samples and issuance of

Form-13. Although, the defence counsel brought out important fact relating to non collection of inward and outward register, that alone does not affect the case of the prosecution in light of Form-17 and the evidence of PW.2.

From the above evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and Ex.P1 and M.O.1, it can be said that prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 06.02.2002, the PW.1 lifted the samples of Solbutamol tablets from the Central Drug

Stores, Nakkavanipalem under Form-17.

C.C.No.382/2008 Dt.20.04.2023 Page 7 of 12 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

12.As per the PW.1, in his chief examination on 06.02.2002, itself

PW.1 prepared Form-18 and sent the samples of 100 tablets to the

Government Analyst, Hyderabad for Analysis. Ex.P2 is a Form-18, PW.3 who succeeded the PW.1 in office deposed that on 01.06.2021 he received report of Government analyst under Form-13. Ex.P3 is the analysis report. Ex.P.11 which is admittedly the letter addressed by the A1 to the Drug Inspector in reply to Ex.P9 does not dispute the facts regarding the lifting of sample.

Further, Ex.P3 shows that Ex.P2 duly received by the Government analyst and he analyzed the sample of 100 tablets. Therefore, the said fact regarding receipt of Government analyst report with respect to the sample sent to the Analysis stands proved.

13.PW.3 deposed in his chief examination that after receipt of Ex.P3, himself addressed a letter to the Executive Engineer, APHMHIDC under Form- 18 (a)/ under Ex.P4 requesting certain details including the details of the manufacture of the sample drugs. Ex.P4 is the letter dated19.12.2002 addressed by PW.3 to Executive engineer. Ex.P5 is the acknowledgment to

Ex.P4. Ex.P6 letter was addressed by the Executive Engineer to the PW.3 providing details of Manufacture of A1 including Ex.P6 and P7 invoices and the distribution particulars. As per the evidence of PW.3, on receipt of Ex.P6 details he forwarded one sample of the Drug and copy of the Government analyst report to the A1 under Ex.P9. Ex.P10 was filed in proof of service of the said letters/intimation dated 26.12.2002 on 30.12.2002, Ex.P6 bears the date of delivery as 30.12.2002. During the cross examination, PW.3 admitted that Ex.P11 states that Ex.9 was received by A1 on 17.01.2003.

C.C.No.382/2008 Dt.20.04.2023 Page 8 of 12 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

Ex.P11 also refers to the Ex.P9 as received on 17.01.2003. However, the accused did not adduce any evidence to prove that Ex.P9 was received by A1 on 17.01.2003 and not on 30.12.2002. In this regard, the prosecution filed

Ex.P10 which amply proves that the date of service of Ex.P9 on A1 is 30.12.2002.

14.PW.3 in his evidence stated that the A1 challenged the report of

Government analyst/Ex.P3 vide letter dated 03.02.2003/ Ex.P11. PW.1 stated that as the said letter was received by the PW.3 on 24.02.2003 i.e.

much after the 28 days time frame from the date of receipt, he did not sent the sample drug lying with him to Central Drug laboratory for analysis.

Perusal of Ex.P11 discloses that it was dated 03.02.2003. The 28 days period from the date of receipt of Ex.P9 i.e. 30.12.2002 expires on January 28th , 2003. Therefore, the defence of the accused that they challenged the report of Government analyst within time is not proved. Even taking into account the receipt, date of Ex.P9 i.e. 17.01.2003 (As per Ex.P11), the 28 days period expires by February, 15th, 2003. According to PW.3, they received the reply of A1 on 24.02.2003. Therefore, looking from any point of view, it can be said that A1 sent Ex.P11 challenging Ex.P3 much after the time prescribed under section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. In such a case, it can be said that Ex.P3 has become final and conclusive as per section 25 of the said

Act.

15.From the above discussion, it can be said that the prosecution proved the lifting of the sample under Ex.P1, the submission of the sample to

C.C.No.382/2008 Dt.20.04.2023 Page 9 of 12 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

Government Analyst, Hyderabad, the opinion of Government analyst that the sample picked up is “not of standard quality”. Ex.P11 which is admitted by the accused proves that the A1 does not dispute the facts regarding the manufacture of the sample of the Drug from its premises, its distribution to

Central Drug Stores. The only point disputed by A1 is regarding test method adopted by the Government analyst. Further, Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 proves that the A1 sold and distributed the sample drug to the Central Drug Stores.

From the above evidence including Ex.P3 report, it can be said that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that A1 sold and distributed the sample drug which is of not standard quality in violation of Section 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Accordingly,

Point No.1 is answered in favour the prosecution and against the accused.

POINT NO.2:

16.Ex.P.14 was filed by the prosecution through PW.3 to prove that

A2 to A4 represent the A1 as the Managing Director and Directors respectively. The defence counsel during cross-examination suggested to

PW.3 that Exs.P14 and P15 are not valid documents. There is nothing on record adduced by the accused to show why Ex.P14 and P15 are not valid documents. Hence, it can be said that A2 to A4 were the persons in-charge of A1 at the time of Manufacture. sale and distribution of “not of standard quality” drug. Hence, A1 to A4 are hereby found guilty for the offence punishable under section 27 (d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Hence,

Point No.2 is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.

C.C.No.382/2008 Dt.20.04.2023 Page 10 of 12 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

17. In the result, the accused A.1 is hereby found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 27 (d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 and it is hereby convicted under Section 255 (2) Cr.P.C for the offence under

Section 27 (d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940.

18.In the result, the accused A.2 to A.4 are hereby found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 27 (d) of Drugs and

Cosmetics Act 1940 and they are hereby convicted under Section 255 (2)

Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 27 (d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940.

M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of Six months from the date of this judgment.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court this the 20th day of April, 2023.

Sd/G. Sai Krishna

I ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

19. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of offence, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to extend the benefit provided under Probation of Offenders Act.

Special reasons for reduced sentence:

20.Heard the defence counsel and accused on point of sentence.

The defence counsel submitted that A2 is suffering with Heart ailments and the case was pending from the year 2008 and the Drug Inspector took the samples in the year 2002.

C.C.No.382/2008 Dt.20.04.2023 Page 11 of 12 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

21.Having considered the submission of the accused, the age of all the accused, the gravity of the offence, the time taken for conduct of trial, the health condition of A.2, this court finds that below sentence will commensurate with circumstances of the case.

22. In the result, A.1 which is a Company is hereby sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) for the offence under section 27(d) read with Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and by application of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in M.V.Javali

Vs. Mahajan Bore-well & Company and others, dated 26-09-1997.

23.Further, accused A2 to A4 are hereby sentenced to undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six Months (6 months) each and also sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) each for the offence punishable 27 (d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 and in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall suffer

Simple Imprisonment for a period of Two months.

