Sri J Anjaiah

APNE110001372022 1C.C.No.120/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT UDAYAGIRI

PRESENT: Sri J.Anjaiah, JCJ-cum-JMFC, Udayagiri.

Friday, this the 27th day of June, 2025.

C.C. No.120/2022

Between : Dirisala Bali Reddy @ Dhirisala Balireddy, S/o Bala Kota Reddy, Age : 44 years, R/o Ankireddypalli village, S.R.Puram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. . . . Complainant.

And

Edama Thirupathaiah, S/o Venkataiah, Age : 53 years, R/o Flat.No.201, 2nd floor, Bindhu Elite, Narmada Constructions, Near Narayanapuram Colony bustop, Poranki-Nidamanuru Road, Vijayawada City, Krishna District. . . . Accused.

***

This case is came before me for disposal in the presence

Sri.Sk.Subhan Basha learned counsel for the complainant and Sri

S.Rama Rao learned counsel for the accused and after perusing the case records available on, upon hearing the arguments on both

APNE110001372022 2C.C.No.120/2022 sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this

Court has delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

[1.]This is a complaint filed under section 200 of Criminal

Procedure Code and under section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable

Instrument Act seeking punishment of the accused for the offence punishable Under section 138 of The Negotiable Instrument Act (herein after referred to as 'N.I Act', for brevity), and for award of compensation.

[2.]The background facts in brief as projected by the complainant leading to filing of this case are : The accused borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only) from the complainant on 03.02.2021 and in evidence there of the accused had executed a promissory note on the said respective date in favor of the complainant duly signed and attested agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the complainant or his order on demand and delivered the said promissory note. On several demands made by the complainant that the accused had issued a cheque bearing.No.064570 dated 31.08.2021 for

Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Poranki Branch in favor

APNE110001372022 3C.C.No.120/2022 of the complainant towards part payment. Later the complainant presented the said cheque on 01.09.2021 before the Punjab

National Bank, Basinenipalli branch for encashment of the said cheque. The said bank sent the said cheque to State bank of India for realization and the State Bank of India after verification of the account of the accused and the said cheque was dishonoured with a reaosn as “funds insufficient” and returned the same to Punjab

National Bank and the Punjab National Bank was returned cheque along with memo on 13.09.2021. The complainant further submitted that he got issued legal notice on 28.09.2021 calling upon the accused for payment of due under the said cheque within the stipulated period as per statute. The accused received the said notice on 01.10.2021, but neither issue reply nor comply the demand of the complainant. The accused failed to pay the amount within the statutory period inspite of the notice and there is no discharge of the said debt as agreed upon. The accused committed the offence under section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act with a prayer may be convict the accused and for award of compensation. Hence the complainant filed this complaint.

[3.]Considering the complaint and material on record this court taken on file for the offence punishable U/sec. 138 of the

APNE110001372022 4C.C.No.120/2022

Negotiable Instrument Act against the accused and issued process.

In response to the summons, accused entered his appearance. On examination of the accused U/sec. 251 of Cr.P.C putting the substance of the accusation levelled against him, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Upon which the complainant intends to prove the proposed guilt against the accused.

[4.]During the course of trial the complainant examined himself as PW1 and FIVE documents were marked as Ex.P1 to

Ex.P5. The complainant is P.W.1, With regard to the documents marked, Ex.P.1 is Cheque bearing No.064570, dt.31.08.2021

for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, Ex.P2 is Cheque return

memo, dt.13.09.2021, Ex.P3 is Office copy of legal notice

dt.28.09.2021, Ex.P4 is served postal acknowledgment card.

Ex.P5 is original promissory note dated 03.02.2021 for an

amount of Rs.6,00,000/-.

[5.]After completion of complainant side evidence, the accused was examined U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C where under the incriminating material available in the complainant’s evidence was put to him, for which he reported everything as false and on behalf of the accused and he himself examined as DW1 and no documents

APNE110001372022 5C.C.No.120/2022 were marked on behlaf of the accused. The accused reported no further evidence. Hence the defence evidence is closed.

[6.] Heard the Learned counsels for rival contestants.

[7.] Now the point that arises for determination is that:-

“ Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of

accused for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act beyond reasonable doubt?”

[8.] EVIDENCE ON RECORD:- Before proceeding with the discussion of point framed it is appropriate first to see the gist of testimonies of witnesses examined on either side. P.W.1 is the complainant. In his chief affidavit P.W.1 reiterated the averments of complaint. On behalf of the accused, the accused denied the version of the complainant.

[9.] RIVAL CONTENTIONS:-During Arguments, it is submitted by the Learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant fulfilled the mandatory provision of Section 138 (b) of

N.I Act after dishonor of the cheque, the accused failed to comply the demand of the complainant and failed to issue reply notice also.

APNE110001372022 6C.C.No.120/2022

Further argued that inspite of repeated demands made by the complainant that the accused failed to repay the said money. Later on demand of the complainant the accused issued cheque and when it presented the same was dishonored. To prove the version of the complainant, that the complainant filed Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. The complainant fulfilled all the essential ingredients of section 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act. Further argued that though the defence taken plea that he gave the said cheque to one Vankela Madhu

Sudhan Reddy who is resident of Vijayawada for security purpose in the chit run by the said Madhusudhan Reddy. After repayment of the chit amount the accused asked the said Madhusudhan reddy to return the said cheque, but the said Madhusudhan Reddy never returned the same and later filed this false casle against the accused through PW1. But the defence failed to rebut the evidence of the complainant with probable evidence. Prayed this court may be convict the accused as per law and may grant compensation to the complainant.

[10.]On the other hand the learned defence counsel categorically argued that the accused is resident of Vijayawada and he do live by on business and he never came to Balayapalli of

S.R.Puram and never borrowed money from PW1. Further argued

APNE110001372022 7C.C.No.120/2022 that since 22 years the accused never borrowed money from anyone in and around of Udayagiri areas and he does not know

PW1. Further argued that he was one of the member of the chit run by one Vankela Madhusudhan Reddy and he gave one cheque to the said Madhusudhan Reddy for security purpose of the said chit, after repayment of the chit amount the accused is demanded the said

Vankela Madhusudhan Reddy for return of said cheuqe, he postpone the same, on believe the words of said Vankela Madhusudhan Reddy the accused left the said issue. Later the said Madhusudhan reddy foisted this false case through PW1 with an intention to harass the accused. Further argued that the complainant failed to prove his case and prayed this court may be dismissed this complaint and acquit the accused in the interest of justice.

[11.]DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:-

In a criminal trial, one has to start with the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused which is also regarded as human right because no one can be convicted and punished merely on the ground of suspicion, however strong it may be. The prosecution is required to prove offence beyond reasonable doubt. In special prosecutions based on dishonour of cheque also the complainant is required to aver and prove the offence punishable under section 138

APNE110001372022 8C.C.No.120/2022 of the Act, but the advantage to the complainant is that he will be aided by the statutory presumptions which are self contained under sections 118 and section 139 of the Act, if he able to prove certain primary facts.

[12.]Section 139 of the Act lays down that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved that the holder of the cheque "received" the cheque of the nature stated in Section 138 for the discharge of a debt or liability. A reading of Section 139 of the Act shows that a presumption in respect of a debt or liability can be drawn, if the following facts are established viz., i) that the person in whose favour the presumption is drawn is the holder of the cheque, ii) that the cheque is of the nature stated in Section 138 of the Act, iii) that such cheque is "received" by the holder. If the above three conditions are satisfied, the court can draw a presumption under Section 139 of the Act. The presumption under

Section 139 of the Act, as revealed from the title to section itself, is in favor of the "holder" of the cheque. Such presumption is drawn against an accused who, as in any other criminal prosecution, is presumed to be innocent. So, if the holder has to avail of the benefit of the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, the burden is on him to establish all the pre-requisites for drawing such presumption.

APNE110001372022 9C.C.No.120/2022

If the holder establishes the basis for raising a presumption under

Section 139 of the Act, the court shall draw such presumption.

When once the basis of presumption exists, the court is left with no other option than to draw such presumption under Section 139 of the Act.

[13.]Once the primary facts as above are averred and proved by the complainant in such case as required by the penal provision in section 138 of the Act, the statutory presumptions arising are required to be rebutted by "proof" on preponderance of probabilities. Such evidence may be by production of documents to disprove the complainant's version or by citing material elicited from the cross-examination of the complainant and her witnesses, if any.

[14.]We will examine whether the complainant/P.W.1 proved the pre-requisites to draw a presumption U/sec. 139 of the Act in his favor. According to P.W.1 that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on 03.02.2021 and in evidence there of the accused had executed promissory note in favor of the complainant.

Inspite of repeated demands made by the complainant for repayment of the said debt that the accused had issued Ex.P1 cheque and when presented the same it was dishonoured under

APNE110001372022 10C.C.No.120/2022

Ex.P.2 and on that he got issued Ex.P3 legal notice, Ex.P4 is served acknowledgment card on the accused, Ex.P5 is promissory note executed by the accused. These same facts were stated by P.W.1 on oath in his evidence.

[15.]The accused pleaded that no consideration was passed under Ex.P1 and he never denied the signature of the accused on

Ex.P1 cheque. Further, it is not the case of accused that Ex.P.1 cheque was not drawn from the account maintained by him and the signature contains on Ex.P1 is belongs to him. Thus, it is clear that the accused admitted that Ex.P.1 cheque belongs to him and the signature containing in Ex.P1 cheque is belongs to him. Thus the complainant through his oral testimony coupled with documentary evidence i.e., Ex.P1 Cheque and when presented the same it was dishonoured under Ex.P.2 and on that he got issued Ex.P3 legal notice and Ex.P4 served postal acknowledgment card, discharged his initial burden that the accused had issued cheque for discharging of his part liability of borrowed money, thereby the complainant satisfied the requirements to come to a conclusion that the accused issued Ex.P.1 cheque and the same was dishonoured when presented.

APNE110001372022 11C.C.No.120/2022 [16.]The presumption referred to in section 139 of the Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption. Thus, this court holds that complainant established that accused issued Ex.P.1 cheque in discharging of legally enforceable debt with the aid of section 139 of the Act.

[17.]Now we will examine that whether the accused established any probable defence that there is no exists legally enforceable debt for issuance of Ex.P.1 cheque. The accused in a trial under Section 138 of the Act has two options. He can either to show that consideration and debt did not exist or that under the particular circumstances of the case the non-existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent man ought to suppose that no consideration and debt existed. To rebut the statutory presumptions an accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the complainant in a criminal trial. What is required to be established by the accused in order to rebut the presumption is different from each case under given circumstances. But the fact remains that a mere plausible explanation is not expected from the accused and it must be more than a plausible explanation by way of rebuttal evidence. In other

APNE110001372022 12C.C.No.120/2022 words, the defence raised by way of rebuttal evidence must be probable and capable of being accepted by the court.

[18.]It has to be seen whether the accused rebutted the presumption under section 139 of Act which was raised in favor of complainant. It is settled law that the defence need not disprove the case of complainant to its entirety but its duty is to raise a probable defence which would satisfy the court that in the given circumstances the non existence of legally enforceable debt is probable rather than existence of legally enforceable debt, for this the defence need not confine to its evidence indeed it has no obligation to adduce evidence but can rely upon the evidence and circumstances of the prosecution case.

[19.]Under Section 139 of the Act, burden lies upon the drawer of the cheque to rule out the existence of the debtor-creditor relationship. The use of the phrase "until the contrary is proved" in

Section 118 of the Act and further use of the words "unless the contrary is proved" in Section 139 of the Act read with definition of "may presume" and "shall presume" as given in Section 4 of the

Evidence Act, make it clear that presumption to be raised under both the provisions are rebuttable.

APNE110001372022 13C.C.No.120/2022 [20.]In the instant case, the defence of accused is of two fold, one is based on facts, and the other one is technical in nature. We will consider one by one. The first plea of accused is that the complainant failed to fulfill the mandate of Statute that the statutory notice has to be issued within (30) days from the date of return of cheque. With regard to the issuance of legal notice there is no dispute between the complainant and accused. The complainant complied issuance of legal notice after dishonor of cheque within a stipulated time under section 138 (b) of Negotiable Instrument Act.

The learned defence counsel categorically pleaded that the accused never borrowed money from the complainant and never issued

Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant. Further pleaded that the accused gave cheque to one Vankela Madhusudhana Reddy as a security purpose in the chit run by the said Vankela Madhusudhan Reddy and after repayment of the chit amount the accused demanded the said

Madhusudhan Reddy for return of the said cheque, but the said

Madhusudhan Reddy postponed the same and believed the words of the said Madhusudhan Reddy, the accused left the said issue.

Perusal of the plea of the accused, that the accused categorically pleaded that he gave Ex.P1 cheque to the said Vankela

Madhusudhan Reddy for security purpose in the chit run by the said

Vankela Madhusudhan Reddy, but perusal of the testimony of DW1,

APNE110001372022 14C.C.No.120/2022 he never deposed in his cheif examination that the said

Madhusudhan Reddy was obtained blank promissory note from the accused. The accused pleaded only that he gave cheque to the said

Madhusudhan Reddy. If really, that the accused never executed the said promissory note in favor of the complainant if so, the accused ought to have send the said promissory note to the expert for opinion, but the accused never send the said promissory note to expert for opinion, for which there is no proper explanation from the accused. Further the accused pleaded that he gave Ex.P1 cheque to the Madhusudhan Reddy and later he filed this complaint against the accused through PW1. If so, the accused ought to have lodge report against the said Madhusudhan Reddy as he misused Ex.P1 cheque, but the accused failed to do the same, for which there is no proper explanation from the accused. Further if really the accused issued cheque to the said Vankela Madhusudhan Reddy as the security purpose of the chit amount and he repaid the chit amount to said Madhusudhan Reddy and the Madhusudhan Reddy never returned Ex.P1 cheque to the accused if so, the accused ought to have issue legal notice to the said Madhusudhan Reddy for non- return of Ex.p1 cheque to the accused, but the acucsed failed to do the same. For which there is no proper explantion from the accused.

APNE110001372022 15C.C.No.120/2022 [21.]Further the learned counsel for the complainant cross examined the accused, in the cross examination of DW1, DW1 categorically admitted that the signatures contains on Ex.P1 cheque and Ex.P5 promissory note are belongs to the accused. It seems to be the accused himself admitted the signatures contains on Ex.P1 cheque and the signature contains on Ex.P5 promissory note. As per

section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act facts admitted need

not be proved:- No fact need be proved in any proceedings

which the parties there to or their agents agree to admit at

the hearing or which, before the hearing, they agree to

admit by any writing under their hands or which by any rule

of pleading in force at that time they are deemed to have

admitted by their pleadings. Further in the cross examination of

DW1, DW1 deposed that he was issued Ex.P1 and Ex.P5 to the said

Madhusudhan Reddy in the year 2017 and this complaint was filed in the year 2023, there is a gap of 6 years even though the accused never took any steps for return of Ex.P1 & Ex.P5 from the said

Vankela Madhusudhan Reddy, for which there is no proper explanation from the accused. Further DW1 categorically admitted in his cross examination that prior to filing of this complaint, that the complaint was issued legal notice to the accused stating that the said cheque was dishonored. It seems to be the complainant

APNE110001372022 16C.C.No.120/2022 complied under section 138 (b) of Negotiable Instrument Act and fulfilled the mandatory provision, but the accused never gave any reply to the said notice. Further DW1 categorically admitted in his cross examination that there is no any proof of document to show that he gave Ex.P1 cheque to the said Madhusudhan Reddy.

[22.]The prosecution provided under section 138 of the Act is not a natural offence, and it is created by fiction of law, and technical in nature, and the complainant or the person in whose favour the cheque was issued is given right to file the prosecution when the same was dishonoured against the person issuing the cheque subject to fulfilling of certain procedural compliances. In that event, all the technical formalities as laid down under section 138 of the Act and other provisions of law has to be strictly complied with, failing which the complainant is not entitled for remedy in criminal court.

[23.]The specific case of complainant is that the accused borrowed money an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on 03.02.2021 in evidence there of the accused executed a promissory note infavor of the complainant. Later on repeated demands made by the complainant that the accused had issued cheque bearing.No.064570

APNE110001372022 17C.C.No.120/2022 in favor of the complainant for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on 31.08.2021 drawn on State Bank of India. To prove the version of the complainant Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are filed before this court. Further more as per section 59 of Indian Evidence Act proof of facts

by oral evidence :- All facts except the contents of the

documents (are electronic records ) may be proved by oral

evidence. It clearly shows that except the contents of the documents may be proved by oral evidence, but herein this case

Ex.P1 cheque is a documentary evidence, it prevails over the oral evidenceand there is no documentary evidence adduced by the accused to discard the Ex.P1 cheque that it was not issued to PW1.

In view of the above said discussion the plea of the accused is not taken into consideration. If really the accused was issued the said cheque and promissory note without any consideration and he came to know that the complainant was misused the said cheque and promissory note, if so, the accused ought to have issue legal notice to the complainant stating that not to misuse the same and to return the same to him. Further the accused never lodged any report to the police against the complainant, that the complainant was misusing his blank signed cheque and blank signed promissory note, the accused never gave any legal notice and never lodged any report to the police. What are the circumstances prevented the

APNE110001372022 18C.C.No.120/2022 accused for non-issuance of legal notice and non-lodging of report to the police against the complainant, for which there is no proper explanation from the accused. Perusal of the plea of the accused there is no cogent and reliable evidence in the plea of the defence.

