Smt G.V.L.Saraswathi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: MOVVA.

Present:: Smt G.V.L Saraswathi,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class : Avanigadda,

Fac/- Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Movva.

Tuesday, this the 26th day of December, 2019.

C.C. NO.92 of 2019

Between :-

Kodali Kiranmai, W/o.Late Mallaiah, Hindu, aged about 35 years, Housewife, R/o.Narayanarao Nagar, Challapalli, Challapalli Mandal, Krishna District. … Complainant

And

Pinjala Kota Venkata Naga Raju, S/o.Late Mallaiah, Hindu, aged about 60 years, Rtd., Employee, Properties, R/o.Pedakallepalli Road, Challapalli, Challapalli Mandal, Krishna District.

... Accused

This Case coming on for hearing before me on 12.12.2019 in the presence of Sri. E.Laskhmi Narayana, Advocate for the Complainant and of Sri.T.Subba Rao, Advocate for the accused, upon consideration of the material on record, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1).This is a complaint filed under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act by the complainant by name Kodali Kiranmai against the accused by name

P.Kota Venkata Nagaraju.

2).The averments of the complaint is as follows :- On 23.06.2015, the accused approached to the complainant and requested her to lend an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- for the purpose of his family expenses and to discharge sundry debts.

Accordingly, the complainant lent the said amount on the even date and the accused borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- dated 23.06.2015 and executed a Promissory note in favour of the complainant and agreed to repay the same along with interest at 24% per annum. Thereafter, the complainant demanded the accused to realize the said promissory note debt and the complainant accepted to repay the same but postpone 2 the payment from time to time and did not repay the debt due to the complainant. In spite of repeated demands made by the complainant, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.803148 on 15.10.2014 for Rs.1,50,000/- which is maintained by the accused through SBI, Buttaipeta, Machilipatnam branch and thereafter the complainant presented the said cheque before Corporation Bank, Challapalli Branch on 14.06.2017 for collection and the same is returned to the complainant with a

Memo, dated 19.06.2017 that the account of accused is not having sufficient funds and returned the cheque with a reason that “Funds Insufficient”. Then, the complainant got issued a Regd. Legal Notice on 23.06.2017 and the accused received the said notice on 27.06.2017, but the complainant neither pay the said amount nor give any proper reply and kept quite. Thus, the accused is liable to punish under Section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the complaint.

3)The Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Avanigadda, perused the affidavit of the complainant and after hearing the counsel for the complainant, took the case on file as C.C.No.738/2017 (New C.C.No.92/2019) for an offence under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act and issued process. On the appearance of the accused

before the court, he was furnished with copies of the documents as required under

Section.207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. with regard to the substance of offence alleged against him. The accused denied the offence alleged against him and stated that he has reported no defence evidence.

Thereafter the said case was being posted for trial.

4).On behalf of the complainant, the complainant herself examined as

PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. Ex.P.1 is the cheque, dated 10.06.2017, bearing No.803148 issued by the accused to the complainant. Ex.P.2 is the cheque return memo, dated 19.06.2017 issued by Corporation Bank, Challapalli branch to the complainant. Ex.P.3 is the office copy of the Regd. Notice, dated 23.06.2017 got issued by the complainant to the accused. Ex.P.4 is the Postal acknowledgement, dated 27.06.2017. Ex.P.5 is the certified copy of judgment in 3

O.S.No.165/2017, dated 22.03.2018. The accused examined himself as R.W.1

and got marked Ex.R.1 viz., S.B.I Account Book belongs to the accused.

5).After closure of the complainant's evidence the accused was examined

U/s 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against him, for which the accused denied and reported defence evidence on his behalf. No witness is examined and no documents are marked on behalf of accused.

6)The point for determination is : –

" Whether the complainant brought home the guilt of the accused for

the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

7) After going through the contents of both parties coupled with the evidence and documents, this court for the better appreciation of the case, it is not necessary to reproduce the entire oral or documentary evidence and it will discuss as and when require to the extent required.

P O I N T :

8)This Court considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the arguments addressed by both the counsel. Section.138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, which constitutes the offence of dishonour of cheque, mandates that the following conditions have to be established by the complainant in order to succeed in the prosecution of the accused.