24. The Accused are informed of their right to file appeal against the

Calendar and Judgment of this court. When Accused are asked about their means to prefer an appeal, they stated that they are having means to engage a counsel in appellate Court.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court this the 20th day of April 2023.

Sd/G. Sai Krishna

I ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No.382/2008 Dt.20.04.2023 Page 12 of 12 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:For Defence:

PW.1: A.Gowri Shankar- NONE -

PW.2: R.Simhachalam

PW.3: Ravi Uday Bhaskar

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1/--Form No.17, dated 06.02.2002,

Ex.P2/--Form No.18, dated 06.02.2002.

Ex.P3/--Form-13, the report of Government Analyst vide No.2904/DCL/2002, dated 28.11.2002,

Ex.P4/--18-A Notice R.C.No.497, dated 17.12.2002,

Ex.P5/--Acknowledgment on Ex.P4,

Ex.P6/--Letter No.1/dated 19.12.2002 of Executive Engineer,

Ex.P7/--Invoice No.1037, dated 03.01.2002,

Ex.P8/--Distribution particulars.

Ex.P9/--Letter RC No.497, dated 26.12.2002.

Ex.P10/--Postal acknowledgment No.5234,

Ex.P11/--Letter dated 03.02.2003 of A.1’s firm.

Ex.P12/--Batch record of sample drug,

Ex.P13/--Finished product analytical report,

Ex.P.14/-- Form-26 of A.1’s Firm.

Ex.P15/--Affidavit of A1’s firm,

Ex.P16/--Letter dated 01.02.2003.

For Defence:- NIL -

C.C.No.382/2008 Dt.20.04.2023 Page 13 of 12 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

Material objects:

MO.1/-- Sealed packet or cover consisting 50 tablets of Solbutamol .

Sd/- G.Sai Krishna

I AMM:VSP //True copy//

I ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No.382/2008 Dt.20.04.2023 Page 14 of 12 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIABLE ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No.382/2008

DATES OF:

1. Date of Offence : 06.02.2002 2.Date of Apprehension of Accused : 06.02.2002 :

3. Date of Taken on file : 04.08.2003

4. Date of Commencement of Trial : 01.12.2007

5. Date of Close of Trial : 16.03.2023

6. Date of Judgment : 20-04-2023

7. Explanation for delay :The case was transferred from the Honourable Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s court, Visakhapatnam as per proceedings of the

Honorable Metropolitan Sessions Judge’s

court,Visakhapatnam,in Dis.No.1021/2008,dt.27.10.2008 to this court.

8. Name of the Complainant : The State represented by Drugs Inspector, Visakhapatnam City.

9. Name of the Accused :A-1: M/s Pharmaids Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Kondamadugu Village, Bibinagar Manda, NalgondaDistrictRepresentedby Dr.Ghisulal Jain, Managing Director.

A-2: Dr.Ghisulal Jain, S/o late B.M.Lalwani Age 45 years, Managing Director, M/s Pharmaids Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 4-3-55, K.S.Lane, Sultan bazaar, Hyderabad.

A-3: Mr.Subhash B.Lalwani, S/o Late B.M.Lalwani, age 35 years, Director, M/s Pharmaids Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,4-3-55, K.S.Lane, Sultan bazaar, Hyderabad.

A-4: Mr.Hasunukh Jain, S/o late B.M.Lalwani, agee 40 years, Director, 4-3-55, K.S.Lane, Sultan bazaar, Hyderabad.

10. Offence : U/s 27 (d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940.

11. Plea of Accused. : PLEADED NOT GUILTY.

C.C.No.382/2008 Dt.20.04.2023 Page 15 of 12 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

12. Finding : A1 to A4 are convicted U/s.255 (2) Cr.P.C.

13. Result : In the result, the accused A.1 is hereby found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 27 (d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 and it is hereby convicted under Section 255 (2) Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 27 (d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 and the accused A.2 to A.4 are hereby found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 27 (d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 and they are hereby convicted under Section 255 (2) Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 27 (d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of Six months from the date of this judgment and In the result, A.1 which is a Company is hereby sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) for the offence under section 27(d) read with Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and by application of law laid down by the

Honourable Supreme Court in M.V.Javali Vs.

Mahajan Bore-well & Company and others, dated 26-09-1997 and further, accused A2 to A4 are hereby sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six Months (6 months) each and also sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) each for the offence punishable 27 (d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 and in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of Two months.

The Accused are informed of their right to file appeal against the Calendar and Judgment of this court. When Accused are asked about their means to prefer an appeal, they stated that they are having means to engage a counsel in appellate Court.

Sd/- G.Sai Krishna

I Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam //True Copy//

I Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

O.S.No.263/2021

Dt. 24.04.2023Page 1 of 9I AJCJ, VSP

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL., JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri G.Sai Krishna, I Addl., Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam

Friday, the 24th day of April, 2023

O.S.No.263/2021

Between:

State Bank of India, a banking institution incorporated under State Bank of India Act 1955, having its Central Ofce at Mumbai, Branches all over India and abroad, amongst one such Branch at Visakhapatnam viz., Stressed Assets Recovery Wing (SARW), RACPC-1, Administrative ofce, Balaji Nagar, Siripuram Jn, Visakhapatnam, represented by its Manager, Sri Polamraju Venkata Hari Krishna, S/o Venkata Sri Rama Chandra Murthy, Hindu, aged 39 years, Visakhapatnam.

…Plaintif And:

1. Sri Maddula Tharun Kumar, S/o M Veerabhadra Rao, Hindu, aged about 26 years, Visakhapatnam-

7. D.No.49-39-7, NGGO'S Colony, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam-7.

2. Sri Maddula Veeradhadra Rao, S/o.Satya Rao, Hindu, aged about 51 years, D.No.49-39-7, NGGO'S Colony, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam- 7.

…Defendants

This suit coming on 18.04.2023 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Sudheer Reddy, Advocate for the plaintif and of Sri G.Ramu, Advocate for defendants and the matter 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 fled for recovery of Rs.4,87,147/- along with subsequent interest at the rate of 12.80% per annum with monthly rests from the date of the suit till the date of realization from the defendants and for costs of the suit.

O.S.No.263/2021

Dt. 24.04.2023Page 2 of 9I AJCJ, VSP

2.Summons to the defendants were not served through court.

However, the counsel for the defendant fled vakalat on 23.09.2021. On 09.03.2022, the written statement of the 1st and 2nd defendants were fled.

