Sri G. Shiva Prasad Yadav

II AJFCM, TPT.1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: TIRUPATI.

Present:- Sri G. Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

Thursday, the Thirtieth (30th) day of January, 2020.

C. C. No. 417 / 2019.

Between:

State represented by Sub – Inspector of Police, East P.S., Tirupati. (Cr.No.406/2019) … Complainant.

And

A-1. Mamillapalli Rangamma @ Chinni, Age: 32 years W/o M.Srinivasulu D.No.6-429, Aazad Nagar, Kalyanadurgam road, Ananthapuramu. Occ: Hotel Business.

A-2.Dabbara Rajesh, Age: 37 years, S/o D.Chandramouli, D.No.11-324, Aravinda Nagar, Ananthapuramu. Occ: Water plant business. A-3.Pothuri Omprakash, Age: 30 years, S/o P. Yerriswamy, D.No.2-32, near Saibaba temple, Kuderu Village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu district. Occ: Driver.

A-4.Chakali Srinivasulu, Age: 35 years, S/o C.Yerikulaiah, D.No.28-1-573, Buddappa Nagar, Ananthapuramu.

... Accused.

This case is presented before me on 27-01-2020 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri I.Ramesh, Learned Counsel for Accused, upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

II AJFCM, TPT.2

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

1)Sub-Inspector of Police, East P.S., Tirupati, filed charge sheet in Cr.No.406/2019 u/s 384, 420 r/w 34 IPC.

2)The prosecution case in brief is that, PW1 was working as Mazdoor in TTD Forest Department, on 07.07.2019 while he was on duty at Tirumala, one Chinni i.e., accused No.1 introduced to him, moved closely, after having darshan, she went to Ananthapuram by obtaining his mobile number and after that, on 15.08.2019, she contacted and stated she likes him and asked him to book room, accordingly on 16.08.2019, he booked room No.204 in Kola residency on his name, she arrived to the room by 11.30 am, on the same day while he was talking with her in the room, the accused Nos.2 to 4 knocked the door, entered into the room and accused No.1 introduced them to PW1 as her relatives and they got photographed both PW1 and accused No.1 and later accused demanded PW1 Rs.5,00,000/-, otherwise they will show the photographs to the relatives of PW1 and damaged reputation, accordingly PW1 adjusted Rs.5,00,000/- and gave to them.

Accused collected cash, cheated PW1 by using accused No.1 and threatened, escaped with cash and after that also, they had been threatening PW1, demanding amount, otherwise they would damage his reputation.

Then PW1 lodged report, on which, present FIR in

Cr.No.406/2019 u/s 384, 420 r/w 34 IPC was registered by PW6 and in the course of investigation, he examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch, on 01.09.2019, he received information

II AJFCM, TPT.3 about the presence of accused at TMR junction, Tirupati, collected mediators, proceeded to the place where they found the accused, then they were caught, enquired, accused admitted the offence, then he seized total cash of Rs.5,00,000/- from the possession of accused and drafted mahazarnama and arrested them and produced before this court for remand and completed investigation and laid charge sheet.

3)This case was taken on file of the offences punishable u/s 384 and 420 of IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 4 and issued summons.

4)On appearance of accused Nos.1 to 4, the copies of documents, on which, the prosecution intends to rely upon, were furnished, in terms of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5)My Learned Predecessor has examined the accused Nos.1 to 4 u/s 239 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the contents of charge sheet, to which, they denied. Charge u/s 384 r/w 34 of IPC and u/s 420 r/w 34 of IPC, have been framed and explained the same in the language of Telugu. Having understood the same, accused Nos.1 to 4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6)In order to prove the case, the prosecution listed seven witnesses. Among them, prosecution examined six witnesses as PWs 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15.

7)After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused A1 to

A4 are examined u/s 313 of Cr.P.C, by explaining incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Having understood the same, accused Nos.1 to 4 denied the same as false and reported no defense evidence.

II AJFCM, TPT.4

8)Heard oral arguments on both sides and perused the record.

9)Now, the point for determination is:

1) Whether the prosecution brought home

the guilty of accused Nos.1 to 4 of an

offence punishable u/s 384 r/w 34 of IPC,

beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the prosecution brought home

the guilty of accused Nos.1 to 4 of an

offence punishable u/s 420 r/w 34 of IPC,

beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT NO.1 and 2:-

10)PW1 is de-facto complainant who was cheated by accused and collected cash of Rs.5,00,000/- by threatening.

