Smt. G. Swathi

1

O.S.No.102 of 2022

PJCJ Court, Ponnur.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PONNUR

Present:Smt.G.Swathi II Addl. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Guntur FAC.Prl. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponnur

Thursday, the 25th day of April, 2024

O.S.No.102 of 2022

Between:

Bandla Prameela Kumari, W/o Prabhakara Rao, Hindu, aged about 56 years, House-wife, R/o Garikapadu, Kakumanu Mandal, Guntur District. …Plaintiff

and

Kondapaturi Srinivasa Rao, S/o Venkaiah, Hindu, aged about 50 years, Private Employee, R/o House No.4-28, Garikapadu Village, Kakumanu Mandal, Guntur District. …Defendant

This suit is coming on 19/04/2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri G.Rambabu, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri G.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for defendant; and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.4,23,400/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 06/12/2021 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.4,00,000/- repayable with interest at 18% per annum and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are::

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 06/12/2021 for his family necessities and executed the suit promissory note with his own handwriting in favour of plaintiff on 06/12/2021 itself at Garikapadu, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 18% per annum either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand. Later inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators, the defendant admitting his liability has been postponing the payment on some pretext or the other. Vexed with the conduct of defendant, plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice, dated 18/03/2022 through her advocate to the defendant demanding payment of the suit promissory note debt. The defendant received the said notice and got issued a reply, dated 2

O.S.No.102 of 2022

PJCJ Court, Ponnur.

26/03/2022 through his advocate with all false untenable allegations. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

3.On receipt of the summons the defendant made his appearance through his counsel and filed his written statement by denying the material averments of the plaint apart from raising several other contentions.

4.The brief averments of the written statement are that the husband of the plaintiff obtained empty promissory note signed on stamp affixed on the promissory note for security purpose of previous promissory notes executive by defendant in favour of plaintiff’s husband Bandla Prabhakara Rao and at that time no witness were present. The defendant discharged the entire promissory note debt amount with in time and demanded him to return the empty promissory note signed on stamp affixed by the defendant. But plaintiff’s husband and the plaintiff postpones the return of the promissory note on some plea or the other. The cancelled discharged promissory notes got executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff’s husband are 5 (five) in number. The defendant has no necessity to borrow such huge amount from the plaintiff and the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount. The defendant did not received single pie from the plaintiff as mentioned in the promissory note, dated 06/12/2021. As there is no consideration was passed from the plaintiff to the defendant the question of repayment does not arise. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

5.After filing written statement by the defendant, the matter was posted for compromise under any one of the modes mentioned under

Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure. But, the respective counsel reported there is no likelihood of compromise under any one of the modes mentioned under Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the matter was posted for settlement of issues.

6.Based on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:- i. Whether the suit promissory note, dated 06/12/2021 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

iii. To what relief?

7.In substantiation of the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is examined herelf as P.W.1 by filing heis chief examination affidavit and also examined 3

O.S.No.102 of 2022

PJCJ Court, Ponnur.

the attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to

Ex.A3. On the other hand in support of the contention of the defendant , the defendant is examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents are marked on his behalf.

8.Heard both the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendant.

9.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the oral evidence of

P.W.1 along with the evidence of P.W.2 and documentary evidence under

Exs.A1 to Ex.A3, clinchingly establish that the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 promissory note and failed to pay the borrowed amount under the suit promissory note Ex.A1 even after repeated demands made by the plaintiff, and hence, the plaintiff has proved that the defendant borrowed the amount from her under Ex.A1 promissory note and later failed to pay the said amount to her, and hence, prayed to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for.

10.The counsel for the defendant argued that the husband of the plaintiff obtained empty signed promissory note from the defendant towards security for the previous promissory notes and even after repayment of the entire due amount by the defendant, without returning the empty signed promissory note of the defendant, the plaintiff’s husband got filed this false suit against the defendant through the plaintiff to gain unlawfully and as no consideration was passed under the suit promissory note the plaintiff is not entitled for any amount from the defendant, and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

11.Issue No.1:-

(i)In substantiation of the case of the plaintiff, she is examined herself as P.W.1 and deposed through her chief evidence affidavit. The gist is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from her on 06.12.2021 by executing Ex.A1 suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Subsequently, the defendant failed to pay the amount to the plaintiff even after repeated demands made by her. The plaintiff got issued Ex.A2 notice to the defendant demanding him to pay the amount due under Ex.A1 promissory note and after receiving the said notice the defendant got issued Ex.A3 reply notice with false allegations. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. P.W.2 who is said to be one of the attestors of Ex.A1 suit 4

O.S.No.102 of 2022

PJCJ Court, Ponnur.

promissory note testified that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 06.12.2021 in his presence and after receiving the said amount the defendant made his signatures on Ex.A1 suit promissory note and himself and one G.Venu Babu were acted as attestors to Ex.A1 promissory note and the defendant self scribed the said promissory note. The evidence of P.W.2 is corroborating with the evidence of P.W.1 as to the execution of the suit promissory note Ex.A1 by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and passing of consideration under the same.

