Sri G.Shanmukharao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHIMAVARAM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: WEST GODAVARI C.C.NO.129/2016 DATES OF Offence Filing Appearance Released Commencement Closure of Sentence On bail of trial trial of order 09-02-15 11-5-12 1-4-16 -- 16-8-16 10-4-17 18-4-2017

Explanation for delay: NBW pending against accused

Between

Ratnala Manohar Gopal, S/o. Subbarayudu, Hindu, Age.69 years, Rtd. Employee D.No.25-1-4, Durusumaru varistreet, Sriramapuram, Bhimavaram-534202 … Complainant.

AND

Buraga Sundara Manikyam W/o. Dande David, Female, age.28 years, II ANM, Medical Health Department, Government Hospital, Kalla, Kalla Mandal. … Accused.

Crime No. Private Complaint.

OFFENCE :- Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

FINDING :- Accused is Found guilty.

SENTENCE :- In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence under sec.138 of Negotiable instruments Act and the accused is liable for punishment for the offence under sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Hence the accused is convicted under sec.255(2) Cr.PC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) in default of fine amount she shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under sec.138 of

Negotiable instruments Act. Accused is apprised her right of appeal and legal aid.

Accused supplied free copy of calender and Judgement.

Sd/- Sri G.Shanmukharao

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Ist Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, W.G.Eluru. Note: 1. Sentence suspended up to dt 15-5-2017 as per Crl.M.P.No. 416.

2. Fine amount of Rs. 5000/- was paid by accused on 18-4-2017.

2

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

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:: BHIMAVARAM. PRESENT: Sri G.Shanmukharao,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum

Judicial I Class Magistrate.

This the Monday, Eighteenth (18th ) day of April,Two thousand Seventeen[2017]

C.C NO.129/2016

Original C.C.484/2015 of II AJFCMC,BVRM.

Between

Ratnala Manohar Gopal, S/o. Subbarayudu, Hindu, Age.69 years, Rtd. Employee D.No.25-1-4, Durusumaru varistreet, Sriramapuram, Bhimavaram-534202 … Complainant.

AND

Buraga Sundara Manikyam W/o. Dande David, Female, age.28 years, II ANM, Medical Health Department, Government Hospital, Kalla, Kalla Mandal. … Accused.

This case is coming on 10-4-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Srinivasarao, advocate for the Complainant and of Sri. V.V.Subbarao, Advocate for accused upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This complaint is originally numbered as C.C.484/2015 on the file of II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram and transferred the

same to this Court as per the orders of the Hon’ble District Court, West

Godavari, Eluru and renumbered as C.C.No.129/2016.

2. This is a private complaint filed under sections 190 and 200 of

Cr.P.C. by the complainant against the accused for the offence under

Secs.138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.

3. The brief averments of the Complaint are as follows:-

The accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 10.10.2014 for the purpose of her family welfare and discharging her sundry debts, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per 3 annum and executed a promissory note dt.10-10-2014 in favour of complainant. Complainant demanded the accused for repayment of promissory note debt. Accused issued a cheque bearing number 284021 on 9-12-2015 drawn on Andhra Bank,Kalla Branch for an amount of

Rs.85,000/- towards part payment of the promissory note debt. Accused promised to repay the remaining amount shortly. Complainant presented the cheque for collection on 27-2-2015 to the Corporation Bank, Bhimavaram branch. Cheque was sent for collection to Andhra Bank, Kalla branch and it was returned with cheque return memo issued by the Andhra Bank,Kalla branch on 28-2-2015 with an endorsement funds insufficient in the account of the accused. Complainant received the cheque and returned memo issued by the Andhra Bank Kalla branch on 28-2-2015 from the

Corporation Bank,Bhimavaram branch along with memo dt.28-2-2015.

Complainant contacted accused personally and informed about the return of the cheque as unpaid. Accused induced the complainant to present the cheque again for collection. Again the complainant presented the cheque for collection on 4-4-2015 to the Corporation bank,Bhimavaram branch and it was send for collection to Andhra Bank,Kalla branch again it was returned under cheque memo dt.6-4-2015 with an endorsement funds insufficient in the account of the accused.

4. Complainant received the cheque and returned memo dt.6-4-2015 from his bank. After receipt of cheque and memo, the complainant issued a registered lawyer notice dt.18-4-2015 to the accused for her house and also office address. Calling upon the accused to repay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Register notice was received by the accused on 21-4-2015 but the accused did not pay any payment and did not give any reply. The accused with a dishonest intention and 4 committed an offence under sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881.

Hence, the complaint.

5. After perusal of recording sworn statement. On perused the material available in this record this complaint was taken on file under sec.138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act and issued summons to accused. The accused after receipt of summons appeared before this Court and received the copies under sec.207 Cr.PC. Accused was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the offence under sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and complaint contents read over in telugu to the accused and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, complainant examined P.Ws.1 to 3, and

Exs.P1 to P11 are marked. After completion of complainant side evidence accused was examined under sec.313 Cr.PC denied the incriminating evidence.

7. On behalf of the accused, herself examined as DW1 and Exs.D1 to D3 are marked.

P.W.1 :Ratnala Manohar Gopal(complainant), P.W.2:Kolla Veeranjaneyulu (scribe), P.W.3: Ratnala Venkata Rama Subbarayudu (attestor)

Ex.P1: Promissory note executed by accused dated 10-10-2014, Ex.P2:

Cheque bearing number 284201 drawn on Andhra Bank issued by Rs.85,000

dated 9-2-2015, Ex.P3: pay-in-slip dt.27-2-2015, Ex.P4: Cheque return

memo dated.28-2-2015, Ex.P5: Cheque return memo issued by Corporation

Bank dated 28-2-2015, Ex.P6: pay-in-slip dated 4-4-2015, Ex.P7: cheque return memo issued by Andhra Bank,Kalla dt.6-4-2015, Ex.P8: cheque returned memo issued by Corporation Bank,Bhimavaram dt.6-4-2015,

Ex.P9: Office copy of lawyer notice along with 2 postal receipts dt.18-2- 2015, Ex.P10: Postal acknowledgment from the office address of accused,

Ex.P11: postal acknowledgment.

5

DW1 :Buraga Sundara Manikyam, Ex.D1: Token issued by Sri Ram Bankers

dated 19-8-2012, Ex.D2: Token issued by Sri Ram Bankers dated 26-

9-2012 Ex.D3: token issued by Sri Ram Bankers dated.5-12-2012.