PWs 2 and 3 are witnesses who supporting the case of prosecution. PWs 4 and 5 are mahazar witnesses. PW6 is

Investigating Officer. PW1 deposed, on 16.08.2019 in between 09.00 AM to 10.00 AM, he went to APSRTC bus stand with money of Rs.5,00,000/-, while he was waiting for Pileru bus, by that time, someone had committed theft of his cash of

Rs.5,00,000/-, he searched for the same in and around said locality but in vain and then he lodged report. Police obtained signature on blank white paper. He was cross examined by learned APP by treating him as hostile and nothing could be elicited to dispute his version.

11)PW2 has deposed he was working as Manager in Hotel

Kola Grand, he does not know PW1 and does not know case facts. PW3 deposed he was running a lodge in the name and style of Kola Grand and he does not know case facts. Learned

APP treated them as hostile and cross examined, nothing could be elicited to disprove their versions. PW4 has deposed about

II AJFCM, TPT.5 two months ago, on one day at about 5.00 pm, while he was present near TMC junction, he noticed a group of people and

Sub-Inspector of Police called him and obtained his signature on some written papers and he does not know contents of the paper and identified his signature in mahazarnama, dated 01.09.2019, his signature was marked as Ex.P6 to Ex.P8. In the cross-examination by learned APP, he denied about his witnessing confession statement of accused and seizure of cash. PW5 also deposed on the same lines of PW4. PW6 deposed, he was Sub-Inspector of Police, East Police Station,

Tirupati, he took complaint from PW1 on 31.08.2019, registered a case under Ex.P13 and made investigation by examining witnesses and also he stated about arresting accused in the presence of mediators.

12)The prosecution case in brief is that, PW1 was working as

Mazdoor in TTD Forest Department, on 07.07.2019 while he was on duty at Tirumala, accused No.1 introduced to him, moved closely, after having darshan, she went to

Ananthapuram by obtaining his mobile number and after that, on 15.08.2019, she contacted and stated she likes him and asked him to book room, accordingly on 16.08.2019, he booked room No.204 in Kola residency on his name, she arrived to the room by 11.30 am, on the same day while he was talking with her in the room, the accused Nos.2 to 4 knocked the door, entered into the room and accused No.1 introduced them to

PW1 as her relatives and they got photographed both PW1 and accused No.1 and later accused demanded PW1 Rs.5,00,000/-, otherwise they will show the photographs to the relatives of

II AJFCM, TPT.6

PW1 and damaged reputation.

13)But, in the evidence, PW1 deposed he lost cash of

Rs.5,00,000/- in a theft while he was waiting for Pileru bus on 16.08.2019 and further PWs 2 and 3 also stated they did not know anything about the case facts. Now, the prosecution case is that the accused was arrested on 01.09.2019 and accused confessed that they committed offence by collecting cash of

Rs.5,00,000/- from PW1 by threatening and by using accused

No.1 and a mahazarnama was also drafted to that effect under

Ex.P15 and the same was witnessed by PWs 4 and 5.

14)But coming to the evidence of PWs 4 and 5, they did not support the prosecution version and they simply stated they signed in Police Station and they did not say that they are witnesses of arresting the accused and seizure of cash. Now, the evidence of PW6 is only on record and he stated about the entire case facts, but except his evidence, there is nothing evidence on record to corroborate his evidence and further, he is interested witness to the prosecution and it is not safe to go against the accused only on the basis of evidence of PW6 and further PW1 himself denied recitals of his complaint and himself stated before the court on Oath that somebody committed theft of his cash of Rs.5,00,000/-, but as per prosecution case, accused threatened and collected

Rs.5,00,000/- from him. So, even according to evidence of PW1, the prosecution did not prove the recitals of complaint and seizure of cash from the accused and overall in the aforesaid reasons, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

II AJFCM, TPT.7

15) In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and aforesaid discussion, it is held that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 4 of an offence punishable u/s 384 r/w 34 of IPC and u/s 420 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, point No.1 and 2 are answered.

16)In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 384 r/w 34 of IPC and

U/s 420 r/w 34 of IPC, and thereby, they are acquitted in terms of Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 4 shall stand canceled after expiry of six (6) months in view of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Unmarked case property i.e., cash of Rs.5,00,000/- entered in C.P.R.No.95/2019 was already returned to the de- facto complainant P.Subbaiah (PW1) as per orders of this Court in Crl.M.P.No.4348/2019, dated 12.09.2019, shall be made absolute after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of January, 2020.