(ii)Whereas, the defendant contended that the suit promissory note is a fabricated one devoid of consideration and the husband of the plaintiff fabricated the empty signed promissory note given by the defendant to him towards security for the previous money transactions and got filed this false suit against the defendant to gain unlawfully. Section 118 of

Negotiable Instruments Act lays down statutory presumption as to the

Negotiable Instruments. One of such presumption is that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. Once, the defendant showed either by direct or circumstantial evidence or by way of other presumption of law or fact that promissory note was not supported by consideration in the manner stated therein, then, the evidentiary burden would shift to the plaintiff by reviving his legal burden to prove that the promissory note was supported by consideration, at that stage the presumption under section 118 of the Act would disappear. Though P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 were cross examined at length by the counsel for the defendant in such a way reflecting the averments of the written statement, nothing worthy is elicited to dislodge their testimonies.

(iii)In support of his contention, the defendant is examined himself as

D.W.1 by way of filing his chief examination affidavit and testified that the husband of the plaintiff Bandla Prabhakara Rao obtained empty promissory note from the defendant for security purpose of previous promissory notes executive by defendant in his favour and at that time no witness were present. Even after the defendant discharged the entire promissory note debt amount within time the plaintiff’s husband did not return the empty signed promissory note to him and by fabricating the same got filed the present suit through the plaintiff to gain unlawfully and no consideration was passed under Ex.A1 suit promissory note.

5

O.S.No.102 of 2022

PJCJ Court, Ponnur.

(iv)The counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendant created the concocted story fabrication of the empty signed promissory note given by the defendant to the plaintiff’s husband towards security in respect of the previous promissory notes executed by the defendant in his favour, is only to avoid the payment of the amount due under the suit promissory note to the plaintiff and the defendant has failed to prove his contention by adducing any valid evidence. No legal steps were taken by the defendant to prove the genuineness of his alleged writings on Ex.A1 suit promissory note. As could be seen from the cross examination of D.W.1, he admitted his writings on Ex.A1 suit promissory note. As per the contention of the defendant, he gave empty signed promissory note to the husband of the plaintiff towards security for the previous promissory notes executed by him in favour of plaintiff’s husband, whereas D.W.1 in his cross examination admitted his hand writing of the recitals of Ex.A1 promissory note. Further, the defendant as D.W.1 in his cross examination admitted that the first attestor/P.W.2 has made his signature on Ex.A1 promissory note. When the defendant gave empty signed promissory note to the husband of the plaintiff, there is no chance of writing of the defendant and signature of P.W.2 on the said promissory note. But, D.W.1 clearly admitted that the recitals of Ex.A1 promissory note were filled by him only and the husband of the plaintiff/P.W.2 signed as attestor on Ex.A1. Further, D.W.1 in his cross examination stated that he did not receive any legal notice got issued by the plaintiff and he received the notice got issued by the husband of the plaintiff and he gave reply to the husband of the plaintiff through his counsel. As could be seen from Ex.A3 reply notice, the said notice was issued to the plaintiff only and not her husband. Hence, the above mentioned facts elicited from the cross examination of D.W.1 are in support of the contention of the plaintiff, and in the absence of other material on record, the sole testimony of D.W.1 finds no support to the contention of the defendant, and the defendant has failed to prove his contention by adducing any valid evidence.

(v)Though the defendant contended that the suit promissory note is a fabricated one which is the outcome of the previous money traditions of the defendant with plaintiff’s husband and the same is not supported by consideration, he failed to prove the same by adducing any valid evidence either orally or documentary. Mere making such vague statement and bare denial of passing of consideration is not at all sufficient to hold that the 6

O.S.No.102 of 2022

PJCJ Court, Ponnur.

defendant discharged the initial onus of proof, by showing the non- existence of the consideration. On perusal of the evidence on record, the defendant has not brought on record, such evidence, to believe that the consideration did not exist or it's non existence was so probable that prudent man shall act upon the plea that it did not exist. Hence, it can be held that Ex.A1 suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration and is binding on the defendant. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

11. Issue No.2:-

(i)In view of the finding under Issue No.1, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount. Accordingly, this issue is answered positively in favour of the plaintiff.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.4,23,400/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand and Four

Hundred only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only).

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 25th day of April, 2024.

Sd/-G.Swathi

II Addl. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Guntur FAC.Prl. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponnur

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1: Bendla Prameela Kumari D.W.1: Kondapaturi Srinivasa Rao P.W.2: Bendla Prabhakara Rao

Documents Marked For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: is promissory note, dated 06/12/2021 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A2:is office copy of the registered legal notice, dated 18/03/2022 got issued on his behalf to the defendant with postal receipt. Ex.A3:is reply notice, dated 26/03/2022. For Defendant: Nil.

Sd/-G.Swathi

II Addl. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Guntur FAC.Prl. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponnur.