8. Heard arguments on both sides. Complainant council filed written arguments.

9. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the complainant has proved the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act beyond all reasonable doubt or not ?

10. POINT: Learned Counsel for complainant filed his written arguments.

Learned Counsel for complainant submitted his argument that accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant on 10-10-2014 executed a promissory note and issued a cheque for an amount of

Rs.85,000/- for part-payment of the promissory note debt. PWs 2 and 3 supported the complainant’s case there is every corroboration in the evidence of pWs 1 to 3. Accused without having sufficient funds in her account issued a cheque with an intention accused created a story by creating Exs.D1 to D3, which are no way concerned to the case. The complainant could established the essential ingredients for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and there is legally enforceable debt in between the complainant and accused. The complainant followed the procedure and could established his case beyond all reasonable doubt and prays to convict the accused.

11. Learned counsel for accused argued that there is no legally enforceable debt in between the complainant and accused. Accused did not commit any offence. Accused gave the cheque only for the purpose of security. The cheque is no way concerned to the promissory note debt and accused pledged her gold ornaments in Sri Rama Bankers for her son medical expenses and complainant obtained the empty signed cheque and 6 empty promissory note from the accused as security purpose. There is no legally enforceable debt. Accused did not commit any offence, the complainant filed this case only for wrongful gain, there is no corroboration in the evidence of PWs 1 to 3. Complainant failed to establish essential ingredients and prays to acquit the accused.

12. Legally enforceable debt is an essential ingredient for the offence under sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The case of the complainant is that accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and executed Ex.P1 promissory note. The complainant himself examined as PW1 and reiterated the complaint contents. According to PW1, accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 10-10-2014 from the complainant for the purpose of her family expenses and discharge her sundry debts, agreeing to repay the same at the rate of 24% per annum and executed a promissory note under Ex.P1 in favour of complainant R.V.Subbarayudu, T.B.V.Ramarao attested the promissory note and K.Veeranjaneyulu scribed the promissory note.

13. Kolla Veeranjaneyulu stated to be scribe of the Ex.P1 promissory note examined as PW2, R.V.Rama Subbarayudu stated to be attestor examined as PW3. PWs 2 and 3 categorically deposed that on 10-10-2014 accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

Thus, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 showing that accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000 from the complainant and executed Ex.P1 promissory note in favour of the complainant.

14.The case of the accused is that she never borrowed any amount from 7 the complainant, she pledged her gold ornaments in Sri Rama Bankers of complainant. The complainant obtained the signed empty promissory note and cheque from her as security. To prove her contention, accused herself examined as DW1. She denied the entire evidence of PW1. According to her, the complainant doing finance business under the name and style of Sri

Rama Bankers. On 19-8-2012 and 5-12-2012 she took a loan for total

Rs.2,50,000/- by pledging her gold ornaments weighing 20 soverigns by issuing to her bank account in her name with Andhra bank,Kalla branch and took her signatures on empty promissory note. Subsequently she paid 2,10,000/- with interest, she had to pay balance amount of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant and she asked to return the gold ornaments and complainant raised a dispute with her demanding to pay Rs.1,00,000/- then only he would hand over the gold ornaments as well as empty promissory note and empty cheque. DW1 filed receipts issued by Sri Rama Bankers under Exs.D1 to D3. Further she deposed that by the date of transaction on 10-10-2014, she was 9th month pregnant and she never visited Sri Rama bankers,Bhimavaram. During the cross-examination she admitted signatures shown to her on Ex.P1 promissory note is that of her. Thus, the accused(DW1) did not deny the signatures on Ex.P1 promissory note.

15. The main contention of the accused is that she pledged the gold ornaments in Sri Rama Bankers which is run by complainant and complainant obtained empty signed promissory note. According to PW1, on repeated demands made by the complainant, accused presented the Ex.P2 cheque to the complainant for part payment of the promissory debt. During cross-examination, PW1 deposed that he has no idea whether accused pledged her gold ornaments in Sri Rama bankers on 19-8-2012 and also on 26-9-2012 and 5-12-2012 and obtained cash of Rs.2,50,000/- from Sri

Rama bankers. Further PW1 deposed that he filed the present case for 8 recovery of amount basing on the promissory note. He advanced the amount on 10-10-2014 when accused asked him for four or five times prior to 10- 10-2014 he lend amount in his house but not in Sri Rama Bankers. At the time of transaction T.V.Ramarao, T.V.Anjaneyulu, R.V.Subbarao, himself and accused were present. Thus the cross-examination of PW1 it is clear that on 10-10-2014 the transaction is taken place in between complainant and accused.

16. During the cross-examination PW2 deposed that accused herself informed about her name, avocation and other particulars at the time of

Ex.P1 transaction. Ex.P1 was scribed by him. Thus, the cross-examination of

PW2, it is clear that Ex.P1 promissory note was scribed by PW2.

17. During cross-examination PW3 deposed that on that day when he was talking with PW1 and accused Ramarao came there, five persons were present. Accused asked PW1 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-,accused and complainant asked him to sign on Ex.P1 promissory note. Thus, evidence of

PW3 also it is clear that he attested the Ex.P1 promissory note and he was present at the time of transaction. On perused Exs.D1 to D3 which were receipts issued in the name of Sri Rama Bankers showing the name of

Dande Sundara Manikyam. Ex.D1 for an amount of Rs.13,000/- dt.19-8- 2012, Ex.D2 for an amount of Rs.60,000/- dt.26-9-2012, Ex.D3 for an amount of Rs.35,000/- dt.5-12-2012. Thus, according to Exs.D1 to D3 they belongs to the year 2012 on different dates. Ex.P1 promissory note dt.10- 10-2014. Exs.D1 to D3 does not contains any signatures. The accused did not issue any reply notice after receipt of Ex.P9 lawyer notice from PW1 about payment of dis-honoured cheque amount. After receipt of Ex.P9 lawyer notice under Ex.P10 and P11 accused kept silent and he did not gave any reply about the contents of the Ex.P9. There is no peace of document or evidence to show that the complainant obtained the empty promissory note 9 from the accused for security purpose. During 313 Cr.PC examination, accused made several allegations against the complainant by stating that complainant opened the account of accused in Andhra Bank, and he took pass book and cheques.