Sd/- G. Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the

Prosecution: Defense:

PW1:P. Subbaiah.None PW2:L. Govindaraju. PW3:K.C. Reddeppa. PW4:V. Saikumar Naidu. PW5:K. Padmanabham. PW6:S. Jayachandra (I.O.)

II AJFCM, TPT.8

Exhibits marked on behalf of the

Prosecution: Ex.P1:Signature of PW1 on report, dt.31.08.2019. Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P3: Bond pertaining to return of property towards interim custody. Ex.P4:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.P5:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P6 toSignatures of PW4 on Mahazarnama, dt.01.09.2019 at P8:11.00 am. Ex.P9 toSignatures of PW5 on Mahazarnama, dt.01.09.2019 at P11:11.00 am. Ex.P12:Report. Ex.P13:FIR. Ex.P14:Rough sketch. Ex.P15:Mahazarnama.

Material objects:

Nil.

Sd/- G. Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

II AJFCM, TPT.9

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: TIRUPATI.

Calender as per Rule 67 Crl.R.P.

Present:- Sri G.Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati.

Thursday, the Thirtieth (30th) day of January, 2020.

C. C. No. 417 / 2019.

Calender Case No:417 of 2019. Name of the Police Station and : State represented by Crime Number of offenceSub – Inspector of Police, East P.S., Tirupati. (Cr.No.406/2019)

Description of Accused: A-1. Mamillapalli Rangamma @ Chinni, Age: 32 years W/o M.Srinivasulu D.No.6-429, Aazad Nagar, Kalyanadurgam road, Ananthapuramu. Occ: Hotel Business.

A-2.Dabbara Rajesh, Age: 37 years, S/o D.Chandramouli, D.No.11-324, Aravinda Nagar, Ananthapuramu. Occ: Water plant business. A-3.Pothuri Omprakash, Age: 30 years, S/o P. Yerriswamy, D.No.2-32, near Saibaba temple, Kuderu Village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu district. Occ: Driver.

A-4.Chakali Srinivasulu, Age: 35 years, S/o C.Yerikulaiah, D.No.28-1-573, Buddappa Nagar, Ananthapuramu.

Date of Occurrence16.08.2019. Date of Complaint31.08.2019. Date of taken on File18.09.2019. Date of Apprehension01.09.2019. Release on bail04.09.2019. Commencement of Trial26.11.2019. Closure of Trial31.12.2019. Date of sentence or Order30.01.2020.

II AJFCM, TPT.10

Explanation for Delay: Due to non production of witnesses.

U/Sec.384, 420 r/w 34 IPC – Punishment for extortion; Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of Nature of offence property.

Found not guilty. Finding of the court

Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 384 r/w 34 of IPC and U/s 420 r/w 34 of IPC, and thereby, they are acquitted in terms of Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 4 shall stand canceled after expiry of six (6) months in view of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Unmarked case property i.e., cash of Rs.5,00,000/- entered in

C.P.R.No.95/2019 was already returned to the de-facto complainant P.Subbaiah (PW1) as per orders of this Court in Crl.M.P.No.4348/2019, dated 12.09.2019, shall be made absolute after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/- G. Shiva Prasad Yadv,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

II AJFCM, TPT.1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: TIRUPATI.

Present:- Sri G. Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

Thursday, the Thirtieth (30th) day of January, 2020.

C. C. No. 362 / 2019.

Between:

State represented by Sub – Inspector of Police, East P.S., Tirupati. (Cr.No.379/2019) … Complainant.

And

Goddeti Anil Kumar, Age: 48 years, S/o G. Raju, N/o D.No.21, Stalivation Church Street, Bogolu Bitragunta Village, Chamadula post, Kavali Mandal, Nellore District, Now at near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, 1st Street, Tarakarama Nagar, Karakambadi, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District. Occ: Car Driver.

... Accused.

This case is presented before me on 28-01-2020 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri I.Ramesh, Learned Counsel for Accused, upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

1)Sub-Inspector of Police, East P.S., Tirupati, filed charge sheet in Cr.No.379/2019 u/s 419, 379 IPC or 411 IPC.