3.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:

The plaintif is a banking institution incorporated under

State Bank of India,1955 having its Central Ofce at Mumbai, one of its branch atVisakhapatnam, SARW, RACPC-1. The 1st defendant is the son of the 2nd defendant. Both the defendants were sanctioned

Educational loan of Rs.4,00,000/- on 09.12.2010 for pursuit of higher studies of 1st defendant I.e. B.Tech in Gitam Collage. The defendant agreed to repay the loan with interest at the rate of 11.75% per annum linked to SBAR payable in 84 equated monthly installments of Rs.6,923/- each. The repayment commence from expiry of 4 years of course period and one year or Six months after the borrower gets the employment whichever is earlier. The defendants accepted the sanction letter and executed loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 29.01.2022in favour of the plaintif. After the payment of the loan installments for some period, the defendants became irregular and therefore, their account was classifed as non-performing asset by the plaintif on 18.10.2017. As on 10.12.2018, the defendants owns the outstanding balance amount of Rs.4,26,232/- to the plaintif. On 02.11.2017, the plaintif got issued legal notice through Registered Post to the defendants demanding the payment of Rs.4,77,806/-. However, the notice was returned unserved.

O.S.No.263/2021

Dt. 24.04.2023Page 3 of 9I AJCJ, VSP

4.The averments of the written statement in brief are as follows:

The contents of para III (a) to III (d) of the plaint were denied in general. As per the terms of the loan, the defendants agreed to pay of Rs.1,25,000/- to the College up to 4 years and out of the said amount, the plaintif agreed to pay 60% to the College fees and the defendants agreed to pay 40% to the college. In the 4 years, the 1st defendant paid Rs.1,80,000/- to the College, but the said fact was suppressed by the plaintif. The Government sanctioned scholarship of

Rs.3,00,000/- to the 1st defendant and the amount was received by the plaintif, together the plaintif received Rs.4,80,000/- from the 1st defendant during the course of tenure of four years. The plaintif approached the bank and froze the account of 2nd defendant’s wife and recovered a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Further, the bank account of the brother of the 1st defendant was also frozen for recovery of Rs.55,000/-.

Together the plaintif received Rs.7,35,000/- from the defendants and his family members. The defendants sought dismissal of the suit .

5.Heard the plaintif’s counsel. The defendants’ counsel did not submit any arguments. On perusal of pleadings and documents.

The following issues were framed :

1. Whether the defendants availed educational loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintif on 29-01-2011 ?

2. Whether the plaintif received Rs.4,80,000/- from the Defendant No.1 during the course of the defendant’s tenure of 4 years period but the said fact was suppressed by the plaintif as alleged by the defendant ?

3. Whether the defendant committed default in payment of installments ?

4.Whether the plaintif received Rs.7,35,000/- from the

O.S.No.263/2021

Dt. 24.04.2023Page 4 of 9I AJCJ, VSP

defendants and family members at diferent points of time towards the discharge of loan amount but,the said fact was suppressed by the plaintif as alleged by the defendants.?

5.Whether the plaintif is entitled for the suit amount with interest as prayed?

6.To what relief ?

6.The case of the plaintif rests on assertion of the facts to the efect that it sanctioned Educational Loan of Rs.4,00,000/- to the defendants and subsequently, the defendants committed default in the payment of the loan installments.

7.The case of the defendants rests on assertion of the facts to the efect that the plaintif received Rs.7,35,000/- from the defendants side, but the said fact was suppressed by the plaintif. The defendants do not dispute the sanction of the loan and the agreement reached between the plaintif and defendants for payment of interest and equated monthly installments regularly.

8. On behalf of the plaintif, the Branch Manager of the plaintif was examined as PW.1 and his chief examination afdavit was afrmed on oath and treated as his examination in chief in lieu. Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked through PW.1. Ex.A1 is the Original Loan application submitted by the defendants, dt.09.12.2020. Ex.A2 is the

Original Loan arrangement letter issued by plaintif bank, dt.29.01.2011.

Ex.A3 is the Original Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement,dt.29.01.2011.

Ex.A4 is the Original Agreement for term loan for SBI Educational loan scheme, dt.29.01.2011. Ex.A5 is the Ofce copy of registered lawyer’s notice, dt.02.11.2017. Ex.A6 is the Original returned cover of D1, dt.03.11.2017. Ex.A7 is the Original returned cover of D2,

O.S.No.263/2021

Dt. 24.04.2023Page 5 of 9I AJCJ, VSP

dt.03.11.2017. Ex.A8 is the Certifed copy of statement of account, dt.17.01.2019.The defendant did not lead any evidence on their behalf.

9.ISSUES No.2:

The PW.1 reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief afdavit. During the cross examination, PW.1 admitted that it transferred the loan account to the bank account of the collage and not to the bank account of the 1st defendant. PW.1 admitted that he did not fle any proof to show that the amount was transferred to the account of the college. PW.1 further admitted at para-4 of plaint, the purpose of the loan was mentioned as Educational Loan but in Ex.A3 the purpose of the loan was mentioned as purchase of Computers. PW.1 admitted that in Ex.A3 there is no mention of the loan amount and its commencement date and there is blank in Para-6 to Ex.A3. The PW.1 admitted that Ex.A3 does not mention the number of EMI’s as 84.

10. As per the written statement averments, the defendant did not dispute the sanctioned loan amount for Education of the 1st defendant in Gitam College. The defendant’s counsel took a defence that the PW.1 is not a authorised to give evidence on behalf of the plaintif. However, perusal of the case record, discloses that on 30.08.2022, this court permitted the PW.1 to give evidence on behalf of the plaintif as per Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice. As per the written statement averments, the defendants disputes only the quantum of amount outstanding. According to the defendants, the plaintif suppressed the various amounts paid by the defendants to the plaintif.

According to the defendants, the plaintif agreed to pay 60% total collage fees. The PW.1 admitted that it has to pay only 68% of the total

O.S.No.263/2021

Dt. 24.04.2023Page 6 of 9I AJCJ, VSP

college fees. According to the defendants, 1st defendant paid

Rs.1,80,000/- to the college. Therefore, it cannot be said as suggested by the defendant’s counsel that Rs.1,80,000/- was paid to the plaintif.

11.The defendant took a defence that the plaintif received Rs.3,00,000/- from the Government towards scholarship of the 1st defendant and that the plaintif froze and recovered Rs.2,00,000/- from the 2nd defendant’s wife account, Rs.55,000/- received from the bank account of the brother of the 1st defendant. The defendant did not lead any evidence with regard to the alleged adjustment of the amounts towards scholarship and amount recovered by freezing of the bank accounts of the defendants brother and wife. PW.1 denied the receipt of the scholarship of Rs.3,00,000/- from the Government as well as

Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.55,000/- by freezing bank account. The terms of the sanction of the loan/loan arrangement letter/Ex.A2 fxed the repayment schedule of 84 EMIs of Rs.6,923/- each to commence after the course period of one year or Six months after getting a job whichever is earlier. Admittedly, Ex.A3 states at para-1 of page-1 the purpose of the loan as purchase of computers. However, Ex.A4 is titled as Agreement for Term loan for State Bank of Indian Educational Loan scheme. In any case, the defendant did not dispute the purpose of loan in his written statement. As such, the defendant could not have taken the said defence during cross examination for the frst time.