18.According to DW1, the complainant lending amount through Sri

Rama Bankers at Kalla and doing money lending business when the accused pledged her gold ornaments weighing worth of 20 soverigns and obtained loan Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant and complainant obtained empty signed promissory note. Except Exs.D1 to D3, there is no peace of document to show that complainant doing money lending business and obtained the empty signed promissory note from the accused. On the other hand, Exs.D1 to D3 does not disclose any signatures by the complainant. During cross- examination, PW1 deposed that Exs.D1 to D3 were issued evidence in the pledge of the gold ornaments and which were issued by the Sri Rama bankers. As already stated there is no peace of evidence to connecting the

Exs.D1 to D3 were issued by PW1. On the other hand, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 coupled with Ex.P1 contents it is clear that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant and executed Ex.P1 promissory note and there is a legal enforceable debt.

19. The contention of the complainant is that on repeated demands made by the complainant, accused issued Ex.P2 cheque. According to PW1, the accused issued a cheque dt.9-2-2015 drawn on Andhra Bank,Kalla branch bearing number 284201 for an amount of Rs.85,000/- towards part payment of the promissory note debt. PW1 presented a cheque on 27-2- 2015 in his Corporation Bank,Bhimavaram and the bank send the cheque for collection to Andhra Bank,Kalla branch and it was returned under cheque return memo dt.28-2-2015, Ex.P3 is counter-foil dt.27-2-2015, Ex.P4 is the cheque return memo dt.28-2-2015 of Andhra Bank,Kalla, Ex.P5 is the cheque return memo dt.28-2-2015 of Corporation Bank,Bhimavaram.

According to PW1, the cheque was dis-honoured due to insufficient funds in 10 the account of the accused and he informed the same to the accused orally and accused induced him to present cheque again for collection, believing the words of accused he again present the cheque for collection on 4-4-2015 to the Corporation Bank,Bhimavaram and send the cheque for collection to

Andhra Bank,Kalla and same was returned by reason insufficient funds in the account of accused with memo dt.6-4-2015. PW1 received cheque return memo from his bank on 6-4-2015. Thus according to PW1 on 27-2- 2015 and 4-4-2015 he presented the cheque under Exs. P3 and P6 respectively. But the cheque was returned due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused under Exs.P4,P5,P7 and P8 respectively. During cross-examination, DW1 admitted her signature on Ex.P2 cheque.

20. Thus, it is clear that Ex.P2 cheque was returned and dis-honoured and it is clear that Ex.P2 was dis-honoured due to insufficient funds in the account of accused on 6-4-2015. Accordingly PW1 issued a lawyer notice dt.18-4-2015 to the accused demanding to pay the dis-honoured cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and issued two registered lawyer notices and accused received two lawyer notices on 21-4- 2015 under Exs.P10 and P11 respectively. But the accused after receipt of

Ex.P9 lawyer notice did not pay any amount did not give any reply. As already stated there is no peace of evidence to show that the complainant received the cheque as security from the accused. Accused also did not give any reply after receipt of the Ex.P9 lawyer notice after dis-honour of the cheque. Thus, the accused failed to establish any contra version against complainant. According to DW1, the complainant filed this case with false allegations only to get wrongful gain but there is no evidence from the accused to show her contention. Thus the presumption under section 139 of

Negotiable Instruments Act can be safely drawn in favour of the complainant to show that accused issued Ex.P2 cheque to the complainant for an amount of Rs.85,000/- as part payment. After receipt of Ex.P9 notice on 21-4-2015, the accused failed to payment within 15 days as required under sec.138 proviso (c). The complainant presented the cheque within 11 time as required under sec.138 proviso (a) and also issued lawyer notice within 30 days as required under sec.138 of clause(b). Thus the complainant followed the procedure.

In the above stated circumstances and reasons, the complainant could established that there is a legal enforceable debt in between the complainant and accused and the accused issued the cheque without having sufficient funds in her account and the complainant followed the procedure under sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the complainant established his case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence under sec.138 of

Negotiable instruments Act and the accused is liable for punishment for the offence under sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Dictated to the Stenographer-Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 18th day of April,2017.

Sd/- G.Shanmukharao,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDL. I. CLASS MAGISTRATE,

BHIMAVARAM.

29. When I questioned about the quantum of sentence the accused reported that she has two children and her son suffering from ill health and her husband met with an accident. As per the records, the accused committed offence under sec.138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act issued cheque for Rs.85,000/-which a monitory offence.

Hence in the circumstances I am not inclined to invoke P.O.Act or section 360 Cr.PC.

Hence the accused is convicted under sec.255(2) Cr.PC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) in default of fine amount she shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under sec.138 of

Negotiable instruments Act. Accused is apprised her right of appeal and legal aid.

Accused supplied free copy of calender and Judgement.

Dictated to the Stenographer-Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 18th day of April,2017.

Sd/-G.Shanmukharao

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDL. I. CLASS MAGISTRATE,

BHIMAVARAM.

12

APPENDIX OF EVIDENDE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution :

P.W.1 :Ratnala Manohar Gopal(complainant), P.W.2:Kolla Veeranjaneyulu (scribe), P.W.3: Ratnala Venkata Rama Subbarayudu (attestor)

For Defence :

DW1 :Buraga Sundara Manikyam,

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1: Promissory note executed by accused dated 10-10-2014, Ex.P2: Cheque bearing number 284201 drawn on Andhra Bank issued by Rs.85,000 dated 9-2-2015, Ex.P3: pay-in-slip dt.27-2-2015, Ex.P4: Cheque return memo dated.28-2-2015, Ex.P5: Cheque return memo issued by Corporation Bank dated 28-2-2015, Ex.P6: pay-in-slip dated 4-4-2015, Ex.P7: cheque return memo issued by Andhra Bank,Kalla dt.6-4-2015, Ex.P8: cheque returned memo issued by Corporation Bank,Bhimavaram dt.6-4-2015, Ex.P9: Office copy of lawyer notice along with 2 postal receipts dt.18-2-2015, Ex.P10: Postal acknowledgment from the office address of accused, Ex.P11: postal acknowledgment.

For defence: Ex.D1: Token issued by Sri Ram Bankers dated 19-8-2012, Ex.D2: Token issued by Sri Ram Bankers dated 26-9-2012 Ex.D3: token issued by Sri Ram Bankers dated.5-12-2012.

.Id/-G.S.R P.J.C.J cum J.F.C.M BVRM. // True Copy//

J.F.C.M. cum Prl.Jr.Civil Judge, Bhimavaram.

13

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

(Under Section 363(1) Cr.P.C. and Rule 72 of Crl.Rules of Practice)

Received a copy of Calender and Judgment in C.C.No.129/2016 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Bhimavaram by the following accused who have been convicted for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act.

