Sri. I. Ramesh FAC

Page No.1 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.33 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Present:K.UMA DEVI, I Addl. District Judge, Khammam.

Friday, this the 03rd day of May, 2024

A.S.No. 33 OF 20 22

BETWEEN: Burra Rama Krishna, S/o.Venkanna, Age:39 years, Occu:Agriculture, R/o.Kasna Thanda (V), Khamam Rural Mandal, Khammam District. ...…Appellant.

And

Nagubandi Ravi, S/o.late Appaiah, Age:47 years, Occu:Agriculture, R/o.Kasna thanda (V), Khammam Rural Mandal, Khamam District.

....Respondent.

APPEAL FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF C.P.C. AGGRIEVED BY

THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE, KHAMMAM IN O.S.NO.142/2013 DATED 10.11.2022.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

KHAMMAM

O.S. NO.142 OF 2013

BETWEEN: Nagubandi Ravi, S/o.late Appaiah, Age:47 years, Occu:Agriculture, R/o.Kasna thanda (V), Khammam Rural Mandal, Khamam District. ...…Plaintiff.

And

Page No.2 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.33 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

Burra Rama Krishna, S/o.Venkanna, Age:39 years, Occu:Agriculture, R/o.Kasna Thanda (V), Khamam Rural Mandal, Khammam District.

....Defendant.

This Appeal Suit is coming before me for final hearing on 29.04.2024 in the presence of Sri Marikanti Venkat, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Mandadapu Sreenivasa Rao, Advocate for the Respondent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments of counsel for the Appellant and Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is an Appeal preferred by the un-successful Defendant against the Plaintiff, challenging the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Khammam in O.S.No.142/2013, wherein, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

2.I will refer to the parties in this Appeal Suit as arrayed in the trial court, for the sake of convenience.

CASE OF THE APPELLANT- DEFENDANT :

3.(i).The Defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time and as such, the question of execution of Promissory note does not arise. The Defendant is an agriculturist and having sufficient income. He has no need to borrow amounts

Page No.3 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.33 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

from third parties including the plaintiff. The plaintiff used to do several types of illegal multi level money business. In this regard, the plaintiff placed several types of tricks for money through illegal way from illiterate and innocent persons including the defendant. The

Plaintiff many times went behind bars in prohibition and Excise cases.

Without having any authority from the concerned, the plaintiff is doing business in remote areas. The Plaintiff always look to gain money from wrong and illegal process. In fact the alleged pronote is an out and out forged and fabricated document created with active support of attestors and scribe shown in the document in order to gain wrongfully. There is no cause of action and invented for the purpose of the suit and the present suit was filed in order to damage the reputation of the defendant in eye of society and also harassing him in one way or the other in blackmailing tactics. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

CASE OF THE RESPONDENT:

4.The Plaintiff and the defendant got acquaintance with each other. Out of such acquaintance, the defendant approached the plaintiff on 11.04.2011 and borrowed an amount of Rs.1,20,000/-, on 16.04.2011 borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for his family necessities by executing a demand promissory note, promising to

Page No.4 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.33 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

repay the same together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum whenever demanded by the Plaintiff. When the plaintiff demanded the defendant for repayment of the loan amounts, the defendant failed to repay the same as agreed by him and postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Then, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 08.02.2013 and the same was served. Inspite of receipt of said legal notice, the defendant failed to repay the borrowed amount. Hence, the plaintiff has no other alternative, filed this suit. Hence, the suit.

POINT FOR CONSIDERATION BY TRIAL COURT:

5.On the said rival pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed the following Issues for trial:

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amounts of Rs.3,27,033/- based on two promissory notes dated 11.04.2011 and 16.04.2011 ?

2. Whether the suit pronote dated 11.04.2011 and 16.04.2011 are outcome of forged and fabricated as pleaded by the defendant ?

3. To what relief ?

EVIDENCE:

6.Both parties went for trial. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 The Attestors of the

Page No.5 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.33 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

Promissory note namely, Pittala Upender and Marthi Venkanna were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were got marked. On behalf of the defendant, he himself examined as D.W.1 and also got examined B.Veeramma as D.W.2. No documentary evidence is adduced on his behalf.

FINDINGS AND VERDICT OF TRIAL COURT:

7.The learned trial Judge, after hearing both sides, as the

Respondent/Plaintiff proved his case, decreed the suit with costs.