I) The complainant is a creditor, or person entitled to receive any amount from the person who has drawn a cheque for payment of such amount of money.

ii) The drawer of the cheque should have drawn the sum on an account obtained by him with a banker.

Iii) The money so drawn must have been for discharge of the whole or part of any debt or other liability.

iv) Such cheque must be returned by the bank unpaid (a) either because the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque, or (b) it exceeds the amount arranged to the paid from that account by an agreement with the bank.

4

9)On satisfying the aforesaid ingredients, the drawer of the cheque will be deemed to have committed an offence under Section.138 of the other requirements stipulated in the provision to that section are satisfied. The said requirements are presentation of the cheque within 6 months or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier, issue of notice of dishonour of cheque demanding payment of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque within 30 days of the receipt of the information as to dishonour from the bank and failure of the drawer to make payment within 30 days from the receipt of the notice.

10)For brevity and better appreciation of the facts I correctly feel it is propitious to reproduce the section:

SECTION.118 - Presumptions as to Negotiable Instruments Act :

Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made :-

a)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 transferred for consideration;

b)as to date; that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date;

c)as to time of acceptance; that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity;

d)as to time of transfer; that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity;

e)as to order of indorsement; that the indorsement appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear thereon;

f)as to stamps; that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped;

g)that holder is a holder in due course; that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course; provided that, where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden or proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him;

The said presumption is a rebuttable presumption, as per the presumption the said cheque issued for legally enforceable debt.

11)Now it has to be seen whether the complainant has established the conditions necessary for proving the guilt of the accused for the offence under

Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

5

CONDITION NOS.(i) to (iv) :-

12)The entire case of the complainant is the accused borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,50,000/- on 23.06.2015 from him on execution of promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, but the accused did not choose to repay the same, despite of demands the accused issued a cheque bearing

No.803148 under Ex.P.1 for Rs.1,50,000/-. It is incumbent on the plaintiff to prove that the accused borrowed said amount and for repayment of said amount, he issued Ex.P.1 cheque. The complainant presented the said cheque for collection, it was returned with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient". Ex.P2 is the returned memo. Then, the complainant got issued a Regd. Legal Notice/Ex.P3 under

Section.138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, calling upon the accused to arrange the cheque amount and the same was served on the accused under Ex.P5 postal acknowledgement.

13).In the cases of Negotiable Instruments Act, the initial burden is on the complainant to prove the existing debt, for which, the accused issued the cheque to discharge of whole or part of debt. Though, the presumption is in favour of the complainant under Section 118 of NI Act that the cheque issued by the accused is valid. The said presumption is rebuttable presumption and the burden will not discharge unless and until proving of existing debt.

14).In order to prove the legal enforceable debt, the complainant got exhibited Ex.P.5 certified copy of decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.165/2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, wherein no appeal preferred by the accused and the decree and judgment is final and binding on the accused.

The suit debt was taken by the accused, when the complainant demanded the accused to repay the same, he issued Ex.P.1 cheque dated 10.06.2017 and the said cheque was returned on 19.06.2017. So, the complainant had fulfilled the procedural aspects by issuing the Notice to the accused by granting time for 15 days to arrange the cheque amount. Even, after receipt of the Notice, the accused did not repay or arrange the amount.

6

15)On the other hand, the accused had taken the plea that he never issued cheque to the complainant. He further deposed that he handover five blank cheques as well as one blank signatory promissory note to one Murthy, as he was the subscribed to the chits run by him. When, the complainant discharged her burden, while got exhibited Ex.P.5, automatically it presumed the cheque has been issued by the accused to discharge the debt. When the accused had taken the said plea, he did not issue the cheque, the burden on him to handover the blank cheques to the said Murthy. When, the complainant counsel confronted Ex.P.1 cheque, the accused denied his signature and accepted the cheque belongs to him. When he denied the signature in Ex.P.1 and not issuance of the cheque to the complainant, automatically he ought to have taken steps to examine the signature in Ex.P.1 legal recourse U/Ss.45 or 73 of the Evidence Act, but he had not taken any steps for comparison the signature.

16).The counsel for accused submitted his arguments that all the five cheques have been filed by the family members of the complainant, though, the cheques were not issued to them, but one Murthy, who is behind back to the complainant family, ought to have been filed those cases. When, the complainant counsel posed a question, whether the accused will be examined the said Murthy, the accused gave answer that he did not examine as his whereabouts of not known to him. The answer itself apparently the accused had taken the falsify defence.