Buraga Sundara Manikyam W/o. Dande David, Female, age.28 years, II ANM, Medical Health Department, Government Hospital, Kalla, Kalla Mandal. Signature of accused

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

(Under Section 363(1) Cr.P.C. and Rule 72 of Crl.Rules of Practice)

Received a copy of Calender and Judgment in C.C.No.129/2016 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Bhimavaram by the following accused who have been convicted for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act.

Buraga Sundara Manikyam W/o. Dande David, Female, age.28 years, II ANM, Medical Health Department, 14

Government Hospital, Kalla, Kalla Mandal. Signature of accused

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

BHIMAVARAM

PRESENT:- Sri G.Shanmukharao,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

On Thursday, Thirteenth (13th ) of April, Two Thousand Seventeen(2017)

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 39/2016

Between:

Majji Satyanarayana ....... Plaintiff

And

Smt.Chavata Seethamahalakshmi ....... Defendant

This Suit is coming on 06-04-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Manikyalarao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri A.Sivajji Raju, advocate for the defendantand upon hearing and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed on the foot of a promissory note for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,28,800/- along with interest and costs.

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

The defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 02-7-2015 for her family expenses and for house mortgage and defendant executed a promissory note dated 2-7-2015 in favour of the plaintiff . agreeing to repay with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. On repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant postponed to repay the promissory note debt. The plaintiff issued a registered legal notice dt.5-9-2015 to the defendant to repay the promissory note debt. Defendant received the registered notice and kept quiet without making payment and sent reply notice dt.10-10-2015 with false allegations.

Defendant counsel asked the Xerox copy of promissory note. Plaintiff counsel sent the Xerox copy to the defendant on 3-12-2015. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendant made appearance filed written statement denying the plaint contents. She contends that she is aged about 80 years, she is not in a position to move to anywhere, the defendant does not know who is the plaintiff.

She never came across the face of the plaintiff, she has no necessity to borrow a huge amount from plaintiff and she never borrow any amount of Rs.2 lakhs from the plaintiff on 2-7-2015.

2

4. She further contends that she had two daughters namely Nelluri Lakshmi

Tayaru and Manchala Venkata Lakshmi Kumari and five sons. Defendant and her five sons are jointly partitioned their joint family properties and made a partition deed dt.26-3-2010 bearing number 1854/2010 before sub-Registrar Office,Palakol.

Defendant got A schedule land an extent of 22.6 sq.yards of the vacant site.

Defendant executed a settlement deed dt.4-9-2015 bearing number 4861/2015 in favour of her grand daughter Naraharisetti Chinnari, who is her elder daughter of

Lakshmi Tayaru. Lakshmi Tayaru as Naraharisetti Chinnari looking after the welfare of the defendant from the date of registration, Manchala Venkata Lakshmi Kumari bore grudge against the defendant by expecting some portion out of the extent 22.6 sq.yards.

5. The defendant further contends that this suit was filed by her 2nd daughter through this plaintiff and her husband Manchala Ratnarao who attested the alleged suit promissory note dt.2-7-2015 and created the suit promissory note with the help of Pasupuleti Ramanjaneyulu and Dande Richardson.

6. The defendant further contends that her surname is CHAVATAPALLI but not CHAVATA as shown in the promissory note. The defendant used to mention as her surname is CHAVATAPALLI but not CHAVATA. Plaintiff fabricated the suit promissory note and he has no capacity to pay the amount, plaintiff is not entitled for any relief, there is no cause of action, prays to dismiss the suit.

7. Basing on the pleadings and documents, the following issues are settled for trial.

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

2. To what relief?

8.On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 examined, Exs.A1 to A5 marked.

On behalf of defendant DWs 1 and 2 examined, Exs.B1 and B2 marked.

P.W.1 : Majji Satyanarayana, PW2: Manchala Ratnarao, PW3: Pasupuleti

Ramanjaneyulu, Ex.A1: promissory note dated 2-7-2015, Ex.A2: office copy of legal notice dated 5-9-2015, Ex.A3: served copy of reply notice dated 10-10-2015.

Ex.A4: Office copy of letter sent by plaintiff counsel along with Photostat copy of 3 promissory note to the counsel for defendant dt.3-12-2015, Ex.A5:postal receipt dt.3-12-2015.

DW1:Chavatapalli Seetharatnam, DW2: Naraharisetti Srinivasu, Ex.B1:

Registration extract of Regd.settlement deed executed in favour of Naraharisetti

Chinnari dated 4-9-2015, Ex.B2: Encumbrance certificate

9.Heard the counsel for plaintiff and counsel for defendant.

10.Counsel for defendant filed written arguments.

11. Issue No.1:

The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000 from the plaintiff on 2-7-2015 for her family expenses and also to discharge mortgage. The defendant totally denied the suit promissory note transaction. Thus, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish his case. To establish the plaintiff case, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1, he reiterated the plaint contents in his chief examination. According to PW1, defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 2-7-2015 from the plaintiff on agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

12. Manchala Ratna Rao stated to be attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note examined as PW2. According to him, the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff for her family necessities and also the mortgage in a house from the plaintiff and executed promissory note dt.02-07-2015 in favour of the plaintiff at Ajjamuru, Akividu agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24 % per annum and he attested promissory note along with Pasupuleti

Ramanjaneyulu.

13. Pasupuleti Ramanjaneyulu examined as PW3, he also deposed the same lines deposed by the PWs 1 and 2 with regard to defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff for her family necessities and also in mortgage and executed a promissory note on 2-7-2015. He attested the promissory note along with PW2 Ratna Rao.

14. The contention of the defendant is that, the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, her 2nd daughter by name Manchala Lakshmi Kumari filed this false case through the plaintiff and created the suit promissory note.

4

Further contends that she settled the land an extent of 22.6 sq.yards of vacant site in favour of her grand daughter Naraharisetti Chinnari as she is looking after the welfare of the defendant due to that grudge her 2nd daughter filed this false case through plaintiff. To prove her contention, the defendant herself examined as

DW1, she reiterated the same contents of the written statement in her evidence.

According to DW1 she has no necessity to borrow such huge amount, she never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff on 2-7-2015. Further she deposed that her joint family properties partitioned and she got an extent of 22.6 sq.yards of vacant site, she executed a settlement deed dt.4-9-2015 bearing number 4861/2015 due to that grudge her 2nd daughter Lakshmi Kumari filed this case through the plaintiff.