12.The main defence of the defendant’s is that of discharge the loan. The defendant’s counsel did not elicit anything from the PW.1 or adducing any evidence on his behalf to prove the payment of

Rs.1,80,000/- to the plaintif towards College fees, Rs.3,00,000/- amount

O.S.No.263/2021

Dt. 24.04.2023Page 7 of 9I AJCJ, VSP

sanctioned by the Government to the 1st defendant as scholarship and its adjustment to the loan account of the plaintif and Rs.2,00,000/- recovered from 1st defendant’s wife from her bank account. As stated by PW.1, the plaintif transferred the loan amount over a period of four years directly to the college bank account and not to the defendant’s bank account. The said admission does not afect to the case of the plaintif as per agreed terms of the loan agreement, the educational loan amount should be disbursed to the college directly and not transferred to the bank account of the defendants. Ex.A8 loan account statement particulars which are the entries in the book of the account of the plaintif, refect disbursement of the loan amount to the Gitam college.

13.In view of the discussion above, it can be said that the defendant failed to discharge burden of proving the receipt of

Rs.4,80,000/- by the plaintif from the 1st defendant. Accordingly, Issue

No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.

ISSUE NO.4:

14.Further, the defendants did not adduce any evidence to prove that various amounts were recovered by the plaintif totaling to

Rs.7,35,000/- towards repayment of the loan amount, but the said facts was suppressed by the plaintif. Hence, Issue No. 4 is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants.

ISSUE NO.1:

15.The sanction of loan to the defendants for education purpose is not disputed by the defendants in the written statement.

Further, Ex.A1 to A8 fled by the plaintif prove that the defendants

O.S.No.263/2021

Dt. 24.04.2023Page 8 of 9I AJCJ, VSP

applied for the loan and the plaintif sanctioned the loan amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- and the said amount was duly disbursed to the college by the plaintif. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants.

ISSUE NO.3:

16. Ex.A8 statement of account discloses that the defendants committed default in payment of loan amount at various points of time.

Hence, Issue No.3 is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants.

ISSUE NO.5:

17.Based on fndings on Issue No.1 and 3, it can be said that the plaintif is entitled for recovery of suit amount with interest. Hence,

Issued No.5 is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants.

ISSUE NO.6:

18.In the result, this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants:

(a) For a sum of Rs.4,87,147/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Eighty Seven thousand One hundred forty seven only) along with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the principal sum from the date of the suit until its realization;

(b)The plaintif shall be entitled for the costs of the suit.

to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-G.Sai . Krishna

Krishna

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

O.S.No.263/2021

Dt. 24.04.2023Page 9 of 9I AJCJ, VSP

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintif: For Defendant:

PW.1: Sakalabaktula Ajit Kumar- NONE -

Exhibits Marked For Plaintif: Ex.A1 is the Original Loan application submitted by the defendants, dt.09.12.2020.

Ex.A2 is the Original Loan arrangement letter issued by plaintif bank, dt.29.01.2011.

Ex.A3 is the Original Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement, dt.29.01.2011.

Ex.A4 is the Original Agreement for term loan for SBI Educational loan scheme, dt.29.01.2011.

Ex.A5 is the Ofce copy of registered lawyer’s notice, dt.02.11.2017.

Ex.A6 is the Original returned cover of D1, dt.03.11.2017.

Ex.A7 is the Original returned cover of D2, dt.03.11.2017.

Ex.A8 is the Certifed copy of statement of account, dt.17.01.2019.

For Defendant:- NIL -

Sd/-G.Sai krishna

I AJCJ:VSP

O.S.No.263/2021

Dt. 24.04.2023Page 10 of 11I AJCJ, VSP

Date of Presentation: 23.01.2020/12.11.2020 Date of fling: 22.02.2021

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL., JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri G.Sai Krishna, I Addl., Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam

Friday, the 24th day of April, 2023

O.S.No.263/2021

Between:

State Bank of India, a banking institution incorporated under State Bank of India Act 1955, having its Central Ofce at Mumbai, Branches all over India and abroad, amongst one such Branch at Visakhapatnam viz., Stressed Assets Recovery Wing (SARW), RACPC-1, Administrative ofce, Balaji Nagar, Siripuram Jn, Visakhapatnam, represented by its Manager, Sri Polamraju Venkata Hari Krishna, S/o Venkata Sri Rama Chandra Murthy, Hindu, aged 39 years, Visakhapatnam.

…Plaintif And:

1. Sri Maddula Tharun Kumar, S/o M Veerabhadra Rao, Hindu, aged about 26 years, Visakhapatnam-7. D.No.49-39-7, NGGO'S Colony, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam-7.

2. Sri Maddula Veeradhadra Rao, S/o.Satya Rao, Hindu, aged about 51 years, D.No.49-39-7, NGGO'S Colony, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam- 7.

…Defendants

This is a suit fled for recovery of Rs.4,87,147/- along with subsequent interest at the rate of 12.80% per annum with monthly rests from the date of the suit till the date of realization from the defendants and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.4,87,147/- and court fee of Rs.7,326/- is paid under Section 20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

This suit coming on 18.04.2023 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Sudheer Reddy, Advocate for the plaintif and of Sri G.Ramu, Advocate for defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and:

O.S.No.263/2021

Dt. 24.04.2023Page 11 of 11I AJCJ, VSP

D E C R E E

1.that the defendants do pay to the plaintif a sum of

Rs.4,87,147/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Eighty Seven thousand One hundred forty seven only) along with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the principal sum from the date of the suit until its realization; and

2.that the defendants do also pay to the plaintif a sum of

Rs.7,504-00 towards institutional costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 24th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-xxx

For (S.Siva Sankara Reddy)

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam (For G.Sai Krishna)

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintif: For Defendants:

Stamp on Vakalat:102-00- No costs memo is fled - Stamp on Plaint: 7,326-00 Process Fees:76-00 -------------- Institutional Costs 7,504-00 Rs: --------------- (S.Siva Sankara Reddy)

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam (For G.Sai Krishna)

C.C.No.697/2018 Dt.27.04.2023 Page 1 of 8 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL., METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri G.Sai Krishna, I Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2023

Calender Case No.697/2018

Between:

The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Dwaraka Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

…Complainant And: A-1: Gudivada Sanyasi Rao, S/o Rama Naidu, 38 years, Kapu by caste, r/o D.No.50-64-28/40, BTR Colony, Rajendranagar, Seethammapeta, Visakhapatnam.

A-2: Antluri Srinu, S/o Appalachari, 34 years, Vadrangi by caste, r/o D.No.50-78-10/10 Kanakammavari Veedhi, Seethammapeta, Visakhapatnam.

A-3: Putta Srinu, S/o Satyanrayana, 30 years, Viswabrahmin by caste, r/o D.No.22-65-13, Kurupam Markt, I Town area, Visakhapatnam.