17).It is also an admitted fact that after Ex.P.1 cheque, the complainant drawn an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the accused account by presented another cheque. The accused counsel submitted his arguments that all the five cheques were handed over to the complainant family, out of five, the two cheques were presented by the complainant and the remaining three cheques were happened to be presented 7 by the family members of the complainant and her friends and cases were filed against the same accused.

18).As discussed above, though the argument of the accused is nearer to the circumstances happened to be submitted by the accused, but unless and until the said fact is proved, the circumstances will not be prevailed. So, as per the presumption under Section.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the said cheque was issued in favour of the complainant for legally enforceable debt, the oral and documentary evidence of PW.1, the complainant proved the Ex.P1 cheque is issued for legally enforcible debt. Hence, the point is answered affirmatively in favour of the the complainant and against the accused.

19).In view of the above discussion, the complainant has established the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act.

20).In the result, the accused is found guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly he is convicted for the said offence under Section.255(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 17th day of December, 2019.

Sd/- G.V.L.Saraswathi

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Avanigadda. FAC:JFCM, MOVVA.

21)The Accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, the accused submitted that he is aged about 65 years and he is suffering with B.P,

Sugar, Gas pain, Heart pain and he got operated to his left leg and he sought for pardon. Hence, he prays to take lenient view with regard to quantum of sentence. It is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of P.O Act. However considering the plea of the convicted, the facts and circumstances present in this case, I am taking lenient view with regard to quantum of sentence.

8 22).In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence U/s.138 of N.I Act and he is convicted U/Sec. 255(2) of Cr.P.C., and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence

U/Sec.138 of NI Act. In default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The convicted did not undergo any detention. Hence, accused is not entitled set off U/s.428 Cr.P.C.

The convicted is informed about his right to prefer appeal against this judgment to Hon'ble District & Sessions Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam. He is also informed about his right to free legal aid to prefer appeal. Office is directed to supply the free copy to prefer appeal of the judgment to the convicted forthwith.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer-Gr.II of this Court, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of December, 2019.

Sd/- G.V.L.Saraswathi

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

AVANIGADDA.

FAC: JFCM, MOVVA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant : For defence:

PW.1 : K.KiranmaiR.W.1: P.Kota Venkata Naga Raju

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR COMPLAINANT

Ex.P.1 : Cheque, dated 10.06.2017, bearing No.803148 issued by the accused to the complainant.

Ex.P.2 : Cheque return memo, dated 19.06.2017 issued by Corporation Bank, Challapalli branch to the complainant.

Ex.P.3 : Office copy of the Regd. Notice, dated 23.06.2017 got issued by the complainant to the accused.

Ex.P.4 : Postal acknowledgement, dated 27.06.2017.

Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.165/2017, dated 22.03.2018.

9

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR ACCUSED

Ex.R.1: SB Account pass book of accused.

Sd/- G.V.L.Saraswathi

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Avanigadda. FAC: JFCM, MOVVA.

//True copy//

FAC: Judl.1 st Class Magistrate,

MOVVA

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: MOVVA.

Present :: Smt G.V.L Saraswathi,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class : Avanigadda.

Fac/- Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Movva. Tuesday, this the 31st day of December, 2019.

CALENDAR CASE NO.159 of 2019

(Old Case No.21 of 2017 of JMFC Court, Avanigadda) (Received by transfer from Pr.Junior Civil Judge's Court, Avanigadda as per District Court's Proceedings in Dis.No.3881, dt.13-06-2016 and renumbered as CC.No.159/2019).

BETWEEN: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuchipudi Police Station. ::: Complainant

A N D

1. Kakani Tata Rao, s/o Venkateswara Rao, age 67 years.

2. Kakani Leela Venkata Prasad, s/o Tatarao, age 46 years. ::: Accused ( Both are the residents of Barlapudi Village of Movva Mandal).