Ex.B1 is the certified copy of settlement deed dt.4-9-2015, Ex.B2 is the

Encumbrance certificate. On perusal of Ex.B1 document stands in the name of

Naraharisetti Chinnari aged about 30 years executed by defendant on 4-9-2015. On perusal of Ex.B2 is Encumbrance Certificate showing that on 25-5-2010, the defendant mortgaged the vacant site an extent of 22.6 sq.yards. Thus it is clear that the defendant mortgaged the property.

15. According to PWs 1 to 3,defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff for her family necessities and also for mortgaged the properties. The transaction taken place on 2-7-2015. Ex.B1 was executed on 4-9-2015 i.e., subsequent to the Ex.A1 promissory note. During cross-examination

PW1 deposed that by the time defendant asked him over phone he has only

Rs.50,000/- after one month at request of defendant he lent amount to defendant.

At the time of transaction four persons were present. During the cross-examination of PW2 nothing was elicited in favour of defendant. During cross-examination PW3 deposed that the transaction taken place in the house of plaintiff at Ajjamuru. He signed on the promissory note about six months back. Himself defendant,

Manchala Ratnarao and scribe were present at the time of Ex.A1 transaction took place. Thus, the cross-examination of PW3 it was also elicited that the transaction taken place in between plaintiff and defendant. The defendant no where denied her thumb mark on the Ex.A1 promissory note. Ex.A2 is the office copy of lawyer notice, Ex.A3is the reply given by the defendant’s counsel. Ex.A4 is the letter issued 5 by the plaintiff’s counsel. Ex.A5 is the postal receipt. The defendant did not take any steps on execution of Ex.A1 promissory note. Ddefendant contends that her surname as CHAVATAPALLI but not CHAVATA but she did not produce any material about her contention. It shows it does not effect the case of plaintiff. The defendant examined Naraharisetti Srinivasarao as DW2, according to him Naraharisetti

Chinnari is his wife. The defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed this false case against defendant due to grudge as defendant executed a settlement deed on 4-9-2015 in favour of the Chinnari for an extent of 22.6 sq.yards .

16. During the cross-examination, he deposed that the defendant mortgaged her property tone Bonam Swathi. He did not file any document to show that he discharged the mortgage debt. According to DW1 after the death of Bonam Prasad she got obtained the release deed from Bonam Prasad wife Bonam Jyothi and that husband of her grand daughter discharged the mortgage debt. But DW2 categorically deposed that he has not file any document to show that he discharged the mortgage debt and his evidence is silent about his discharge of mortgage. Thus,

DWs 1 and 2 deposed different versions about who discharged the mortgage debt.

17. On the other hand, on 4-9-2015 the settlement deed was executed in favour of the Venkata Lakshmi Kumari by the defendant and defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 2-7-2015 for her family expenses and also mortgage. All these circumstances, it is clearly showing that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 2-7-2015. The defendant did not take any steps to show that she never executed Ex.A1 promissory note. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 coupled with Exs.A1 to A5 it is clearly established that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-from the plaintiff on 2-7-2015 and executed a promissory note under Ex.A1. The defendant failed to discharge her burden to prove her contention by adducing cogent corroborated evidence. The plaintiff could established his case that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 2-7-2015 and executed

Ex.A1 promissory note. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff.

6

18. Issue No.2: In view of the findings of the Issue No.1, this suit is liable to be decreed for an amount of Rs.2,28,800/- with costs in favour of plaintiff against defendant and subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.

19. In the result the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.2,28,800/- in favour of the plaintiff against defendant and subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.

Dictated my dictation to the Stenographer-Grade-III, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 13th day of April,2017.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHIMAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF

P.W.1 : Majji Satyanarayana, P.W.2 : Manchala Ratnarao, P.W.3 : Pasupuleti Ramanjaneyulu,

FOR DEFENDANT:

D.W.1:Chavatapalli Seetharatnam, D.W.2: Naraharisetti Srinivasu,

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1: Promissory note dated 2-7-2015. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dated 5-9-2015 Ex.A3: Served copy of reply notice dated 10-10-2015 Ex.A4: 3-12-2015 Office copy of letter sent by plaintiff counsel along Photostat copy of promissory note to the counsel for defendant. Ex.A5: Postal receipt dated.3-12-2015

FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.B1: Dt.4-9-2015 Registration extract of Regd.settlement deed executed in favour of Naraharisetti Chinnari, Ex.B2: Encumbrance certificate

P.J.C.J/BVRM.

7

Plaint presented on : 09-2-2016 Plaint filed on : 10-2-2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

BHIMAVARAM

PRESENT:- Sri G.Shanmukharao,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

On Thursday, Thirteenth (13th ) of April, Two Thousand Seventeen(2017)

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 39/2016

Between: Majji Satyanarayana, S/o. Appala Swamy, Hindu, Age.53 years,

Business, residing at Ajjamuru, Akividu, Akividu Mandal ....... Plaintiff

And

Smt.Chavata Seethamahalakshmi, W/o. Narasimha Rao, Hindu, Age.59 years, House-wife, residing at Ajjamuru, Akividu ,

Akividu Mandal ....... Defendant

This is a suit filed on the foot of a promissory note for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,28,800/- along with interest and costs.

VALUATION OF THE SUIT:-

Principle amount of the promissory note Rs.2,00,000-00 dated.02.07.2015

Interest on the said Rs.2,00,000/- from Rs. 28,800-00 02.07.2015 to 8.2.2016 at 24% p.a.

Total amount Rs. 2,28,800-00

Which is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, on which a court fee of Rs.4726/- paid by the plaintiff under sec.20, r/w sch 1,

Art.1(b)(c) of APCF and SV Act.1956. CAUSE OF ACTION:-

The cause of action for the suit arose on 02-07-2015, when the defendant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- and executed a promissory note; on 5-9-2015 when the plaintiff got issued regd. Lawyer notice to the defendant; and the defendant received the said notice and sent reply notice dated 10-10-2015 with false allegations; and from day to day where the defendant postponed the same; and at

Ajjamuru, Akividu Mandal, where the said promissory note transaction took place, where the said promissory note was executed and where the parties residing at

Ajjamuru, Akividu Mandal within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

This Suit is coming on 06-04-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Manikyalarao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri A.Sivajji Raju, 8 advocate for the defendantand upon hearing and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows :

i)that the Suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.2,28,800.00 in favour of the plaintiff against defendant and subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of decree till the date of realization.

ii) that the defendant also do pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.13,472/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and Seal of the Court, this the 13th day of April,2017.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHIMAVARAM.