A-4: Gujju Tharaka, S/o Tathayyalu, 49 years, Reddy by caste, R/o D.No.49-8-16/1, Lalithanagar, Visakhapatnam

A-5: Pilla Suribabu, S/o late P.V.Ramana, 57 years, Gavara by caste, r/o d.No.35-1-108, Kancharapalem, near Saibaba temple, Visakhapatnam.

A-6: Adluri Venkatesh, S/o Prasad, 27 years, Viswabrahmin by caste, R/o D.No.50-64-17/3, seethammapeta, Visakhapatnam.

A-7: Patnala Govind, S/o Veeracharylu, 38years, Viswabrahmin by caste, r/o D.No.50-64-3, Kanakammavari veedhi, Seethammapeta, Visakhapatnam. …Accused

This Case is coming on 24.04.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt.R.Vani, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

C.C.No.697/2018 Dt.27.04.2023 Page 2 of 8 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

State/Complainant and of Sri Varisa Sairam, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Dwaraka Police Station, filed a Charge

Sheet against the accused in Crime No.41/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act.

2.The gist of charge sheet is as follows:

The LW8/Inspector of Police, Dwarka Police station on receipt of credible information, obtained search warrant from Asst. Commissioner of Police, Dwaraka on 04.03.2018 and then secured mediators,

LW.1/G.Venkata Dhana Raju, LW.2/ U.Satyanrayana Murthy, and raided along with them and LW.3 to LW8 the building bearing No.58-84-11/A,

Navdeep Tiles and sanitary, Madhuranagar, Seethampeta. All the accused were playing Kotha Mukka with playing cards for cash. LW.9/M.Rambabu,

Inspector of police seized Rs.71,540/- cash and 2 sets of 52 cards each under the cover of mediators report.

b) Later, LW.9/M.Rambabu, Inspector of police brought all the accused to Police Station, registered the mediators report as a case in

Cr.No.41/2018 under section 3 & 4 of A.P. Gaming Act. LW.9/M.Rambabu,

Inspector of police examined and recorded the statements of LW.3 to LW.5,

LW.9 served notices to A1 to A7. On completion of investigation,

LW.9/M.Rambabu, Inspector of police filed charge sheet.

3.Upon perusal of the Charge sheet, FIR, 161 Cr.P.C. statements, this Court was satisfied that there is a prima facie case against the

C.C.No.697/2018 Dt.27.04.2023 Page 3 of 8 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

Accused for offence punishable under Section 3 & 4 of A.P. Gaming Act.

Hence, this Court took cognizance of offence under section 3 & 4 of A.P.

Gaming Act against the Accused A1 to A7.

4. The case was transferred from the Honourable I Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s court, Visakhapatnam as per the orders of

Honorable District court, Visakhapatnam in Dis.No.5176/2020 to this

court.

5.Summons were issued to the Accused A.1 to A.7. Upon receipt of summons, the Accused appeared before the Court. Copies of the charge sheet and documents were furnished to all the Accused as per section 207 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, The Accused were examined under

Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 3 & 4 of A.P.Gaming Act against the Accused and the sum and substance of charge sheet and documents was read over and explained to all the Accused in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, LW.1/Gadiraju Venkata

Dhanaraju, LW.6/P.Shankar Rao, LW.4/V.N.Murthy, Sub Inspector of Police,

LW.2/ Vaddadi Suryanarayana Murthy, LW.3/ Madhusudhana Rao, Sub

Inspector of Police, LW.9/ M.Rambabu, Inspector of Police were examined as PW.1 to PW.6. Exs.P1 and Ex.P2 were marked through PW.1. Ex.P3 was marked through PW.4, Ex.P4, Ex.P5 were marked through PW.6. M.O1 and

M.O.2 through PW.5 were marked .

C.C.No.697/2018 Dt.27.04.2023 Page 4 of 8 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

7.On completion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating portion of evidence was read over and explained to all the accused in

Telugu as per section 313 Cr.P.C. All the Accused denied the facts and reported no defence evidence.

8.Perused the mediators report, FIR, 161 Cr.P.C. statements, charge sheet and accompanying documents and evidence on record and heard both counsels. The following points arise for determination of the

Court:

1.Whether on 04.03.2018 at 5:00 pm, the A1 to A7 conducted Kotha mukka game for cash in the ground floor of D.No.50-84-11/A,Madhuranagar, Seethammapeta?

2.Whether A1 to A7 were found gaming (playing Kotha Mukka game with playing cards at D.No.50- 84-11/A, Madhuranagar on 04.03.2018 at 5:00 pm?

3.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A7 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under section 3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act?

9.POINT No.2:

As per the charge sheet, PW.6 along with PW.1 and PW.4/ (mediators, PW.2, PW.3, P.W.5 & LW.5, LW.7 and LW.8 participated in the said raid in Navadeep Tiles shop in Madhuranagar. PW.1 in his chief examination stated that he visited a shed in Madhuranagar,

Seethammpeta on direction of PW.6. PW.1 did not depose about presence of the above 9 members at the scene of offence at the time of raid. PW.4, another mediator also did not depose about presence of other members of

C.C.No.697/2018 Dt.27.04.2023 Page 5 of 8 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

raid at the scene of offence. As per Ex.P1, besides PW.1 and PW.4, PW.6,

PW.2, LW.7, PW.3, LW.5, LW.8 were present at the time of raid. Therefore, the contents of Ex.P1 does not corroborate with the evidence of PW.1 and

PW.2.

10.PW.2 did not depose about presence of PW.6 at the scene,

PW.5 in cross examination deposed that seven members were present.

Not only the mediators turned hostile, but also the evidence of PW.2 and

PW.5 does not correspond with the contents of Ex.P1 as to the number of persons who raided the shop and who all were present.

11.As per Ex.P1, after obtaining search warrant from A.C.P. the raid was conducted. The prosecution did not produce the search warrant under which authority the PW.6 raided the Tiles shop. PW.3, PW.5, PW.6 did not make any reference to search warrant obtained by them for conducting the raid. The charge sheet also mentions about the search warrant. The failure of prosecution to produce search warrant referred in

Ex.P1 which authorized the search, is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

It may be presumed under section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that a document in custody of one party goes against the case of the party if, it is not produced in evidence. Despite referring to the search warrant in

Ex.P1 no such document was produced by the prosecution.

12.PW.3 stated in cross examination that the he raided a closed room but also stated that there were two rooms one hall in the shop and there were two doors for each of the rooms. Further, PW.3 gave evasive reply that, he does not remember in which of the two rooms the persons

C.C.No.697/2018 Dt.27.04.2023 Page 6 of 8 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

were playing. PW.6 admitted that, according to him the building is a closed house and that rough sketch does not mention about number of rooms and house of building. The evidence of PW.3 and PW.6 with regard to existence of door for each of two rooms and the evidence that the gaming house is a closed room, cast doubt on credibility of the PW.3 and

PW.6 evidence about the raid at the Tiles shop.