This Calendar Case coming on for hearing before me on 27.12.2016 in the presence of Asst Public Prosecutor, Movva for the State, and of Sri M.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the accused, upon consideration of the material on record, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1)The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuchipudi Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2 alleging that they committed an offences punishable under Section.447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2)The material allegations stemming from the report and the material available on record is : On 03-08-2016, LW.1/Koneru Chandra Sekhar Rao came to his agricultural land situated in Barlapudi Village Area, Movva Mandal and found border survey stones were not there which were fixed by the Mandal Surveyor in pursuance of the decree passed by this court on 20-07- 2016 and also boundary bund was partly damaged on 02-08-2012 and that he came to know accused were committed this occurrence. When, they were present at their land, LW.1 asked about the occurrence and why you committed such offence without respect of court order.

Accused were said that his daughter phoned them to remove the stones and also removed part of boundary bund so saying threatened LW.1 if he entered into that land and again try to fix the border stones and made damage bund in this field, they will kill him and caused loss of

Rs.2,000/- to LW.1. In this connection, LW.1 gave a report, LW.10/V.Satish, S.I of Police,

Kuchipudi PS registered the same as a case in Crime No.96/2016 Under Section.447, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into. Hence, the Charge sheet.

3). The accused are present and copies supplied U/s. 207 Cr.P.C. to them.

4).The accused were examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation for the offences under section 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC have been read over and explained to them, to which they denied the offences and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2 5).The prosecution listed 11 witnesses, but examined PWs.1 to 9. LW1/Koneru Chandra

Sekhararao is examined as PW1. LW3/Sathuluri John Subbarao is examined as PW.2.

LW.2/Dandamudi Balarama Krishnayya is examined as PW3. LW4/Govada Srinivasarao is examined as PW.4. LW5/Pagolu Purna Chandrarao is examined as PW.5.

LW.8/Ch.Srinivasarao is examined as PW6. LW.9/K.Gangarao is examined as PW.7.

LW.6/Koneru Hari Krishna is examined as PW.8. LW.10/V.Satish, S.I of Police is examined as

PW.9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. Ex.P1 is the Report of PW.1 . Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3. Ex.P3 is the CC copy of delivery warrant. Ex.P4 is the CC Copy of delivery receipt. Ex.P5 is the FIR. Ex.P6 is the Rough sketch. Ex.P7 is the CC copy of

E.P.No.14/2016 in OS.337/2007 petition. Ex.P8 is the Certified copy of Amen report. Ex.P9 is

the certified copy of Property delivery receipt.

6).After closure of prosecution evidence the accused were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against them for which the accused denied.

The accused have not chosen to examine any defense witnesses and no documents are marked on their behalf.

7)The points for determination are: –

1. Whether the prosecution has established the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

8)PW1 is the defacto complainant. PWs.2 to 5 are the eye witnesses. P.W.6 is the

Mandal Surveyor. PW.7 is the Field Assistant. PW.8 is the village elder. P.W.9 is the

Investigation officer.

9) After going through the contents of both parties coupled with the evidence and documents, this court for the better appreciation of the case, it is not necessary to reproduce the entire oral or documentary evidence and it will discuss as and when require to the extent required.

P O I N T No.1 :

10)PW1/Koneru Chandra Sekhara Rao is the defacto complainant. He deposed that he had a land an extent of Ac.1.94 cents in R.S.No.13/2. The accused occupied an extent of

Ac.0.05 ¾ cents on that he approached before Civil court and decree was passed in his favour. On 20-07-2016 at about 01.00 p.m., the court ameen by name Ganga Rao and Mandal

Surveyor by name Srinivasa Rao conducted survey and divided his land by plug the stones and hand over the same to him, thereafter on 03-08-2016 at about 10.00 a.m., he went to his field and observed the survey stones were removed which were erected by court. The accused removed the boundary stones and taken away. Then, he approached the accused and questioned about the removal of Survey stones, on that the accused informed on the 3 instructions of his daughter of A2 by name yerra padma he removed the same. The accused threatened him to see his end and that he submitted Ex.P1 report to the Police.

11)In the cross-examination of PW.1, it revealed the incident took place on 02-08-2016, but he came to know on 03-08-2019. When the Ex.P1 report confronted the report, the witness says he did not mentioned the same in Ex.P1 report. So, the alleged cause of action also does not elicited from the evidence of PW.1.

12)The PW.2/S.John Subbarao stated the same version of the PW.1 in chief and he further stated after erecting the boundary stones by the Mandal Surveyor, he constructed cement pipes by pouring concrete on the boundary stones after 10 to 15 days. On the same day night, the accused and his son remove the cement pipes and taken away on that PW.1 submitted his report.