1

O.S.No.102 of 2022

PJCJ Court, Ponnur.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PONNUR

Present:Smt.G.Swathi II Addl. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Guntur FAC.Prl. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponnur

Thursday, the 25th day of April, 2024

O.S.No.102 of 2022

Between:

Bandla Prameela Kumari, W/o Prabhakara Rao, Hindu, aged about 56 years, House-wife, R/o Garikapadu, Kakumanu Mandal, Guntur District. …Plaintiff

and

Kondapaturi Srinivasa Rao, S/o Venkaiah, Hindu, aged about 50 years, Private Employee, R/o House No.4-28, Garikapadu Village, Kakumanu Mandal, Guntur District. …Defendant

This suit is coming on 19/04/2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri G.Rambabu, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri G.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for defendant; and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.4,23,400/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 06/12/2021 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.4,00,000/- repayable with interest at 18% per annum and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are::

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 06/12/2021 for his family necessities and executed the suit promissory note with his own handwriting in favour of plaintiff on 06/12/2021 itself at Garikapadu, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 18% per annum either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand. Later inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators, the defendant admitting his liability has been postponing the payment on some pretext or the other. Vexed with the conduct of defendant, plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice, dated 18/03/2022 through her advocate to the defendant demanding payment of the suit promissory note debt. The defendant received the said notice and got issued a reply, dated 2

O.S.No.102 of 2022

PJCJ Court, Ponnur.

26/03/2022 through his advocate with all false untenable allegations. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

3.On receipt of the summons the defendant made his appearance through his counsel and filed his written statement by denying the material averments of the plaint apart from raising several other contentions.

4.The brief averments of the written statement are that the husband of the plaintiff obtained empty promissory note signed on stamp affixed on the promissory note for security purpose of previous promissory notes executive by defendant in favour of plaintiff’s husband Bandla Prabhakara Rao and at that time no witness were present. The defendant discharged the entire promissory note debt amount with in time and demanded him to return the empty promissory note signed on stamp affixed by the defendant. But plaintiff’s husband and the plaintiff postpones the return of the promissory note on some plea or the other. The cancelled discharged promissory notes got executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff’s husband are 5 (five) in number. The defendant has no necessity to borrow such huge amount from the plaintiff and the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount. The defendant did not received single pie from the plaintiff as mentioned in the promissory note, dated 06/12/2021. As there is no consideration was passed from the plaintiff to the defendant the question of repayment does not arise. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

5.After filing written statement by the defendant, the matter was posted for compromise under any one of the modes mentioned under

Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure. But, the respective counsel reported there is no likelihood of compromise under any one of the modes mentioned under Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the matter was posted for settlement of issues.

6.Based on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:- i. Whether the suit promissory note, dated 06/12/2021 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

iii. To what relief?

7.In substantiation of the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is examined herelf as P.W.1 by filing heis chief examination affidavit and also examined 3

O.S.No.102 of 2022

PJCJ Court, Ponnur.

the attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to

Ex.A3. On the other hand in support of the contention of the defendant , the defendant is examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents are marked on his behalf.

8.Heard both the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendant.

9.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the oral evidence of

P.W.1 along with the evidence of P.W.2 and documentary evidence under

Exs.A1 to Ex.A3, clinchingly establish that the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 promissory note and failed to pay the borrowed amount under the suit promissory note Ex.A1 even after repeated demands made by the plaintiff, and hence, the plaintiff has proved that the defendant borrowed the amount from her under Ex.A1 promissory note and later failed to pay the said amount to her, and hence, prayed to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for.

10.The counsel for the defendant argued that the husband of the plaintiff obtained empty signed promissory note from the defendant towards security for the previous promissory notes and even after repayment of the entire due amount by the defendant, without returning the empty signed promissory note of the defendant, the plaintiff’s husband got filed this false suit against the defendant through the plaintiff to gain unlawfully and as no consideration was passed under the suit promissory note the plaintiff is not entitled for any amount from the defendant, and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

11.Issue No.1:-

(i)In substantiation of the case of the plaintiff, she is examined herself as P.W.1 and deposed through her chief evidence affidavit. The gist is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from her on 06.12.2021 by executing Ex.A1 suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Subsequently, the defendant failed to pay the amount to the plaintiff even after repeated demands made by her. The plaintiff got issued Ex.A2 notice to the defendant demanding him to pay the amount due under Ex.A1 promissory note and after receiving the said notice the defendant got issued Ex.A3 reply notice with false allegations. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. P.W.2 who is said to be one of the attestors of Ex.A1 suit 4

O.S.No.102 of 2022

PJCJ Court, Ponnur.

promissory note testified that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 06.12.2021 in his presence and after receiving the said amount the defendant made his signatures on Ex.A1 suit promissory note and himself and one G.Venu Babu were acted as attestors to Ex.A1 promissory note and the defendant self scribed the said promissory note. The evidence of P.W.2 is corroborating with the evidence of P.W.1 as to the execution of the suit promissory note Ex.A1 by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and passing of consideration under the same.

(ii)Whereas, the defendant contended that the suit promissory note is a fabricated one devoid of consideration and the husband of the plaintiff fabricated the empty signed promissory note given by the defendant to him towards security for the previous money transactions and got filed this false suit against the defendant to gain unlawfully. Section 118 of

Negotiable Instruments Act lays down statutory presumption as to the

Negotiable Instruments. One of such presumption is that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. Once, the defendant showed either by direct or circumstantial evidence or by way of other presumption of law or fact that promissory note was not supported by consideration in the manner stated therein, then, the evidentiary burden would shift to the plaintiff by reviving his legal burden to prove that the promissory note was supported by consideration, at that stage the presumption under section 118 of the Act would disappear. Though P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 were cross examined at length by the counsel for the defendant in such a way reflecting the averments of the written statement, nothing worthy is elicited to dislodge their testimonies.