MEMO OF COSTS

(Costs allowed)

FOR PLAINTIFF FORDEFENDANT

No costs memo filed

1) Stamps on Vakalat -- 2-00

2) Plaint fee -- 4726-00

3) Petition stamp -- 4-00

3) Stamps on Process -- 200-00

5) Advocate’s Fee -- 8540-00 ------------------ Total : 13,472-00 ------------------

P.J.C.J. BVRM.

Note: The parties should apply, as soon as possible, for return of all exhibits which they wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHIMAVARAM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: WEST GODAVARI C.C.NO.240/2015 DATES OF Offence Filing Appearance Released Commencement Closure of Sentence On bail of trial trial of order 2-8-14 15-9-14 5-1-16 5-8-14 22-7-16 12-4-17 19-4-2017

Explanation for delay: Summons to witnesses not served in time.

Between

State: Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Akividu P.S. … Complainant.

AND

Akula Nageswararao, S/o. Subbarao, Age.37 years, Petakalidindi village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District. Driver of lorry bearing NO.AP 16TU 0272 …. Accused.

Crime No. 124/2014 of Akividu PS

OFFENCE :- Sec.304-A of IPC

FINDING :- Accused is not Found Guilty.

SENTENCE :- In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence under section 304-A of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused, if any shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over.

Sd/- Sri G.Shanmukharao

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Ist Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, W.G.Eluru.

// True copy//

Principal Junior Civil Judge cum J.F.C.M.

Bhimavaram 2

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

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:: BHIMAVARAM.

PRESENT: Sri G.Shanmukharao,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum

Judicial I Class Magistrate.

On Wednesday, Nineteenth (19th) day of April, Two thousand Seventeen(2017)

C.C NO.240/2015

Original C.C.No.952/2014 of II AJFCMC,BVRM.

Between:

State: Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Akividu P.S.. … Complainant. AND

Akula Nageswararao, S/o. Subbarao, Age.37 years, Petakalidindi village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District. Driver of lorry bearing NO.AP 16TU 0272 …. Accused.

This case is coming on 12-04-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri K.V.Ramesh, Advocate for accused upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case is originally numbered as C.C.952/2014 on the file of II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram and transferred the

same to this Court as per the orders of the Hon’ble District Court, West

Godavari, Eluru in Dis.No.2709 dated 17.04.2014 and renumbered as

C.C.No.240/2015.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Akividu I Town P.S., filed charge sheet in Cr.124/2014 under Secs.304-A of IPC.

3. The contents of the charge sheet in brief are as follows:

On 2-8-2014 at 10.30 pm, the driver of the lorry bearing number AP 16 TU 0272 drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and dashed Bajaj pulsar Motor cycle No.AP 37 UN T/R 3810 of Mekala

Sai from opposite direction at Canara Bank,NH 216 and caused injuries on broken Head injury, and caused his instantaneous death. PW9 received complaint registered as the crime Number.124/2014 under sec.304-A IPC, 3 examined 8 witnesses and examined scene of offence drafted scene observation report, prepared rough sketch of scene, held inquest over the dead body of deceased and send the dead body to post mortem examination. PW8 inspected the crime vehicle issued report opined that accident occurred is not due to any mechanical defect. PW7 issued post mortem certificate opined that the deceased died due to severe hemorrhage due to injury to the brain. PW9 arrested the accused on 4-8-2014. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed.

4. This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under Section.304-A of IPC. The accused after receipt of summons appeared before this Court and copies furnished to him as required under sec.207 Cr.P.C. He was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. and the charge sheet contents read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for the offence under sec.304-A of IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 9 examined and Exs.P1 to P13 are marked.

P.W.1 :Mekala Satyanarayana, P.W.2: Garadi Srinivasarao, P.W.3: Nakka

Durga Rao, P.W.4: Dantamala Filoman, P.W.5: Naraharisetti Manikyala rao,

P.W.6: Kalidindi Raghava Murthy Raju, P.W.7:K.Viswanadharaju, P.W.8:

V.S.Janaki Ramam, P.W.9: R.M.V.Purushotham .

Ex.P1. Signature of PW1, Ex.P2: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1, Ex.P3: 161

Cr.PC statement of PW2, Ex.P4: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW3, Ex.P5: 161

Cr.PC statement of PW4, Ex.P6: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW6, Ex.P7:

Inquest report, Ex.P8: PM Report, Ex.P9: MVI report, Ex.P10: report of PW9,

Ex.P11:FIR, Ex.P12:rough sketch, Ex.P13: 6 positive photos along with CD.

6. After completion of prosecution witnesses, accused was examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C. denied the incriminating evidence, reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence side evidence was closed.

Heard on both sides.

4

7. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, for the offence punishable under Secs.304-A

IPC?

Point :

8. M.Satyanarayana stated to be defacto-complainant examined as

PW1. According to him, he do not know the accused, he never saw the accused. The deceased is 3rd son died on 2-8-2014 in an accident. After knowing the occurrence he collapsed and attended the final absequies. He did not present any report to police, police obtained his signature and he do not know the contents. During cross-examination by APP he denied the 161

Cr.PC statements marked as Ex.P2. Thus, PW1 being the father of the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution turned hostile and he did not witnessed the occurrence. G.Srinivasarao, N.Durgarao, D.Filoman stated to be eye witnesses to the occurrence examined as PWs 2 to 4. They categorically deposed that at that time they were not present at the scene of offence. After knowing the occurrence only they went to scene of offence.

PW2 deposed that he went to the spot and saw the lorry, he saw the accused at the spot. Thus PWs 2 to 4 did not witnessed the occurrence and turned hostile. They did not support the case of the prosecution.

9. During the cross-examination by APP they denied their 161 Cr.PC statements marked as Exs.P3 to P5 respectively. According to PW2 he saw the accused at the spot but he did not witnessed about the driving of the accused. N.Manikyalarao, owner of the vehicle examined as PW5. According to him about 1 ½ year back his lorry met with an accident. Accused was driver of the lorry at the time of accident at Akividu and he went to police station, accused was already in the police station, he handed over the crime record to the police and also driving license of accused.

5

10. During the cross-examination by accused counsel he deposed that except oral testimony, there is no documentary proof to show that accused is driver of lorry. On the other hand PW1 did not witnessed the occurrence.