13.The non production of search warrant, non corroboration of number of persons involved in the raid and the discrepancy in the nature of rooms in the ground floor cast doubt on the credibility of prosecution evidence on the conduct of the raid. Hence, Point No.2 is answered against the prosecution and in favour of A.1 to A.7.

POINT No.1:

14.Except for the evidence of PW.3 that A1 confessed to organizing the game for commission, no evidence was adduced by the prosecution that A1 or any of other accused own or were in occupation of the tile shop. Further, the evidence of prosecution witnesses that a search was conducted and they found all the accused playing card itself was not proved (Point No.2). Hence, Point No.1 is also answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

POINT No.3:

15.From the above discussion, it can be said that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the

C.C.No.697/2018 Dt.27.04.2023 Page 7 of 8 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

offence under section 3 & 4 of AP Gaming Act. Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered.

16. As per the mediators report, M.O.2 was seized in common

Gaming house/ Navadeep tiles. The mediators report is silent from which of the accused the amount was seized. The mediators report is also silent about how much amount was seized from which of the Accused A1 to A7.

In the present case, all the accused were acquitted on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that the raid was conducted on the relevant date at Navadeep tiles and all the accused were found there playing cards.

As per law settled by the Honourable High Court of A.P. in Shaik

Zaheer Vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2002 (1) ALT Crl.177,

conviction of the accused for the offence under section 3 and 4 of A.P.

Gaming Act is a condition precedent for passing any confiscation orders of the property used for Gaming purpose. In the present case, all the accused were acquitted. Therefore, this court cannot make any decision about the person/persons who are entitled for possession of M.O.2 in terms of section 452 (1) of Cr.P.C. Hence, M.O.2 shall be retained until any claim is preferred by the persons entitled for its possession.

17.In the result, the Accused A.1 to A7 are hereby found not guilty for the offence under Section 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act and they are hereby acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offence under

Section 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall stands cancelled after expiry of Six months from the date of judgment as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after

C.C.No.697/2018 Dt.27.04.2023 Page 8 of 8 I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

expiry of two months from this date or if appeal is preferred after disposal of the said appeal or the expiry of the appeal time whichever is latter.

M.O.2. shall be retained until any claim is preferred by the person/persons entitled for its possession.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the Open Court on this the 27 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- G.Sai Krishna

I ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:For Defence:

PW.1: Gadiraju Venkata Dhanaraju- NONE -

PW.2: P.Shankar Rao,

PW.3: V.N.Murthy

PW.4: Vaddadi Suryanarayana Murthy

PW.5: Madhusudhana Rao

PW.6: M.Rambabu,

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Signature of the witness on the mediator report dated 04.03.2018

Ex.P2: Relevant underline portion of mediators report dated 04.03.2018

Ex.P3: Signature on the mediators report, dated 04.03.2018

Ex.P4: Mediators report dated 04.03.2018

Ex.P5: Original First Information Report, dated 04.03.2018.

For Defence:- NIL -

Material objects M.O.1: 2 sets of playing cards M.O.2: Cash of Rs.71,540/- I AMM:VSP

Page 9 of 10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIABLE ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No.697/2018

DATES OF:

1. Date of Offence : 04.03.2018

2. Date of Apprehension of Accused : 04.03.2018

3. Date of Taken on file : 19.04.2018

4. Date of Commencement of Trial : 05.05.2022

5. Date of Close of Trial : 13.04.2023

6. Date of Judgment : 27.04.2023

7. Explanation for delay : This case is transferred from the Honourable I Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s court, Visakhapatnam as per proceedings dated 31.12.2020 in Dis No.5176/2020.

8. Name of the Complainant : The State represented by the Inspector of Police,DwarakaPoliceStation, Visakhapatnam City.

9.Name of the Accused A-1: Gudivada Sanyasi Rao, S/o Rama Naidu, 38 years, Kapu by caste, r/o D.No.50-64-28/40,BTRColony, Rajendranagar,Seethammapeta, Visakhapatnam.

A-2: Antluri Srinu, S/o Appalachari, 34 years, Vadrangi by caste, r/o D.No.50-78- 10/10KanakammavariVeedhi, Seethammapeta, Visakhapatnam.

A-3: Putta Srinu, S/o Satyanrayana, 30 years, Viswabrahmin by caste, r/o D.No.22-65-13, Kurupam Markt, I Town area, Visakhapatnam.

A-4: Gujju Tharaka, S/o Tathayyalu, 49 years, Reddy by caste, R/o D.No.49-8-16/1, Lalithanagar, Visakhapatnam.

A-5: Pilla Suribabu, S/o late P.V.Ramana, 57 years, Gavara by caste, r/o D.No.35-1-108, Kancharapalem, near Saibaba temple, Visakhapatnam.

Page 10 of 10

A-6: Adluri Venkatesh, S/o Prasad, 27 years, Viswabrahmin by caste, R/o D.No.50-64-17/3,seethammapeta, Visakhapatnam.

A-7: Patnala Govind, S/o Veeracharylu, 38years, Viswabrahmin by caste, r/o D.No.50-64-3, Kanakammavari veedhi, Seethammapeta, Visakhapatnam.

10. Offence : Under Sec 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act

11. Plea of Accused. : PLEADED NOT GUILTY.

12. Finding : Accused are acquitted U/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C.

12. Result : In the result, the Accused A.1 to A7 are hereby found not guilty for the offence under Section 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act and they are hereby acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 3 and 4 of A.P.Gaming Act. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall stands cancelled after expiry of Six months from the date of judgment as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of two months from this date or if appeal is preferred after disposal of the said appeal or the expiry of the appeal time whichever is latter. M.O.2. shall be retained until any claim is preferred by the person/persons entitled for its possession.

Sd/- G.Sai Krishna

I Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

C.C.No.401/2017 Dt.21.04.2023

Page 1 of 7

I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL., METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri G.Sai Krishna, I Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

Friday, the 21st day of April, 2023

Calender Case No.401/2017

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dwaraka Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. …Complainant And:

Thota Malleswarara Rao, S/o Narayanarao, age 2 yrs, Telaga by caste, R/o 44-45-40/104, Venkateswara Colony, Tatichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam. …Accused

This Case is coming on 19.04.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt.R.Vani, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Smt.D. (B) Satya Suma, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

D R A F T J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dwaraka Police Station, filed a

Charge Sheet against the accused in Crime No.07/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code.