2)The prosecution case in brief is that, PW1 was working as Sales Executive at Maruthi Suzuki Show room. PW2 is his friend, they used to go to Bala Vennela Bar for consuming alcohol, about 20 days ago, accused introduced himself as police and his name is Anil Kumar and had alcohol for two or three times with them, on 10.08.2019 at about 8.00 pm, they

II AJFCM, TPT.2 all went to Indira Maidanam in pulsar bike and they consumed bears, due to intoxication, PWs 1 and 2 slept there, at about 11.00 pm, they woke up and found their motor cycles, two mobile phones were not found and on enquiry they learnt that accused is not police and induced them that he was a police and cheated, committed theft of Bajaj Pulsar 150 CC worth about Rs.75,000/-, two mobile phones and lodged report to the police, basing on it, present FIR in Cr.No.379/2019 was registered.

In the course of investigation, they were examined by the police and on 17.08.2019 at about 1.30 PM, on information,

PW5 along with staff and mediators proceeded to TVS show room circle where they found accused with motor cycle and with a plastic cover and he was caught and enquired, accused admitted the alleged offence, then he was arrested, seized theft property along with other gold ornaments pertaining to some other case and a panchanama was drafted and produced

before this court for remand and handed over recovered

property to PWs 1 and 2 and completed investigation, laid charge sheet for the offence u/s 419, 379 IPC or 411 IPC.

3)This case was taken on file of the offences punishable u/s 419 and 379 of IPC against the accused.

4)On production of accused, case copies of documents, on which, the prosecution intends to rely upon, were furnished, in terms of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5)Accused was examined u/s 239 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the contents of charge sheet, to which, he denied. Charge u/s 419 of IPC and u/s 411 of IPC, have been framed and

II AJFCM, TPT.3 explained the same in the language of Telugu. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6)In order to prove the case, the prosecution listed six witnesses. Among them, prosecution examined five witnesses as PWs 1 to 5, got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and MOs.1 to 3.

7)After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined u/s 313 of Cr.P.C, by explaining incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Having understood the same, accused denied the same as false and reported no defense evidence.

8)Heard oral arguments on both sides and perused the record.

9)Now, the point for determination is:

1) Whether the prosecution brought home

the guilty of accused of an offence

punishable u/s 419 of IPC, beyond all

reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the prosecution brought home

the guilty of accused of an offence

punishable u/s 411 of IPC, beyond all

reasonable doubt?

POINT NO.1 and 2:-

10)Now it is to be seen whether the prosecution proved the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubt, for which, PW1 deposed that 15 days prior to the incident, accused introduced himself to him and his friend, as Anil Kumar and that he is police. Thereafter, he met them two or three times for consuming liquor, while so, on 10.08.2019 at about 8.00 PM, he along with his friend and accused went on motor cycle bearing

Reg. No. AP 03 CT 5654 to Indira Maidanam. They had

II AJFCM, TPT.4 consumed alcohol and when himself and PW2 were drowsy, they both fell asleep and woke up at 11.00 pm and their two cell phones and motor cycle were not found and accused was not present there and they entertained suspicion and learnt that accused is not a police, then they lodged report under

Ex.P1. Then they were informed by the police that they recovered theft property. In the cross-examination, he denied suggestion put to him that he parked his motor cycle and put his cell phone at somewhere and forgotten. PW2 also deposed on the similar lines of PW1 with regard to incident and lost of cell phones and motor cycle. PW3 says about two months ago on one day, he along with PW4 and two others went to East

Police Station, Tirupati where police informed that they caught hold culprits and seized motor cycle and obtained their signatures on written papers.

11)PW4 also deposed on the similar lines of PW3, they were cross examined by learned APP by treating them as hostile wherein also they stated nothing against the accused. PW5 deposed he was Sub-Inspector of Police and received complaint from PWs 1 and 2 and registered FIR under Ex.P11, examined

PWs 1 and 2, drawn rough sketch under Ex.P12, on 17.08.2019, he received information about presence of accused, secured

PWs 3 and 4 and proceeded at TVS show room circle where they arrested the accused, in enquiry, accused admitted the offence, then they seized alleged theft property along with other property pertaining to some other case and drafted panchanama under Ex.P13, on the confession made by accused, they all proceeded to Vinayakasagar Tank, there also

II AJFCM, TPT.5 accused shown two motor cycles, seized the same under mahazarnama (Ex.P14),, produced the accused before this court for remand. In the cross-examination, he stated he did not asked local inhabitants at TVS show room circle to act as mediators.