13)Admittedly, the PW.2 is the Farm servant of PW.1 and he did not witness the removal of the alleged pipes. As per the evidence of PW.1, the boundary stones taken away where as

PW.2 deposed the pipes were taken away , so their evidence ventilated lot of contradictions i.e., time and date of occurance of alleged incident.

14)PW.3/D.Balarama Krishnayya who is the eye witness, he deposed he did know anything about case facts. The same was stated before the police when he was examined by the police. At this stage the Learned A.P.P declared him witness as hostile and cross examined him, but nothing was elicited from his evidence. So, the P.W.3 evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution.

15)PW.4/Govada Srinivasarao who is the eye witness, he also deposed same version of the chief of PW.1 and further deposed after 12 days the boundary stones were removed by accused and the same was informed to the PW.1. Then, the PW.1 lodged a complaint .

16)In the Cross-examination of PW.4 it revealed he is a tenant to the PW.1 since 10 years.

If removal of alleged boundary stones at about 10.30 a.m., immediately he phone called to the

PW.1 on the same day both were came to evening hours at bout 4 to 5 hours to the field and observed the same. He further deposed he had stated before the police that on 02-08-2016 at about 9.45 a.m., when the PW.1 came to his house and asked about the removal of the stones he narrated the same. Where as PW.1 evidence is revealed he himself visited the field and found the boundary stones were removed, so there is a lot of contradictions of PWs.1 and 4.

Moreover, PW.4 is the tenant to the PW.1 who is not a trust worthy witness.

17)PW.5/P.Purna Chandrarao is the another witness who deposed in the same version of the PW.1 with regard to the erecting the boundary stones by the court ameen with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor. He further deposed on the next day he found the boundary 4 stones were removed. The PW.1 came in the morning hours after knowing the information and see the same.

18)In the Cross-examination of PW.5 revealed he came to know about the removal of the boundary stones through the PW.4. So, he is not the eye witness and information was came to him through the PW.4 who is planted witness.

19)PW.6/Ch.Srinivasa Rao is the Mandal Surveyor deposed that on 20-07-2016 the court ameen approached him along with court order of Avanigadda as per the directions of the order the assistance of Mandal Surveyor is directed him to survey the land in Survey No.13/02

Barlapudi village, on that day himself and court ameen went to the field, there he found

Koneru Chandrasekhara rao who is the owner of that land then, they measure the land he found that the land an extent of 5 ¾ cent merged with the land in the eastern boundary owner he cannot say the name of him, then, after measuring the land he was fixed the three boundary stones with the assistance of court ameen. The court ameen drafted mediator report wherein he affixed the signature then, he left the place. On the evening , the PW.1 phone called stating that boundary stones were removed and that he replied it is not his job and it belongs to the court. On the next day or second day the police examined him and recorded his statement.

20)Though, the PW.6 did not followed the procedure as his visit was not mentioned in the visit book and MRO was not given any written instructions, however he followed the direction of the court orders.

21)The PW.7/K.Ganga Rao is the Field Assistant(court Amin) deposed that he found an extent of 5 ¾ cent was encroached by one Yarram padma and others. Then, in the presence of mediators he has handover the encroached portion to PW.1 and obtained delivery receipt.

The PW.6 erected boundary stones after putting the marks on the encroachment portion.

Then, he has returned the delivery warrant along with delivery receipt. In the cross- examination the accused counsel put only one question that he deposed the chief evidence

before this court at first instance.

22)The evidence of Pws. 6 and 7 only revealed they have conducted Survey and accused land was find out by fixing the boundary stones handed over the PW.1. The Prosecution ought to have been established the removal of the boundary stones. So, the evidence of Pws. 6 and 7 no way helpful to the Prosecution.

23)The PW.8/Koneru Hari Krishna is the son of PW.1 who deposed in the same version of the PW.1. But in the cross-examination revealed he did not stated before the police as he stated in his chief that “later, he came to know the boundary stones were removed by Accused 5

No.1 and 2. when, his father asked about the removal of the boundary stones, they they replied her daughter directed the remove the stones and admonished whatever he do the same. Then, his father lodged a complaint against the accused.