As already stated PWs 2 to 4 did not support the case of the prosecution, turned hostile and they did not witnessed the occurrence. PW5 also not a direct witness to the occurrence. Thus the evidence of PW5 also no way helpful to the case of the prosecution to show the rash and negligent driving of the accused.

11. K.Raghava Murthy Raju examined as PW6. According to him on 3- 8-2014 at 7 AM at request of the police, he drafted the scene observation report situated at opposite to Canara Bank,Akividu. Ex.P6 is the scene observation report and also he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of deceased. Ex.P7 is the inquest report. Thus the evidence of

PW6 only with regard to the scene observation report and also inquest report.

12. PW7 is the medical officer, who conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 3-8-2014 and found three external injuries and one internal injury. The cause of death is due to severe hemorrhage due to the injury to the brain. He issued Ex.P8 Post mortem report. Thus the evidence of PWs 6 and 7 coupled with Exs.P7 and

P8 showing the death of the deceased. But there is no evidence of rash and negligent driving of the accused.

13. PW8 is the Motor Vehicle inspector who conducted the inspection over crime vehicle bearing No.AP 16TU 0272 on the same day in the presence of Akividu Police and found no more damages. He opined that accident is not due to any mechanical defects and issued Ex.P9 Motor

Vehicle Inspector’s report. Thus his evidence is only with regard to 6 inspecting of the crime vehicles. On scrutinizing the evidence of PWs 1 to 8, there is no evidence against the accused to show that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

14. PW9, Investigation Officer, his evidence is going to show that on 2-8-2014,PW1 came to the police station, present the report, he registered the crime number 124/2014 under sec.304-A of IPC. He visited the scene of offence situated at opposite to Canara Bank, Akividu, he shifted the dead body and held inquest over the dead body of deceased Mekala Sai, secured 8 witnesses, recording their statements, went to scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and also scene observation report. On 4-8-2014 he arrested the accused. Ex.P10 is the report of PW1, Ex.P11 is the FIR, Ex.P12 is the rough sketch, Ex.P13 is the photos. On perused the Ex.P12 rough sketch it was showing that on the left side of the road, the occurrence taken place.

According to Ex.P10 rough sketch, the deceased coming from Kaikaluru and accused was coming from Bhimavaram. But the occurrence taken place on the left side of the road. But there is no evidence against the accused to show that he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. All the eye witnesses turned hostile. The evidence of PW9 showing with regard to registration of crime, visiting of scene of offence and examined the witnesses.

15. During the cross-examination, PW1 deposed that he entered the compromise with accused. On the other hand, there is no direct evidence to show rash and negligent driving. In the absence of cogent, corroborative and trustworthy evidence, about the identity, rash and negligent driving the evidence of PW9 being the investigation officer alone is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

7

16. In the above stated circumstances and reasons, the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients for the offence under sec.304-A of IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly point is answered.

17. In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence under section 304-A of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255 (1)

Cr.P.C for the offence under sec.304-A IPC. The bail bonds of accused, if any shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer-Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court this the 19th day of April,2017.

Sd/- Sri G.Shanmukharao

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDL. I. CLASS MAGISTRATE,

BHIMAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENDE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution : For Defence : P.W.1 :Mekala Satyanarayana, Nil P.W.2: Garadi Srinivasarao, P.W.3: Nakka Durga Rao, P.W.4: Dantamala Filoman, P.W.5: Naraharisetti Manikyala rao, P.W.6: Kalidindi Raghava Murthy Raju, P.W.7:K.Viswanadharaju, P.W.8: V.S.Janaki Ramam, P.W.9: R.M.V.Purushotham .

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Defence : Ex.P1. Signature of PW1, Ex.P2: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1, NIL Ex.P3: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW2, Ex.P4: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW3, Ex.P5: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW4, Ex.P6: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW6, Ex.P7: Inquest report, Ex.P8: PM Report, Ex.P9: MVI report, Ex.P10: report of PW9, Ex.P11:FIR, Ex.P12:rough sketch, Ex.P13: 6 positive photos along with CD. Id/-Sri G.S.R P.J.C.J / BVRM.

// True copy// 8

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

(Under Section 363(1) Cr.P.C. and Rule 72 of Crl.Rules of Practice)

Received a copy of Calender and Judgment in C.C.No.113/2015 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge’sCourt, Bhimavaram by the following accused who have

been convicted for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act.

Accused

Yalla Hima Chandu, S/o. Ramu, Age.25 years, Thetali village,Tanuku Mandal, Driver of Lorry bearing No.AP16U7782

Signature of the accused

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHIMAVARAM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: WEST GODAVARI C.C.NO.218/2015 DATES OF Offence Filing Appearance Released Commencement Closure of Sentence On bail of trial trial of order 13-8-14 7-9-14 2-11-2015 16-8-2014 24-6-16 07-4-2017 12-4-2017

Explanation for delay: Summons to witnesses not served in time.

Between

State: Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Palakoderu P.S. … Complainant.

AND

Kimidi Sathibabu, S/o. Rajababu, Age.29 years, Lovakrishnapuram, V.Madugula Mandal, Visakhapatnam District Driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 3151 Rajahmundry Depot …. Accused.

Crime No. 127/2014 of Palakoderu PS

OFFENCE :- Secs.279 of IPC

FINDING :- Accused is not Found Guilty.

SENTENCE :- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 279 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused, if any shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over.

Sd/-Sri G.Shanmukharao

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Ist Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, W.G.Eluru.

//True copy//

Principal Junior Civil Judge cum J.F.C.M

Bhimavaram 2

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

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:: BHIMAVARAM.

PRESENT: Sri G.Shanmukharao,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum

Judicial I Class Magistrate.

On Wednesday, Twelth (12th) day of April, Two thousand Seventeen(2017)

C.C NO.218/2015

Original C.C.No.846/2014 of II AJFCMC,BVRM.

Between:

State: Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Palakoderu P.S.. … Complainant. AND

Kimidi Sathibabu, S/o. Rajababu, Age.29 years, Lovakrishnapuram, V.Madugula Mandal, Visakhapatnam District Driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 3151 Rajahmundry Depot …. Accused.

This case is coming on 07-04-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri V.Srinivasarao, Advocate for accused upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case is originally numbered as C.C.846/2014 on the file of II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram and transferred the

same to this Court as per the orders of the Hon’ble District Court, West

Godavari, Eluru in Dis.No.2709 dated 17.04.2014 and renumbered as

C.C.No.218/2015.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Palakoderu I Town P.S., filed charge sheet in Cr.127/2014 under Secs.279 of IPC.