12)Now, the prosecution case is, on 10.08.2019 accused and

PWs 1 and 2 went to Indira Maidanam on Pulsar motor cycle where they took bears and they went on sleep and woke up at about 11.00 PM and they did not find two cell phones and motor cycle and accused was also not present, after that, they learnt that accused was not a police. Then, they lodged report

before police under Ex.P1. PW2 also deposed on the same lines

of PW1. PWs 3 and 4 who are mahazar witnesses of arresting of accused and seizure of property, have turned hostile to the case of prosecution. PW5 deposed he only registered FIR under

Ex.P11 and further he stated making investigation and arresting the accused.

13)So, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 shows accused was also present along with them, they took bears and their evidence is only that when they woke up, accused was not present and they did not find motor cycle along with two cell phones. So, they thought that accused committed theft of the same and further, as per prosecution story, the alleged theft property and other properties were seized by PW5 under Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 in the presence of PWs 3 and 4, before them, accused admitted that he committed theft of the same from the possession of

PWs 1 and 2 and to prove the same, PWs 3 and 4 did not state the same and they only stated they went to police station

II AJFCM, TPT.6 where they signed in papers, but they did not state accused was arrested at TVS circle and seized the theft property. So,

PWs 3 and 4 did not support the prosecution case and now only the evidence of PW5 is left and he is interested witness to the prosecution and it is unsafe to believe his version in the absence of corroboration. Further, there is no direct evidence that accused committed theft of two cell phones and motor cycle from the possession of PWs 1 and 2 since as per the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, at the time of committing theft, they were in sleep and even according to PW5, he seized alleged theft property from the possession of accused and he also recorded confession statement in the presence of PWs 3 and 4 as it is already stated above, mediators who are PWs 3 and 4 did not support the case of prosecution. So, overall in the aforesaid reasons, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused with material evidence that accused only committed theft of two cell phones and motor cycle, hence he is entitled for acquittal.

14) In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and aforesaid discussion, it is held that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused of an offence punishable u/s 419 of IPC and u/s 411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.

Accordingly, point No.1 and 2 are answered.

15)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 419 of IPC and U/s 411 of IPC, and thereby, he is acquitted in terms of Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said offences.

II AJFCM, TPT.7

Superintendent, Special Sub-Jail, Tirupati, is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not required in any other case.

MOs 1 to 3 i.e., Bajaz Pulsar 150 CC bearing Regn.No. AP 03 CT 5654, Honor 6X mobile phone and Oppo mobile phone, respectively, were already returned to the de-facto complainants P.Somasekhar (PW1) and O.Rajesh (PW2) under receipt, shall be made absolute after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of January, 2020.

Sd/- G. Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the

Prosecution: Defense:

PW1:P. Somasekhar.None PW2:O. Rajesh. PW3:V. Sai Kumar Naidu. PW4:K. Padmanabam. PW5:S. Jayachandra.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the

Prosecution: Ex.P1:Report. Ex.P2: Acknowledgment receipt. Exs.P3 Signatures of PW3 on mahazarnama. to P5: Ex.P6:Signature of PW3 on mahazarnama. Exs.P7 Signatures of PW4 on mahazarnama. to P9: Ex.P10:Signature of PW4 on mahazarnama. Ex.P11:FIR. Ex.P12:Rough sketch. Ex.P13:Mahazarnama, dt.17.08.2019 at 2.00 PM. Ex.P14:Mahazarnama, dt.17.08.2019 at 5.00 PM.

II AJFCM, TPT.8

Material objects:

MO1 : Bajaz Pulsar 150 CC bearing Reg.No. AP 03 CT 5654.

MO2 : Honor 6X mobile phone.

MO3 : Oppo mobile phone.

Sd/- G. Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

II AJFCM, TPT.9

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: TIRUPATI.

Calender as per Rule 67 Crl.R.P.

Present:- Sri G.Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati.

Thursday, the Thirtieth (30th) day of January, 2020.

C. C. No. 362 / 2019.

Calender Case No:362 of 2019. Name of the Police Station and : State represented by Crime Number of offenceSub – Inspector of Police, East P.S., Tirupati. (Cr.No.379/2019)

Description of Accused: Goddeti Anil Kumar, Age: 48 years, S/o G. Raju, N/o D.No.21, Stalivation Church Street, Bogolu Bitragunta Village, Chamadula post, Kavali Mandal, Nellore District, Now at near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, 1st Street, Tarakarama Nagar, Karakambadi, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District. Occ: Car Driver.