(iii)In support of his contention, the defendant is examined himself as

D.W.1 by way of filing his chief examination affidavit and testified that the husband of the plaintiff Bandla Prabhakara Rao obtained empty promissory note from the defendant for security purpose of previous promissory notes executive by defendant in his favour and at that time no witness were present. Even after the defendant discharged the entire promissory note debt amount within time the plaintiff’s husband did not return the empty signed promissory note to him and by fabricating the same got filed the present suit through the plaintiff to gain unlawfully and no consideration was passed under Ex.A1 suit promissory note.

5

O.S.No.102 of 2022

PJCJ Court, Ponnur.

(iv)The counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendant created the concocted story fabrication of the empty signed promissory note given by the defendant to the plaintiff’s husband towards security in respect of the previous promissory notes executed by the defendant in his favour, is only to avoid the payment of the amount due under the suit promissory note to the plaintiff and the defendant has failed to prove his contention by adducing any valid evidence. No legal steps were taken by the defendant to prove the genuineness of his alleged writings on Ex.A1 suit promissory note. As could be seen from the cross examination of D.W.1, he admitted his writings on Ex.A1 suit promissory note. As per the contention of the defendant, he gave empty signed promissory note to the husband of the plaintiff towards security for the previous promissory notes executed by him in favour of plaintiff’s husband, whereas D.W.1 in his cross examination admitted his hand writing of the recitals of Ex.A1 promissory note. Further, the defendant as D.W.1 in his cross examination admitted that the first attestor/P.W.2 has made his signature on Ex.A1 promissory note. When the defendant gave empty signed promissory note to the husband of the plaintiff, there is no chance of writing of the defendant and signature of P.W.2 on the said promissory note. But, D.W.1 clearly admitted that the recitals of Ex.A1 promissory note were filled by him only and the husband of the plaintiff/P.W.2 signed as attestor on Ex.A1. Further, D.W.1 in his cross examination stated that he did not receive any legal notice got issued by the plaintiff and he received the notice got issued by the husband of the plaintiff and he gave reply to the husband of the plaintiff through his counsel. As could be seen from Ex.A3 reply notice, the said notice was issued to the plaintiff only and not her husband. Hence, the above mentioned facts elicited from the cross examination of D.W.1 are in support of the contention of the plaintiff, and in the absence of other material on record, the sole testimony of D.W.1 finds no support to the contention of the defendant, and the defendant has failed to prove his contention by adducing any valid evidence.

(v)Though the defendant contended that the suit promissory note is a fabricated one which is the outcome of the previous money traditions of the defendant with plaintiff’s husband and the same is not supported by consideration, he failed to prove the same by adducing any valid evidence either orally or documentary. Mere making such vague statement and bare denial of passing of consideration is not at all sufficient to hold that the 6

O.S.No.102 of 2022

PJCJ Court, Ponnur.

defendant discharged the initial onus of proof, by showing the non- existence of the consideration. On perusal of the evidence on record, the defendant has not brought on record, such evidence, to believe that the consideration did not exist or it's non existence was so probable that prudent man shall act upon the plea that it did not exist. Hence, it can be held that Ex.A1 suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration and is binding on the defendant. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

11. Issue No.2:-

(i)In view of the finding under Issue No.1, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount. Accordingly, this issue is answered positively in favour of the plaintiff.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.4,23,400/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand and Four

Hundred only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only).

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 25th day of April, 2024.

Sd/-G.Swathi

II Addl. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Guntur FAC.Prl. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponnur

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1: Bendla Prameela Kumari D.W.1: Kondapaturi Srinivasa Rao P.W.2: Bendla Prabhakara Rao

Documents Marked For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: is promissory note, dated 06/12/2021 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A2:is office copy of the registered legal notice, dated 18/03/2022 got issued on his behalf to the defendant with postal receipt. Ex.A3:is reply notice, dated 26/03/2022. For Defendant: Nil.

Sd/-G.Swathi

II Addl. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Guntur FAC.Prl. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponnur.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), PONNUR.

Present: Smt. G. SWATHI

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur.

e Thursday, this the 25th day of April, 2024.

C.C.414/2023

Between: State : Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnur Urban Police Station. … Complainant.

And

Doppalapudi Anil Kumar, S/o. Gnananandam, 36 yrs, Mala, 21st Ward, Potti Sriramulu Nagar 1st lane, back side of Rotary Club, Ponnur Town. ….Accused

This case has come up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant Sri. P. Chaitanya garu, advocate for the accused and the matter having heard on 24.04.2024 and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnur Town Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.108/2022 against the accused for the offence U/Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of

Essential Commodities Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

On knowing information about purchase and sale of PDS rice on 10.05.2022 at 18.00 hours, L.W.3/Sub Inspector of Police along with his staff proceeded to 21st Ward, Potti Sriramulu Nagar 1st lane, back sides of Rotary Club of Ponnur Town and found the accused behind some heap. Then, they caught hold of the accused and on interrogation, the accused revealed that he is 2 working as Tavera Car driver, as he is not financially well and with a view to earn money easily, he purchased the PDS rice from the White Card Ration Holders of the surrounding villages of

Ponnur Town for lower rate in that connection, he collected 16 bags of PDS rice and sell the same to Tiffin Hotels and Push Carts business to higher rate and while he was transporting the said

PDS rice in autos, police caught hold the accused and the accused transported the PDS rice for illicit profits by cheating the

Government which is an offence U/Sec.420 IPC and Sec.7 of E.C.

Act and as none are available to act as mediators, L.W.3/Sub

Inspector of Police, seized the 16 bags of PDS rice under cover of police proceedings. Basing on the Proceedings, L.W.3/Sub

Inspector of Police, Ponnur Town P.S., registered a case in

Cr.No.108/2020, U/Sec.420 of IPC and Sec.7 of E.C. Act. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, inspected the scene and prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Later, on 10.05.2022,

L.W.3/Sub Inspector of Police served 41(A) Cr.P.C notice to the accused. After the completion of investigation, the case was culminated into charge sheet U/Sec.420 of IPC and Sec.7 of

Essential Commodities Act.

3. Cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused under Section 190 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 IPC and Sec.7 of E.C. Act.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure.

5. Accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure Code and charges framed against him for the offences

U/Sec.420 IPC and Sec.7 of E.C. Act were read over and 3 explained to him in Telugu language, for which, he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining the incriminating evidence made against him from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses in Telugu language, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses along with

Exs.P1 to Ex.P4 categorically proved the case of the prosecution and hence, the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that there is no proof to show that the sized rice is PDS rice and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

9. Now the points for determination are :- i. Whether the accused was in possession of 16 bags of

PDS rice weighing about 8 quintals for the purpose of selling the same for higher price ?

ii. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.420 of Indian

Penal Code and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

4

10. POINT No.1:

(i) In order to constitute an offence punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act, the prosecution must establish that the accused was in possession of 16 bags of PDS rice weighing about Eight quintals by collecting the same for the poor people for the purpose of resale of the same for higher price.

(ii) In order to determine the culpability of the accused, the evidence available before this court is the oral testimonies of

P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. P.W.1 is the police constable who participated in the raids on the date of occurrence along with P.W.2 at the time of arrest of the accused and seizure of PDS rice from the possession of the accused by P.W.2 . P.W.2 is the police officer who found the alleged offence and registered the case and investigated into.

(iii) P.W.2 who is the investigating officer cum defacto complainant in this case, testified that on 10-05-2022 at about 07.00 p.m on receiving credible information about illegal transportation of P.D.S rice, he along with P.W.1 and other police constables proceeded to 21st Ward, Potti Sriramulu Nagar, back side of Rtary Club, Ponnur Town, on seeing then the accused was tried to skulk away. On that he caught hold of him with the help of his staff and on enquiry he revealed his name and identity particulars and on further enquiry he confessed that he is purchasing PDS rice from white ration card holders for the purpose of resale of the same for higher price. He found 16 bags

P.D.S rice in total weighing about Eight quintals in the possession of the accused. He arrested the accused and seized the 16 bags of

P.D.S rice and prepared the Police proceedings/Ex.P1. Then he shifted the accused and seized rice to the Police Station. Basing 5 on the Ex.P1, he registered as a case in Cr.No.108/2022

U/sec.420 IPC and Sec.7 of E.C Act and issued FIR/Ex.P2. Later he served Sec.41A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. He visited the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P3 rough sketch and examined all the witnesses and recorded their statements. He handed over the seized rice bags to M.L.S point and obtained acknowledgment/Ex.P4. P.W.1 who is said to be the police constable who was present along with P.W.2 at the time of arrest and seizure of the PDS rice from the possession of the accused deposed on the same lines as stated by P.W.2.

(iv) P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their cross examination stated that the scene of offence is a busy locality. But, none of the mediators were secured by the police officials at the time of seizure of PDS rice from the possession of the accused. Further, both P.W.1 and

P.W.2 stated that they cannot say whether the seized rice is PDS rice or not and they stated that they came to know that the said rice is PDS rice based on the confession made by the accused.

Further, they stated that they do not know from whom the accused collected the said rice. Hence, the above elicitations made out from the cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are in support of the contention of the counsel for the accused that the alleged seizure of rice by the police officials from the possession of the accused in the absence of the mediators vitiates the proceedings.

(v) Further, normally it is not possible to differentiate PDS rice from same variety of rice available in market and it is not possible to differentiate PDS rice from same variety of rice available in open market, through naked eye. Without verifying documents and registers, it is not possible to confirm that the seized rice, as that variety of PDS rice is available in open market. Except making allegation that accused procured PDS rice, the 6 prosecution failed to place any material to show that alleged seized rice for beneficiaries (below poverty line families). Hence, in view of the above discussion, in the absence of independent evidence, it is not safe to base conviction, by holding that the seizure and possession of 16 rice bags was proved by prosecution by attaching weight to Ex.P4. Point No.(i) is answered accordingly.

11. Point No. (ii):-

(i) In view of the discussion under Point No (i), it is held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act. This point is answered accordingly.

12. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of

Essential Commodities Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same U/sec.248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of 6 months as per Section 437A of Code of Criminal Procedure. No order needs to be passed as to the case property since no property is deposited before the Court in this case.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 25th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- G. Swathi

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur, FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITENSSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 : P. Murali - None -

P.W.2 : Shaik Hasheem

S.I of Police, Ponnur Town P.S.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Police Proceedings - NIL -

Ex.P2 : FIR

Ex.P3 : Rough Sketch

Ex.P4 : Receipt

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Sd/- G. Swathi

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur, FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur.

8

FORM No.72 Calendar and Judgment District of Guntur

Calendar of cases tried by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.414/2023

Nature of Offence: U/Sec.420 IPC and Sec. 7 of E.C. Act

Date of Judgment 25-04-2024

Commen Report of ApprehensioDate of Release Closure Sentence or Offence cement of complainant n of accused remand on bail of trial order trial 10.05.22 10.05.22 -- -- -- 23.04.24 23.04.24 25.04.24

Explanation for the delay: The delay is due to non-appearance of the accused and non production of witnesses.

Complainant : Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnur Town P.S

Name of the accused :

Doppalapudi Anil Kumar, S/o. Gnananandam, 36 yrs, Mala, 21st Ward, Potti Sriramulu Nagar 1st lane, back side of Rotary Club, Ponnur Town.

Finding: Not Guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same U/sec.248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of 6 months as per Section 437A of Code of Criminal Procedure. No order needs to be passed as to the case property since no property is deposited before the Court in this case.

Sd/- G. Swathi

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur, FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur. Copy to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), PONNUR.

Present: Smt.G. SWATHI

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur.

e Thursday, this the 25th day of April, 2024.

C.C.455/2022

Between:

State : Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnur Town Police Station. … Complainant.

And

Parisa Ravi @ Ravi Babu, S/o. Veeraiah, 40 yrs, Gouda, R/o. 10th Ward, Nidubrolu, Ponnur Town. ….Accused

This case has come up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant Sri. P. Chaitanya garu, advocate for the accused and the matter having heard on 24.04.2024 and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnur Town Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.171/2022 against the accused for the offence U/Sec.506 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

L.W.1/Nalluri Satish is resident of Jaya Bharathi Reddy

Colony of Ponnur Town and he is working as car driver and he interacts with L.W.5/Siva of Mamillpalli Village and often he chit chats with L.W.5 and the accused have some personal disputes with the said Siva regarding Siva’s wife. Due to that accused came to the house of L.W.1 and informed his mother that her son should not talk with Siva, otherwise, he will kill 2 her son. Again on 30.04.2022 at about 08.30 p.m., accused armed with knife, threatened L.W.1 by stating that if he talk with Siva, he will kill him and also abused him in filthy language and on the intervention of parents of L.W.1, the accused left from the house of L.W.1. On that L.W.1 presented the report.

Basing on the report of L.W.1, L.W.6/Sub Inspector of

Police, Ponnur Town P.S., registered a case in Cr.No.171/2022,

U/Sec. 506 of IPC. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, inspected the scene and prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.

Later, on 09.09.2022, L.W.6/Sub Inspector of Police served 41A

Cr.P.C notice to the accused. After completion of investigation, the case was culminated into charge sheet under section 506 of

IPC.

3. Cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused under Section 190 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable U/Sec.506 of IPC.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure.

5. The accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure Code and charge framed against the accused for the offences U/Sec.506 IPC was read over and explained to him in

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

6. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.

3

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining the incriminating evidence made against him from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses in Telugu language, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused. The learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 along with the documentary evidence under Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such the accused is liable to be convicted. The counsel for the accused argued that except the evidence of P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 who are the interested witnesses there are no independent witnesses to prove the alleged offence against the accused and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused for the offence U/sec.506 of IPC beyond

reasonable doubt ?”

10. POINT:-

(i) In order to determine that the accused criminally intimidated P.W.1 with dire consequences by threatening to kill him by showing a knife, the evidence available before this court is the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to P.W.4. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant, P.W.2 is the friend of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the brother of P.W.1 and P.W.4 is the investigation officer in this case.

4

(ii) The specific contention of the defence counsel is that accused has not committed the alleged offence and in respect of the petty disputes in between the accused and P.Ws.1 and

P.W.2, this false case is foisted against the accused. He further contended that there are no independent witnesses except the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 who are the interested witnesses and the same cannot be based to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence, and there is much delay in lodging

Ex.P1 report by P.W.1 which shows that false case is foisted against the accused.

(iii) P.W.1 who is the defacto complainant testified that on 30.06.2022 while he was standing infront of his house at about 8.30 PM, the accused came to his house and informed his mother that he would kill him and when his father questioned the accused as to the same the accused threatened him and his father that he would kill them and the accused used to ask him not to speak with P.W.2 who is his friend as there are some differences in between the accused and P.W.2 and as he did not oblige the same the accused bore grudge and threatened him.

P.W.1 in his cross examination admitted that there is much delay in giving Ex.P1 police report against the accused and the reasons for the said delay were not mentioned in Ex.P1 report.

Further, P.W.1 stated that at the time of the said incident several persons were gathered at the scene of offence.

Admittedly, none of the independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

(iv) P.W.2 who is the friend of P.W.1 testified that in the year 2022 on one day at about 8.00 PM while he was going to drop the passengers he stopped at the house of P.W.1 as the accused was quarreling with P.W.1 and his wife and parents, the accused threatened all of them by showing a knife in his hand, and when he questioned the accused as to the same, the 5 accused also threatened him by stating that he would kill him also, there are petty disputes in between him and the accused and as such the accused threatened P.W.1 and his parents to stop them from talking to him. P.W.2 in his cross examination stated that Ex.P1 report was lodged by P.W.1 on the same day of the said incident at about 8.00 PM, but P.W.1 clearly stated that there is much delay in lodging Ex.P1 report by him.

Further, P.W.2 stated that he questioned the accused as to why he threatened P.W.1 and his parents with dire consequences and the accused stated to him that he would kill him also, but there is no whisper in the testimony of P.W.1 as to the presence of P.W.2 at the time of the said incident and the accused threatening P.W.2 also by stating to kill him.

(v) P.W.3 who is the brother of P.W.1 deposed that on 30.04.2022 while he was attending his duty, he received a phone call from his neighbours that the accused threatened

P.W.1 and his parents. P.W.3 stated that he does not know the reason for the said incident. P.W.3 in his cross examination stated that he did not witness the alleged incident. As could be seen from the evidence of P.W.3, it is found that the evidence of

P.W.3 is hearsay evidence and as such the same finds no support to the case of the prosecution.

(vi) The evidence of P.W.4 who is the investigation officer in this case is formal in nature with regard to the investigation conducted by him in this case and as such it is procedural in nature. P.W.4 in his cross examination admitted that the alleged offence has taken place on 30.04.2022, but Ex.P1 report was filed by P.W.1 on 10.06.2022. Hence, there is clear delay of ten days in lodging Ex.P1 from the date of the alleged offence and admittedly, except P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 who are the interested 6 witnesses, none of the independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

(vii) On careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record, the evidence available to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence is the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 who are interested witnesses and there are several contradictions in their testimonies. Except P.Ws.1 to P.W.3, who are the interested witnesses, there are no other independent witnesses to prove the alleged offence against the accused. Hence, in the absence of independent witnesses, it is not safe to base the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 alone who are interested witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence charged. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused criminally intimidated P.W.1 by threatening with dire consequences. Hence, he is entitled to be acquitted for the offence charged.

11. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 506 of Indian Penal code, accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal

Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force upto six months under Section 437A of

Criminal Procedure Code.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 25th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- G. Swathi

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur, FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITENSSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 : Nalluri Sateesh - None -

P.W.2 : Tamanam Siva Sankar

P.W.3 : Nalluri Koteswara Rao

P.W.4 : Shaik Hasheem S.I of Police, Ponnur Town P.S.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Report given by P.W.1. - NIL -

Ex.P2 : FIR

Ex.P3 : Rough Sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Sd/- G. Swathi

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur, FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur.

8

FORM No.72 Calendar and Judgment District of Guntur

Calendar of cases tried by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.455/2022

Nature of Offence: U/Sec.506 of IPC

Date of Judgment 25-04-2024

Commen Report of ApprehensioDate of Release Closure Sentence or Offencecement of complainantn of accusedremandon bailof trialorder trial 30.04.2201.07.22-- ---- 11.05.2323.04.2425.04.24

Explanation for the delay: The delay is due to non-appearance of the accused and non production of witnesses.

Complainant : Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnur Town P.S

Name of the accused : Parisa Ravi @ Ravi Babu, S/o. Veeraiah,40 yrs, Gouda, R/o. 10th Ward, Nidubrolu, Ponnur Town.

Finding: Not Guilty

Sentence or Order:

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 506 of Indian Penal code, accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force upto six months under Section 437A of Criminal Procedure Code.

Sd/- G. Swathi

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur, FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur.

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

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), PONNUR.

Present: Smt.G. SWATHI

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur.

th day of April, 2024 Thursday, this the 25

C.C.No.471/2022

Between:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Ponnur Town P.S. (Cr.No.117/2022) … Complainant.

And

1. Suddapalli Venkata Suresh Kumar @ Suresh, S/o. Koteswara Rao, 39 yrs, Perika, Ground Floor, 3rd Cross Street, Balaji Layout, Marthahalla, Bangalore. Native of Jayasankar Nagar, Chirala Town.

2. Suddapalli Koteswararao, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, 67 yrs, Perika, r/o. D.No.2-8-13/A, backside of Adiparasakthi temple, Jayasankar Nagar, Chirala Town.

3. Suddapalli Nirmaladevi, W/o. Koteswararao, 57 yrs, Perika, r/o. D.No.2-8-13/A, backside of Adiparasakthi temple, Jayasankar Nagar, Chirala Town. … Accused.

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me on 25.04.2024 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, and Sri Ch. Nagarajugaru, advocate for the accused, upon hearing on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ponnur Town P.S, has filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 in Crime No.117/2022 for the offences punishable Under Section 498(A), 506 r/w 34 of IPC and

Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act of Ponnur Town P.S.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that

On 08.03.2015 parents of L.W.1 performed the marriage of

L.W.1/Gumpena @ Gampena Lavanya Lakshmi @ Lavanya with

A1 in the presence both side elders. At the time of marriage, as per the demand of parents of A1, her mother gave cash of

Rs.10,00,000/- and 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the accused towards dowry. At the time of marriage L.W.1 was worked at Bangalore and A1 worked as software Engineer at

Bangalore. During their wedlock, they begot two male children.

Prior to marriage of L.W.1, A1 did private job at Chennai and resided along with his parents and at that time the in-laws of

L.W.1 were running sundry shop in Chennai and they got some debts in business. Later L.W.1 came to know that A1 got first marriage prior to her marriage and when she asked A1, he replied that he got divorce from her. After birth of two children, as they were in debts, A1 demanded L.W.1 for additional dowry of

Rs.10,00,000/- to fulfill the debts. Then her mother arranged total cash of Rs.6,00,000/- to her husband. Later, A1 made illegal contact with one woman and demanded L.W.1, to sell 6 cents of site in the name of her mother and she informed the same to the parents of A1 and they also supported him and also beat her. A1 to A3 subjected LW.1 to harassment both physically and mentally for additional dowry and with common intention they criminally intimidated her. Due to unbearable harassment,

L.W.1 lodged report to the police.

3

Basing on the report of L.W.1, L.W.9/B. Prasad, SI of Police,

Ponnur Town P.S registered it as a case in Cr.No.117/2022,

U/Sec.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. During the course of investigation, L.W.9/ Sub

Inspector of police visited the scene of the offence, drew the rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.

On 23.05.2022 he issued 41(A) Cr.P.C notices to the accused.

After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the offences U/Sec.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. This case was taken on file against A1 to A3 for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. On appearance of A1 to A3 before the court, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/s. 207

Cr.P.C.

5. A1 to A3 were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. and Charges

U/Sec.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act were framed against them, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined

P.W.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.

7. After completion of prosecution evidence, A1 to A3 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence made against them from the prosecution evidence in

Telugu, for which, they denied and reported no defence evidence.

4

8. Heard both side arguments submitted by the Learned APP and counsel for the accused.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to

A3 for the offences U/Sec.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC

and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act ?”

10. POINT :

The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of P.W.1 was performed with A1 on 08.03.2015 and parents of P.W.1 presented Cash of Rs.10,00,000/- and gold ornaments towards dowry to the accused. During their wedlock they begot two male children. Later, A1 who was incurred debts prior to her marriage demanded P.W.1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- to fulfill their debts. Later, while A1 was in Bangalore, he made illegal contact with another woman and demanded P.W.1 to sell 6 cents of site in the name of her mother as she wants to lead conjugal life with him and her parents also supported the acts of

A1 and also criminally intimidated her.

11. P.W.1 is the victim who is the main and material witness said to be suffered physical and mental harassment by the accused turned hostile and deposed that accused never harassed her by demanding additional dowry amount, due to petty quarrels, she approached the police. P.W.2 who is brother of

P.W.1 also turned hostile and deposed the same as deposed by

P.W.1. Though the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution.

5

12. As the main crucial and material witnesses turned hostile, the learned APP had given up the evidence of remaining witnesses. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. On perusal of entire record there is no iota of evidence on the record to prove the guilt of the accused. In the light of above discussion, the prosecution failed in establishing the case against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act beyond the reasonable doubt. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

13. In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences

U/Sec.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and their sureties shall stands cancelled after lapse of six months.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 25th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- G. Swathi

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur, FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITENSSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 : G. Lavanya Lakshmi @ Lavanya - None -

P.W.2 : G. Sudhakar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Signature portion of P.W.1. on the report. - NIL -

Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1

Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 6

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Sd/- G. Swathi

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur, FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur.

7

FORM No.72 Calendar and Judgment District of Guntur Calendar of cases tried by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.471/2022

Nature of Offence: U/Secs.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

Date of Judgment 25-04-2024

Commen Report of Apprehension Date of Release on Closure Sentence or Offencecement of complainantof accusedremandbailof trialorder trial Prior to 17.05.22 -- ---- 25.04.2425.04.2425.04.24 17.05.22 Explanation for the delay: The delay is due to non-appearance of the accused and non production of witnesses.

Complainant : Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnur Town P.S

Name of the accused :

1. Suddapalli Venkata Suresh Kumar @ Suresh, S/o. Koteswara Rao, 39 yrs, Perika, Ground Floor, 3rd Cross Street, Balaji Layout, Marthahalla, Bangalore. Native of Jayasankar Nagar, Chirala Town.

2. Suddapalli Koteswararao, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, 67 yrs, Perika, r/o. D.No.2-8-13/A, backside of Adiparasakthi temple, Jayasankar Nagar, Chirala Town.

3. Suddapalli Nirmaladevi, W/o. Koteswararao, 57 yrs, Perika, r/o. D.No.2-8-13/A, backside of Adiparasakthi temple, Jayasankar Nagar, Chirala Town.

Finding: Not Guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and their sureties shall stands cancelled after lapse of six months.

Sd/- G. Swathi

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur, FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur. Copy to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.