3. The contents of the charge sheet in brief are as follows:

On 13-8-2014 at 20.45 pm at Railway gate, Srungavruksham of

Palakoderu, the driver of RTC bus number AP 28 Z 3151 Kimidi Sathibabu stopped his bus across to the traffic, when railway gate closed, when railway gate opened, the accused drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner to cause harm to the human to gave side to opposite vehicles and dashed the car Number AP 09 CE 1569 and caused damages to rear side wheel and rear 3 side door, and escaping without stopped the vehicle, for which PW1

P.S.N.Raju telephoned to 100. LW6 received complaint registered the same as a case in Cr.No.127/2014 under sec.279 of IPC, examined the five witnesses, visited the scene of offence and prepared the rough sketch. LW6 arrested the accused on 16-8-2014. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

4. This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under Sections.279 of IPC. The accused after receipt of summons appeared

before this Court and copies furnished to him as required under sec.207

Cr.P.C. He was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. and the charge sheet contents read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for the offence under sec.279 of IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 3 examined and Exs.P1 to P3 are marked.

P.W.1 : Pinnama Raju Satyanarayana Raju, P.W2 : Aabothu Tatha Rao ;

P.W.3: Chintam Gangadhar Suresh Kumar

Ex.P.1 : Report of PW1 ; Ex.P2: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW2;

Ex.P3 :161 Cr.PC statement of PW3

6. Upon closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., about incriminating evidence appeared against him from prosecution side witnesses and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence side evidence is closed.

7. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, for the offence punishable under Secs.279 IPC?

8. Heard the Asst. Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the defence.

9. Learned Asst.Public prosecutor for the State argued that PW1 supported the case of the prosecution, accused caused the damages, the prosecution established the essential ingredients and prays to convict the accused.

4

10. Learned counsel for accused argued that the accused did not commit any offence, there is no negligence on the part of the accused, PW1 himself caused the damage his vehicle, there is no material against the accused, the other witnesses turned hostile, investigation officer is also not examined by the prosecution, prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients and prays to acquit the accused.

Point :

11. The case of the prosecution is that the accused being the driver of the RTC bus and drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, caused damage to the PW1’s car.

12. P.Satyanarayana Raju stated to be defacto-complainant examined as PW1. According to him on 13-8-2014 at 9 PM while he was going from

Palakol to Bhimavaram on his car bearing number AP9 CE 1569 along with

Seetha Rama Raju and reached near railway gate, Srungavruksham as it was closed, he stopped his vehicle. There are vehicles in-front of his vehicle and also on his back. Suddenly the crime vehicle RTC bus by overtaking 30 to 40 vehicles came near his vehicle. By that time gate was opened and lorry was coming to his opposite direction.

13. Further he deposed that the driver of the bus suddenly turn the vehicle towards his car out of fear they raised cries to stop the bus but the crime vehicle came near his car and pushed the back door and the entire right side was totally damaged and not in a position to move that place.

After the bus was removed to back side his car was moved. The bus number is 3151, he can identify the driver of the bus, he sustained the damage a tune of Rs.4 to 5 lakhs and accused tried to escape from that place. He presented Ex.P1 report.

5

14. On perusal of Ex.P1 report, he mentioned that the bus dashed the car from his back side and damaged car and he got telephoned to 100 and the bus number is AP28 Z 3151 and driver name is Kimidi Sathibabu.

According to PW1, he sustained the damage of a tune of Rs.4 to 5 lakhs but in his Ex.P1 report no-where mentioned about the quantum of damages.

During the cross-examination, he deposed that he did not state the quantum of damage. Thus on perusal of the evidence of PW1 and Ex.P1 report, it is clear that there is no material to show about the quantum of damages.

According to PW1, the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Tatarao, G.Suresh Kumar stated to be eye witnesses to the occurrence examined as PWs 2 and 3. They categorically deposed that they do not know anything about this case and do not know about the accused and do not know about the facts of this case.

15. During the cross-examination by APP they denied their161 Cr.PC statements marked as Exs.P2 and P3 respectively. Thus PW2 and PW3 being the eye witnesses to the occurrence did not support the case of the prosecution, turned hostile. Thus on perusal of the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, there is no material about the damage of the PW1’s Car. According to PW1 the occurrence was taken place at the railway gate while the gate was opening and vehicles are moving. Thus, it clear that there is no evidence to show that accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. LW2

Samanthapudi Seetha Rama Raju stated to be eye witness to the occurrence, LW3 Illa Sundara Anjaneya Kumar stated to be eye witness to the occurrence. But the prosecution could not produce the evidence of LWs 2 and 3. Accordingly their evidence was closed. Prosecution also could not produce the evidence of LW6 investigation Officer.

16. On the other hand, PWs 2 and 3 did not support the case of the prosecution, turned hostile. The evidence of PW1 is not corroborated by any 6 other witnesses. There is no material to show about the damages of the

PW1’s car. The investigating officer also did not collect any material to show about the damages of PW1’s car. Except sole testimony of PW1, there is no evidence against the accused to show the accused committed offence and

PW1 evidence was not corroborated by any independent and cogent evidence. In the above stated reasons, the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients for the offence under sec.279 of IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, accordingly the point is answered against the prosecution.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 279 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255 (1)

Cr.P.C for the offence under sec.279 IPC. The bail bonds of accused, if any shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer-Grade-III, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 12th day of April,2017.

Sd/- Sri G.Shanmukharao

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDL. I. CLASS MAGISTRATE,

BHIMAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENDE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution : For Defence : Nil P.W.1 : Pinnama Raju Satyanarayana Raju P.W2 : Aabothu Tatha Rao P.W.3: Chintam Gangadhar Suresh Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Defence : Ex.P.1 : Statement of PW1 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW2 nil Ex.P3 :161 Cr.PC statement of PW3 Id/- G.S.R P.J.C.J / BVRM. //True copy//

Principal Junior Civil Judge cum J.F.C.M

Bhimavaram 7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

(Under Section 363(1) Cr.P.C. and Rule 72 of Crl.Rules of Practice)

Received a copy of Calender and Judgment in C.C.No.113/2015 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge’sCourt, Bhimavaram by the following accused who have

been convicted for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act.

Accused

Yalla Hima Chandu, S/o. Ramu, Age.25 years, Thetali village,Tanuku Mandal, Driver of Lorry bearing No.AP16U7782

Signature of the accused