The PW.9/V.Satish who is the Investigation Officer deposed that on 03-08-2016 at 24) about 2.00 p.m., PW.1 came and submitted Ex.P1 report, then he registered the same as in

Cr.No.96/2016 U/s. 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C, the FIR sent to the all concerned Ex.P5 is the

FIR, then he was examined P.W.1 and recorded his statement. From there, he went to scene of offence along with P.W.1, there he prepared rough sketch under Ex.P6, there he secured

PWs. 2 to 5 and 8 and LW.7 examined them and recorded their statement. On 04-08-2016, he went to MRO office Movva, there he secured PW.6 examined him and recorded his statement.

From there, he went to Prl.Civil judge court , Avanigadda there he secured PW.7examined him and recorded his statement . On 09-10-2016, he served 41 Cr.P.C notice to the accused , later his successor LW.11 took up investigation after verification of the CD he obtained certified copies from Prl.Junior Civil Judge court, Avanigadda relating to this offence Ex.P7 is the CC copy of E.P petition EP.nO.14/2016 in Os.337/2007, Ex.P8 is the certified copy of Amen report, Ex.P9 is the certified copy of property delivery receipt, then after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet on 23-11-2016.

25)In his Cross-examination, he deposed that PW.1 is not eye witness to the incident.

PW.2 did not stated before him the incident was happened after 10 to 15 days of arrangement of cement pipes and poling concrete, on the same day the accused and his son remove the pipes and taken away. The PW.4 did not stated before him after 12 days of erecting the boundary stones, the accused removed the boundary stones as well as survey was conducted in his presence. Likewise, after 12 days of survey, the stones were removed. Either himself or his successor/LW.11 did not examined the neighboring filed owners of the scene of offence.

He further deposed his investigation revealed the lands belongs to PW.1 is an extent Ac.1.94 cents, he did not inquire the land extent of the accused. He did not seen the documents of the

PW.1. The defence counsel submitted his written arguments which is already discussed above. The investigation is not properly done.

26)In view of the above discussion on Point No1, I hold the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Lot of contradictions made out by the defence counsel.

27).In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences U/s.447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and therefore, they are acquitted under section.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bonds 6 and bails bonds of accused shall be remain in force for a period of 6 months under section 437-A Cr.P.C and thereafter stands canceled.

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

by me in the open court, this the 31st day of December, 2019.

Sd/- G.V.L.Saraswathi

FAC/-Judicial Magistrate of I Class Movva.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution: For Defence: PW1: Koneru Chandra Sekhararao - NONE - PW2: Sathuluri John Subbarao PW3: Dandamudi Balarama Krishnayya PW4: Govada Srinivasarao PW5: Pagolu Purna Chandrarao PW6: Ch.Srinivasarao PW7: K.Gangarao PW8: Koneru Hari Krishna PW9: V.Satish, S.I of Police.

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 : Report of PW.1 . Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3. Ex.P3 : CC copy of delivery warrant. Ex.P4 : CC Copy of delivery receipt. Ex.P5 : FIR. Ex.P6 : Rough sketch. Ex.P7 : CC copy of E.P.No.14/2016 in OS.337/2007 petition. Ex.P8 : Certified copy of Amen report. Ex.P9: certified copy of Property delivery receipt.

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR DEFENCE

NILL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL.

Sd/- G.V.L.Saraswathi

FAC/- Judicial Magistrate of I Class Movva.

//True Copy//

FAC/-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS MOVVA

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL FIRST

CLASS MAGISTRATE, AVANIGADDA.

Present: Smt. G.V.L.Saraswathi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda.

Tuesday, this the 19th day of April,2022.

O.S. No. 115 OF 2021

Between:

Yalavarthi Satyanarayana, S/o.Gopala Krishnaiah, Hindu, aged about 55 years, R/o.Peddakallepalli Village, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District.

... Plaintiff

Vs

1.Mummaneni Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Raghavaiah, Hindu, aged about 55 years, R/o. Pedakallepalli Village, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District.

2.Mummaneni Sahiti, D/o.Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged about 17 years, R/o. Pedakallepalli Village, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District.

3.Mummaneni Snehitha, D/o.Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged about 15 years, R/o. Pedakallepalli Village, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District.