8.Feeling aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, the

Defendant preferred this appeal against the Plaintiff.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

9.The Judgment and decree of the trial court is quite contrary to law and opposed the evidence on record and probabilities of the case ii) The the Judgment and decree of the trial court is bad in law on facts of the case and without appreciating the evidence on record, hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

iii) The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its right prospective and erred in looking beyond facts of the case and evidence available on record.

Page No.6 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.33 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

iv) Except the appellant and Respondent belongs to same village, there is no iota of truth in allegations levelled by the respondent in plaint. In fact, the Appellant did not borrow any amounts from the respondent at any point of time, as such, execution of alleged promissory note in favour of the respondent does not arise.

The suit document is out and out forged and fabricated one.

v) The respondent has been doing several types of illegal multi level money businesses and placed several types of tricks for money through illegal way from illiterate and innocent persons including the appellant herein. The Respondent many a times went behind bars in

Prohibition and Excise cases. Without any authority, the respondent is doing finance business in remote area and gaining wrongful process.

Thus, the respondent filed many suits for recovery of money against the innocents by creating forged and fabricated documents. The respondent also filed another case against the appellant with same false allegations as mentioned in the suit and obtained decree under guise of fabricated documents.

vi) The appellant in evidence clearly disclosed the fabrication of suit documents and nature of the respondent in filing false cases against the innocents. The appellant also got examined one Banoth

Veeranna as D.W.2, who also reveals the said facts and filing of false suits by respondent against the innocents, inspite of that, the trial

Page No.7 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.33 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

court did not consider the evidence of Defendant and his side evidence, passed the Judgment erroneously and in a hasty manner, which is against to the law and natural justice.

vii) The appellant never approached the respondent at any point of time to borrow such amounts and did not execute any document in favour of the respondent.

viii) The Judgment and decree of the trial court is simply basing on assumption and presumptions and is contrary to the evidence on record; finally payed to allow the Appeal by setting aside the

Judgment and decree passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

Khammam in O.S.No.142/2013 dated 10.11.2022.

10.Heard both sides and perused the record.

11. The points for determination are:

1. Whether the Appellant/Defendant is able to establish his case against the Respondent/Plaintiff?

2. Whether the Order of the trial court is sustainable in law and on facts?

3. To what relief?

Page No.8 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.33 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

REASONS FOR DECISION: POINT No s .1 and 2 :

12.The Appellant herein preferred the present Appeal stating that he never borrowed any amount from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff doing several types of illegal multi level money business. In this regard, the respondent played several types of tricks of money through illegal basis earned by the Respondent and the trial court is not considered the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2. Therefore, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

13.On perusing the record on hand, before the Trial court, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. While examining P.Ws.1 to 3, P.W.1/the

Plaintiff admitted that he is doing business and agricultural works. He is also running Kirana shop, but he is not having any licence. He was doing kirana business since 10 years in the village. As per his knowledge, licence is not necessary in the village for running kirana shop business. The suggestion given by the defendant, that the defendant is having Ac.9.10 gts. of land. At the time of D.W.1 evidence, the defendant in his chief-affidavit, he narrated that he is living by agriculture, but he has not made any whisper about his lands. In his chief examination, he narrated that he is an agriculturist and he is having sufficient income, which derives from the

Page No.9 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.33 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

agricultural work and he has no need to borrow any amount from the plaintiff. In his cross examination, he narrated that he owned and possessed an extent of Ac.20.00 of land in his village. On the suggestion, it was mentioned that he was having Ac.20.00 of land, but no scrap of paper is filed to prove that the Defendant is having agricultural lands and he has no need to borrow any amount from anyone.

14.He admitted in his cross examination that the contents mentioned in his chief affidavit are false. Except the same, nothing was elicited from the mouth of D.W.1/Defendant. Exs.A.1 and A.2 are two promissory Notes on different dates borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff by executing a documents in presence of

Attestors. According to the P.Ws.1 to 3, Plaintiff lent amount to the defendant and in turn, the Defendant executed Exs.A.1 and A.2 in favour of the plaintiff. Exs.A.1 and A.2 filed by the plaintiff showing the consideration was passed. Admittedly, Exs.A.1 and A.2 are forms of Promissory Notes respectively and they were duly filled and not having any blanks as narrated by the Defendant. Ex.A.3 is the demand notice which was issued by the Defendant. Ex.A.4 is the receipt for the same. It shows that Exs.A.1 to A.4 are supported by consideration. The Defendant never denied the signature appearing on

Page No.10 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.33 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

Promissory Notes, which shows that the Documents were executed by the Defendant. Under section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act, passing of consideration, the date of execution, time of the transfer and endorsement there on stamp affixed thereon and holder of the due course is proved by the Plaintiff. Until and unless, the

Respondent denied the same, the presumption in favour of the plaintiff. Once execution of the document is proved, it should be represented by the plaintiff. In the present case on hand, the

Defendant simply denied, not adduced any documentary evidence, which shows that the suit transaction is supported by valid consideration, as such, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim. Therefore, the trial court validly explained and discussed the points in its Judgment. Accordingly, Points No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff.