Date of Occurrence10.08.2019. Date of Complaint11.08.2019. Date of taken on File24.08.2019. Date of Apprehension18.08.2019. Release on bail-- Commencement of Trial24.09.2019. Closure of Trial21.11.2019. Date of sentence or Order30.01.2020. Explanation for Delay: Due to non production of witnesses.

U/Sec.419 & 411 of IPC – Punishment for cheating by Nature of offencepersonation; Dishonestly receiving stolen property;

Found not guilty. Finding of the court

Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 419 of IPC and U/s 411 of IPC, and thereby, he is acquitted in terms of Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said offences.

Superintendent, Special Sub-Jail, Tirupati, is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not required in any other case.

II AJFCM, TPT.10

MOs 1 to 3 i.e., Bajaz Pulsar 150 CC bearing Regn.No. AP 03 CT 5654, Honor 6X mobile phone and Oppo mobile phone, respectively, were already returned to the de-facto complainants P.Somasekhar (PW1) and O.Rajesh (PW2) under receipt, shall be made absolute after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/- G. Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

PJCJ/TPT 1/3 Dt:28.09.2021

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TIRUPATI

PRESENT: Sri. G.Shiva Prasad Yadav

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tuesday, the Twenty Eighth (28 th ) day of September, 2021

O.S.No. 711 OF 2020

Between:

P. Sankar Reddy, S/o. Late P. Krishna Reddy, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Agriculturist, Aadhaar No.364379951229, Mobile No.7997070385, residing at C. Ramapuram Village… Plaintiff and Post, Ramachandra Puram Mandal, Chittoor District.

And:

E. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Ramanadh, Hindu, aged about 55 years, working as Senior Assistant, TT Devasthanams, Working at Vishnu Nivasam, Tirupati, Chittoor District.… Defendant

This suit coming before me for hearing in the presence of Y.

Bhaskaraiah, Advocate for Plaintiff, defendant called absent and remained ex- parte; and after hearing the arguments of the plaintiff; and this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.78,000/- against the defendant basing on a promissory note dated 06.06.2018 and for costs.

2.The plaintiff's case in brief is as follows: On 06.06.2018 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities and executed suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff, and agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant did not pay the amount due under the promissory note, and postponing the same on some ground or the other. The plaintiff got issued legal notice dt.10.03.2020, the defendant having received the same neither complied nor replied. Further the defendant is not an agriculturist and hence the defendant is not entitled for

PJCJ/TPT 2/3 Dt:28.09.2021

any of the agricultural debt relief acts. Hence, the suit.

3.After receipt of summons the defendant called absent and remained ex-parte.

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

5. The point for consideration is :- “Whether the plaintiff is entitled suit claim as prayed for ?

6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as

PW-1, marked Exs. A-1 to A3. Neither oral nor documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendant.

7.Point: The plaintiff as PW-1 reiterated his case. He produced

Ex. A-1 i.e. Suit promissory note in his support contending that the defendant borrowed amount and executed Ex.A-1. The plaintiff got issued Ex.A-2 to the defendant demanding the due amount under Ex.A-1. On perusal of

Ex. A-3 i.e., Served acknowledgment, it appears that the defendant received notice, but he failed to pay the due amount under Ex.A-1. The defendant did not choose to file written statement even to deny the plaintiff's allegations as to borrowing amount and execution of Ex.A-1. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 remained unchallenged.

8.In view of the above facts and circumstances, and in view of the evidence of PW-1, and Exs. A1 to A3, it concludes, plaintiff proved his case and that the plaintiff is entitled to claim suit amount against the defendant as sought for.

9.In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff for an amount of Rs.78,000/- payable by the defendant together with future

PJCJ/TPT 3/3 Dt:28.09.2021

interest at 6% p.a. on principal amount of Rs.50,000/- from the date of suit till the date of realization.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, after corrected and Pronounced by me in the Open court on this, the 28th day of September, 2021.

Sd/-G.Shiva Prasad Yadav

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tirupati.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT: PW-1: P. Sankar Reddy --Nil—

EXIHIBTIS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1: Suit Promissory note dated 06.06.2018 for Rs.50,000/-

Ex.A-2: Office copy of the legal notice, dt:10.03.2020.

Ex.A-3: Served postal acknowledgment.

FOR DEFENDANT: --Nil--

Sd/-G.Shiva Prasad Yadav

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tirupati.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TIRUPATI

PRESENT: Sri. G.Shiva Prasad Yadav

Principal Junior Civil Judge, 

Monday, the Twenty Seventh (27th )day of September, 2021. 

E.P. No. 126 /2021

ARC. No. 21 /2020

Between:

Deal Well Chit Fund Private Limited, Tirupati, represented

by its Branch Manager Mr. M. Sidda Reddy, Tirupati... Plaintiff/D.Hr

And:

1. Y. Aruna, W/o. Y. Muniraja, Hindu, aged about 41 years, residing at D. No.13­4­345/A2, Tata Nagar, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

2. R. Bharat Kumar, S/o. R.J. Prasad, Hindu, aged about 35 years, working as Junior Assistant, Employee No.1112944, Office of the Executive Engineer, Alipiri Road, Irrigation Department, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

3. G. Muni Venu, S/o. G. Narayana Reddy, Hindu, aged about 43 years, working as Assistant Executive Engineer, Employee No.1114025, Office of Executive Engineer, QC Subdivision, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

4. Y. Venkataramana Reddy, S/o. Late Y. Venkata Subba Reddy, Hindu, aged about 58 years, residing at D. No.202, Bairagapatteda, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

5. M. Muni Teja Kumar, S/o. M. Janardhan, ,Hindu, aged about 38 years, working as Typist, Employee No.1160371, Office of Senior Civil Judge Court, Puttur, Chittoor District.

6. Y. Muniraja, S/o. Y. Janaki Ramaiah, Hindu, aged about 47 years, residing at D. No.13­4­345/A2, Tata Nagar, Tirupati, Chittoor District.… Defendants/J.Drs. This is the E.P. filed by D.Hr against the J.Drs. No.2,3 and 5 Under order 21 Rule 48 of CPC to issue Rule 48 notice to J.Drs.2,3 and 5 and thereafter call for their salary particulars and attach the salary of J.Drs.2,3 and 5 through their Garnishee under O 21 R48 of CPC and send for the same to Civil Court deposit for payment of column No.7 amount and further interest and cost till the date of realization of the execution. This petition coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri. B. Udaya Kumar, Advocate for D.Hr and J.Dr. Nos. 2, 3 and 5 are at notice stage; and upon perusing the material available on record and this court made the following :­

O R D E R 

Full Satisfaction memo filed by D.Hr., F.S. is recorded. Hence the

Execution Petition is terminated.

Pronounced by me  in the open court, this the 27 th day of September, 2021. 

Sd/­ G.Shiva Prasad Yadav

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tirupati.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

­NIL­ Sd/­G.Shiva Prasad Yadav P.J.C.J. 

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TIRUPATI

PRESENT: Sri. G.Shiva Prasad Yadav

Principal Junior Civil Judge, 

Thursday, the Thirtieth (30 th ) day of September, 2021. 

O.S. No. 229 OF 2021

Between:

Canara Bank (Previously Syndicate Bank), Main Branch­II, Tirupati, rep., by its Chief Manager.… Plaintiff 

And:

Smt. K. Kavitha, W/o. K. Prasad, Hindu, aged about 30 years, residing at Flat No.5, Block No.25, 2nd floor, Indiramma Indlu, Daminedu Village, Tiruchanur Post, Tirupati Rural Mandal and presently residingatD.No.18­6­131/RC1, Sundaraiah Nagar, Tirupati, Chittoor District.… Defendant

 The suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.93,819/­ being the

principal and interest due as per the loan ledger pertaining to the defendant’s

account with interest upto 30.11.2020 for Rs.93,819/­ executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 9.50% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

The suit is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri. G. Madhusudana Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and summons stage for defendant; and this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

Memo is filed by the plaintiff stating, this matter is settled and plaintiff received settled amount and prayed to dismiss the suit. Memo is recorded. In view of memo, suit is dismissed as Settled Out of Court. No costs.

Pronounced by me in the Open Court, this, the 30 th day of

September, 2021. Sd/­G.Shiva Prasad Yadav

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tirupati. Appendix of Evidence NIL  Sd/­G.Shiva Prasad Yadav P.J.C.J.