... Defendants

This Suit is coming on 18.04.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.V.G.K.Prasad, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and the defendants called absent and remained ex-parte, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, and this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff and prays the grand a decree in favour of plaintiff and against the estate of the deceased Gunturu Krishnaveni which is lying in the hands of defendants who are the legal heirs of the deceased for an amount of Rs.4,39,000/- being the principle and interest due under the suit promissory note dated 16.03.2021 executed by the wife of 1st defendant during her life time in favour of the plaintiff with subsequent interest at 18% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and for costs.

2.The averments of the plaint is as follows : During the life time of wife of 1st petitioner i.e., Krishnaveni, borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 16.03.2021 for her manifest benefit of her own expenses and on execution of suit promissory note by agreeing thereon to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum either to him or to his order on demand. The plaintiff came to know that on 01.06.2021 the said Gunturu Krishnaveni died intestate leaving behind her legal heirs i.e., defendants 1 to 3 (husband and two daughters). Thereafter, the plaintiff demanded the

Page 1 of 5 2 defendants 1 to 3 to repay the amount due under the promissory note, but they postponed to repay the said pronote amount debt. Then, the plaintiff got issued a Regd.

Legal Notice to the defendants on 13.09.2021 through his counsel by demanding to repay the pronote debt and the defendants received the said notice and kept quite without made any payment. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants 1 to 3 who are legal heirs of Gunturu Krishnaveni, from out of the estate of Late Gunturu Krishnaveni, if any which is in their hands, for recovery of the suit promissory note debt. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendants remained set exparte on 08.04.2022.

4.Now the Point for consideration is Whether suit promissory note dated 16.03.2021 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

5.To prove his case, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A.3. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note executed by the wife of 1st defendant by name Late G.Krishnaveni in favour of plaintiff for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on 16.03.2021. Ex.A.2 is the Regd. Legal Notice dt.13.09.2021. Ex.A.3 is the Postal acknowledgement dt.1.09.2021.

Point:

6.The plaintiff is examined by way of chief examination affidavit as P.W.1 and deposed that during the life time of wife of the 1st defendant by name Guntur Krishnaveni borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 16.03.2021 for the purpose of her manifest and her own expenses and executed the suit promissory under Ex.A.1 agreeing thereon to repay the same with interest at the rate 18% per annum either to him or to his order on demand. The plaintiff came to know that on 01.06.2021 the said

Gunturu Krishnaveni died intestate without discharging her pronote debt leaving behind her legal heirs i.e., defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff demanded the defendants 1 to 3 who are the legal heirs of deceased Krishnaveni to repay the amount due under Ex.A.1 promissory note but all the defendants are postponed the same on one pretext or other dragging the same. Thereafter, the plaintiff got issued Regd. Legal Notice to the defendants 1 to 3 under Ex.A.2. But, the defendants received the same under Ex.A.3

Postal acknowledgement and kept quite without making any amount to the plaintiff under suit promissory note debt. So, the chief affidavit contents of P.W.1 is fully supported the evidence of P.W.1. The defendants failed to file written statement within stipulated time.

Hence, defendants remained set exparte on 08.0.2022.

Page 2 of 5 3

7.In view of unchallenged evidence of P.W.1, juxtaposed with documentary evidence of Ex.A1 suit promissory note, it is held that the plaintiff has discharged the initial burden and proved the execution of Ex.A1 suit promissory note in respect of date, time and place of execution of Ex.A1 and passing of consideration thereunder. In spite of number of adjournments defendants did not the reason for their failure to file the written statement within stipulated time and remained set exparte. Therefore, the evidence of

P.W.1 is cogent and convincing coupled with Ex.A1. Hence it is held that the Ex.A.1 is true, valid and binding on defendant and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount with costs and future interest there upon. Accordingly, Point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

8.In the result, suit is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.4,39,000/- (Rupees four lakhs thirty nine thousand only) with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the estate of the deceased Gunturu Krishnaveni, which is lying in the hands of defendants.

Directly typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr.II on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 19th day of April, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Avanigadda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff :For Defendants :-

PW1 : Yalavarthi Satyanarayana-NONE -

Documents marked on behalf plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original promissory note executed by the wife of 1st defendant i.e., deceased Gunturu Krishnaveni in favour of plaintiff for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on 16.03.2021. Ex.A.2: Regd. Legal Notice dt.13.09.2021. Ex.A.3: Postal acknowledgement dt.14.09.2021.