2.The gist of charge sheet is as follows:

The deceased /Beesetti Jyothi a divorcee was working as maid at Pollock’s school, Dwarakanagar. On 05.01.2017 at 18:00 hours when the deceased was crossing the road to throw away the dust in a dust bin, the accused driver of the Auto bearing No.AP31 TW 9491 while coming

C.C.No.401/2017 Dt.21.04.2023

Page 2 of 7

I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

from Diamond park and proceeding towards ICICI bank junction in rash and negligent manner hit the deceased without blowing horn. The deceased died instantaneously due to head injury.

b)On the report of LW.1/Beeseti Eswara Rao, LW.16/

M.Rambabu, Inspector of Police registered as a case in Crime No.07/2017 under section 304-A of I.P.C and endorsed the same to LW.17/A.Satya Rao,

Sub Inspector of police for investigation. During the course of investigation,

LW.16 M.Rambabu, Sub Inspector of Police, visited the scene of offence prepared the rough sketch and later, held inquest on 06.01.2017 over the dead body of the deceased. LW.17/A.Satyarao, Inspector of Police issued 41 A Cr.P.C. Notice to the accused. Thereafter, the Assistant Motor vehicle

Inspector/LW.14 Asst.Motor Vehicle issued report opining that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the Auto.

LW.15/P.Venkataramana Rao, Asst. Professor, FSL, AMC opined that the cause of the death is due to head injury. On completion of investigation,

LW.17/ A.Satyarao, Inspector of Police filed charge sheet.

3.Upon perusal of the Charge sheet, FIR, 161 Cr.P.C. statements, this Court was satisfied that there is a prima facie case against the Accused for offence punishable under Section 304A IPC. Hence, this Court took cognizance of offence U/section 304A of Indian Penal Code against the

Accused.

4. The case was transferred from the Honourable I Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s court, Visakhapatnam as per the orders of

C.C.No.401/2017 Dt.21.04.2023

Page 3 of 7

I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

Honorable District court, Visakhapatnam in Dis.No.5176/2020, dated

31.12.2020 to this court.

5.Summons was issued to the Accused. Upon receipt of summons, the Accused appeared before the Court. Copies of the charge sheet and documents were furnished to the Accused as per section 207

Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the Accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 304A IPC against the Accused and the sum and substance of charge sheet and documents was read over and explained to the Accused in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, LW.1/Beesetti Eswararao, LW.2/

Suryaprasad Chowdary, LW.3/Dossi Arjunarao, LW.4/ Tharapureddy Ramu,

LW.14/B.Balajirao,Asst.MotorvehicleInspector,LW.15/

P.Venkataramanarao,LW.16/M.Rambabu,InspectorofPolice,

LW.7/A.Satyarao, Sub Inspector of Police were examined as PW.1 to PW.7.

Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 were marked through PW.1. Ex.P4 was marked through

PW.2, Ex.P5 was marked through PW.3. Ex.P6 was marked through PW.4.

Ex.P7 was marked through PW.5. Ex.P8 was marked through PW.6. Exs.P9 to P11 were marked through PW.7. The evidence of LW.5 to LW.13 were given up by the learned A.P.P. as the PW.1 to PW.4 already turned hostile.

7.On completion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating prosecution evidence was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu

C.C.No.401/2017 Dt.21.04.2023

Page 4 of 7

I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

as per section 313 Cr.P.C. The Accused denied the prosecution evidence facts and reported no defence evidence.

8.Perused the original FIR report, 161 statements, charge sheet and accompanying documents and evidence on record and heard both sides, the following points arise for determination of the Court:

1.Whether on 05.01.2017 at 18:00 hours, the accused drove the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 31 TW 9491 from the Diamond park towards ICICI Bank junction?

2.Whether on the aforesaid date, the accused dashed the deceased with the Auto by driving it in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased ?

3.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under section 304 A of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9.POINT No.1:

The PW.1 in his chief examination stated that the deceased is his younger sister and on 17.01.2017, when he was at home he received phone call about the accident near Pollock School. The PW.1 further deposed when he rushed to the KGH, his sister was already dead. PW.1 further deposed that, he witnessed the inquest of his sister at KGH. The

Learned APP cross examined PW.1 with the permission of the court as

PW.1 turned hostile, she could not elicit anything in support of the prosecution case. The eye witnesses i.e. PW.2, PW.3 , PW.4 turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution case.

C.C.No.401/2017 Dt.21.04.2023

Page 5 of 7

I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

10.The Motor Vehicle Inspector/PW.5 deposed that upon requisition received by him on 10.01.2017 from the Inspector of police, he went to the Dwaraka Police station and inspected the crime vehicle Auto and found the some damages to the front wind screen glass broken, front left side head lamp broken, front Mudgar damaged. PW.5 further deposed that, he gave accident report opining that the accident did not occur any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. The P.W.6 in his evidence deposed that he conducted postmortem report on 06.01.2017 for the dead- body of the deceased and gave opinion that the death occurred due to head injury. The P.W.7 who registered the case deposed, about the investigation done by LW.17/A.Satyarao, Sub Inspector of Police.

11.The factum regarding the death of the deceased and the occurrence of the accident are not disputed. The prosecution failed to adduce any direct witnesses who saw the accused driving the crime vehicle at the scene of offence on the date of the accident. Therefore, Point No.1 is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

POINT No.2:

12.When the identity of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle itself is not established the question of driving the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner causing the death of the deceased does not arise. Hence, Point No.2 is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

C.C.No.401/2017 Dt.21.04.2023

Page 6 of 7

I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

POINT NO.3:

13.In the result, the Accused is hereby found not guilty for the offence under Section 304 A of Indian Penal Code and is hereby acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 304 A of Indian

Penal Code. No orders as to the case property are passed, as there is no case property in this case.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the Open Court on this the 21 st day of April, 2023.

Sd/- G.Sai Krishna

I ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:For Defence:

PW.1: Beesetti Eswararao- NONE -

PW.2: Suryaprasad Chowdary

PW.3: Dossi Arjunarao

PW.4: Tharapureddy Ramu

PW.5: B.Balaji Rao

PW.6: P.Venkataramanarao

PW.7: M.Rambabu

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1/-- Report given by PW.1

Ex.P2/-- Relevant underlined Portion of 161 statement of PW.1

Ex.P3/-- Inquest report, dated 06.01.2017

C.C.No.401/2017 Dt.21.04.2023

Page 7 of 7

I AMM -cum-

I AJCJ, VSP

Ex.P4/-- 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.2

Ex.P5/-- 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3

Ex.P6/-- 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4

Ex.P7/-- Accident report from Motor Vehicle Inspector, dated 10.01.2017.

Ex.P8/-- Postmortem report

Ex.P9/-- Original FIR, dated 05.01.2017

Ex.P10/-- Rough sketch dated 05.01.2017

Ex.P11/-- Scene observation report dated 05.01.2017

For Defence:- NIL -

Sd/- G.Sai Krishna

I AMM:VSP

Page 8 of 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIABLE ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No.401/2017

DATES OF:

1. Date of Offence : 05.01.2017

2. Date of Apprehension of Accused : 06.01.2017

3. Date of Taken on file : 31.03.2017

4. Date of Commencement of Trial : 16.05.2022

5. Date of Close of Trial : 19.04.2023

6. Date of Judgment : 21.04.2023

7. Explanation for delay : The case was transferred from the Honourable I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s court, Visakhapatnam as per the orders of

Honorable District court, Visakhapatnam in

Dis.No.5176/2020, dated 31.12.2020 to this court.

8. Name of the Complainant : The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dwaraka Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

9. Name of the Accused : Thota Malleswarara Rao, S/o Narayanarao, age 2 yrs, Telaga by caste, R/o 44-45-40/104, VenkateswaraColony,Tatichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam.

10. Offence : Under Sec.304 A IPC

11. Plea of Accused. : PLEADED NOT GUILTY.

12. Finding : Accused is acquitted U/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C.

12. Result : In the result, the Accused is hereby found not guilty for the offence under Section 304 A of Indian Penal Code and is hereby acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 304 A of Indian Penal Code. No orders as to the case property are passed, as there is no case property in this case.

I Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

O.S.No.1997 of 2022,

Page 1 of 4I AJCJ, VSP

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL., JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri G.Sai Krishna, I Addl., Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam

Tuesday, the 18thday of April, 2023

O.S.1997/2022

Between:

Sri Keerthi Apparao, S/o late Nookaraju, Hindu, aged 61 years, residing at Dr.No.37-10-105, Ayyappanagar, Muralinagar, (East), Visakhapatnam. …Plaintif

And:

Sri Pabbu Nageswara Prasad, S/o Late Bullayya, Hindu, aged about 53 years, residing at Dr.No.37-10-102, Muralinagar (East), Ayyappanagar, Industrial Estate, Visakhapatnam-07.

… Defendants

This suit coming on 13.04.2023 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.S.Vasu, Sri T.Devi Prasad, Advocates for the plaintif and defendant remained set exparte and the matter 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 fled for recovery of Rs.7,02,333/- along with subsequent interest at 24% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation from the defendant and for costs of the suit.

2.Summons to the defendant was personally served by way of service on his wife. This court held the service of summons on the wife sufcient service.

On 27.03.2023, the defendant was set exparte for non appearance.

O.S.No.1997 of 2022,

Page 2 of 4I AJCJ, VSP

3.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:

On 18.04.2021, the defendant borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintif and executed a demand promissory note in consideration of the receipt of the amount. The defendant agreed to repay the debt with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. On 16.08.2022, the defendant issued a cheque for Rs.50,000/- in favour of the plaintif drawn on Canara Bank, Muralinagar Branch towards part payment of debt. Upon presentation of cheque through his collecting bank, the said cheque was dishonoured and returned with an endorsement “funds insufcient” on 07.11.2022. On 28.11.2022, the plaintif got issued a registered lawyer’s notice to the defendant demanding the repayment of the amount due to the plaintif within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. But, he failed to repay the cheque amount with 15 days. Thereafter, the plaintif fled a crimina case against the defendant under section 138 of N.I. Act before the III

Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

4.Heard the plaintif’s counsel. Perused the plaint pleadings and suit documents. The following points arise for consideration of the Court:

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 plaintif is entitled for the suit amount as prayed?

4. To what relief?

5.On behalf of the plaintif, the plaintif was examined as PW.1 and his chief examination afdavit was afrmed on oath and treated as his examination in chief in lieu. Ex.A1 was marked through PW.1. Ex.A.1 is the original promissory note dt.18.04.2021.

O.S.No.1997 of 2022,

Page 3 of 4I AJCJ, VSP

6.POINT No.1:

The PW.1 reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief examination afdavit. The evidence of PW.1 through his evidence afdavit and Ex.A1 are sufcient to prove by preponderance of probabilities the plaint facts. Similarly, the execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant stands proved. Hence, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.

7.POINT No.2:

As the defendant remained exparte and did not dispute his signature on Ex.A1, the plaintif is entitled for the beneft of presumption under Section 118 (1) (a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that the defendant executed

Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintif for lawful consideration received by him from the plaintif. Hence, Point No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.

8.POINT No.3:

As points 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintif, Point No.3 which is dependent on points 1 and 2 is also answered in favour of the plaintif.

9.POINT No.4:

In the result, this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant:

(a) For a sum of Rs.7,02,333/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Two thousand

Three hundred and Thirty Three only) along with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the date of fling of the suit until the date of the decree and for further interest at 6% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the date of decree until the date of realisation; and

O.S.No.1997 of 2022,

Page 4 of 4I AJCJ, VSP

(b)The plaintif shall be entitled for the costs of the suit.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court on this the 18th day of April, 2023.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintif:For Defendant:

PW.1: Keerthi Appa Rao- NONE -

Exhibits Marked

For Pl aintif:

Ex.A.1/--Original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif, dated 18.04.2021.

For Defendant:- NIL -

I AJCJ:VSP

O.S.No.1059/2022

Page 5 of 6I AJCJ, VSP

Date of Presentation:26.12.2022 Date of fling:26.12.2022

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL., JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri G.Sai Krishna, I Addl., Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam

Tuesday, the 18thday of April, 2023

O.S.1997/2022

Between: Sri Keerthi Apparao, S/o late Nookaraju, Hindu, aged 61 years, residing at Dr.No.37-10-105, Ayyappanagar, Muralinagar, (East), Visakhapatnam. …Plaintif

And: Sri Pabbu Nageswara Prasad, S/o Late Bullayya, Hindu, aged about 53 years, residing at Dr.No.37-10-102, Muralinagar (East), Ayyappanagar, Industrial Estate, Visakhapatnam-07.

… Defendant

This is a suit fled for recovery of Rs.7,02,333/- along with subsequent interest at 24% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation from the defendant and for costs of the suit.

The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is

Rs.7,02,333/- and court fee of Rs.9,526/- is paid thereon under Section 20 of A.P.C.F.

and S.V. Act.

This suit coming on 13.04.2023 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.S.Vasu, Sri T.Devi Prasad, Advocates for the plaintif and defendant remained set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and :

O.S.No.1059/2022

Page 6 of 6I AJCJ, VSP

D E C R E E

1.that the defendant do pay to the plaintif a sum of

Rs.7,02,333/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Two thousand Three hundred and Thirty Three only) along with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- from the date of fling of the suit until the date of the decree and for further interest at 6% per annum on the

principal sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the date of decree until

the date of realisation; and

2.that the defendant do also pay to the plaintif a sum of

Rs.9,693-00towards the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 18th day of April, 2023

Sd/-G.Sai Krishna

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintif: For Defendant:

Stamp on Vakalat:102-00 - No costs memo fled - Stamp on Plaint:9,526-00 Process Fees:65-00 ------------- Institutional 9,693-00 Costs Rs: -------------

ISd/-G.Sai Krishna AJCJ:VSP