Hence the plea of the accused is not taken into consideration. How the said cheque and promissory note was transferred into the hands of PW1. Mere name sake pleas cannot be acceptable, the defence to show more probable defence before this court to rebutt the evidence of complainant, mere plausible explanation cannot be accepted.

[24.] Perusal of the plea of the accused there are many issues that needs to clarification now. Let us list them here. Let us begin with the issue of sequence.

(i) In which month and date that the accused issued cheque to the said Vankela Madhusudhan Reddy ?

(ii) Why the accused failed to issue notice to the complainant and the said Madhusudhan Reddy about the misuse of Ex.P1 cheque and not to misuse?

APNE110001372022 19C.C.No.120/2022

(iii) Whether the accused put the alleged fact that the complainant and the said Madhusudhan Reddy was misusing the cheque and promissory note before any elders.? If yes who are that elders.? If not why.?

(iv) Why the accused failed to file a complaint against the complainant in the court of law when he knows about the said misusing of cheque and promissory note immediately.?

(v)Why the accused failed to lodge any report to the police against the complainant when he knows about the misusing of blank signed cheque and promissory note immediately ?

[25.]The above questions are most likely to be posed by any prudent person if the accused says that he has put forth his plea that the complainant obtained blank signed promissory note and blank signed cheque from the accused at the time of chit transaction. But the accused has no answer with him for at-least one question posed herein-before. If the accused not able to answer at-least one question of the above, how he expect that his plea would be straight away accepted by the court.? Is it not the

APNE110001372022 20C.C.No.120/2022 responsibility of the accused to bring into record sufficient material to satisfy the court?

[26.] The contention of defence is that at the request of the complainant and the accused was joined in the chit and the said

Madhusudhan Reddy was obtained blank signed promissory note and blank signed cheque from the accused as a security purpose and later the complainant foisted this false case against the accused to get wrongful gain from him is not a convincing one, because admittedly the accused never lodged any report against the complainant and never issued any legal notice to the complainant.

In doing so, the indicate is attributing to himself an improbable, artificial and indifferent conduct to claim exculpation from liability.

The laudable commercial morality which the legislature seeks to usher in by introduction of Section 138 into the statute book will be frustrated and stultified if courts were to readily and meekly accept and swallow such an explanation. If such a laudable commercial morality were to prevail, account holders will also have to deal with their cheques carefully, cautiously and reasonably and not without diligence, indifferently, unreasonably and irrationally. Even today such a defence may not be impossible or impermissible in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Act. But the burden must rest

APNE110001372022 21C.C.No.120/2022 squarely and heavily on the person who wants to attribute to himself such an irresponsible and indifferent conduct – that he pleaded the complainant obtained blank signed promissory note and cheque for security purpose is not to claim exculpation from liability.

[27.]The accused must borne in mind that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused to seek dismissal of the complaint. Something which is probable has to be brought satisfactorily on record for getting the burden of proof shifted back to the complainant. Thus, in the absence of cogent evidence on behalf of accused regarding him that the complainant obtained blank signed promissory note and cheque as a security purpose, it suggests an inference of endorsement and delivery of instrument which impliedly admits that the complainant obtained blank signed promissory note and blank signed cheque as a security purpose, except the oral evidence there is no cogent and reliable evidence to prove the version of the accused.

[28.] Coming to the final discussion, primarily we have the evidence of P.W.1-complainant about the circumstances under which

Ex.P.1 cheque was issued to him, which admittedly written on a

APNE110001372022 22C.C.No.120/2022 cheque leaf issued to the accused by his banker to operate his account with the signature of the accused admittedly affixed thereon traveled from the possession of the accused to the possession of complainant. His evidence on this aspect is eminently supported by his ability to produce Ex.P.1 cheque. The complainant is also armed with the presumption under Section 139 of the Act.

On the other hand, accused not satisfactorily explained that how the cheque issued to him came into the possession of the complainant.

Accused not able to show any cogent evidence on his behalf to neutralize the presumption U/sec. 139 of the Act, and that a mere name sake pleas cannot be accepted to come to the conclusion that there is no legally enforceable debt exists between the parties at the time of issuance of Ex.P.1 cheque.

[29.]Further this court relied upon the judgment of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar reported

in (2019) 4 SCC 197 held that once the other ingredients

mentioned in the foregoing paragraph or established by the

complainant, then as soon as the execution of impugned

cheque is admitted by the accused, a factual base is

established to invoke the presumption of the cheque having

been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or

APNE110001372022 23C.C.No.120/2022

other liability by virtue of section 118 (a) r/w section 139 of

N.I Act. This is a reverse onus clause, which means that

unless the contrary is proved it shall be presumed that the

impugned cheque was drawn by the accused for

consideration and that the complainant had issued it in

discharge of debt/liability from the accused, once the

accused had admitted the signature on the cheque is in

question, then the court is bound to raise presumption under

section 139 of N.I Act. Herein this case also that the accused categorically admitted about the issuance of cheque and categorically admitted his signature contains on Ex.P1 cheque. The complainant proved other ingredients under 138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act. Hence the said judgment is squarely applicable to the present case facts.

[30.] " Further this Court relied upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.123/2021 arising

out of special leave petition Crl.No.1876/2018 M/s Kalamani

Tex & Anr VP.Balasubramnian. In that the Hon'ble Apex

Court held in Beersing v. Mukesh Kumar, even a blank

cheque at leaf voluntarily signed and handed over by the

accused which is towards the same payment would attract

APNE110001372022 24C.C.No.120/2022

presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments

Act in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the

cheque was not issued in discharge at debt".

[31.]Further this court relied another judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex court in I.C.D.S Ltd., Vs. Beena Shabeer

2002(3) KLT 280-held that the cheque was given by a

guarantor when it was bounced found to be within the fold

of section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Necessarily the

cheque as a security, if bounced, shall be the subject matter

of a prosecution under section 138 of N.I. Act, so the

contention of the accused that Ex.P1 cheque was given only

as a security will not enable him to escape from the clutches

of law. Herein this case that the accused also pleaded that as he was given Ex.P1 cheque as security purpose. Hence the said judgment is squarely applicable to the present case facts.

[32.] Thus, the material on record adduced by the complainant categorically and conclusively established issuance of

Ex.P.1 cheque by accused to the complainant in discharge of legally enforceable debt, which was dishonoured when presented. In the absence of any grain of rebuttal evidence adduced by accused to

APNE110001372022 25C.C.No.120/2022 the contrary, this court holds that the complainant has proved the guilt of accused for the offence U/sec. 138 of the Act. Accordingly the point is decided in affirmative.

[33.] In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, and accordingly, he is convicted Under Section 255(2) of Criminal

Procedure Code.

Sd/- J.ANJAIAH

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Udayagiri.

[34.]Hearing on quantum of sentence:- Convict is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence that can be imposed, for which he submitted that he is having wife, children and aged mother and they are depending upon him. His father is no more. His mother is aged about 80 years and she has been suffering from aged elements, his two children are going to school. If he will be kept in judicial custody his entire family will be suffered a lot. With this submission to take a lenient view.

APNE110001372022 26C.C.No.120/2022 [35.]This court is conscious that legislation has incorporated section 138 of the Act to curb the practices of issuing cheques without any funds and to bring harmony in monetary transactions.

The nature of offence and the mode in which it is committed do not warrants the application of beneficial provisions of P.O.Act.

[36.] The Hon'ble Supreme court in a decision decided in between 'S. Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagadeeshan' reported in '2002(1) ALD (Crl) 417' held that- “it should be the look out of the trail court Magistrate that the sentence for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should be of such a nature as to give proper effect to the object of the legislation. No drawer of the cheque can be allowed to take dishonor of the cheque issued by him/her light heartedly. The very object of the enactment of the provisions like 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 would stand defeated if the sentence is flee bite in nature. It is a different matter, if the accused is paid the amount at least during the pendency of the case.” [37.]Further, the Hon'ble Supreme court in a decision decided in between 'R. Vijayan Vs Baby and another' reported in '2012(1) S.C.C 260' held that granting of compensation is must in

APNE110001372022 27C.C.No.120/2022 cheque bounce cases to maintain uniformity in the decisions of the courts. It was held that “As the provisions of Chapter XVII of the Act strongly lean towards grant of reimbursement of the loss by way of compensation, the courts should, unless there are special circumstances, in all cases of conviction, uniformly exercise the power to levy fine upto twice the cheque amount (keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple interest thereon at 9% per annum as the reasonable quantum of loss) and direct payment of such amount as compensation. Direction to pay compensation by way of restitution in regard to the loss on account of dishonour of the cheque should be practical and realistic, which would mean not only the payment of the cheque amount but interest thereon at a reasonable rate. Uniformity and consistency in deciding similar cases by different courts, not only increase the credibility of cheque as a negotiable instrument, but also the credibility of courts of justice.” [38.] Further, It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the decision decided in between 'Somnath Sarka Vs Utpal basu mallick' reported in ' 2014 Cr.L.J. 179. 111' that the Act not contemplated grant of compensation but envisages imposition of fine not exceeding twice the amount of dishonoured cheque and out

APNE110001372022 28C.C.No.120/2022 of said fine amount, the complainant be compensated under Section 357 Cr.P.C and that unlike for other forms of crime, the punishment here (insofar as the complainant is concerned) is not a means of seeking retribution, but is more a means to ensure payment of money. The complainants interest lies primarily in recovering the money rather than seeing the drawer of the cheque in jail. The threat of jail is only a mode to ensure recovery.

[39.] Furthermore, there used to be some discussion as to whether the default sentence can be imposed for non payment of compensation. The said discussion is settled at rest and it has been held by the The Hon'ble Supreme court in a decision decided

in between 'K.A. Abbas H.S.A. vs Sabu Joseph & Anr.'

reported in '(2010) 6 SCC 230' that default sentence can be imposed for non payment of compensation.

[40.]In view of the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme court and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, and also taking note of submissions of convict, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to take a lenient view, and further that in my view the following sentence would meet the ends of justice.

APNE110001372022 29C.C.No.120/2022 [41.] Accordingly, Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I Act and accordingly, he is convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C and the convict is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 06 (SIX MONTHS)

and to pay a compensation double of the cheque amount i.e.,

Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) under section 357(3) of Criminal Procedure Code to the complainant in this case, in default of payment of compensation the accused shall under go to simple imprisonment for a period of 06 (SIX) months. This court explained the right of appeal to the convict. Record reveals no previous remand period of convict, accordingly there is no order as to set off of remand period Under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the convict shall stands cancelled with immediate effect.

Office is directed to prepare conviction warrant and also to provide a copy of this judgment, free of cost to the convict forthwith.

Directly typed to my dictation by stenographer. The Judgment is delivered and operative part of the same is pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 27 th day of June, 2025, under the hand and seal of this court.

Sd/- J.ANJAIAH

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Udayagiri.

APNE110001372022 30C.C.No.120/2022

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution:

P.W.1: Dirisala Bali Reddy @ Dhirisala balireddy

For defence:

D.W.1: Edama Tirupalu

Documents marked: For prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Cheque bearing No.064570, dt.31.08.2021 for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-.

Ex.P2 : Cheque return memo dt.13.09.2021.

Ex.P3 : Office copy of legal notice dt.28.09.2021.

Ex.P4 : Served postal acknowledgment card.

Ex.P5 : Original promissory note dated 03.02.2021 for

Rs.6,00,000/- executed by the accused in favor of the complainant.

For defence:NIL

Material objects marked: -Nil on either side-

Sd/- J.ANJAIAH

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Udayagiri.

APNE110001372022 31C.C.No.120/2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS AT

UDAYAGIRI.

C.C.No.120/2022

Date of: Offence onComplaint Apph. ofReleased onCommencemClosure ofResult or beforeaccusedBailent of TrialTrial 16.10.202127.10.2021--09.05.202417.06.202527.06.2025

Between: Dirisala Bali Reddy @ Dhirisala Bali Reddy S/o Bala Kota Reddy, Age : 44 years, R/o Ankireddypalli village, S.R.Puram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. . . . Complainant.

And

Edama Thirupathaiah, S/o Venkataiah, Age : 53 years, R/o Flat.No.201, 2nd floor, Bindhu Elite, Narmada Constructions, Near Narayanapuram Colony bustop, Poranki-Nidamanuru Road, Vijayawada City, Krishna District. . . . Accused.

Offence: Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

Plea of accused: Not guilty.

Finding : Guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

Sentence of Order :

APNE110001372022 32C.C.No.120/2022

In the Result, Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I Act and accordingly, he is convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C and the convict is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 06 (SIX MONTHS)

and to pay a compensation double of the cheque amount i.e.,

Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) under section 357(3) of Criminal Procedure Code to the complainant in this case, in default of payment of compensation the accused shall under go to simple imprisonment for a period of 06 (SIX) months. This court explained the right of appeal to the convict. Record reveals no previous remand period of convict, accordingly there is no order as to set off of remand period Under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the convict shall stands cancelled with immediate effect.

Office is directed to prepare conviction warrant and also to provide a copy of this judgment, free of cost to the convict forthwith.

Explanation for the delay:The complaint was taken on file under section 138 of N.I Act. On 18.04.2024 accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 14.11.2024 PW1 filed chief affidavit and same was accepted into record and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and he was cross examined on 27.01.2025 and complainant evidence was closed on 12.02.2025. On 19.02.2025 accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., for which the accused reported as everything as false and reported he has defence evidence. On behalf of accused, he himself examined as DW1 and no documents were marked. On 17.06.2025 defence evidence was closed. On

APNE110001372022 33C.C.No.120/2022 20.06.2025 heard arguments of the complainant and on 23.06.2025 arguments of the accused. On 27.06.2025 Judgment pronounced.

Hence the delay.

Sd/- J.ANJAIAH

Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Udayagiri.

Substantive sentence of imprisonment is suspended till

28.07.2025 as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.425/2025 dated

27.06.2025.

APNE110001372022 34C.C.No.120/2022

Copy To

1. To The Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore for kind perusal.

Substantive sentence of imprisonment is suspended till

23.12.2024 as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.334/2024 dated

22.11.2024.

//True Copy//

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Udayagiri

the accused never pleaded that the said cheque leaves are signed cheque leaves and also never pleaded the accused the signatures contains on Ex.P1 cheque is forged one.

Further General Auto sales Vs. Vijaya Lakshmi alsoDirisala

Bali Reddy, S/o Bala Kota Reddy, Age : 44 years, R/o Ankireddypalli village, S.R.Puram Mandal,

APNE110001372022 35C.C.No.120/2022

SPSR Nellore District. . . . Complainant.

And

Edama Thirupathaiah, S/o Venkataiah, Age : 53 years, R/o Flat.No.201, 2nd floor, Bindhu Elite, Narmada Constructions, Near Narayanapuram Colony bustop, Poranki-Nidamanuru Road, Vijayawada City, Krishna District.

. . . Accused.

APNE110001372022 1C.C.No.120/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT UDAYAGIRI

PRESENT: Sri J.Anjaiah, JCJ-cum-JMFC, Udayagiri.

Friday, this the 27th day of June, 2025.

C.C. No.120/2022

Between : Dirisala Bali Reddy @ Dhirisala Balireddy, S/o Bala Kota Reddy, Age : 44 years, R/o Ankireddypalli village, S.R.Puram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. . . . Complainant.

And

Edama Thirupathaiah, S/o Venkataiah, Age : 53 years, R/o Flat.No.201, 2nd floor, Bindhu Elite, Narmada Constructions, Near Narayanapuram Colony bustop, Poranki-Nidamanuru Road, Vijayawada City, Krishna District. . . . Accused.

***

This case is came before me for disposal in the presence

Sri.Sk.Subhan Basha learned counsel for the complainant and Sri

S.Rama Rao learned counsel for the accused and after perusing the case records available on, upon hearing the arguments on both

APNE110001372022 2C.C.No.120/2022 sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this

Court has delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

[1.]This is a complaint filed under section 200 of Criminal

Procedure Code and under section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable

Instrument Act seeking punishment of the accused for the offence punishable Under section 138 of The Negotiable Instrument Act (herein after referred to as 'N.I Act', for brevity), and for award of compensation.

[2.]The background facts in brief as projected by the complainant leading to filing of this case are : The accused borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only) from the complainant on 03.02.2021 and in evidence there of the accused had executed a promissory note on the said respective date in favor of the complainant duly signed and attested agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the complainant or his order on demand and delivered the said promissory note. On several demands made by the complainant that the accused had issued a cheque bearing.No.064570 dated 31.08.2021 for

Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Poranki Branch in favor

APNE110001372022 3C.C.No.120/2022 of the complainant towards part payment. Later the complainant presented the said cheque on 01.09.2021 before the Punjab

National Bank, Basinenipalli branch for encashment of the said cheque. The said bank sent the said cheque to State bank of India for realization and the State Bank of India after verification of the account of the accused and the said cheque was dishonoured with a reaosn as “funds insufficient” and returned the same to Punjab

National Bank and the Punjab National Bank was returned cheque along with memo on 13.09.2021. The complainant further submitted that he got issued legal notice on 28.09.2021 calling upon the accused for payment of due under the said cheque within the stipulated period as per statute. The accused received the said notice on 01.10.2021, but neither issue reply nor comply the demand of the complainant. The accused failed to pay the amount within the statutory period inspite of the notice and there is no discharge of the said debt as agreed upon. The accused committed the offence under section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act with a prayer may be convict the accused and for award of compensation. Hence the complainant filed this complaint.

[3.]Considering the complaint and material on record this court taken on file for the offence punishable U/sec. 138 of the

APNE110001372022 4C.C.No.120/2022

Negotiable Instrument Act against the accused and issued process.

In response to the summons, accused entered his appearance. On examination of the accused U/sec. 251 of Cr.P.C putting the substance of the accusation levelled against him, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Upon which the complainant intends to prove the proposed guilt against the accused.

[4.]During the course of trial the complainant examined himself as PW1 and FIVE documents were marked as Ex.P1 to

Ex.P5. The complainant is P.W.1, With regard to the documents marked, Ex.P.1 is Cheque bearing No.064570, dt.31.08.2021

for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, Ex.P2 is Cheque return

memo, dt.13.09.2021, Ex.P3 is Office copy of legal notice

dt.28.09.2021, Ex.P4 is served postal acknowledgment card.

Ex.P5 is original promissory note dated 03.02.2021 for an

amount of Rs.6,00,000/-.

[5.]After completion of complainant side evidence, the accused was examined U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C where under the incriminating material available in the complainant’s evidence was put to him, for which he reported everything as false and on behalf of the accused and he himself examined as DW1 and no documents

APNE110001372022 5C.C.No.120/2022 were marked on behlaf of the accused. The accused reported no further evidence. Hence the defence evidence is closed.

[6.] Heard the Learned counsels for rival contestants.

[7.] Now the point that arises for determination is that:-

“ Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of

accused for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act beyond reasonable doubt?”

[8.] EVIDENCE ON RECORD:- Before proceeding with the discussion of point framed it is appropriate first to see the gist of testimonies of witnesses examined on either side. P.W.1 is the complainant. In his chief affidavit P.W.1 reiterated the averments of complaint. On behalf of the accused, the accused denied the version of the complainant.

[9.] RIVAL CONTENTIONS:-During Arguments, it is submitted by the Learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant fulfilled the mandatory provision of Section 138 (b) of

N.I Act after dishonor of the cheque, the accused failed to comply the demand of the complainant and failed to issue reply notice also.

APNE110001372022 6C.C.No.120/2022

Further argued that inspite of repeated demands made by the complainant that the accused failed to repay the said money. Later on demand of the complainant the accused issued cheque and when it presented the same was dishonored. To prove the version of the complainant, that the complainant filed Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. The complainant fulfilled all the essential ingredients of section 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act. Further argued that though the defence taken plea that he gave the said cheque to one Vankela Madhu

Sudhan Reddy who is resident of Vijayawada for security purpose in the chit run by the said Madhusudhan Reddy. After repayment of the chit amount the accused asked the said Madhusudhan reddy to return the said cheque, but the said Madhusudhan Reddy never returned the same and later filed this false casle against the accused through PW1. But the defence failed to rebut the evidence of the complainant with probable evidence. Prayed this court may be convict the accused as per law and may grant compensation to the complainant.

[10.]On the other hand the learned defence counsel categorically argued that the accused is resident of Vijayawada and he do live by on business and he never came to Balayapalli of

S.R.Puram and never borrowed money from PW1. Further argued

APNE110001372022 7C.C.No.120/2022 that since 22 years the accused never borrowed money from anyone in and around of Udayagiri areas and he does not know

PW1. Further argued that he was one of the member of the chit run by one Vankela Madhusudhan Reddy and he gave one cheque to the said Madhusudhan Reddy for security purpose of the said chit, after repayment of the chit amount the accused is demanded the said

Vankela Madhusudhan Reddy for return of said cheuqe, he postpone the same, on believe the words of said Vankela Madhusudhan Reddy the accused left the said issue. Later the said Madhusudhan reddy foisted this false case through PW1 with an intention to harass the accused. Further argued that the complainant failed to prove his case and prayed this court may be dismissed this complaint and acquit the accused in the interest of justice.

[11.]DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:-

In a criminal trial, one has to start with the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused which is also regarded as human right because no one can be convicted and punished merely on the ground of suspicion, however strong it may be. The prosecution is required to prove offence beyond reasonable doubt. In special prosecutions based on dishonour of cheque also the complainant is required to aver and prove the offence punishable under section 138

APNE110001372022 8C.C.No.120/2022 of the Act, but the advantage to the complainant is that he will be aided by the statutory presumptions which are self contained under sections 118 and section 139 of the Act, if he able to prove certain primary facts.

[12.]Section 139 of the Act lays down that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved that the holder of the cheque "received" the cheque of the nature stated in Section 138 for the discharge of a debt or liability. A reading of Section 139 of the Act shows that a presumption in respect of a debt or liability can be drawn, if the following facts are established viz., i) that the person in whose favour the presumption is drawn is the holder of the cheque, ii) that the cheque is of the nature stated in Section 138 of the Act, iii) that such cheque is "received" by the holder. If the above three conditions are satisfied, the court can draw a presumption under Section 139 of the Act. The presumption under

Section 139 of the Act, as revealed from the title to section itself, is in favor of the "holder" of the cheque. Such presumption is drawn against an accused who, as in any other criminal prosecution, is presumed to be innocent. So, if the holder has to avail of the benefit of the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, the burden is on him to establish all the pre-requisites for drawing such presumption.

APNE110001372022 9C.C.No.120/2022

If the holder establishes the basis for raising a presumption under

Section 139 of the Act, the court shall draw such presumption.

When once the basis of presumption exists, the court is left with no other option than to draw such presumption under Section 139 of the Act.

[13.]Once the primary facts as above are averred and proved by the complainant in such case as required by the penal provision in section 138 of the Act, the statutory presumptions arising are required to be rebutted by "proof" on preponderance of probabilities. Such evidence may be by production of documents to disprove the complainant's version or by citing material elicited from the cross-examination of the complainant and her witnesses, if any.

[14.]We will examine whether the complainant/P.W.1 proved the pre-requisites to draw a presumption U/sec. 139 of the Act in his favor. According to P.W.1 that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on 03.02.2021 and in evidence there of the accused had executed promissory note in favor of the complainant.

Inspite of repeated demands made by the complainant for repayment of the said debt that the accused had issued Ex.P1 cheque and when presented the same it was dishonoured under

APNE110001372022 10C.C.No.120/2022

Ex.P.2 and on that he got issued Ex.P3 legal notice, Ex.P4 is served acknowledgment card on the accused, Ex.P5 is promissory note executed by the accused. These same facts were stated by P.W.1 on oath in his evidence.

[15.]The accused pleaded that no consideration was passed under Ex.P1 and he never denied the signature of the accused on

Ex.P1 cheque. Further, it is not the case of accused that Ex.P.1 cheque was not drawn from the account maintained by him and the signature contains on Ex.P1 is belongs to him. Thus, it is clear that the accused admitted that Ex.P.1 cheque belongs to him and the signature containing in Ex.P1 cheque is belongs to him. Thus the complainant through his oral testimony coupled with documentary evidence i.e., Ex.P1 Cheque and when presented the same it was dishonoured under Ex.P.2 and on that he got issued Ex.P3 legal notice and Ex.P4 served postal acknowledgment card, discharged his initial burden that the accused had issued cheque for discharging of his part liability of borrowed money, thereby the complainant satisfied the requirements to come to a conclusion that the accused issued Ex.P.1 cheque and the same was dishonoured when presented.

APNE110001372022 11C.C.No.120/2022 [16.]The presumption referred to in section 139 of the Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption. Thus, this court holds that complainant established that accused issued Ex.P.1 cheque in discharging of legally enforceable debt with the aid of section 139 of the Act.

[17.]Now we will examine that whether the accused established any probable defence that there is no exists legally enforceable debt for issuance of Ex.P.1 cheque. The accused in a trial under Section 138 of the Act has two options. He can either to show that consideration and debt did not exist or that under the particular circumstances of the case the non-existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent man ought to suppose that no consideration and debt existed. To rebut the statutory presumptions an accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the complainant in a criminal trial. What is required to be established by the accused in order to rebut the presumption is different from each case under given circumstances. But the fact remains that a mere plausible explanation is not expected from the accused and it must be more than a plausible explanation by way of rebuttal evidence. In other

APNE110001372022 12C.C.No.120/2022 words, the defence raised by way of rebuttal evidence must be probable and capable of being accepted by the court.

[18.]It has to be seen whether the accused rebutted the presumption under section 139 of Act which was raised in favor of complainant. It is settled law that the defence need not disprove the case of complainant to its entirety but its duty is to raise a probable defence which would satisfy the court that in the given circumstances the non existence of legally enforceable debt is probable rather than existence of legally enforceable debt, for this the defence need not confine to its evidence indeed it has no obligation to adduce evidence but can rely upon the evidence and circumstances of the prosecution case.

[19.]Under Section 139 of the Act, burden lies upon the drawer of the cheque to rule out the existence of the debtor-creditor relationship. The use of the phrase "until the contrary is proved" in

Section 118 of the Act and further use of the words "unless the contrary is proved" in Section 139 of the Act read with definition of "may presume" and "shall presume" as given in Section 4 of the

Evidence Act, make it clear that presumption to be raised under both the provisions are rebuttable.

APNE110001372022 13C.C.No.120/2022 [20.]In the instant case, the defence of accused is of two fold, one is based on facts, and the other one is technical in nature. We will consider one by one. The first plea of accused is that the complainant failed to fulfill the mandate of Statute that the statutory notice has to be issued within (30) days from the date of return of cheque. With regard to the issuance of legal notice there is no dispute between the complainant and accused. The complainant complied issuance of legal notice after dishonor of cheque within a stipulated time under section 138 (b) of Negotiable Instrument Act.

The learned defence counsel categorically pleaded that the accused never borrowed money from the complainant and never issued

Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant. Further pleaded that the accused gave cheque to one Vankela Madhusudhana Reddy as a security purpose in the chit run by the said Vankela Madhusudhan Reddy and after repayment of the chit amount the accused demanded the said

Madhusudhan Reddy for return of the said cheque, but the said

Madhusudhan Reddy postponed the same and believed the words of the said Madhusudhan Reddy, the accused left the said issue.

Perusal of the plea of the accused, that the accused categorically pleaded that he gave Ex.P1 cheque to the said Vankela

Madhusudhan Reddy for security purpose in the chit run by the said

Vankela Madhusudhan Reddy, but perusal of the testimony of DW1,

APNE110001372022 14C.C.No.120/2022 he never deposed in his cheif examination that the said

Madhusudhan Reddy was obtained blank promissory note from the accused. The accused pleaded only that he gave cheque to the said

Madhusudhan Reddy. If really, that the accused never executed the said promissory note in favor of the complainant if so, the accused ought to have send the said promissory note to the expert for opinion, but the accused never send the said promissory note to expert for opinion, for which there is no proper explanation from the accused. Further the accused pleaded that he gave Ex.P1 cheque to the Madhusudhan Reddy and later he filed this complaint against the accused through PW1. If so, the accused ought to have lodge report against the said Madhusudhan Reddy as he misused Ex.P1 cheque, but the accused failed to do the same, for which there is no proper explanation from the accused. Further if really the accused issued cheque to the said Vankela Madhusudhan Reddy as the security purpose of the chit amount and he repaid the chit amount to said Madhusudhan Reddy and the Madhusudhan Reddy never returned Ex.P1 cheque to the accused if so, the accused ought to have issue legal notice to the said Madhusudhan Reddy for non- return of Ex.p1 cheque to the accused, but the acucsed failed to do the same. For which there is no proper explantion from the accused.

APNE110001372022 15C.C.No.120/2022 [21.]Further the learned counsel for the complainant cross examined the accused, in the cross examination of DW1, DW1 categorically admitted that the signatures contains on Ex.P1 cheque and Ex.P5 promissory note are belongs to the accused. It seems to be the accused himself admitted the signatures contains on Ex.P1 cheque and the signature contains on Ex.P5 promissory note. As per

section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act facts admitted need

not be proved:- No fact need be proved in any proceedings

which the parties there to or their agents agree to admit at

the hearing or which, before the hearing, they agree to

admit by any writing under their hands or which by any rule

of pleading in force at that time they are deemed to have

admitted by their pleadings. Further in the cross examination of

DW1, DW1 deposed that he was issued Ex.P1 and Ex.P5 to the said

Madhusudhan Reddy in the year 2017 and this complaint was filed in the year 2023, there is a gap of 6 years even though the accused never took any steps for return of Ex.P1 & Ex.P5 from the said

Vankela Madhusudhan Reddy, for which there is no proper explanation from the accused. Further DW1 categorically admitted in his cross examination that prior to filing of this complaint, that the complaint was issued legal notice to the accused stating that the said cheque was dishonored. It seems to be the complainant

APNE110001372022 16C.C.No.120/2022 complied under section 138 (b) of Negotiable Instrument Act and fulfilled the mandatory provision, but the accused never gave any reply to the said notice. Further DW1 categorically admitted in his cross examination that there is no any proof of document to show that he gave Ex.P1 cheque to the said Madhusudhan Reddy.

[22.]The prosecution provided under section 138 of the Act is not a natural offence, and it is created by fiction of law, and technical in nature, and the complainant or the person in whose favour the cheque was issued is given right to file the prosecution when the same was dishonoured against the person issuing the cheque subject to fulfilling of certain procedural compliances. In that event, all the technical formalities as laid down under section 138 of the Act and other provisions of law has to be strictly complied with, failing which the complainant is not entitled for remedy in criminal court.

[23.]The specific case of complainant is that the accused borrowed money an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on 03.02.2021 in evidence there of the accused executed a promissory note infavor of the complainant. Later on repeated demands made by the complainant that the accused had issued cheque bearing.No.064570

APNE110001372022 17C.C.No.120/2022 in favor of the complainant for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on 31.08.2021 drawn on State Bank of India. To prove the version of the complainant Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are filed before this court. Further more as per section 59 of Indian Evidence Act proof of facts

by oral evidence :- All facts except the contents of the

documents (are electronic records ) may be proved by oral

evidence. It clearly shows that except the contents of the documents may be proved by oral evidence, but herein this case

Ex.P1 cheque is a documentary evidence, it prevails over the oral evidenceand there is no documentary evidence adduced by the accused to discard the Ex.P1 cheque that it was not issued to PW1.

In view of the above said discussion the plea of the accused is not taken into consideration. If really the accused was issued the said cheque and promissory note without any consideration and he came to know that the complainant was misused the said cheque and promissory note, if so, the accused ought to have issue legal notice to the complainant stating that not to misuse the same and to return the same to him. Further the accused never lodged any report to the police against the complainant, that the complainant was misusing his blank signed cheque and blank signed promissory note, the accused never gave any legal notice and never lodged any report to the police. What are the circumstances prevented the

APNE110001372022 18C.C.No.120/2022 accused for non-issuance of legal notice and non-lodging of report to the police against the complainant, for which there is no proper explanation from the accused. Perusal of the plea of the accused there is no cogent and reliable evidence in the plea of the defence.

Hence the plea of the accused is not taken into consideration. How the said cheque and promissory note was transferred into the hands of PW1. Mere name sake pleas cannot be acceptable, the defence to show more probable defence before this court to rebutt the evidence of complainant, mere plausible explanation cannot be accepted.

[24.] Perusal of the plea of the accused there are many issues that needs to clarification now. Let us list them here. Let us begin with the issue of sequence.

(i) In which month and date that the accused issued cheque to the said Vankela Madhusudhan Reddy ?

(ii) Why the accused failed to issue notice to the complainant and the said Madhusudhan Reddy about the misuse of Ex.P1 cheque and not to misuse?

APNE110001372022 19C.C.No.120/2022

(iii) Whether the accused put the alleged fact that the complainant and the said Madhusudhan Reddy was misusing the cheque and promissory note before any elders.? If yes who are that elders.? If not why.?

(iv) Why the accused failed to file a complaint against the complainant in the court of law when he knows about the said misusing of cheque and promissory note immediately.?

(v)Why the accused failed to lodge any report to the police against the complainant when he knows about the misusing of blank signed cheque and promissory note immediately ?

[25.]The above questions are most likely to be posed by any prudent person if the accused says that he has put forth his plea that the complainant obtained blank signed promissory note and blank signed cheque from the accused at the time of chit transaction. But the accused has no answer with him for at-least one question posed herein-before. If the accused not able to answer at-least one question of the above, how he expect that his plea would be straight away accepted by the court.? Is it not the

APNE110001372022 20C.C.No.120/2022 responsibility of the accused to bring into record sufficient material to satisfy the court?

[26.] The contention of defence is that at the request of the complainant and the accused was joined in the chit and the said

Madhusudhan Reddy was obtained blank signed promissory note and blank signed cheque from the accused as a security purpose and later the complainant foisted this false case against the accused to get wrongful gain from him is not a convincing one, because admittedly the accused never lodged any report against the complainant and never issued any legal notice to the complainant.

In doing so, the indicate is attributing to himself an improbable, artificial and indifferent conduct to claim exculpation from liability.

The laudable commercial morality which the legislature seeks to usher in by introduction of Section 138 into the statute book will be frustrated and stultified if courts were to readily and meekly accept and swallow such an explanation. If such a laudable commercial morality were to prevail, account holders will also have to deal with their cheques carefully, cautiously and reasonably and not without diligence, indifferently, unreasonably and irrationally. Even today such a defence may not be impossible or impermissible in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Act. But the burden must rest

APNE110001372022 21C.C.No.120/2022 squarely and heavily on the person who wants to attribute to himself such an irresponsible and indifferent conduct – that he pleaded the complainant obtained blank signed promissory note and cheque for security purpose is not to claim exculpation from liability.

[27.]The accused must borne in mind that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused to seek dismissal of the complaint. Something which is probable has to be brought satisfactorily on record for getting the burden of proof shifted back to the complainant. Thus, in the absence of cogent evidence on behalf of accused regarding him that the complainant obtained blank signed promissory note and cheque as a security purpose, it suggests an inference of endorsement and delivery of instrument which impliedly admits that the complainant obtained blank signed promissory note and blank signed cheque as a security purpose, except the oral evidence there is no cogent and reliable evidence to prove the version of the accused.

[28.] Coming to the final discussion, primarily we have the evidence of P.W.1-complainant about the circumstances under which

Ex.P.1 cheque was issued to him, which admittedly written on a

APNE110001372022 22C.C.No.120/2022 cheque leaf issued to the accused by his banker to operate his account with the signature of the accused admittedly affixed thereon traveled from the possession of the accused to the possession of complainant. His evidence on this aspect is eminently supported by his ability to produce Ex.P.1 cheque. The complainant is also armed with the presumption under Section 139 of the Act.

On the other hand, accused not satisfactorily explained that how the cheque issued to him came into the possession of the complainant.

Accused not able to show any cogent evidence on his behalf to neutralize the presumption U/sec. 139 of the Act, and that a mere name sake pleas cannot be accepted to come to the conclusion that there is no legally enforceable debt exists between the parties at the time of issuance of Ex.P.1 cheque.

[29.]Further this court relied upon the judgment of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar reported

in (2019) 4 SCC 197 held that once the other ingredients

mentioned in the foregoing paragraph or established by the

complainant, then as soon as the execution of impugned

cheque is admitted by the accused, a factual base is

established to invoke the presumption of the cheque having

been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or

APNE110001372022 23C.C.No.120/2022

other liability by virtue of section 118 (a) r/w section 139 of

N.I Act. This is a reverse onus clause, which means that

unless the contrary is proved it shall be presumed that the

impugned cheque was drawn by the accused for

consideration and that the complainant had issued it in

discharge of debt/liability from the accused, once the

accused had admitted the signature on the cheque is in

question, then the court is bound to raise presumption under

section 139 of N.I Act. Herein this case also that the accused categorically admitted about the issuance of cheque and categorically admitted his signature contains on Ex.P1 cheque. The complainant proved other ingredients under 138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act. Hence the said judgment is squarely applicable to the present case facts.

[30.] " Further this Court relied upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.123/2021 arising

out of special leave petition Crl.No.1876/2018 M/s Kalamani

Tex & Anr VP.Balasubramnian. In that the Hon'ble Apex

Court held in Beersing v. Mukesh Kumar, even a blank

cheque at leaf voluntarily signed and handed over by the

accused which is towards the same payment would attract

APNE110001372022 24C.C.No.120/2022

presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments

Act in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the

cheque was not issued in discharge at debt".

[31.]Further this court relied another judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex court in I.C.D.S Ltd., Vs. Beena Shabeer

2002(3) KLT 280-held that the cheque was given by a

guarantor when it was bounced found to be within the fold

of section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Necessarily the

cheque as a security, if bounced, shall be the subject matter

of a prosecution under section 138 of N.I. Act, so the

contention of the accused that Ex.P1 cheque was given only

as a security will not enable him to escape from the clutches

of law. Herein this case that the accused also pleaded that as he was given Ex.P1 cheque as security purpose. Hence the said judgment is squarely applicable to the present case facts.

[32.] Thus, the material on record adduced by the complainant categorically and conclusively established issuance of

Ex.P.1 cheque by accused to the complainant in discharge of legally enforceable debt, which was dishonoured when presented. In the absence of any grain of rebuttal evidence adduced by accused to

APNE110001372022 25C.C.No.120/2022 the contrary, this court holds that the complainant has proved the guilt of accused for the offence U/sec. 138 of the Act. Accordingly the point is decided in affirmative.

[33.] In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, and accordingly, he is convicted Under Section 255(2) of Criminal

Procedure Code.

Sd/- J.ANJAIAH

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Udayagiri.

[34.]Hearing on quantum of sentence:- Convict is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence that can be imposed, for which he submitted that he is having wife, children and aged mother and they are depending upon him. His father is no more. His mother is aged about 80 years and she has been suffering from aged elements, his two children are going to school. If he will be kept in judicial custody his entire family will be suffered a lot. With this submission to take a lenient view.

APNE110001372022 26C.C.No.120/2022 [35.]This court is conscious that legislation has incorporated section 138 of the Act to curb the practices of issuing cheques without any funds and to bring harmony in monetary transactions.

The nature of offence and the mode in which it is committed do not warrants the application of beneficial provisions of P.O.Act.

[36.] The Hon'ble Supreme court in a decision decided in between 'S. Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagadeeshan' reported in '2002(1) ALD (Crl) 417' held that- “it should be the look out of the trail court Magistrate that the sentence for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should be of such a nature as to give proper effect to the object of the legislation. No drawer of the cheque can be allowed to take dishonor of the cheque issued by him/her light heartedly. The very object of the enactment of the provisions like 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 would stand defeated if the sentence is flee bite in nature. It is a different matter, if the accused is paid the amount at least during the pendency of the case.” [37.]Further, the Hon'ble Supreme court in a decision decided in between 'R. Vijayan Vs Baby and another' reported in '2012(1) S.C.C 260' held that granting of compensation is must in

APNE110001372022 27C.C.No.120/2022 cheque bounce cases to maintain uniformity in the decisions of the courts. It was held that “As the provisions of Chapter XVII of the Act strongly lean towards grant of reimbursement of the loss by way of compensation, the courts should, unless there are special circumstances, in all cases of conviction, uniformly exercise the power to levy fine upto twice the cheque amount (keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple interest thereon at 9% per annum as the reasonable quantum of loss) and direct payment of such amount as compensation. Direction to pay compensation by way of restitution in regard to the loss on account of dishonour of the cheque should be practical and realistic, which would mean not only the payment of the cheque amount but interest thereon at a reasonable rate. Uniformity and consistency in deciding similar cases by different courts, not only increase the credibility of cheque as a negotiable instrument, but also the credibility of courts of justice.” [38.] Further, It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the decision decided in between 'Somnath Sarka Vs Utpal basu mallick' reported in ' 2014 Cr.L.J. 179. 111' that the Act not contemplated grant of compensation but envisages imposition of fine not exceeding twice the amount of dishonoured cheque and out

APNE110001372022 28C.C.No.120/2022 of said fine amount, the complainant be compensated under Section 357 Cr.P.C and that unlike for other forms of crime, the punishment here (insofar as the complainant is concerned) is not a means of seeking retribution, but is more a means to ensure payment of money. The complainants interest lies primarily in recovering the money rather than seeing the drawer of the cheque in jail. The threat of jail is only a mode to ensure recovery.

[39.] Furthermore, there used to be some discussion as to whether the default sentence can be imposed for non payment of compensation. The said discussion is settled at rest and it has been held by the The Hon'ble Supreme court in a decision decided

in between 'K.A. Abbas H.S.A. vs Sabu Joseph & Anr.'

reported in '(2010) 6 SCC 230' that default sentence can be imposed for non payment of compensation.

[40.]In view of the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme court and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, and also taking note of submissions of convict, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to take a lenient view, and further that in my view the following sentence would meet the ends of justice.

APNE110001372022 29C.C.No.120/2022 [41.] Accordingly, Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I Act and accordingly, he is convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C and the convict is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 06 (SIX MONTHS)

and to pay a compensation double of the cheque amount i.e.,

Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) under section 357(3) of Criminal Procedure Code to the complainant in this case, in default of payment of compensation the accused shall under go to simple imprisonment for a period of 06 (SIX) months. This court explained the right of appeal to the convict. Record reveals no previous remand period of convict, accordingly there is no order as to set off of remand period Under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the convict shall stands cancelled with immediate effect.

Office is directed to prepare conviction warrant and also to provide a copy of this judgment, free of cost to the convict forthwith.

Directly typed to my dictation by stenographer. The Judgment is delivered and operative part of the same is pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 27 th day of June, 2025, under the hand and seal of this court.

Sd/- J.ANJAIAH

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Udayagiri.

APNE110001372022 30C.C.No.120/2022

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution:

P.W.1: Dirisala Bali Reddy @ Dhirisala balireddy

For defence:

D.W.1: Edama Tirupalu

Documents marked: For prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Cheque bearing No.064570, dt.31.08.2021 for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-.

Ex.P2 : Cheque return memo dt.13.09.2021.

Ex.P3 : Office copy of legal notice dt.28.09.2021.

Ex.P4 : Served postal acknowledgment card.

Ex.P5 : Original promissory note dated 03.02.2021 for

Rs.6,00,000/- executed by the accused in favor of the complainant.

For defence:NIL

Material objects marked: -Nil on either side-

Sd/- J.ANJAIAH

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Udayagiri.

APNE110001372022 31C.C.No.120/2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS AT

UDAYAGIRI.

C.C.No.120/2022

Date of: Offence onComplaint Apph. ofReleased onCommencemClosure ofResult or beforeaccusedBailent of TrialTrial 16.10.202127.10.2021--09.05.202417.06.202527.06.2025

Between: Dirisala Bali Reddy @ Dhirisala Bali Reddy S/o Bala Kota Reddy, Age : 44 years, R/o Ankireddypalli village, S.R.Puram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. . . . Complainant.

And

Edama Thirupathaiah, S/o Venkataiah, Age : 53 years, R/o Flat.No.201, 2nd floor, Bindhu Elite, Narmada Constructions, Near Narayanapuram Colony bustop, Poranki-Nidamanuru Road, Vijayawada City, Krishna District. . . . Accused.

Offence: Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

Plea of accused: Not guilty.

Finding : Guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

Sentence of Order :

APNE110001372022 32C.C.No.120/2022

In the Result, Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I Act and accordingly, he is convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C and the convict is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 06 (SIX MONTHS)

and to pay a compensation double of the cheque amount i.e.,

Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) under section 357(3) of Criminal Procedure Code to the complainant in this case, in default of payment of compensation the accused shall under go to simple imprisonment for a period of 06 (SIX) months. This court explained the right of appeal to the convict. Record reveals no previous remand period of convict, accordingly there is no order as to set off of remand period Under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the convict shall stands cancelled with immediate effect.

Office is directed to prepare conviction warrant and also to provide a copy of this judgment, free of cost to the convict forthwith.

Explanation for the delay:The complaint was taken on file under section 138 of N.I Act. On 18.04.2024 accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 14.11.2024 PW1 filed chief affidavit and same was accepted into record and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and he was cross examined on 27.01.2025 and complainant evidence was closed on 12.02.2025. On 19.02.2025 accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., for which the accused reported as everything as false and reported he has defence evidence. On behalf of accused, he himself examined as DW1 and no documents were marked. On 17.06.2025 defence evidence was closed. On

APNE110001372022 33C.C.No.120/2022 20.06.2025 heard arguments of the complainant and on 23.06.2025 arguments of the accused. On 27.06.2025 Judgment pronounced.

Hence the delay.

Sd/- J.ANJAIAH

Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Udayagiri.

Substantive sentence of imprisonment is suspended till

28.07.2025 as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.425/2025 dated

27.06.2025.

APNE110001372022 34C.C.No.120/2022

Copy To

1. To The Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore for kind perusal.

Substantive sentence of imprisonment is suspended till

23.12.2024 as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.334/2024 dated

22.11.2024.

//True Copy//

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Udayagiri

the accused never pleaded that the said cheque leaves are signed cheque leaves and also never pleaded the accused the signatures contains on Ex.P1 cheque is forged one.

Further General Auto sales Vs. Vijaya Lakshmi alsoDirisala

Bali Reddy, S/o Bala Kota Reddy, Age : 44 years, R/o Ankireddypalli village, S.R.Puram Mandal,

APNE110001372022 35C.C.No.120/2022

SPSR Nellore District. . . . Complainant.

And

Edama Thirupathaiah, S/o Venkataiah, Age : 53 years, R/o Flat.No.201, 2nd floor, Bindhu Elite, Narmada Constructions, Near Narayanapuram Colony bustop, Poranki-Nidamanuru Road, Vijayawada City, Krishna District.

. . . Accused.

APNE110001432019 1O.S.No.45/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDAYAGIRI

Present: Sri.J.Anjaiah,

Junior Civil Judge, Udayagiri.

Thursday, this the 03rd day of July, 2025.

OS No.45/2019

Between:-

1.Kambham Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o Late Yella Reddy, Age : 60 years, R/o Duttalur Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District

2.Kambham Govinda Reddy, S/o Late Yella Reddy, Age : 55 years, R/o Duttalur Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District .… Plaintiff

AND

1.Kambham Obulamma (Yellayyagari Elaaka), W/o Late Subba Reddy, Age : 70 years, R/o Kambhamvari Street, Duttalur Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2.Kambham Venkateswara Reddy, S/o Late Subba Reddy, Age : 51 years, R/o D.No.28-1747, Ram Nagar, Mypadu Road, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

3.Kambham Srinivasa Reddy, S/o Late Subba Reddy, Age : 42 years, R/o Kambhamvari Street, Duttalur Village and Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District.... Defendant

This suit is came before me for disposal in the presence of Sri

S.K. Althaf, the learned counsel for the plaintiff and Sri S.K. Subhan Basha,

APNE110001432019 2O.S.No.45/2019 the learned counsel for the defendants. Upon hearing the arguments on both sides, perusal of the record available on this court posted this matter for consideration till this day and This court made the following judgment.

J U D G M E N T

[1.]This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants declaring the right and title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property restraining the defendants 1 to 3, their men, agents, assignees and any other persons claiming through or under them from interfering with the

Peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property, in any manner, by way of consequential permanent injunction, costs of the suit.

[2.]The brief averments of the plaint are that : The plaintiffs submitted that the land in an extent of Acr.4.78 cents in Survey No.1648 of

Duttaluru Village and Mandal is the absolute property of the Kambam China

Govinda Reddy and his son Subba Reddy, who constituted a joint Hindu family. Kambam Subba Reddy is the husband of the Defendant no. 1 and the father of the defendants nos. 2 and 3.

[3.]The father of the plaintiffs namely Kambam Yella Reddy purchased an extent of 3 acres out of Acr.4.78 cents covered by Patta No.

851 Survey No. 1648 of Duttaluru Village on 11.06.1974 from Kambam

Chinna Govinda Reddy and Kambam Subba Reddy under unregistered agreement of sale dated 11.06.1974 for a valuable sale consideration of ₹ 1,500 (Rupees Fifteen Hundred only). The sale consideration amount paid and got deliver of the possession of the property under sale with absolute

APNE110001432019 3O.S.No.45/2019 rights. Ever since the purchase of the vendee was in peaceful possession of the scheduled mentioned property peacefully, uninterruptedly, without any obstruction from anybody. The name of the Father of the plaintiffs was also mutated in the revenue records as such as the adangal and No. 10 ( 1) of

Duttaluru Village.

[4.]The plaintiffs, their father and another younger brother of the plaintiffs namely Devender Reddy and the grandfather of the defendants nos. 2 and 3 and the father-in-law of the defendant no. 1 namely Kambam

Chinna Govinda Reddy alias Govinda Reddy son of Narappa Reddy jointly obtained a loan of ₹ 5,000 from the Udayagiri Cooperative Agricultural

Development Bank Ltd, Vinjumuru by mortgage of the suit schedule land in an extent of 3 acres in Survey No. 1648 of Duttaluru Village and other lands per reclamation of the lands under mortgage deed Document No. 146/1976 of SRO Udayagiri dated 29.03.1976 . By the time of execution of said mortgage deed, the second plaintiff and his younger brother Devander

Reddy were minors and hence the document was executed by their father,

Yella Reddy, on their behalf. The mortgagees deposited their documents to the mortgager.

[5.]The plaintiffs further submitted that, again on 30.07.1980, the father of the defendants no. 2 and 3 and the the second plaintiff, his younger brother Devendra Reddy and their father Yella Reddy jointly obtained a loan of ₹ 4,700 from the Udayagiri Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank

Ltd. Vinjamuru by mortgage of the suit schedule survey number land in its total extent is Acr.4.78 cents in survey number. 1648 of Duttalur Village

APNE110001432019 4O.S.No.45/2019 under mortgage vide Document No. 89/1980 of SRO Udayagiri dated 30.07.1980 .The mortgagees deposited their documents to the mortgager.

The original agreement of sale was not traced out due to passage of time and it will be filed as and when it traced. The plaintiffs obtained the certified copies of the documents, the register of holding, certified copy of mortgage deed bearing number 146/1976 of SRO udayagiri dated 29.03.1976 and the encumbrance certificate obtained from SRO Udayagiri dated 07.12.2018 are filed herewith and the contents of the said documents be read as part and parcel of the plaint.

[6.]The plaintiffs further submitted that the younger brother of the plaintiffs, namely Kambam Devender Reddy left the house about 25 years back. The said Devender Reddy was unmarried when he left the home, and whereabouts of the said Devender Reddy are not known to the plaintiffs. The father of the plaintiffs namely Kambam Yella Reddy died on 01.11.1992. The mother of the plaintiffs namely Lakshmi Devi also died on 07.09.2016. Thus the plaintiffs became the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property.

While so, the defendants tried to create some fake, fictitious, sham and nominal documents pertains to the suit schedule property by manipulating the revenue records and by making false representations to the revenue authorities. On coming to know about the illegal acts of the plaintiffs, they issued a lawyer notice dated 30.11.2018 through their advocate to defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 1 issued a reply notice through her advocate with all false and frivolous allegations denying The right, title and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule land. The defendants 2 and 3 send a caveat copies to the plaintiffs with false allegations. The plaintiffs

APNE110001432019 5O.S.No.45/2019 further submitted that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property even till today with absolute rights with their own right and title. The defendants are creating false and sham nominal documents in their favour due to which the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit against the defendants.

[7.]On the other hand, the defendants filed their written statements stating that denying the averments mentioned in the plaint, except those that are specifically admitted by the defendants in their written statements.

The defendants submitted that the family of Yella Reddy and the family of

Chinna Govinda Reddy were closely attached to each other, being dayadies and helping in cultivation of their lands whenever necessity arose. It is learned that the said Yella Reddy and Govinda Reddy intended to develop their lands and obtained loan jointly from Udayagiri Cooperative Agriculture

Development Bank, Vinjamuru for the development of their lands. Then they mortgaged their lands for the said loan, an extent of Acr. 0.11 cents covered in Survey No. 1644 /1 and an extent of Acr. 3.00 cents covered in Survey

No. 1648 of Duttaluru Village belonging to the said Govinda Reddy and an extent of Acr. 6.08 cents covered in Survey No. 1443/ 1B belonging to Yella

Reddy were mortgaged to the said Udayagiri Agricultural Development Bank,

Vinjamuru under a registered declaration dated 29.03.1976 . Similarly, on 30.07.1980, the said Yella Reddy and Subba Reddy, father of the defendants 2 and 3 obtained the joint loan of 4,700 for the purpose of purchasing oil₹ engine and created mortgage of the lands covered in Survey No. 1648 and 1216 -4 of Duttaluru Village. At the time, the defendants no. 2 and 3 were minors. Similarly, the sons of Yella Reddy were also minors. The said loans

APNE110001432019 6O.S.No.45/2019 were obtained jointly as they were having relationship and also cooperation in the matter of their agriculture. Taking the advantage of the said lands were jointly mortgaged. Plaintiffs appeared came forward to lay false claim over the plaint schedule land which is a portion of an extent of Acr.4.78 cents cents in Survey No. 1648. Plaintiffs have Nothing to do with the plaint schedule land. The total extent of 4 acres 78 cents covered by Survey No.

1648 is a dry land and is a single plot. The defendants no. 2 and 3, along with their father Subba Reddy, also availed loan of ₹ 47,000 from

Kammavaripalem PACS on 25.11.1997, mortgaging an extent of 4 acre 78 cents covered in Survey No. 1648, by registered declaration. The said loan was also repaid. It is in possession of the defendants after the demise of the said Govinda Reddy which took place more than 40 years back and the demise of Subba Reddy which took place in the year 2010. It is a ancestral property and the defendants no. 2 and 3 were having equal shares along with their father. After the death of their father, the defendants and their mother become entitled to the said land an extent of Acr.4.78 cents. There is no separate identity to the plaint schedule land. It is part and parcel of total extent of Acr.4.78 cents. The defendants further submitted that they are the absolute owners of an extent of Acr.4.78 cents including the plaint schedule land. The family of the defendants has been in continuous and uninterrupted and peaceful possession since long time. The father of the defendants 2 and 3 was also Issued Pattadar Passbook and title deed in the year 1996 itself for the full extent of Acr.4.78 cents covered by Survey No. 1648. After the death of the said Subbareddy who is the father of the defendants no. 2 and 3, the said land was mutated in the name of the defendant no. 1 who is the eldest member of the family. The pass book and title deed in the name of the

APNE110001432019 7O.S.No.45/2019

Subbareddy are transferred in the name of the defendant no. 1. The father of the defendants no. 2 and 3 also dug a well in his land covered in Survey

No. 1648 on or about the year 1980. The said well was closed by the defendants as there was no sufficient water in the well and also it became dilapidated about a year back and as the first defendant became old

Intended to execute the registered settlement deed in favour of the defendants no. 2 and 3, under the impression that the land Survey No. 1648 belongs to her, as revenue records, was mutated in her name and She executed registered settlement deed dated 31.10.2018 in favour of defendant no. 2 to an extent of Acr.2.39 cents out of Acr.4.78 cents covered in Survey No. 1648 of Duttaluru Village. The revenue records also mutated in their names and they are issued Pattadar Passbook for their extents and that they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land jointly. The defendants further submitted that the boundaries mentioned in the plaint all are not correct boundaries. Further submitted that the land on east of the plaint schedule land belongs to one Kakarla

Jayarami Reddy and not Kambham Vengal Reddy as mentioned in the plaint schedule. On southern side there is a no land of Kambham Rami Reddy, but there is a land of one Devarapati Ramanaiah. The allegations that the defendants are making illegal attacks and trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land by the plaintiffs are not true and no cause of action arose to file this suit. The plaintiffs are not entitled for the plaint schedule land and not in possession the same. They are not entitled for the declaration of their right and title over the plaint schedule property. They are also not entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men. The defendants further

APNE110001432019 8O.S.No.45/2019 submitted that the plaintiffs failed to pay correct court fee. The market value of the suit land by the date of filing of the suit is more than 20,00,000.₹

Therefore, in the above said circumstances, the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs .

[8.]Basing upon the pleading of the both parties the following issues are framed for trial.

ISSUE NO 1 : Whether the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint

property. ?

ISSUE NO 2 : Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for consequential

permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 with regard to the

plaint schedule property. ?

ISSUE NO 3 ; To What relief ?

[9.]Heard arguments on both sides.

[10]On behalf of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff himself examined as

PW1 and the third parties were examined as PWs 2 to 5. Exhibits A1 to A11 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. On behalf of the defendants, the second defendant was examined as DW 1 and one third party was examined as DW2 and Exhibits B1 to B11 were marked on behalf of the defendants.

[11.]Rival contents submitted by the both side counsels. :- The learned counsel for the plaintiffs categorically argued that one Yella Reddy family members and DW1's grand father's were lived jointly. Further argued that DW1 categorically admitted in his cross examination the said Yella

Reddy and his grandfather were friends and Exhibit B10 is not contains the

APNE110001432019 9O.S.No.45/2019 date, month and year when it was issued to the Kambham Subba Reddy.

DW1 further admitted in his cross examination that there is no title deed stands in the name of his father. The plaintiffs filed only documents upto 2009 and DW1 categorically admitted in his cross examination that Exhibits

B5 to B9 are belongs to the year 2013 to 2018. Further argued that DW1 categorically admitted in his cross examination about the mortgage of the said property. In the year 1974 one Kambam Chinna Govinda Reddy who is grandfather of DW1 and DW 1’s father were jointly sold away an extent of 3 acres in Survey No. 1648 of out of 4 acres 78 cents. For valuable consideration of ₹ 1,500 to one Kambam yellareddy under white paper agreement and later, based on the said agreement, the name of the said

Kambam yellareddy was mutated in all the revenue records . Further argued that in the year 1974 one Kambam Chinnagovindareddy who is the grandfather of DW 1 and father of DW 1 were jointly sold away an extent of 3 acres in Survey No. 1648 out of 4 acres 78 cents for valuable consideration of 1,500 to one Kambam Yella Reddy under white paper agreement. Later,₹ basing on the said agreement, the said Kambam Yella Reddy name was mutated in all the revenue records. Further argued that in the year 1976 the said yellareddy was obtained loan by way of mortgage the said property.

Further argued that there is no any substantive evidence adduced by the defendants to prove their version and the plaintiff proved their case by marking Exhibits A1 to A11 and in the cross examination of PW’ s 1 to 5 their cross examination was nothing shaken and PW‘s 1 to 5 all the way corroborated to the case of PW1 and the plaint pleadings. Prayed this court may we pass decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiffs.

APNE110001432019 10O.S.No.45/2019 [12.]The learned counsel for the defendant categorically argued that the alleged agreement is not filed by the plaintiffs before this court and the settlement deed is not filed before this court. Para No. 3 admissions of the plaintiff in the plaint. Exhibit A5 RH clearly shows Obulamma executed documents on Chinna Govinda Reddy. Further argued that, as per Exhibit A1 schedule, the joint loan was obtained by the plaintiffs and defendants family.

Exhibit A1 is not contains any boundaries and it an extent of 10 acres of land. Both parties are relatives to each other. Further argued that in the plaint schedule property the lemon trees were raised by the defendants. The same fact also admitted by PW3 in his cross examination. To support the case of the defendants, Exhibits B1 to B11 were marked. Based on the said documents, clearly established the position of the defendants in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs never adduced any relevant documents

before this court to prove their version. DW2 also corroborated the case of

the defendants. Prayed this court, the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

[13.]Now point for consideration is :-

ISSUE NO 1 : Whether the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the

plaint schedule property. ?

AND

ISSUE NO 2 : Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for consequential

permanent injunction against defendants 1 to 3 with regard to the

plaint schedule property. ?

[14.]Since both issues are inter connected to each other, hence answered them together.

[15.]The burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove that they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property. On the way, the plaintiffs

APNE110001432019 11O.S.No.45/2019 examined PWs 1 to 5 and Exhibits A1 to A11 were marked on behalf of them.

The learned counsel for the defendant categorically cross examined PW1. In the cross examination of PW1, PW1 categorically admitted that the said

Chinna Govindareddy and his father were family friends and relatives to each other. With regard to the said dispute, there is no dispute in between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Further, in the cross examination of PW1, PW1 categorically admitted that D1 is the wife of the said Subba Reddy and D2 and D3 are the sons of the said Subba Reddy. The plaintiffs categorically pleaded in their plaint that his father by name Kambam Yellareddy purchased an extent of 3 acres out of 4 acres 78 cents covered Patta No. 851 and

Survey No. 1648 of Duttaluru village on 11.06.1974 from Kambam

Chinagovinda Reddy and Kambam Subba Reddy under unregistered agreement of sale dated 11.06.1974 for valuable consideration of ₹ 1,500/- and paid the sale consideration and got delivered the possession of the said property under the said sale. Further pleaded by the plaintiffs, from that on wards they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said schedule property peacefully without any interruption from anybody, but to prove the version of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs never filed the said unregistered sale deed dated 11.06.1974 before this court. It seems to be there is no any proof of document to show that the plaintiffs purchased the said land under agreement of sale deed dated 11.06.1974, without adducing any documentary evidence, it is not just and proper to straight away accept the plea of the plaintiffs. Further, in the cross examination of PW1, PW1 categorically deposed that they do not know whether they conducted survey to the said land after purchase of the land. Perusal of the version of PW1.

PW1 categorically admitted in his cross examination that 4 acres 78 cents is a single plot and as per the PW1 they purchased land an extent of 3 acres

APNE110001432019 12O.S.No.45/2019 out of 4 acres 78 cents, if an extent of 4 acres 78 cents is a single plot, if so, the plaintiffs purchased an extent of 3 acres from the said land without mentioning boundaries and without conducting survey, how the plaintiffs cultivated the said land and how the defendants cultivating the remaining land, for which there is no proper explanation from the plaintiffs, further PW1 categorically admitted that he does not know the names of the boundary holders. If really the plaintiffs cultivated the plaint schedule property from the purchase of the land i.e. 1974, if so, the plaintiffs ought to have deposed the names of the boundary holders, but they never deposed the names of the boundary holders, It seems to be the plaintiffs categorically pleaded in their plaint that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property from 1974 is not believable. Further PW1 categorically admitted in his cross examination that they raised tobacco crop in the said extent of 3 acres and again PW1 categorically deposed in his cross examination that he does not remember the tobacco crop License number, further PW1 categorically deposed in his cross examination that they raised the said tobacco crop for a period of 15 years. If really the plaintiff’s family raised tobacco crop in the said land for a period of 15 years, PW1 ought to depose the same, but PW1 deposed that he does not know the tobacco license number. It seems to be the version of the plaintiffs is not a believable version. Further PW1 categorically deposed in his cross examination that he does not know whether there is a fencing on eastern side to the extent of 3 acres. If really the plaintiffs had been in possession and enjoyment of the said land from the date of purchase of the said land, PW1 ought to have deposed that whether there is a fencing or not on eastern side. But PW1 never deposed the same. It seems to be the version claimed by the plaintiffs is not believe version.PW1 further deposed in his cross examination that he

APNE110001432019 13O.S.No.45/2019 mortgaged an extent of 3 acres to Udayagiri Cooperative Agricultural and

Development Bank and again he deposed that he does not remember under which bank he mortgaged said land. If really PW1 mortgaged the said land and obtained loan, if so, PW1 ought to have deposed the name of the concerned bank. But PW1 deposed that he does not remember from which bank he obtained mortgaged loan under the said mortgage loan. It seems to be the version of PW1 is not a believable version. Further PW1 deposed in his cross examination that he does not know whether the said Chinna Govinda

Reddy also obtained loan under mortgage along with him jointly. But the plaintiffs categorically mentioned in their plaint that PW1 and the said

Chinna Govinda Reddy were also obtained loan under mortgage jointly. It seems to be in one hand PW1 categorically denied that himself and the said

Chinna Govind Reddy were Jointly obtained mortgage loan and in one hand he admitted in the plaint that himself and the said Chinna Govinda Reddy were jointly obtained mortgage loan. It seems to be the version of PW1 is totally unbelievable. Further PW1 categorically admitted in his cross examination that he had no Pattadar Passbook, Adangal and other revenue records in his name to an extent of 4 acres 78 cents in Survey No. 1648. If really The plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. They ought to have filed all the relevant documents to show their possession, but the PW1 himself admitted in his class examination that he had no Pattadar passbook, adangal and other revenue records with regard to the plaint schedule property. Hence the testimony of PW1 is totally unbelievable testimony. PW2 who is one of the younger brother of PW1 deposed that at the time of purchase of the plaint schedule property he was minor and he came to know that the said property was purchased for ₹ 1,000.per acre, Perusal of the version of PW2. As per the plaint pleadings of

APNE110001432019 14O.S.No.45/2019 the plaintiffs, the father of the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property under sale consideration of ₹ 1,500, per 3 acres. it seems to be there is no believable version in the PW2. PW2 further deposed in his cross examination that in the year 1976 his father was mortgaged the plaint schedule property and obtained loan for development of the land. To prove the version of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs filed Exhibit A1 before this court.

Perusal of Exhibit A1, the said Exhibit A1 clearly contains the names of the persons i.e. 1) Kambam Yella Reddy, 2) Venkata Subba Reddy, 3) Govinda

Reddy, 4) Devendra Reddy, 5) Kambam Govinda Reddy and the land contains the survey numbers are 1644, an extent of 11 cents, in Survey No.

1443 an extent of 6 acres 8 cents and in Survey No. 1648, an extent of 3 acres. But Exhibit A1 does not contains only the father of the plaintiff mortgaged the land in Survey No. 1648 to an extent of 3 acres. For which there is no proper explanation from the plaintiffs. Further PW2 categorically denied in his cross examination that his father obtained loan along with some others for development of the land. But Perusal of Exhibit A1 it clear contains father of the plaintiffs and some others obtained loan for development of the land. It seems to be the version of PW2 is not believable.

Further, in the cross examination of PW2, PW2 categorically deposed that they obtained a loan to raise lemon plants, electricity connection and dug bore well and to install motor in the year 1977 at Vinjamuru branch and again he deposed that he does not know how much amount they obtained loan for the said purpose. Perusal of the testimony of PW1, and the plaint pleadings of the plaintiffs. The said version nowhere mentioned in their plaint and PW1 also never deposed that they obtained loan from the Vinjamuru branch to raise lemon plants in the said land. It seems to be there is no corroboration in between the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and the plaint

APNE110001432019 15O.S.No.45/2019 pleadings. Further PW2 categorically admitted in his cross examination that his father had pattadar passbook to the plaint schedule property, but they never filed the said pattadar passbook before this court. If really the plaintiffs had pattadar passbook in the name of their father with regard to the plaint schedule property, the plaintiffs ought to have filed the said pattadar passbook before this court to prove the version but they failed to do the same for which there is no proper explanation from the plaintiffs .PW2 further deposed in his cross examination that upto 2005 their family had revenue records with regard to the plaint schedule property and again he deposed that but they never filed the said revenue records before this court. If really the plaintiff's family had all revenue records with regard to the plaint title property, if so, the plaintiffs ought to have filed the said documents before this court to prove their version, but they failed to do the same, for which there is no proper explanation from the plaintiffs.

[16.]PW2 further deposed in his cross examination that they raised lemon plants in the said land after obtained loan from the concerned bank in the year 1997, but PW1 categorically pleaded in his deposition that after purchase of the said land they raised tobacco crop in the plaint schedule property. It seems to be in one hand PW1 deposed that they raised tobacco crop in the plaint schedule property and in one hand PW2 deposed that they raised lemon plants in the plaint schedule property. It seems to be there is no corroboration in between the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and there is no believable version in the testimonies of PW1 and PW2.PW3, who is third party to the suit and examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. In the cross examination of PW3, PW3 categorically admitted that his wife and the said

APNE110001432019 16O.S.No.45/2019

Govinda Reddy wife are own sisters. PW3 further deposed in his cross examination that the suit was filed at about 8 months back, it seems to be

PW3 does not know when the suit was filed. PW3 further deposed that the second plaintiff filed this suit as the plaint schedule property is an extent of 3 acres is belongs to him. Further deposed by PW3 in his cross examination that he does not know the suit schedule number. Further deposed by PW3 in his cross examination that the lemon trees were raised in an extent of 4 acres or 5 acres. It seems to be PW3 does not know the case facts and the details of the plaint schedule property. PW3 further deposed that he does not know whether the plaintiffs obtained loan to raise lemon plants in the plaint schedule property and he does not know whether the plaintiffs mortgaged the plaint schedule property to the bank. The perusal of the testimony of

PW3, there is no any substantive evidence in the testimony of PW3 to corroborate the version of the plaint pleadings and to corroborate the version of PW1 and PW2. The chief affidavit of PW4 is filed. Later, the learned counsel for the plaintiff filed memo stating that may be achieved the chief affidavit of PW4. The same is recorded. Hence, the chief affidavit of PW4 is achieved. One of the third party was examined as PW5 on behalf of the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the defendants categorically cross examined PW5. In the cross examination of PW5, PW5 categorically deposed that he does not remember the plaint schedule survey number.PW5 further deposed in his cross examination that he does not know how the said

Yellareddy was obtained loan from the bank. PW5 further deposed in his cross examination that the defendants raised lemon trees to an extent of 3 acres. Perusal of the testimony of PW5. There is no substantive evidence in the testimony of PW5 to corroborate the version of the plaintiffs and the plaint pleadings.

APNE110001432019 17O.S.No.45/2019 [17.]With regard to the documents filed by the plaintiffs,The main plea of the plaintiffs is that their father purchased plaint schedule property under unregistred agreement of sale on 11.06.1974 but the said documents never marked to prove their version. Further, the entire case of the plaintiffs are defend upon the said agreement of sale deed dated 11.06.1974, but the said document is not marked by the plaintiffs to prove their version . Further, the plaintiffs categorically pleaded in their plaint that, after purchase of the said land, their father mortgaged the said property and obtained loan from the bank for the development of the said land, to prove the version of the plaintiffs, Exhibit A1 is filed before this court. Perusal of the said document, it does not contains only the name of the father of the plaintiff. It contains several names and also contains several properties and survey numbers. It seems to be there is no any clarity in the said document to show that only the father of the plaintiff mortgaged the plaint schedule property and obtained loan basing on the plaint schedule property, due to which, Exhibit

A1 is not taken into consideration. Further, the plaintiffs filed Exhibit A2, encumbrance certificate. Perusal of Exhibit A2, it clearly contains the gift settlement deed stands in the name of the Kambham Obulamma, Kambham

Venkateswara Reddy, who are the defendants, and Exhibit A2 does not contains the names of the plaintiffs and their father name. Hence Exhibit A2 is not taken into consideration. Further, to prove the version of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs filed Exhibit A5 RH page. Perusal of Exhibit A5 RH page, it clearly contains the name of the Kambham Govinda Reddy, with regard to the plaint schedule survey number and an extent of 4 acre 78 cents. Exhibit

A5 also does not contains The father name of the plaintiffs or the plaintiffs’ name, due to which, Exhibit A5 is not taken into consideration. Exhibit A6 is the legal notice issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant no. 1 and Exhibit A7

APNE110001432019 18O.S.No.45/2019 is postal receipt, Exhibit A8 is acknowledgment of the defendant no. 1Exhibit

A9 is the reply notice of defendant no. 1. Exhibit A10 is the caveat petition filed by the defendants and Exhibit A11 is market value certificate of the plaint schedule property. The said Exhibits A6 to A11 are nowhere useful to the case of the plaintiffs. Hence, in view of the above said discussion, these issues are answered against the plaintiffs.

[17.] ISSUE.NO.3 To what relief ?

In the result : the suitis dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, today, this the 03 rd day of July, 2025, under the hand and seal of this court.

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Udayagiri

APNE110001432019 19O.S.No.45/2019

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined:

For plaintiff:For defendants:

PW 1 : Khambham venkata subba Reddy DW 1 : Khambham Venkateswara Reddy

PW 2 : Khambham Govinda Reddy DW 2 : Khambham Jaya Rami Reddy

PW 3 : Sanivarapu Krishna Reddy

PW 4 : Gollapalli Hazarathaiah (echeiwed)

PW 5 : Khambham Srinivasulu Reddy

Documents marked for plaintiff:

EX A1 ; Certified copy of registered mortgage deed executed by Kambam Ella Reddy and others pertains to the suit schedule land in favour of Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank, Vinjamuru dated 29.03.1976

EX A2 : Encumbrance Certificate issued by SRO of Udayagiri dated 18.12.2018

EX A3 : Death certificate of Khabham Yella Reddy

EX A4 : Death certificate of Kambam Lakshmidevi.

EX A5 : Certified copy of register of holding issued by SRO of Udayagiri for the land and other lands.

EX A6 : Office copy of lawyer notice dated 30 .11.2018 to the first defendant.

EX A7 : Postal receipt dated 30 .11.2018

EX A8 : Served acknowledgment of lawyer notice to defendant no. 1.

EX A9 : Office copy of reply notice of defendant no. 1.

EX A10:Served caveat copies of issued on behalf of defendant nos. 2 and 3.

EX A11 : Market value certificate from Sub Registrar Office of Udayagiri.

Documents marked for defendants:

EX B1 : Certified copy of registered mortgage deed dated 30.7.1980 in favour of the Udayagiri Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank.

APNE110001432019 20O.S.No.45/2019

EX B2 : Certified Copy of registered mortgage deed dated 25.11.1997 in favour of the Kammavaripalem Primary Agricultural Society.

EX B3 ; Registered settlement deed dated 31.10.2018 executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2.

EX B4 : Registered settlement deed dated 31.10.2018 executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 3.

EX B5 : Certified copy of 1B Namuna stands in the name of Kambam Subba Reddy.

EX B6 : Certified copy of 1B Namona stands in the name of defendant no. 1.

EX B7 : Certified copy of Adangal for the fasali 1423.

EX B8 : Certified copy of Adangal for the fasali 1424.

EX B9 : Certified copy of adangal for the fasali 1427.

EX B10 : Pattadar passbook in the name of defendant no. 1's husband and transferred in the name of defendant no. 1.

EX B11 : Pattadar passbook stands in the name of DW 1.

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Udayagiri

APNE110001432019 21O.S.No.45/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDAYAGIRI

Present: Sri.J.Anjaiah,

Junior Civil Judge, Udayagiri.

Thursday, this the 03rd day of July, 2025.

OS No.45/2019

Between:-

1.Kambham Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o Late Yella Reddy, Age : 60 years, R/o Duttalur Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District

2.Kambham Govinda Reddy, S/o Late Yella Reddy, Age : 55 years, R/o Duttalur Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District .… Plaintiff

AND

1.Kambham Obulamma (Yellayyagari Elaaka), W/o Late Subba Reddy, Age : 70 years, R/o Kambhamvari Street, Duttalur Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2.Kambham Venkateswara Reddy, S/o Late Subba Reddy, Age : 51 years, R/o D.No.28-1747, Ram Nagar, Mypadu Road, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

3.Kambham Srinivasa Reddy, S/o Late Subba Reddy, Age : 42 years, R/o Kambhamvari Street, Duttalur Village and Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District.... Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants declaring the right and title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property

APNE110001432019 22O.S.No.45/2019 restraining the defendants 1 to 3, their men, agents, assignees and any other persons claiming through or under them from interfering with the

Peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property, in any manner, by way of consequential permanent injunction, caste of the suit.

The plaint was presented on 01.02.2019.

CAUSE OF ACTION : Cause of action for the suit arose on 11.06.1974 when the father of the plaintiffs namely Kambham Yella Reddy purchased the plaint schedule property from Kambham China Govinda Reddy and

Kambham Subba Reddy under an agreement of sale and on when the name of father of the plaintiffs mutated in the revenue records and on when the plaintiffs, their father and the grandfather of the defendants 2 and 3 namely

Kambham China Govinda Reddy jointly obtained mortagage loan from the

Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank, Vinjamuru in the year 1976 and on when the defendants 2 and 3 and their father and 2nd plaintiff and his younger brother and others jointly obtained loan from Cooperative

Agricultural Development Bank, Vinjamur for the entire land in Sy.No.1648 of Duttaluru Village and on when the plaintiffs became the absolute owners of the suit schedule property having got the same under succession and are in possession of the property with absolute rights and on when the defendants 1 to 3 are tying to lay false claims by creating fake and false documents detrimental to the interests of the plaintiffs and denying the right, title of the plaintiffs and they did not act in a proper and judicious manner and on when the defendants made illegal attacks and adverse attacks to cause troubles to the right, title of the plaintiffs over the suit properties and it all arose at Duttalur Village and Mandal where the property is situated within the jurisdiction of this court.

This suit filed for declaration of the right and title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property in an extent of Ac.3-00 Cents of the Suit

Schedule and Consequential Permanent injunction is valued at Rs.3,60,000/- being one-half of the total value of Rs.7,20,000/- and a court fee of

Rs.6,026/- U/s 24(b) of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act 1956 are paid thereof.

APNE110001432019 23O.S.No.45/2019

This suit is coming on this day before me for disposal in the presence of Sri. SK.Althaff learned counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri.S.K.

Subhan Basha , learned counsel for the defendants upon hearing arguments on the both side, perusing the material available on record, till this day posted for consideration andthis court doth order and decree as follows:-

i) That the suit is dismissed with costs.

ii) That the defendants do pay to the sum of Rs.11,453 /- towards costs of the suit to the plaintiff.

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 03rd day of July , 2025.

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Udayagiri

TABLE OF COSTS

For DescriptionFor PlaintiffFor Defendants Vakalat02-00 Plaint fee6,026-00 Process225-00 Pleader fee 5,000-00Senior : 3,000-00 Junior : 1,500-00 Typing Charges 200-001,000-00 Total11,453-005,500-00

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Udayagiri

APNE110004272019 1C.C.No.297/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT UDAYAGIRI

PRESENT: Sri J.Anjaiah, JMFC, Udayagiri

Tuesday, this the 10th day of June, 2025.

C.C.No.297/2019

Between :

The State through , The Sub-Inspector of Police, Marripadu Police Station, SPSR Nellore District.

...Complainant

And

1.Cheemaladinne Rathnam @ Venkata Rathnam @ Mesthri Rathaiah, S/o Venkataiah, Age : 47 years, R/o Ramanaidupalli village, Marripadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2.Sana Lakshmi Narayana, S/o Gurava Reddy, Age : 40 years, R/o Ramaswamypalli village, Atmakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District....A1 & A2 ***

This case is came before me for disposal in the presence of learned APP for the state and Sri.SK.Altaf learned counsel for the accused persons and after perusing the case records available on, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over

APNE110004272019 2C.C.No.297/2019 for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

[1.] The SHO of Marripadu P.S has been filed charge sheet against the accused.No.1 & 2 stating that they have been committed an offence punishable U/s 337, 338 of IPC and section 3 r/w 181, section 5 r/w 180, 146 r/w 196 of M.V Act and to punish them according to law.

[2.]The brief facts of the prosecution is that : On 08.03.2018 morning LW1 Talacheeru Vengaiah, LW2 Pacha

Chinnakka, LW3 Talacheeru Seetha Ramulu, LW4 Chemaladinne

Suneetha, LW5 Bheemavarapu Mounika, LW6 Devineni

Dhanamma, LW7 Thalacheeru Sreenivasulu, LW8 Cheemaladinne

Rathnamma, LW9 Kummari Ramalakshmamma, LW10 Navvuluru

Nurjahan, LW11 Talacheeru Ramanamma, LW12 Talacheeru

Padma, LW13 Navvuluri Sreenivasulu, LW14 Macha Ramanamma and Accused.No.1 and some others total 20 members are coolies and residents of Ramanaidupalli village of Marripadu mandal were went to Khansahebpet village of Marripadu mandal, together hacked tobacco which was in the fields of one Venkatateswarlu and shifted the same to Ramaswamypalli village of Atamkur mandal by

APNE110004272019 3C.C.No.297/2019 the crime vehicle i.e., tractor and trailer bearing.No.AP 07 AM 2945 and AP 07 AM 2946 which is uninsured vehicle. Later LW1

Talacheeru Vengaiah, LW2 Pacha Chinnakka, LW3 Talacheeru

Seetha Ramulu, LW4 Chemaladinne Suneetha, LW5 Bheemavarapu

Mounika, LW6 Devineni Dhanamma, LW7 Thalacheeru

Sreenivasulu, LW8 Cheemaladinne Rathnamma, LW9 Kummari

Ramalakshmamma, LW10 Navvuluru Nurjahan, LW11 Talacheeru

Ramanamma, LW12 Talacheeru Padma, LW13 Navvuluri

Sreenivasulu, LW14 Macha Ramanamma and Accused.No.1 and some others total 20 members were returned from

Ramaswamypalli village of Atmakur mandal by the crime vehicle to go to their village. When A1 who is unlicensed persons was driving the crime vehicle i.e., tractor and trailer bearing registration.No.

AP 07 AM 2945 and AP 07 AM 2946 on NH-65 from D.C.Palli side towards Ramanaidupalli village of Marripadu mandal and reached at a distance of ½ km from D.C.Palli village, A1 drove the crime vehicle so rash and negligent manner as a zig-zagly and then the trailer was turned turtile and hit the right side portion of the

Nellore to Udayagiri APSRTC Udayagiri depot bus bearing.No.AP 21

Z 0042 and caused damage, as a result LW’s 1 to 14 were sustained injuries. Immediately they were shifted to govt., hospital, Atmakur for treatment by 108 ambulance. After first aid

LW6 Devineni Dhanamma, LW9 Kummuri Ramalakshmamma,

APNE110004272019 4C.C.No.297/2019

LW13 Navvuluri Srinivasulu and LW14 Macha Ramanamma were shifted Abhiram Hospital, Atmakur. LW7 Talacheeru Srinivasulu was shifted to Jaya Bharathi Hospital, Nellore, LW10 Navvuluri

Nurjhahan and LW11 Talacheeru Ramanamma were shifted to

Bolineni Hospital, Nellore, LW12 Talacheru Padma was shifted to

Simhapuri Hospital, Nellore for better treatment, LW22 Shaik

Abdul Razak S.I of Police Marripadu P.S was received information about the said accident and rushed to Atmakur govt., hospital and recorded statement of LW1. Basing on the statement of LW1

Talacheru Vengaiah, LW22 Shaik Abdul Razak S.I of Police registered a case in Cr.No.40/2018 U/s 337 of IPC and investigated into.

[3.]During the course of investigation LW22 Sk.Abdul Razak

S.I of Police secure LW1 Talacheeru Vengaiah, LW2 Pacha

Chinnakka, LW3 Talacheeru Seetha Ramulu, LW4 Chemaladinne

Suneetha, LW5 Bheemavarapu Mounika, LW6 Devineni

Dhanamma, LW7 Thalacheeru Sreenivasulu, LW8 Cheemaladinne

Rathnamma, LW9 Kummari Ramalakshmamma, LW10 Navvuluru

Nurjahan, LW11 Talacheeru Ramanamma, LW12 Talacheeru

Padma, LW13 Navvuluri Sreenivasulu, LW14 Macha Ramanamma,

LW15 Vangapati Venkata Rathnam and LW16 Golla Ashirvadam examined them and recorded their statements, prepared rough sketch and on 10.03.2018 served 41 A Cr.P.C notice to A1 & A2. A1

APNE110004272019 5C.C.No.297/2019 is not having any license and the crime vehicle also is not having any insurance even though A2 is permitted A1 to drive the vehicle, due to which LW22 Sk.Abdula Razak added the name of A2 and added section of law section 3 r/w 181, 5 r/w 180 and 146 r/w 196 of M.V Act. LW22 Sk.Abdul Razak S.I of Police was tried to examine the remaining persons who were traveled along with LW’s 1 to 14, but none were forward to give evidence. LW17 Dr.A.Amara

Jyothi treated LW’s 1 to 5 and LW8 and issued wound certificates.

LW18 Dr.K.V.Sravan Kumar who treated LW6, LW9, LW13 and

LW14 and issued wound certificates. LW19 Dr.M.Sailaja treated

LW7 and issued wound certificate. LW20 Dr.Narasimha Rao treated

LW10 and LW11 and issued wound certificates. LW21 Dr.G.Sunil

Kumar treated LW12 and issued wound certificate. LW7 and LW12 were sustained grievous injuries and then LW23 M.S.Rakesh S.I of

Police added section 338 of IPC. After completion of all legal formalities LW23 M.S.Rakesh S.I of Police filed charge sheet against the accused.

[4.] Considering the charge sheet and material on record, this court took the case on file for the offence punishable Under section 338, 337 of IPC and under section 3 r/w 181, 146 r/w 196 of M.V.Act against A1 and section 5 r/w 180, 146 r/w 196 of M.V

Act against A2. On appearance of the accused case copies were

APNE110004272019 6C.C.No.297/2019 furnished to them U/sec.207 of of Cr.P.C, and examined them

U/sec.251 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable Under section 338, 337 of IPC and under section 3 r/w 181, 146 r/w 196 of M.V.Act against A1 and section 5 r/w 180 and under section 146 r/w 196 of

M.V.Act against A2 and explained the substance of accusation levelled against them in Telugu language for which the accused plead not guilty and claimed to be tried.

[5.] Upon invitation for trial, the prosecution examined

TWENTY witnesses as PW’s 1 to 20 and documents as Exs. P.1 to

P18 were marked. The evidence of remaining witnesses i.e., LW3

Talacheeru Seetha Ramulu, LW4 Cheemaladinne Suneetha, LW20

Dr.T.Narasimha Rao were given up by learned APP as PW’s 1 to 20 corroborated to the version of the prosecution and sufficient to the case of prosecution. If they are examined no purpose would be served. Hence their evidence were closed.

[6.] After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused persons were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating material available against them for which they stated that everything as false. The defence not chosen to adduce any evidence on their behalf.

[7.]Heard Arguments of both sides.

APNE110004272019 7C.C.No.297/2019 [8.]Now the point that arises for determination is

“ Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt for the

offence punishable Under section 338, 337 of IPC and

under section 3 r/w 181, 146 r/w 196 of M.V.Act

against A1 and section 5 r/w 180 and under section

146 r/w 196 of M.V Act against A2 of Indian Penal

Code ?

[9.] Point:As stated above the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 20 and exhibited Exs. P.1 to P18. PW’s 1 to 12 are injured witnesses, PW13 is RTC Driver, PW14 is RTC conductor, PW’s 15 to 18 are doctors, PW19 & PW20 are investigating officers. With regard to the Exhibits Ex.P1 is statement of PW1. Ex.P2 is 161(3)

Cr.P.C statement of PW7. Ex.P3 is wound certificate of PW5. Ex.P4 is wound certificate of PW10. Ex.P5 is wound certificate of PW1.

Ex.P6 is wound certificate of PW2. Ex.P7 is wound certificate of

LW3. Ex.P8 is wound certificate of LW4. Ex.P9 is wound certificate of PW3. Ex.P10 is wound certificate of PW7. Ex.P11 is wound certificate of PW4. Ex.P12 is wound certificate of PW8. Ex.P13 is wound certificate of PW11. Ex.P14 is wound certificate of PW12.

Ex.P15 is F.I.R. Ex.P16 is Rough sketch. Ex.P17 and Ex.P18 are wound certificates of LW9 and PW6.

RIVAL CONTENTS :

[10.]The learned APP categorically argued that A1 & A2 were committed the offence. A1 drove the tractor in a rash and

APNE110004272019 8C.C.No.297/2019 negligent manner even the injured persons were warned A1 to drove the vehicle in a slow manner. Further argued that PW’s 1 to 12 are injured persons in the said incident and some of the persons received permanently disabled injuries and some of the persons were received temporary injuries, till today they are not able to do any work due to the said accident. A1 drove the said vehicle without having any driving license and valid insurance papers to the crime vehicle. Further argued that A2 who is the owner of the said vehicle allowed A1 to drove the vehicle without having any license and insurance of the crime vehicle. PW’s 1 to 10 corroborated the case of prosecution in all the way and there is no contradictions in the testimonies of PW’s 1 to 20. Further argued that in the cross examination of PW’s 1 to 20 nothing material was elicited to prove the version of the defence. The prosecution clearly established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed this court taken into consideration of testimonies of

PW’s 1 to 20 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 may be convict the accused as per law.

[11.]On the other hand the learned defence counsel categorically argued that there is no corroboration in the testimonies of PW’s 1 to 20 there are number of contradictions in the testimonies of PW’s 1 to 20. There is no negligence on part of the A1 & A2. The incident was occurred due to the negligent

APNE110004272019 9C.C.No.297/2019 driving of the RTC bus and there is no negligence on part of A1.

The injured persons were identified A1 as he well known to them, except that A1 is no way concerned to the offence. Further argued that A2 sold away the crime vehicle to the 3rd parties and he is no way concerned to the alleged incident with an intention to get insurance to the injured persons police foisted this false case against A2. Further argued that the trailer of thetractor is not permittable to boarded the passengers in the said trailer, the said fact known by injured persons even though they boarded the said trailer. It seems to be it is negligence on part of the coolies and there is no negligence on part of the A1. Further argued that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed this court may be acquit the accused persons in the interest of justice.

[12.] DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS

THEREOF:- In a criminal trial, one has to start with the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused which is also regarded as human right because no one can be convicted and punished merely on the ground of suspicion, however strong it may be. Every person has a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of

APNE110004272019 10C.C.No.297/2019 probability amounts to “proof” is an exercise particular to each case. The prosecution is required to prove offence beyond reasonable doubt. Here in this case, the claim of defence of accused is that one of total denial. In the first examination conducted Under Section 251 of Cr.P.C and even in the second examination which was conducted after completion of evidence of prosecution Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the available incriminating material against them, the accused persons stood strongly on the claim that they are innocent of the alleged accusation.

[13.] As could be seen the record available on and the evidence available on. PW3 who is said to be one of the injured in the said alleged incident, PW3 categorically deposed in her chief examination that herself, PW1, PW2, LW3, LW4 and LW’s 6 to 14 were went for cutting of tobacco leaves in a tractor bearing registered.No. AP 07 AM 2945, it clearly shows that PW3 categorically deposed about the registered number of the crime vehicle. Further deposed in her chief examination that A1 was the driver of the said tractor. It clearly shows that PW3 categorically identified A1 as the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the incident. PW3 further deposed in her chief examination after completion of their work while they were returning to their village

APNE110004272019 11C.C.No.297/2019

Ramanaidupalli on the way the said tractor was moving from right side to left side and dashed against the RTC bus which was coming from Udayagiri, due to which the persons who were boarded in the said tractor trailer were fallen on the road and received injuries and she also received injuries. It seems to be PW3 categorically deposed in her chief examination about the receiving of injury.

Further in the cross examination of PW3, she categorically deposed that the bus was coming on the right side, it seems to be the said bus was going on the right way. PW3 further admitted in her cross examination that A1 is her relative. Perusal of the testimony of

PW3 there is a cogent and reliable evidence in the testimony of

PW3 to implicate the complexity of the accused in commission of offence.

[14.]PW4 who is said to be one of the injured in the said incident, she also categorically deposed in her chief examination about the register number of the crime vehicle and A1 was the driver of the crime vehicle, about receiving of injury by PW4.

Perusal of the testimony of PW4 she all the way corroborated to the case of prosecution and all the way corroborated with the testimony of PW3. In the cross examination of PW4 nothing material elicited to disbelieve the testimony of PW4. Perusal of the testimony of PW4 there is a cogent and reliable evidence in the

APNE110004272019 12C.C.No.297/2019 testimony of PW4 to implicate the complexity of the accused in commission of offence.

[15.]PW5 who is said to be one of the injured in the said incident, PW5 also categorically deposed in his chief examination that himself, PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, LW3, LW4, LW’s 8 to 15 were went to tobacco leaves cutting work. He further deposed in his chief examination that the driver of the said tractor drove the vehicle in a high speed due to which the trolley detached from the tractor engine and dashed against RTC bus which was coming from

Udayagiri,due to which the persons who were boarded in the said trolley were fall on the road and received injuries. PW5 further deposed in his chief examination that the registered number of the tractor is AP 07 AM 2945 and the trolley registered number is AP 02 AM 2946 it seems to be PW5 categorically deposed about the registered number of the crime vehicle. Further PW5 categorically deposed in his chief examination that at the time of the incident

A1 was the driver of the crime vehicle and A2 was the owner of the said vehicle. In the cross examination of PW5 nothing material was elicited to prove the version of the defence. Further to discard the registered number of the crime vehicle there is no any evidence adduced by the defence. Perusal of the testimony of PW5 there is a cogent and reliable evidence in the testimony of PW5 to implicate the complexity of the accused in commission of offence.

APNE110004272019 13C.C.No.297/2019 [16.]PW6 who is said to be one of the injured in the said incident he categorically deposed in her chief examination that herself, PW’s 1 to 5, LW3, LW4 and LW’s 8 to 10 and LW’s 12 to 14 were went for cutting of tobacco leaves in tractor. It seems to be

PW’s 1 to 5 presented in the said tractor along with PW6. PW6 further deposed in her chief examination that they were started to go to Ramanaidupalli at that time A1 was drove the said vehicle with high speed then they suggested A1 to drive the vehicle in a slow manner, at that time one bus was coming from Udayagiri and the said trolley dashed against the RTC bus due to which they fall on the road and received injuries. PW6 all the way corroborated to the case of prosecution and in the cross examination of PW6 nothing material was elicited to prove the version of the defence.

Perusal of the testimony of PW6 there is a cogent and reliable evidence in the testimony of PW6 to implicate the complexity of the accused in commission of offence.

[17.]PW7 who is one of the injured and she categorically deposed in her chief examination that she does not know anything about the facts of the case. Turned hostile to the case of prosecution, but chief examination of PW7 she categorically deposed that A1 is her husband. It seems to be A1 is husband of

PW7 might be is the one of the reason PW7 turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

APNE110004272019 14C.C.No.297/2019 [18.]PW’s 8 to 12 who are said to be injured in this incident, they categorically deposed in their chief examination that A1 was the driver of the said tractor and A1 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to the negligence driving of A1 the accident was occurred. They further deposed in their chief examination that about the injuries received by PW’s 8 to 12.

Perusal of the testimonies of PW’s 8 to 12 there is a cogent and reliable evidence in the testimonies of PW’s 8 to 12 to implicate the complexity of the accused in commission of offence.

[19.]PW13 who is the driver of the said RTC bus and PW14 who was the conductor of the said bus they categorically deposed in their chief examination that the said tractor was came in an opposite direction with a zig-zag manner due to which the passengers of the bus were felt afraid, then PW13 completely stopped the RTC bus on the left side of the road, but the trolley of the tractor detached from the tractor engine and hit the RTC bus.

It clearly shows that the negligence driving of A1 at the time of the incident and due to the negligent driving of the A1 the accident was occurred. Perusal of the testimonies of PW’s 13 & 14 there is a cogent and reliable evidence in the testimonies of PW13 & PW14 to implicate the complexity of the accused in commission of offence.

APNE110004272019 15C.C.No.297/2019 [20.]PW’s 15 to PW18 who were said to be treated the injured persons, they categorically deposed about the examination of the injured persons and the injuries received by the injured.

PW’s 15 to 18 categorically deposed in their chief examination about the issuance of wound certificates of the injured persons.

Perusal of the testimonies of PW’s 15 to 18 and the wound certificates for the injured, the medical evidence is clearly corroborated with the ocular evidence of the injured persons. To discard the wound certificates of injured persons and nothing material elicited from the cross examination of PW’s 15 to 18.

Perusal of the testimonies of PW’s 15 to 18 there is a cogent and reliable evidence in the testimonies of PW’s 15 to 18 to implicate the complexity of the accused in commission of offence.

[21.]PW19 & PW20 who are the investigating officers during that period they categorically deposed in their chief examination about the recording of statements of injured witness, registration of F.I.R, examination of witnesses, preparation of rough sketch and collection of wound certificates of injured persons. Perusal of the testimonies of PW19 & PW20, all the way corroborated their testimonies to the case of prosecution and there is a cogent and reliable evidence in the testimonies of PW19 & PW20 to implicate the complexity of the accused in commission of offence.

APNE110004272019 16C.C.No.297/2019

Further more the Evidence of injured witness has greater credential value and unless compelling reasons exist their statements are not to be discard lightly, the evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradicts.

(a) The presence of an injured eye witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradicts in his deposition.

If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishment in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not whole evidence. The court held that suggestion made to the witness by the defence counsel and the reply to such suggestions would definitely from part of the evidence and can be relied upon by the court along with other evidence on record to determine the guilt of the accused held in “Balu Sudam Kharde and another Vs. The State of

Maharashtra. Further this court relied upon the judgment of

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. In cross examination the witness

denied the suggestion that he was not present on the spot at the time of incident or that he had deposed falsely to implicate the appellant. The appellant stated under 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.

APNE110004272019 17C.C.No.297/2019

Where in he stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case. “State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Naresh and other. Where it was held that the evidence of an injured witness must be given due weight-age being a stamped witness, thus his presence cannot be doubted. His statement in generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevant an efficacy as he was sustained injuries at that time and place of occurrence and this lending support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence.

[22.] For the foregoing reasons, this Court find that the prosecution clearly established the guilt of accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. The testimonies of PW’s 1 to 20 corroborated with each other. Further more PW’s 1 to 12 are an eye witnesses to the incident and injured persons in the said incident. PW’s 1 to 12 categorically deposed about the receiving of injuries. Hence in any way there is a credibility to the prosecution witness to establish the guilt of the accused and the evidence put forth by prosecution is believable in complexity of the accused in commission of the offence. In view of the above said discussion, this court find that to safely rely upon the evidence of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. The material produced by the prosecution is

APNE110004272019 18C.C.No.297/2019 sufficient to brought home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

[23.] Therefore, there is a cogent and reliable evidence to implicate the complexity of the accused in commission of the offence. The prosecution proved the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt, which is available in the present case on hand.

The material produced by the prosecution is sufficient to brought home the guilt of the accused beyond doubt. Thereby, the point is decided in favour of the prosecution.

[24.]Hearing on quantum of sentence:- On questioning with regard to the quantum of sentence imposed to A1, for which A1 reported that he had two daughters and one son all are unmarried, the two daughters are ready for marriage if A1 will be kept in judicial custody his entire family will be suffered a lot and further submitted that his wife is suffering from ill-health and she continuously on medication, if A1 will be kept in judicial custody his entire will be suffered with heavy loss and injury with this submission A1 prayed this court may be impose fine instead of conviction and may be take lenient view. A2 submitted that to take lenient view while imposing conviction.

[25.]This court is conscious. The nature of offence and the mode in which it is committed do not warrants the application of beneficial provisions of P.O.Act.

APNE110004272019 19C.C.No.297/2019 [26.]Taken into consideration of submission of A1 & A2 this court imposing following conviction.

[27.] In the result, A1 is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s 337 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C and he is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days, A1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 338 of IPC and accordingly he is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C and he is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. A1 is further found guilty for the offence punishable under section 3 r/w 181 of M.V.Act and accordingly he is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C and he is sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) in default of payment of said fine A1 shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days. A1 further found guilty for the offence punishable U/s 146 r/w 196 of M.V.Act and accordingly he is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one Thousand only) in default of payment of said fine A1 shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. A2 is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 5 r/w 180 of

M.V Act and accordingly he is convicted under section 255(2) of

Cr.P.C and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One

APNE110004272019 20C.C.No.297/2019

Thousand only) in default of payment of said fine A2 shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. A2 is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 5 r/w 146 and 196 of M.V.Act and accordingly he is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C and he is sentenced to pay of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) default of payment of said fine A2 shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The bail bonds of the accused persons and their sureties shall stands cancelled immediately. No property is produced before this court. Hence no order as to property.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 10 th day of June, 2025, under the hand and seal of this court.

Sd/- J.ANJAIAH

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Udayagiri.

APNE110004272019 21C.C.No.297/2019

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined:

For prosecution: For defence: - Nil -

PW.1/Lw.1 : Talacheeru Vengaiah PW.2/Lw.2 : Pacha Chinnakka PW.3/Lw.5 : Bheemavarapu Mounika PW4/LW6 : Devineni Ramanamma PW5/LW7 : Talacheeru Srinivasulu PW6/LW11 : Talacheeru Ramanamma PW7/LW8 : Cheemaladinne Rathnamma PW8/LW9 : Kummari Rama Lakshmamma PW9/LW10 : Navvuluru Nurjahan PW10/LW12 : Talacheeru Padma PW11/LW13 : Navvuluri Srinivasulu PW12/LW14 : Macha Ramanamma PW13/LW15 : Vangapati Venkata Rathnam PW14/LW16 : Golla Ashirvadam PW15/LW19 : Sailaja PW16/LW21 : Dr.G.Sunil Kumar PW17/LW17 : Dr.A.Amara Jyothi PW18/LW18 : Dr.K.V.Sravan Kumar PW19/LW22 : Shaik Abdul Razak S.I of Police PW20/LW23 : M.S.Rakesh S.I of Police

Documents marked:

For prosecution:

Ex.P1 : statement of PW1

Ex.P2 : 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW7

Ex.P3 : wound certificate of PW5

Ex.P4 : wound certificate of PW10

Ex.P5 : wound certificate of PW1

Ex.P6 : wound certificate of PW2

Ex.P7 : wound certificate of LW3

Ex.P8 : wound certificate of LW4

Ex.P9 : wound certificate of PW3

Ex.P10 : wound certificate of PW7

Ex.P11 : wound certificate of PW4

APNE110004272019 22C.C.No.297/2019

Ex.P12 : wound certificate of PW8

Ex.P13 : wound certificate of PW11

Ex.P14 : wound certificate of PW12

Ex.P15 : F.I.R

Ex.P16 : Rough sketch

Ex.P17 : Wound certificate of LW9

Ex.P18 : Wound certificate of PW6

For defence:- - Nil -

Material objects marked:

For Prosecution : NILFor Defence : NIL

Sd/- J.ANJAIAH

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Udayagiri.

APNE110004272019 23C.C.No.297/2019

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS AT UDAYAGIRI.

C.C.No.297/2019

Date of:

Offence on orComplaintApph. ofReleased onCommencemeClosure ofResult

beforeaccusedBailnt of TrialTrial

08.03.201808.03.201810.03.201810.03.201802.01.202429.04.202510.06.2025

Between :

The State through , The Sub-Inspector of Police, Marripadu Police Station,

SPSR Nellore District. ...Complainant

And

1.Cheemaladinne Rathnam @ Venkata Rathnam @ Mesthri Rathaiah, S/o Venkataiah, Age : 47 years, R/o Ramanaidupalli village, Marripadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2.Sana Lakshmi Narayana, S/o Gurava Reddy, Age : 40 years, R/o Ramaswamypalli village, Atmakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District....A1 & A2

Offence: Under section 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code and U/s 3 r/w 181, 146 r/w 196 of M.V.Act against A1 and Under section 5 r/w 180, 146 r/w 196 of M.V.Act against A2.

Plea of accused: Not Guilty

Finding : Found guilty.

APNE110004272019 24C.C.No.297/2019

Sentence of Order :

In the result , A1 is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s 337 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C and he is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days, A1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 338 of IPC and accordingly he is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C and he is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. A1 is further found guilty for the offence punishable under section 3 r/w 181 of M.V.Act and accordingly he is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five

Hundred only) in default of payment of said fine A1 shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days. A1 further found guilty for the offence punishable U/s 146 r/w 196 of M.V.Act and accordingly he is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C and he is sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one Thousand only) in default of payment of said fine A1 shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. A2 is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 5 r/w 180 of M.V

Act and accordingly he is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default of payment of said fine A2 shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. A2 is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 5 r/w 146 and 196 of M.V.Act and accordingly he is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C

APNE110004272019 25C.C.No.297/2019 and he is sentenced to pay of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One

Thousand only) default of payment of said fine A2 shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

The bail bonds of the accused persons and their sureties shall stands cancelled immediately. No property is produced before this court. Hence no order as to property.

Explanation for the delay:

The case was taken on file Under section 337, 338 of Indian Penal

Code and U/s 3 r/w 181, 146 r/w 196 of M.V.Act against A1 and Under section 5 r/w 180, 146 r/w 196 of M.V.Act against A2. Case copies furnished to the accused on 13.01.2020 and accused persons were examined on 20.12.2023 U/sec.251 Cr.P.C and an accusation for the offence punishable Under section 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code and U/s 3 r/w 181, 146 r/w 196 of M.V.Act against A1 and Under section 5 r/w 180, 146 r/w 196 of M.V.Act against A2 was explained, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. On 18.06.2024 PW1 &

PW2. On 16.08.2024 PW’s 3 to 6. On 30.08.2024 PW7. On 10.09.2024

PW’s 8 to 12. On 25.11.2024 PW’s 13 & 14. On 02.12.2024 PW15. On 06.012.2024 PW16. On 17.12.2024 PW17. On 21.01.2025 PW18. On 03.03.2025 PW19 and On 29.04.2025 PW20 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P18 and the prosecution evidence was closed on 29.04.2025. A1 & A2 were examined on 05.05.2025 under section 313

Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material against them for which accused persons reported everything as false and reported no defence

APNE110004272019 26C.C.No.297/2019 evidence. On 06.06.2025 heard arguments on both sides and on 10.06.2025 Judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- J.ANJAIAH

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Udayagiri.

APNE110001122025 1C.C.No.159/2025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT UDAYAGIRI

PRESENT: Sri J.Anjaiah, JMFC, Udayagiri

Friday, this the 6th day of June, 2025.

C.C.No.159/2025

Between :

The State through , The Station House Officer, Duttaluru Police Station, SPSR Nellore District. … Complainant

And

1.Manikala Chenchaiah @ Penchalaiah, S/o Meneiah, Age : 40 years, R/o Pathadevarapalli Village, Ananthasagaram mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2.Poturu Ramanaiah @ Ganesh, S/o Chinna Kotaiah, Age : 35 years, R/o Mamuduru Village, Chejarla Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

3.Yatagiri Kasthuri @ Kasthuraiah, S/o Seenaiah, Age : 27 years, Nagulavellaturu Village, Chejarla Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

4.Potluri Penchalaiah @ Katraju, S/o Venkateswarlu, Age : 32 years, R/o Karatampadu Village,

APNE110001122025 2C.C.No.159/2025

Atmakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District...A1 to A4 ***

This case came before me for disposal in the presence of learned

APP for the state and Sri.K.Sudhakar Rao legal aid counsel for the accused and after perusing the case records available on, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

[1.] The SHO of Duttaluru Police Station has been filed chargesheet against the accused persons alleging that, they have been committed an offence punishable U/s 457, 380 and 411 of Indian Penal

Code and and prayed this court to punish them according to law.

[2.]The brief facts of the prosecution is that : LW1

Khambham Ranga Reddy is resident of Mandalanaidupalli village of

Duttaluru mandal and living by doing mason works at Nirmal Town,

Telangana state. The villagers of mandalanaidupalli and Bodhavaripalli village were constructed new temple in the name of

Sri.Nagalingeswara Swamy temple. Idols establishment programme was inaugurated from 27.08.2023 to 31.08.2023. On everyday LW1

APNE110001122025 3C.C.No.159/2025

Khabhamm Ranga Reddy visited to the said temple in the morning and cleaning in the temple and its surrounding areas. There are

Anjaneyaswami Temple, Vinayaka Temple and Poleramma Temple are situated in the villages. LW2 Hari Sobhan Babu is working as priest to the temles since 15 years. On everyday morning LW2 Hari Sobhan

Babu visited to the temples and conducted prayers upto evening and after completion of prayers LW2 Hari Sobhan Babu locked the temple doors. On 03.09.2023 at about 18.00 hrs LW1 Khambham Ranga

Reddy visited to Sri.Nagalingeswara Swamy/Somalingeswara Swamy temple and locked to the temple doors. As usually on 04.09.2023 at about 05.00 hrs LW1 Khambham Ranga Reddy visited to the

Sri.Nagalingeswara Swamy/Somalingeswara Swamy temple for cleaning and found that the temple grills gate lock was broken. On suspecting LW1 Khambham Ranga Reddy entered into the temple and verified the temple, found that some unknow offenders committed theft of gold thalibottlu-2 weighing 4 gms from the neck of the godess

Parvathi Parameswara Panchaloha idols and its worth of Rs.20,000/-.

Then LW1 Khambham Ranga Reddy made a phone call to LW2 Hari

Sobhan Babu and informed about the incident. Immediately LW2 Hari

Sobhan Babu rushed to Bodavaripalli village and visited the temples of lord Vinayaka, Anjaneyaswami and Poleramma and found that some unknown offenders broke the hundies and committed theft of cash of

APNE110001122025 4C.C.No.159/2025

Rs.500/- from Anjaneyaswamy temple, cash of Rs.1,000/- from

Vinayaka temple and cash of Rs.200/- from Godess Poleramma

Temple total cash of Rs.1,700/- and all worth of Rs.21,700/-. LW1

Khambham Ranga Reddy, LW2 Hari Sobhan Babu informed about the incident to the villagers, then LW3 Pesala Krishna Reddy, LW4

Yanammureddy Malakondareddy and LW5 Abburi Chenchaiah were came there and they were rushed to the temples and found the occurrence and suspecting that some un-known offenders were broke the girlls gate lock and committed theft of gold Mangala Sutralu-02 and cash from the hundies and decamped with booty and LW1

Khambham Ranga Reddy gave report to the police.

[3.]Basing on the report of LW1 Khambham Ranga Reddy and

LW8 N.Prabhakar S.I of Police registered the same as case in

Cr.No.37/2023 U/s 457, 380 of IPC and sent the FIR to all concern and conducted further investigation. During the course of investigation LW8

N.Prabhakar S.I of Police examined LW1 Khambham Ranga Reddy,

LW2 Hari Sobhan Babu, LW3 Pesala Krishna Reddy, LW4 Yanamureddy

Malakonda Reddy, LW5 Abburi Chenachaiah and recorded their statements. LW8 N.Prabhakar S.I of police visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. Meanwhile LW8 N.Prabhakar S.I of Police was transferred then he handed over his entire investigation to LW10

APNE110001122025 5C.C.No.159/2025

P.Adi Lakshmi W.S.I of Police for further proceedings. On receipt of credible information LW9 M.Surya Prakash S.I of Police

Ananthasagaram arrested A1 to A4 on 29.09.2024 at S.C Colony

Lingamgunta village in the presence of the mediators LW6 Immaraju

Chinnaiah and LW7 Chinthama Reddy Srinivasulu Reddy in

Cr.No.52/2024 U/s 331(4), 305 BNS of Ananthasagaram P.S and he also seized property in Cr.No.37/2023 of Duttlauru P.S which was registered by LW8 N.Prabhakar S.I of Police. Later LW10 P.Adi Lakshmi

W.S.I of Police filed a P.T. warrant against A1 to A4 before this court and this court allowed the P.T warrant. On 10.10.2024 A1 to A4 were produced before this court and sent them for remand. After completion of all legal formalities LW10 P.Adi Lakshmi W.S.I of Police filed charge sheet against the A1 to A4 under section 457, 380 or 411 of IPC.

[4.] Considering the charge sheet and material on record, this court took the case on file for the offence punishable Under section 457, 380 r/w 34 and under section 411 of Indian Penal Code. On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to them

U/sec.207 of of Cr.P.C, and examined them U/sec.239 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable Under section 457, 380 r/w 34 and section 411 of Indian Penal Code and explained the substance of accusation

APNE110001122025 6C.C.No.159/2025 levelled against them in telugu language for which the accused plead not guilty and claimed to be tried.

[5.] Upon invitation for trial, the prosecution examined FOUR witnesses as Pws. 1 to 4 and documents as Exs. P.1 to P5 and M.O.1 is mangala sutralu-02 marked. The evidence of remaining witnesses i.e.,

LW2 Hari Sobhan Babu, LW3 Pesala Krishna Reddy, LW4 Yanamureddy

Malakonda Reddy, LW5 Abburi Chenchaiah, LW9 M.Surya Prakash and

LW10 P.Adi Lakshmi W.S.I of Police were given up by learned APP as

PW’s 1 to 4 evidence is sufficient to the case of prosecution. Hence their evidence were closed.

[6.] After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused persons were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating material available against them for which they reported that everything as false. The defence not chosen to adduce any evidence on their behalf.

[7.]Heard Arguments of both sides.

[8.]Now the point that arises for determination is

“ Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused

persons beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence

APNE110001122025 7C.C.No.159/2025

punishable Under section 457, 380 r/w 34 & 411 of

Indian Penal Code ?

[9.] Point:As stated above the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 4 and exhibited Exs. P.1 to P5 and M.O.1 is Mangalasutralu-02. PW.1 is

De facto-complainant. PW2 is mediator for seizure mahazarnama. PW3 is one of the investigating officer. PW4 is one of the mediator for arrest of the accused. With regard to the Exhibits Ex.P1 is report of PW1.

Ex.P2 is signature of PW2 on the mediatornama. Ex.P3 is FIR. Ex.P4 is rough sketch. Ex.P5 is mediatornama. M.O.1 is mangalasuthralu-02

RIVAL CONTENTS :

[10.]The learned APP categorically argued that the accused persons were committed the offence and they are habituals in committing similar type of offence. Prosecution examined PW’s 1 to 4 and they categorically corroborated the version of the prosecution. To prove the version of the prosecution Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 marked and MO.1 also marked. In the cross examination of PW’s 1 to 4 nothing material elicited to prove the version of the defence. The mediators also supported to the case of prosecution and they categorically corroborated all the way to the case of prosecution. Further argued that the prosecution clearly established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Prayed this court may be convict the accused as per law.

APNE110001122025 8C.C.No.159/2025 [11.] On the other hand the learned counsel (legal aid) for the defence categorically argued that A1 to A4 are no way concern to the offence. The police foisted the false case against the accused persons with an intention to clear pendency in their police stations. The property also planted for this case purpose only. No independent witness were examined by the police and no one deposed that the accused persons were committed the alleged offence and they were saw the accused at the time of committing of offence. There is no corroboration in between the testimonies of PW’s 1 to 4. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed this court may be acquit the accused in the interest of justice.

[12.] DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS

THEREOF:- In a criminal trial, one has to start with the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused which is also regarded as human right because no one can be convicted and punished merely on the ground of suspicion, however strong it may be. The prosecution is required to prove offence beyond reasonable doubt. In the first examination of the accused and after completion of prosecution evidence that the accused should strongly stated that they are

APNE110001122025 9C.C.No.159/2025 innocent to the alleged offence and they are no way concerned to the offence.

[13.] As could be seen the record available on and the evidence available on. PW1 who is defacto complainant in this case and he categorically deposed in his chief examination that on 03.09.2023 in the evening hours he closed the temple and as usually in the morning hours on 04.09.2023 he went to the temple to clean the temple at that time he noticed the lock was broken and he further noticed mangalasuthralu of Ammavaru were found missing. Immediately he informed the same to LW2 and villagers and he further deposed that theft also committed in the temple of God Vinayaka, God Anjaneya and

Godess Poleramma and he lodged report to the police. Perusal of the testimony of PW1, he is not an eye witness to the alleged incident and he never deposed anything against the accused persons and about their involvement in this case. Perusal of the testimony of PW1 there is no cogent and reliable evidence in the testimony of PW1 to implicate the complexity of the accused in commission of offence.

[14.]PW2 who is said to be present at the time of seizure of property and arrest of the accused, he categorically deposed in his chief examination that police called him, then he went to the police

APNE110001122025 10C.C.No.159/2025 station there police obtained his signature. Turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Learned APP cross examined him, but nothing material elicited from the corss examination of PW2 to implicate the complexity of the accused in commission of offence.

[15.]PW3 who is investigating officer in this case he categorically deposed about the registration of FIR, preparation of rough sketch and examination of the witnesses, except that PW3 never deposed anything against the accused persons. Perusal of the testimony of PW3 there is no cogent and reliable evidence in the testimony of PW3 to implicate the complexity of the accused in commission of offence.

[16.]PW4 who is said to be one of the mediator for arrest and seizure of property. In the cross examination of PW4, he categorically deposed that he never received any written notice from S.I of Police,

Ananthasagaram and he never obtained any written permission from his MRO of Ananthasagaram to act as a mediator. Since there is no any proof of document that he was present at the time of preparation of

Ex.P5 mediatornama it is suspicious the presence of PW4 at the time of preparation of Ex.P5. Perusal of the testimony of PW4 there is no cogent and reliable evidence in the testimony of PW4 to implicate the complexity of the accused in commission of offence.

APNE110001122025 11C.C.No.159/2025 [17.]For the foregoing reasons, this Court find that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The testimonies of PW’s 1 to 4 are not corroborated with each other. Further more PW1 is not an eye witness to the alleged incident. No one deposed that they were saw the accused at the time of committing of offence. Hence in any way there is no credibility to the prosecution witness to establish the guilt of the accused and the evidence put forth by prosecution is not believable in implicate the complexity of the accused persons in commission of the offence. In view of the above said discussion, this Court find that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of prosecution. The material produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to brought home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

[18.] Therefore, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to implicate the complexity of the accused in commission of the offence.

The prosecution failed to prove the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt, which is available in the present case on hand. The material produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to brought home the guilt of the accused beyond doubt. Thereby, the point is decided in favour of the accused.

APNE110001122025 12C.C.No.159/2025 [19.]IN THE RESULT, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence under section 457, 380 r/w 34 of I.P.C and under section 411 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months under section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. The case properties i.e., M.O.1 shall be returned to PW1 after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 6 th day of June, 2025, under the hand and seal of this court.

Sd/- J.ANJAIAH

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Udayagiri.

APNE110001122025 13C.C.No.159/2025

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined:

For prosecution: For defence: - Nil -

PW.1/Lw.1 : Khambham Ranga Reddy PW.2/Lw.7 : Chinthamreddy Srinivasulu Reddy PW.3/Lw.8 : N.Prabhakar S.I of Police PW4/Lw.6: Immaraju Chinnaiah

Documents marked:

For prosecution:For defence:- - Nil -

Ex.P1 : Report of PW1 dated 04.09.2023.

Ex.P2 : Signature of PW2 on the mediatornama dated 29.09.2024

Ex.P3 : First Information Report dated 04.09.2023

Ex.P4 : Rough Sketch

Ex.P5 : Mediatornama dated 29.09.2024.

Material objects marked:

For Prosecution : M.O.1 is mangalasuthralu-02 For Defence : NIL

Sd/- J.ANJAIAH

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Udayagiri.

APNE110001122025 14C.C.No.159/2025

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS AT UDAYAGIRI.

C.C.No.159 of 2025

Date of:

Offence on orComplaint Apph. ofReleased onCommencemeClosure ofResult

beforeaccusedBailnt of TrialTrial

04.09.202304.09.202329.09.2024Under Trial29.04.202514.05.202506.06.2025 Prisoners

Between :

The State through , The Station House Officer, Duttaluru Police Station, SPSR Nellore District. … Complainant

And

1.Manikala Chenchaiah @ Penchalaiah, S/o Meneiah, Age : 40 years, R/o Pathadevarapalli Village, Ananthasagaram mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2.Poturu Ramanaiah @ Ganesh, S/o Chinna Kotaiah, Age : 35 years, R/o Mamuduru Village, Chejarla Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

3.Yatagiri Kasthuri @ Kasthuraiah, S/o Seenaiah, Age : 27 years, Nagulavellaturu Village, Chejarla Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

APNE110001122025 15C.C.No.159/2025

4.Potluri Penchalaiah @ Katraju, S/o Venkateswarlu, Age : 32 years, R/o Karatampadu Village, Atmakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District...A1 to A4

Offence: Under section 457, 380 r/w 34 and section 411 of Indian Penal Code

Plea of accused: Not Guilty

Finding : Found guilty.

Sentence of Order :

In the result , A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence under section 457, 380 r.w 34 of I.P.C and under section 411 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months under section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. The case properties i.e.,

M.O.1 shall be returned to PW1 after appeal time is over.

Explanation for the delay: No Delay.

Sd/- J.ANJAIAH

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Udayagiri.