POINT NO.3:

15.In view of my findings arrived in Points No.1 and 2, the Appeal

Suit is liable to be dismissed. The trial court rightly discussed about the evidence of witnesses, who appeared before the court and other documents not supporting the case of the defendant, he cannot rely upon the weakness of the plaintiff. It is not necessary to interfere

Page No.11 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.33 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

into the discussion of the trial court factual evidence. As such, the

Appeal suit is liable to be dismissed.

RESULT:

16.In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed by confirming the

Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Khammam in O.S.No.142 of 2013 dated 10.11.2022.

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

open Court on this the 03rd day of May, 2024.

I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

-Appendix of Evidence- -nil

I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

Corrections carried out by:

Page No.12 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.33 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

Page No.13 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.33 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

Page No.14 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.33 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

Page No.15 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.33 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

Page No.16 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.33 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

Page No.1 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.32 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Present:K.UMA DEVI, I Addl. District Judge, Khammam.

Freiday, this the 03rd day of May, 2024

A.S.No. 32 OF 20 22

BETWEEN: Avireni Janaki Ramaiah, S/o.late Roshaiah, age:49 years, Occu:Agriculture & Business, R/o.Kasna Thanda (V), Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District. ...…Appellant.

And

Nagubandi Ravi, S/o.late Appaiah, Age:47 years, Occu:Agriculture, R/o.Kasna thanda (V), Khammam Rural Mandal, Khamam District.

....Respondent.

APPEAL FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF C.P.C. AGGRIEVED BY

THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE, KHAMMAM IN O.S.NO.141/2013 DATED 10.11.2022.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

KHAMMAM

O.S. NO.141 OF 2013

BETWEEN: Nagubandi Ravi,S/o.late Appaiah, Age:47 years, Occu:Agriculture, R/o.Kasna thanda (V),Khammam Rural Mandal,KhamamDistrict. ...…Plaintiff.

Page No.2 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.32 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

And

Avireni Janaki Ramaiah, S/o.late Roshaiah, age:49 years, Occu:Agriculture & Business, R/o.Kasna Thanda (V), Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District.

....Defendant.

This Appeal Suit is coming before me for final hearing on 29.04.2023 in the presence of Sri Marikanti Venkat, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Mandadapu Sreenivasa Rao, Advocate for the Respondent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments of counsel for the Appellant and Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is an Appeal preferred by the un-successful Defendant against the Plaintiff, challenging the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Khammam in O.S.No.141/2013, wherein, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

2.I will refer to the parties in this Appeal Suit as arrayed in the trial court, for the sake of convenience.

Page No.3 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.32 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

CASE OF THE APPELLANT- DEFENDANT :

3.(i).The Defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaitniff at any point of time and as such, the question of execution of Promissory note does not arise. The Defendant is an agriculturist and having sufficient income. He has no need to borrow amounts from third parties including the plaintiff. The alleged promissory note is forged and fabricated document, created with active support of attestors and scribe as shown in the said document, in order togain wrongfully. There is no cause of action and invented for the purpose of the suit and the present suit was filed in order to damage the reputation of the defendant in eye of society and also harassing him in one way or the other in blackmailing tactics. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

CASE OF THE RESPONDENT:

4.The Plaintiff and the defendant got acquaintance with each other. Out of such acquaintance, the defendant approached the plaintiff, borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.50,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.2,59,000/- on 21.06.2010, 21.06.2010, 09.04.2011 and 29.04.2011 respectively for his family necessities, by executing four promissory notes, promising to repay the same together with interest at 24% per annum whenever demanded by the Plaintiff. When the

Page No.4 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.32 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

plaintiff demanded the defendant for repayment of the loan amounts, the defendant failed to repay the same as agreed by him and postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Then, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 08.02.2013 and the same was served.

Inspite of receipt of said legal notice, the defendant failed to repay the borrowed amount. Hence, the plaintiff has no other alternative, filed this suit. Hence, the suit.

POINT FOR CONSIDERATION BY TRIAL COURT:

5.On the said rival pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed the following Issues for trial:

1. Whether the defendant borrowed the amounts of Rs.50,000/-,Rs.50,000/-,Rs.50,000/-and Rs.2,59,000/- from the plaintiff on various dates i.e. 21.06.2010, 21.06.2010, 09.04.2011 and 29.04.2011 respectively?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount, as prayed for ?

3. To what relief ?

EVIDENCE:

6.Both parties went for trial. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 The Attestors of the

Promissory note namely, A.Nageswar Rao, Pittala Mallesham and

Page No.5 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.32 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

Vurugandi Chandraiah were examuined as P.Ws.2 to 4 and Exs.A.1 to

A.6 were got marked. On behalf of the defendant, he himself examined as D.W.1. No documentary evidence is adduced on his behalf.

FINDINGS AND VERDICT OF TRIAL COURT:

7.The learned trial Judge, after hearing both sides, as the

Respondent/Plaintiff proved his case, decreed the suit with costs.

8.Feeling aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, the

Defendant preferred this appeal against the Plaintiff.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

9.The Judgment and decree of the trial court is quite contrary to law and opposed the evidence on record and probabilities of the case ii) The the Judgment and decree of the trial court is bad in law on facts of the case and without appreciating the evidence on record, hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

iii) The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its right prospective and erred in looking beyond facts of the case and evidence available on record.

iv) Except the appellant and Respondent belongs to same village, there is no iota of truth in allegations levelled by the

Page No.6 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.32 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

respondent in plaint. In fact, the Appellant did not borrow any amounts from the respondent at any point of time, as such, execution of alleged promissory note in favour of the respondent does not arise.

The suit document is out and out forged and fabricated one.

v) The respondent has been doing several types of illegal multi level money businesses and placed several types of tricks for money through illegal way from illiterate and innocent persons including the appellant herein. The Respondent many a times went behind bars in

Prohibition and Excise cases. Without any authority, the respondent is doing finance business in remote area and gaining wrongful process.

Thus, the respondent filed many suits for recovery of money against the innocents by creating forged and fabricated documents. The respondent also filed another case against the appellant with same false allegations as mentioned in the suit and obtained decree under guise of fabricated document.

vi) The appellant in evidence clearly disclosed the fabrication of suit documents and nature of the respondent in filing false cases against the innocents. The appellant also got examined one Banoth

Sakram as D.W.2, who reveals the said facts and filing of false suits by respondents against the innocents, inspite of that, the trial court did not consider the evidence of Defendant and his side evidence,

Page No.7 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.32 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

passed the Judgment erroneously and in a hasty manner, which is against to the law and natural justice.

vii) The appellant never approached the respondent at any point of time to borrow such amounts and did not execute any document in favour of the respondent.

viii) The Judgment and decree of the trial court is simply basing on assumption and presumptions and is contrary to the evidence on record; finally payed to allow the Appeal by setting aside the

Judgment and decree passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

Khammam in O.S.No.141/2013 dated 10.11.2022.

10.Heard both sides and perused the record.

11. The points for determination are:

1. Whether the Appellant/Defendant is able to establish his case against the Respondent/Plaintiff?

2. Whether the Order of the trial court is sustainable in law and on facts?

3. To what relief?

REASONS FOR DECISION: POINT No s .1 and 2 :

12.The Appellant herein preferred the present Appeal stating that he never borrowed any amount from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff doing

Page No.8 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.32 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

several types of illegal multi level money business. In this regard, the respondent played several types of tricks of money through illegal basis earned by the Respondent and the trial court is not considered the evidence of D.W.1. Therefore, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

13.On perusing the record on hand, before the Trial court, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined. While examining P.Ws.1 to 4, P.W.1/the

Plaintiff admitted that he is doing business and agricultural works. He is also running Kirana shop, but he is not having any licence. He was doing kirana business since 10 years in the village. As per his knowledge, licence is not necessary in the village for running kirana shop business. The suggestion given by the defendant, that the defendant is having Ac.60.00 of land and he is also having Petrol

Bunk, Real Estate Business. At the time of D.W.1 evidence, the defendant in his chief-affidavit, he narrated that he is living by agriculture, but he has not made any whisper about his lands. In his chief examination, he narrated that he is an agriculturist and he is having sufficient income, which derives from the agricultural work and he has no need to borrow any amount from the plaintiff. In his cross examination, he narrated that he owned and possessed an extent of Ac.30.00 of land in his village. On the suggestion, it was

Page No.9 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.32 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

mentioned that he was having Ac.60.00 of land, but no scrap of paper is filed to prove that the Defendant is having agricultural lands and he has no need to borrow any amount from anyone.

14.He admitted in his cross examination that the contents mentioned in his chief affidavit are false. Except the same, nothing was elicited from the mouth of D.W.1/Defendant. Exs.A.1 to A.4 are four promissory Notes on different dates borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff by executing a documents in presence of Attestors.

According to the P.Ws.1 to 4, Plaintiff lent amount to the defendant and in turn, the Defendant executed Exs.A.1 to A.4 in favour of the plaintiff. Exs.A.1 to A.4 filed by the plaintiff showing the consideration was passed. Admittedly, Exs.A.1 to A.4 are forms of

Promissory Notes respectively and they were duly filled and not having any blanks as narrated by the Defendant. Ex.A.5 is the demand notice which was issued by the Defendant. Ex.A.6 is the receipt for the same. It shows that Exs.A.1 to A.4 are supported by consideration. The Defendant never denied the signature appearing on

Promissory Notes, which shows that the Documents were executed by the Defendant. Under section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act, passing of consideration, the date of execution, time of the transfer and endorsement there on stamp affixed thereon and holder of the

Page No.10 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.32 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

due course is proved by the Plaintiff. Until and unless, the

Respondent denied the same, the presumption in favour of the plaintiff. Once execution of the document is proved, it should be represented by the plaintiff. In the present case on hand, the

Defendant simply denied, not adduced any documentary evidence, which shows that the suit transaction is supported by valid consideration, as such, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim. Therefore, the trial court validly explained and discussed the points in its Judgment. Accordingly, Points No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff.

P OINT NO.3:

15.In view of my findings arrived in Points No.1 and 2, the Appeal

Suit is liable to be dismissed. The trial court rightly discussed about the evidence of witnesses, who appeared before the court and other documents not supporting the case of the defendant, he cannot rely upon the weakness of the plaintiff. It is not necessary to interfere into the discussion of the trial court factual evidence. As such, the

Appeal suit is liable to be dismissed.

Page No.11 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.32 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

RESULT:

16.In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed by confirming the

Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Khammam in O.S.No.141 of 2013 dated 10.11.2022.

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

open Court on this the 03rd day of May, 2024.

I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

-Appendix of Evidence- -nil-

I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

Corrections carried out by:

Page No.12 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.32 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

Page No.13 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.32 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

Page No.14 of total 11 pages Judgment in A.S.No.32 of 2022

dated 03.05.2024.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT-CUM- I

ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 03rd day of May, 2024

Present: Smt. K.Uma Devi, Spl. Designated Judge for trial of cases under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-cum-I Addl.

Sessions Judge, Khammam.

Crl.M.P.No.485 of 2024

in Cr.No.132 of 2024 ( of PS Khanapuram Haveli ) BETWEEN: Chinthala Venkateswarlu, S/o.Veeraiah, age:26 years, Occu:Agriculture, R/o.Ananthasagar village, Chinthakani Mandal, Khammam District.

.....Petitioner/Accused No.7.

AND The State SHO. P.S. Khanapuram Haveli represented through Special Public Prosecutor, Khammam. ….Respondent/Complainant.

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 01.05.2024 in the presence of Sri. Kanneboina Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner/Accused No.7 and of Sri G.Hareender Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor, Special Sessions Court for trial of cases under Atrocities-cum-V Addl. Sessions Judge, Khammam I/C.Special Sessions Court for trial of cases under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act-cum-I Addl. Sessions Judge, Khammam for the state; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:

:: O R D E R :: This is First bail petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.7 under

Section 37 of NDPS Act r/w.s.439 of Cr.P.C.C., praying to enlarge him on regular bail in Cr.No.132/2024 of P.S. Khanapuram Haveli registered for the offence punishable under section 8 (c) r/w.s.20 (b), 27 (b) of of NDPS Act, 2 1985.

2.Notice given to the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Counter filed by the Respondent/complainant.

3. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material on record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.7 submitted that all the allegations made against the petitioner/accused No.7 are false and baseless and the petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged offence ii) It is further submitted that the petitioner never involved in any offence, much less the offences as attributed against them and basing on the alleged confession made by the petitioner/accused No.1 only, the name of the petitioner invoked in the present case.

iii) It is further submitted that in fact, the police never seized the alleged ganja from the petitioner/accused No.7 and nothing was confessed by the petitioner, but the police vehemently apprehended the petitioner/accused

No.7 and laid charges against him with a dishonest intention to harass him and to implicate him in the above case to level their scores before their higher officials.

iv) It is further submitted that as per the remand report, it clearly establishes that only for statistical purpose in order to satisfy their higher officials, the police people hatched a plan and implicated the innocent petitioner and shown him as Accused No.7 in the above crime and there is no iota of truth in allegations of the prosecution.

v) It is further submitted that the petitioner/accused No.7 is an agriculturist and he is eking out his livelihood on daily wage basis and he is 3 only earning member in his family, as such, further detention of the petitioner would cause much hardship not only to the petitioner but also to his family members.

vi) It is further submitted that the police have completed their entire investigation and examined List of witnesses and nothing remained for further investigation except filing of formal charge sheet.

vii) It is further submitted that the petitioner is having permanent residence, as such, question of absconding by the petitioner does not arise in the event of bail being granted in his favour.

viii) It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish surety to the satisfaction of this court. This is first bail petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.7 and no such petition for bail is filed at any other court or at High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad; finally prayed to enlarge him on bail.

5.On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the petition submitting that in this case, investigation is not yet completed andif

A.7 is released on bail, he would again continue his activities of sale of ganja and thereby damaged the health of public and that if the petitioner/accused is released on bail he may not attend the court and further, it would not possible to apprehend him since, he used to addict sale of ganja; finally prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Basing on the contentions of both sides, now the point that would arise for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner/accused No.7 is entitled for regular bail, asprayed for?”

7. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.03.2024 at 06.00 hours on 4 information L.W.1 along with L.Ws.2 to 5 and mediators L.Ws.6 and 7 on information proceeded to the 1st scene of offence in open plot at about 07.45 hours, which leading from Gollagudem to Allipuram Khammam road, found

A.1 to A.5. On seeing the police, they tried to chase, out of them A.1 to A.3 were caught hold, A.4 and A.5 escaped. On interrogation, A.1 revealed that he addicted to consume ganja,used to purchase from Riaz, R/o.Mustikunta village of Bonakal Mandal, who used to sale ganja with low rate and in some occasions he also used to sell the said ganja to college students with high rates for profits. In the same way, he along with accused Chinthala

Venkateswarlu R/o.Chinthakani Mandal, accused Siva, r/o.Indira Nagar,

Khammam used to brought ganja and used to consume some quantity and remaining used to sell it to others in small packets with high rates. In these circumstances, he got acquaintance with accused Manikumar @ Bannu, Ashu,

Nazeer, who used to meet at tea stalls 27 and JCL Muralikrishna, seized dry ganja in total 4 packets about total weight 80 grams worth Rs.800/- under cover of seizure panchanama from A.25 to A.27 and JCL from each one packet weight 20 grams, A.2 used to consume ganja along with A.7 and A.3 used to consume ganja along with A.8, thereby, the Accused No.7 committed an offence along with other remaining accused committed an offence punishable under section 8(c) r/w.s.20(b), 27(b) of NDPS Act.

8. On perusing the entire case record, it appears that investigation is not yet completed. If the accused is released on bail, he may tamper or hamper the evidence of prosecution witnesses by threatening, he may abscond from jurisdiction of this court. Then, it would be difficult to apprehend him again and produce before the court. At this juncture, in view of non-completion of 5 the investigation, facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the view that the petitioner/Accused No.7 can not be admit to bail . Accordingly,

Point is answered in favour of the prosecution.

9.IN THE RESULT: The petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this, the 03rd day of May, 2024.

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

CASES UNDER NARCOTIC DRUGS AND

PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT -CUM-I

ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, KHAMMAM.

6

TSKH000013852015

Presented on : 27-06-2015 Registered on : 27-06-2015 Decided on : 31-07-2015 Duration : 0 years, 1 months, 4 days

IN THE COURT OF

Prinicpal District and Sessions Judge, Khammam

SC/100225/2015

The S.H.O of P.S Tekulapally Through Police Station Officer VERSUS 1.A1-Bhukya Hanumanth 2.A2-Bhukya Rama Rao 3.A3-Bhukya Beema 4.A4-Bhukya Nezi ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: PP, Advocate for appearing for A1-Bhukya Hanumanth Advocate , -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

Case is suo-motu advanced to this date. As per proceedings Orders Dis. No.5192, dt.31.07.2015, this case is made over to II Addl. Sessions Court FTC-I, Khammam, for disposal according to law and adjourned to dt.17.08.2015.

Date : 31-07-2015

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Khammam