Documents marked on behalf of Defendants:

-- NIL –

PJCJ, AVG.

Page 3 of 5

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL FIRST

CLASS MAGISTRATE, AVANIGADDA.

Present: Smt. G.V.L.Saraswathi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda.

Tuesday, this the 19th day of April,2022.

O.S. No. 115 OF 2021

Between:

Yalavarthi Satyanarayana, S/o.Gopala Krishnaiah, Hindu, aged about 55 years, R/o.Peddakallepalli Village, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District.

... Plaintiff

Vs

1.Mummaneni Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Raghavaiah, Hindu, aged about 55 years, R/o. Pedakallepalli Village, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District.

2.Mummaneni Sahiti, D/o.Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged about 17 years, R/o. Pedakallepalli Village, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District.

3.Mummaneni Snehitha, D/o.Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged about 15 years, R/o. Pedakallepalli Village, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District.

... Defendants

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff and prays the grand a decree in favour of plaintiff and against the estate of the deceased Gunturu Krishnaveni which is lying in the hands of defendants who are the legal heirs of the deceased for an amount of Rs.4,39,000/- being the principle and interest due under the suit promissory note dated 16.03.2021 executed by the wife of 1st defendant during her life time in favour of the plaintiff with subsequent interest at 18% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and for costs.

2.Plaint presented on: 06.10.2021.

3.Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction U/s 50 of A.P.C.F., and S.V. Act of 1956 is Rs.4,29,000/-, on which, an amount of Rs.6,826/- was paid towards court fee and the same was deposited in S.B.I., Avanigadda.

4.Cause of action for the suit arose on 16.03.2021, when the deceased Krishna Veni (husband of 1st defendant and mother of defendants 2 and 3) borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from plaintiff and executed a promissory note on the even date i.e., 16.03.2021 and the money transaction is situated at Avanigadda Village and Mandal and the suit promissory note was executed is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

5.This Suit is coming on 18.04.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.V.G.K.Prasad, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and the defendants called absent and remained ex-parte, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, and this court doth Order and DECREE: -

i)that the defendants 1 to 3 do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,39,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the estate of deceased Gunturu Krishnaveni, which is lying in the hands of defendants 1 to 3 who are legal heirs of the deceased and;

Page 4 of 5 ii)that the defendants do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.15,128/- towards costs of this suit and that the defendants do bear their own costs of Rs.NIL ( No bill of costs filed).

Given under my hand and the seal of the court on this the 19th day of April, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Avanigadda.

Memo of Costs

ParticularsPlaintiffDefendants Vakalat2-00No bill of costs filed Plaint fee6,826-00-- Advocate’s fee8,000-00-- Process fee100-00 Petition on stamp-- Typing & Writing200-00-- Charges Total:15,128-00NIL.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Avanigadda.

NOTE: - The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits, which they may wish to preserve as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from this date.

Page 5 of 5

.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AVANIGADDA

Present: G.V.L. Saraswathi, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda,

Tuesday, this the 19th day of April, 2022.

OS No.206/2019

1) Chakrala Rajeswari

2) Chakrala Harish

3) Chakarala Bharathi @ Nadimpalli Bharathi …Plaintiff

Vs.

1) Mopidevi Bala Bhaskara Rao

2) Mopidevi Sudhakara Rao

3) Mopidevi Surendra Prasad …Defendants

DOCKET ORDER

Both Plaintiffs and defendant are present before Lok Adalat. They are compromised the suit before the Lok Adalat in terms of compromise. Accordingly an award is passed.

Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 19 th day of April, 2022.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda.

.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AVANIGADDA

Present: G.V.L. Saraswathi, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda,

Tuesday, this the 19th day of April, 2022.

OS No.275/2017

) Chakrala Rajeswari

2) Chakrala Harish

3) Chakrala Bharathi @ Nadimpalli Bharathi …Plaintiff

Vs.

Mopidevi Bala Bhaskara Rao …Defendants

DOCKET ORDER

Both Plaintiffs and defendant are present before Lok Adalat. They are compromised the suit

before the Lok Adalat in terms of compromise. Accordingly an award is passed.

Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 19 th day of April, 2022

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda.