J Hema Sravanthi

1 C.C.No.4/2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LAKKIREDDYPALLI

Present: Smt Hema Sravanthi Janakiram,

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class for

Prohibition and Excise Offences, Kadapa.

FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Lakkireddypalli.

Friday, the 28th day of March, 2023.

C.C.No.4/2023

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramapuram P.S.,

...Complainant

And

1.Nakkala Nagarjuna, aged about 39 years, S/o. Subbarayudu

2.Nakkala Venkatesh, aged about 44 years, s/o. Subbarayudu

3.Nakkala Lakshmidevi, aged about 36 years, W/o. Venkatesh

4.Nakkala Yanadamma, aged about 66 years, W/o. Subbarayudu,

5.Nakkala Subbarayudu, aged about 76 years, S/o. Venkataiah.

All are residents of Siddareddygaripalli Village, Chitvel Mandal, Annamayya District.

…Accused nos.1 to 5

This case came before me on 26.03.2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned incharge Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri S.Lakshmi Sai

Ramakrishna for the prosecution and of Sri K.G.R.Chandra Reddy, Advocate for accused nos.1 to 5 upon hearing on both sides, having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramapuram Police Station has filed the Charge Sheet in Crime Number 136/2022 against accused nos. 1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code-1860

dt. 28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli

2 C.C.No.4/2023 and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Here in after referred as “IPC” and “DP Act” for brevity)

2. The brief allegations of the charge sheet are as follows:-

The marriage of defacto complainant with accused no.1 was performed in the year 2009. At the time of marriage her parents i.e., L.Ws.2 and 3 namely Dasari Rama Krishna and Dasari Venkata Subbamma has presented 10 tulas of gold ornaments to accused nos.1 to 5. After marriage they lived happily for two years. Later, accused no.1 has sent LW1 to Kuwait for eeking livelihood. After working at Kuwait for two years, LW1 came down to India and they were blessed with one daughter and two sons. She again left to Kuwait along with accused no.1 and both of them used to deposit money every month in the bank account of her in-laws. After that accused no.1 came down to India and

LW1 continued to work at Kuwait. Accused no.1 informed LW1 over phone that he is purchasing a flat and for that sake they have to sell 10 tuals of gold. LW1 agreed for the same. Later, accused no.1 informed LW1 that he has purchased

H3 Flat (2 ankanas) in Sy.No.67/1 near Railway Kodur and registered the same in her name and has also shown xerox papers of the documents to LW1. LW1 believed the words of accused no.1. After returning from Kuwait accused no.1 again asked LW1 for Rs.5,00,000/- for registration of Flat and demanded to secure the amount from her parents and also harassed LW1 both physically and mentally for that purpose. Accused nos.2 to 5 also supported accused no.1.

Later, accused no.1 left LW1 in her parent’s house with a demand that she should bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. LWs.2 and 3 arranged mediation in the presence of L.Ws.4 and 5 namely Uragayala Ram Basireddy and

Nagaboyina Prabhakar but accused nos.1 to 5 did not mend their behavior and did not took back LW1. Hence, LW1 lodged complaint to Ramapuram PS which

dt. 28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli

3 C.C.No.4/2023 was registered as case in Cr.No. 136/2022 under section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC,

Section 3 and 4 of DP Act. During the course of investigation LW6 –

U.Y.Jayaramulu, the then SI of Police, Ramapuram PS examined L.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements under section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( herein after referred as Cr.P.C for brevity). On 20.09.2022 he issued 41-A

Cr.P.C notice to accused nos.1 to 5 and handed over the CD file to LW7 –

R.V.Konda Reddy, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Ramapuram PS who after completion of his investigation filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3.Cognizance was taken on file under Sections 498(A) r/w 34 of

IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act against accused nos.1 to 5.

4.Copies of case documents were furnished to accused nos.1 to 5 under Section 209 of Cr.P.C.

5. Accused nos.1 to 5 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., and charge under sections 498(A) r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act are framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Evidence let in by state :

6.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. The evidence of LW1 is closed by my learned pre- decessor - in - office on a memo filed by prosecution stating that LW1 went abroad. The then learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW7.

Ex.P1 – 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3.

EX..P2 – 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4.

EXP3 – Report of LW1 Ex.P4 – First Information Report

dt. 28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli

4 C.C.No.4/2023

7. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, accused nos.1 to 5 were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure code, 1973, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in oral and documentary evidence, they denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard learned incharge APP and learned counsel for defence.

9. Perused the record.

10.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of

accused nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under

Sections 498(A) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act against the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

11.In order to establish the accusation leveled against accused nos.1 to 5, the prosecution examined as much as three witnesses and investigating agency has examined two witnesses. Unfortunately, LW1 – Nakkala

Nirmala who has set the criminal Law into motion was not examined by the prosecution and her evidence was closed as she went to abroad. LW2 / PW1 –

D.Ramakrishna is father of LW1. He testified in chief that the marriage of LW1 with accused no.1 was performed about 14 years ago and he has presented 10 tulas of gold along with cash of Rs.10,000/- at the time of marriage. LW1 joined the marital fold of accused no.1 and lived happily for sometime. Later, both LW1 and accused no.1 went to Kuwait and has sent amounts to the account of parent’s of accused no.1. Accused no.1 has purchased a house at Koduru when

LW1 was at Kuwait. Later, LW1 came down to India to the house of her parent’s and stated that accused demanded amount to purchase house. He further testified in chief that he gave Rs.5,00,000/- to purchase the house. Accused no.1

dt. 28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli

5 C.C.No.4/2023 has sold 10 tulas of gold of LW1 to purchase the house and the house was purchased in the name of accused no.1, due to which there was altercation between LW1 and accused no.1. Wherein P.Ws.3 and 4 has conducted mediation and the accused tried to beat PW1. The accused has necked LW1 and her children out of the house. By saying so, PW1 identified the signature of LW1 in report. In his cross examination it is elicited that he cannot read the contents of complaint. PW1 denied the suggestion that he did not state the description of gold ornaments given to LW1 at the time of her marriage and that he has stated to police that accused no.1 has purchased a house site but not house. He denied the suggestion that, he did not state to police that he has given Rs.5,00,000/- to purchase the house and accused no.1 has sold 10 tulas of gold of LW1. He further denied the suggestion that, he has no capacity to present gold and cash at the time of marriage of LW1 and that he is deposing false evidence.

12. PW2 – D.Venkata Subbamma is wife of PW1 and her evidence in chief is on par with the evidence of PW1. In her cross examination she too admitted the suggestion that she came to know about the disputes between LW1 and accused no.1 through LW1. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing false evidence and her husband has no financial capacity to present gold and cash.

13. Pws.3 and 4 namely N.Prabhakar and U.Ram Basireddy are said to be the persons who has arranged mediation. Unfortunately, they did not speak anything incriminating against the accused persons and turned hostile to the case of the Investigating Agency and hence the investigation agency with the permission of the court has cross examined them suggesting that they have stated to police as in their statement under section 161 Cr.P.C, for which both of them denied. The statements of P.Ws.3 and 4 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C

dt. 28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli

6 C.C.No.4/2023 are marked as Exs.P1 and P2 by the Investigating Agency. Though the

Investigating Agency got marked Exs.P1 and P2 – Statements of P.Ws.3 and 4 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, the contents of the same does not become substantive piece of evidence unless corroborated with oral testimony of concerned witnesses.

14. PW5 – U.Y.Jayaramulu is the investigating Officer and his evidence in chief is about receiving Ex.P3 – Report from LW1, registration of

Ex.P4 – FIR, examining material witnesses and recording their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. He further testified that, further investigation is done by LW7 – R.V.Konda Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, Ramapuram PS. In his cross examination he admitted the suggestion that he did not obtain the signature of defacto complainant in column no. 14 of FIR. He further admitted the suggestion that he did not examine any of the witnesses in the village of accused and he has examined only the witnesses in the village of defacto complainant. PW5 do not know whether accused no.1 and LW1 has set up separate family in the year, 2009. he denied the suggestion that his investigation is table investigation.

15. On thorough scrutiny and analysis of oral and documentary submissions, firstly , it is pertinent to note that the person who has set the criminal Law into motion against accused nos.1 to 5 did not turn up to this court for adducing evidence supporting the contents in Ex.P3 – Report. Secondly,

Pws.1 and 2 who are parents of LW1 testified in chief that at the time of marriage of LW1 they have presented 10 tulas of gold and cash of Rs.10,000/- but their evidence in chief is not specific about whether they have presented the said 10 tulas of gold and cash of Rs.10,000/- to LW1 or to any of the accused. Further, their evidence in chief is silent about the nature of gold presented either ornament or ingot e.t.c. In fact the contents of Ex.P3 - Report also does not discloses the

dt. 28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli

7 C.C.No.4/2023 description of gold ornaments. Further the evidence in chief of P.Ws.1 and 2 does not disclose any worthy material to say that LW1 has been subjected to cruelty and harassment as envisaged under section 498-A of IPC. Their evidence reveals that accused no.1 has purchased a house, for which he has demanded money and PW1 gave Rs.5,00,000/-. It is also the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that accused no.1 has sold away 10 tulas of gold of LW1. Except the above content no worthy evidence has been adduced by Pws.1 and 2 to establish that there was some sort of willful conduct on the part of accused nos.1 to 5 which is likely to drive LW1 to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether physically or mentally and has harassed her with a view to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security from her or her parents by coercing her. Undisputedly, no specific overtacts were attributed to any of the accused especially on the part of accused nos.2 to 5. In this regard this court places reliance upon the observations of Hon’ble Apex court in Preethi Guptha

Vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 and in K.Subbarao Vs. State of

Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452 that “the relatives of husband should not be

roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of

their involvement in the crime are made out”. On the other hand except saying that they have presented 10 tulas of gold and cash of Rs.10,000/- at the time of marriage, P.Ws.1 and 2 did not file any documentary proof via photograph or videograph establishing the same. Thirdly , when the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not inspiring any confidence of this court to conclude that LW1 has been subjected to cruelty and harassment in the hands of accused nos.1 to 5, the evidence of independent witnesses i.e., P.Ws.3 and 4 is not lead by learned

prosecution and their evidence has been adduced by investigating agency

themselves wherein both of them did not speak anything about alleged

dt. 28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli

8 C.C.No.4/2023

mediations held by them and as discussed supra they have turned hostile

to the case of the investigating agency and further the contents of Exs.P1

and P2 – Statements of P.Ws.3 and 4 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C is

of no use to the investigating agency as they was not corroborated with

oral testimonies of P.Ws.3 and 4. Fourthly, the evidence of PW5 –

Investigating Officer of this case is with regard to part of the investigation to the effect of receiving Ex.P5 - Report from LW1, registration of Ex.P4 – FIR and examining material witnesses. He has testified that, further investigation is

done by LW7 who is his successor but for the reasons best known to the

prosecution the evidence of LW7 has been given up and hence there is no

full fledged evidence in this case with regard to the entire investigation

done by the investigating Agency. On the other hand, the cross

examination of PW5 discloses that PW5 has examined only the villagers of

LW1 and he did not visit the village of accused. Admittedly, LW1 and

accused lived happily for 10 years in the village of the accused and the

alleged dispute started after lapse of 10 years and the examination of

neighbors in the village of accused might have served the purpose to

establish that LW1 has been subjected to cruelty and harassment in the

hands of accused nos.1 to 5. Unfortunately, PW5 did not take any steps to

examine any one in the village of accused where LW1 and accused no.1

resided together for 10 years and as the evidence of LW7 has been given up

by the learned prosecution, further investigation if any done by LW7 was

not brought on record. By virtue of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, the prosecution and the investigating agency were not fruitful in establishing the allegations leveled against accused nos.1 to 5 as there were no efforts by both prosecution and investigating agency who has assisted the trial to bring relevant material on

dt. 28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli

9 C.C.No.4/2023 record through P.Ws.1 to 4 either by way of oral evidence or documentary evidence. Hence, as seen from any angle the prosecution and investigating agency together has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused.

16.IN THE RESULT, accused nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable Under Sections 498(A) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act and they are acquitted under Section 248(1)

Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused nos.1 to 5 shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28 th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class for prohibition and Excise offences, Kadapa, FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Lakkireddypalli.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1: D.Rama Krishna -None- P.W.2:D.Venkata Subbamma

P.W.3:N.Prabhakar

P.W.4: U.Rama Basi Reddy

P.W.5:U.V.Jaya Ramulu, the then SI of Police, Ramapuram PS

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 – 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3.

EX..P2 – 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4.

EXP3 – Report of LW1 Ex.P4 – First Information Report

dt. 28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli

10 C.C.No.4/2023

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Intld/- HSJR Spl. JFCM, for P & E, KDP,

FAC JFCM,

Lakkireddipalli.

// True copy //

// True copy //

Spl. JFCM,

for P & E, KDP,

FAC JFCM,

Lakkireddipalli.

dt. 28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli

11 C.C.No.4/2023

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District : Annamayya

Calendar and Judgment tried by Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram Spl. Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise offences, Kadapa FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Lakkireddipalli.

Date of

Apprehen- ReleaseCommence-Close of OffenceReportsion ofJudgment on bailment of trialtrial accused 41-A Prior to 41-A Cr.P.C 19-09-’22Cr.P.C16-07-'2426-03-'2528-03-'25 19-09-’22notice notice

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.4/2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Lakkireddipalli

Complainant : The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramapuram P.S., Cr.No.136/2022

Name of the accused with S.NoAgeCallingResident father’s name

1.Nakkala Nagarjuna 39 - S/o. Subbarayudu yrs

2.Nakkala Venkatesh 44 - S/o. Subbarayudu yrs All are residents of

3.Nakkala Lakshmidevi, Siddareddygaripalli Village, 36 - W/o. VenkateshChitvel Mandal, yrs Annamayya District.

4.Nakkala Yanadamma 66 - W/o. Subbarayudu yrs

5.Nakkala Subbarayudu 76 - S/o. Venkataiah. yrs Offence : U/ss. 498(A) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec.3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

Finding: Accused nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty.

Sentence: Accused nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec.3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C., of the

dt. 28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli

12 C.C.No.4/2023 said offence. The bail bonds of accused nos.1 to 5 shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for the delay : The case is taken on file and posted to 15.02.2023 and numbered as C.C.4/2023. On appearance of accused nos.1 to 5, copies of documents were furnished to them. On 02.08.2023 accused nos.1 to 5 were examined u/s. 239 of Cr.P.C., read over and explained to them in Telugu and that accused nos.1 to 5 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution evidence commenced from 05.09.2023 and closed the trial on 06.02.2025.

Accused nos.1 to 5 examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., on 10.02.2025, Heard both sides on 06.03.2025. Judgment is pronounced on this day. Hence, the delay.

Remarks : NIL

Sd/- Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class for prohibition and Excise offences, Kadapa FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Lakkireddipalli

Copy submitted to

1) The Hon'ble 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

2) The Directorate of Prosecutions, Vijayawada

3) The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa.

dt. 28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli

1 C.C.No. 485/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LAKKIREDDIPALLI

Present: Smt Hema Sravanthi Janakiram,

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class for

Prohibition and Excise Offences, Kadapa

FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Lakkireddipalli

Friday, 28th day of March, 2025.

C.C.No.485/2022

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chakrayapeta P.S..

...Complainant

And

1. Chittiboyina Venkata Ramana, S/o. Late Kondaiah, aged about 40 years, D.No.91/21-2, Mamillapalli Village, Chinthakommadinne Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

2. Shaik Tashala Nabisa @ Basha, aged about 30 years, S/o. Shaik Tashala Razak, Resident of D.No.8/921, Devanakonda Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

3. Kallu Veera Teja Kumar @ Teja, aged about 28 years, S/o. Basi Reddy, Resident of D.No.8/75, Azad Nagar, Chinthakomma Dinne Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

4. Nunkanaboyina Siva Sankar, S/o. Pedda Eswaraiah, aged about 35 years, D.No. 1/184, Gonumakulapalli village, Veerapunayunipalli Mandal, Now at Kadapa Town. … Accused nos.1 to 4

This case came before me on 26.03.2025 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned incharge Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri Velpula Siddaiah, Advocate for Accused nos.1 to 4, upon hearing on both sides, having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub - Inspector of Police, Chakrayapeta P.S., laid charge sheet against accused nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) dt.28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli 2 C.C.No. 485/2022 of A.P Excise Amendment Act, 2020.

The brief allegations of the charge sheet are as follows:-

2. On the 11.10.2021, at about 5.00 am LW.10 – V.Mallikarjuna

Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, Chakrayapeta PS along with his staff members i.e.,L.Ws.1 to 5 – G.V.Subbareddy, Head Constable, Chakrayapeta PS,

M.Nagarjuna Reddy, Head Constable, Chakrayapeta PS, R.Suresh, Police

Constable, Chakrayapeta PS, K.Siva Kumar, Police Constable, Chakrayapeta PS and T.Srinivasulu, Police Constable, chakrayapeta PS found accused nos.1 to 4 proceeding from Rayachoty side in Tata Sumo Vehicle bearing Registration No.

AP02 TV 0582 and transporting the illicit liquor i.e., 98 nips of Old Admiral VSOP

Brandy and 401 nipsof Silver Cup VSOP Indian Brandy. On enquiry by LW10, accused nos.1 to 4 got perturbed and admitted the possession of liquor bottles without license. L.W.10 has pick up one bottle from each variety as sample, arrested accused nos.1 to 4 and seized the crime property under the cover of

Police proceedings. It is further alleged that LW-10 brought accused nos.1 to 4 to

Police Station and registered a case in crime No.95/2021 under Section 34 (a) of

A.P Excise Amendment Act, 2020. The samples were also sent to analyst for examination. The analysts issued a report opining that the samples are Indian liquor. After completion of investigation LW-10 filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3. Cognizance was taken on file under Sections 34(a) of AP Excise

Amendment Act, 2020 against accused nos.1 to 4.

4. On appearance of accused nos.1 to 4, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. Accused nos.1 to 4 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., dt.28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli 3 C.C.No. 485/2022 and the charge under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act was framed, read over and explained to accused nos.1 to 4, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Evidence let in by State :

6.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8, M.Os.1 and 2. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Lws.2 to 9.

 Ex.P1 - Police proceedings dt.11.10.2021  Ex.P2 – Confession, Arrest cum seizure Panchanama  Ex.P3 - First Information Report.

 Ex.P4 - Police proceedings dt.13.10.2022.

 Ex.P.5- Confession cum Arrest Police Proceedings dt.17.10.2022.

 Ex.P.6 – Analysis Report  Ex.P7 - Destruction proceedings  Ex.P8 - Panchanama  M.O.1 - one nip of Old Admiral VSOP brandy  M.O.2 – One nip of Silver Cup VSOP Indian Brandy

8. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, accused nos.1 to 4 were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure code, 1973 ( herein after referred as Cr.P.C for brevity), explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, in oral and documentary evidence, they denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard learned Incharge Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for defence.

10. Perused the record.

11. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused

dt.28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli 4 C.C.No. 485/2022

nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of

A.P Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

12. To bring home the guilt of accused nos.1 to 4 for the offence under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2.

13. P.W.1 – G.V. Subba Reddy, Head Constable, Chakarayapeta PS deposed that on 11.10.2021 at about 4.45 a.m upon credible information himself along with PW2, L.Ws.2 to 5 Went to Anjaneyapuram and were conducting vehicle checking, they found one Sumo coming from Rayachoty to Vempali, on search by PW2, there they found accused nos.1 to 4 is in possession of bag suspiciously. On suspicion they caught hold of accused no.1 and accused nos.2 to 4 fled away from the scene of offence and on enquiry by PW2 accused no.1 revealed his identity and confessed that he is possession of 98 nips of Old

Admiral VSOP Brandy and 401 nips of Silver Cup VSOP Indian Brandy without any valid license, P.W.2 has drawn one sample from each variety for chemical analysis under cover of Ex.P1 - Police proceedings dt.11.10.2021. Later, P.W.2 seized the property and arrested accused no.1 took him to police station. Later on 16.10.2021 upon credible information, PW2 and other staff members went to

Kondapagirpalli cross and arrested accused no.4 under the cover of Ex.P2 –

Confession, Arrest panchanama.

14. PW-2 – V.Mallikarjuna Reddy, the then SI of Police Chakrayapeta

PS deposed that on 11.10.2021 at about 4.45 a.m upon credible information himself along with PW1, L.Ws.2 to 5 went to Anjaneyapuram and were conducting vehicle checking, they found one Sumo coming from Rayachoty to dt.28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli 5 C.C.No. 485/2022

Vempali, on search by PW2, there they found accused nos.1 to 4 is in possession of bag suspiciously. On suspicion they caught hold of accused no.1 and accused nos.2 to 4 fled away from the scene of offence and on enquiry by PW2 accused no.1 revealed his identity and confessed that he is possession of 98 nips of Old

Admiral VSOP Brandy and 401 nips of Silver Cup VSOP Indian Brandy without any valid license, P.W.2 has drawn one sample from each variety for chemical analysis under cover of Ex.P1 - Police proceedings dt.11.10.2021. Later, he took accused no.1 along with crime property to police station. Basing on Ex.P1 -

Police proceedings, PW2 has registered a case in crime No.95/2021 under

Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act vide Ex.P3. He further deposed that on 16.10.2021 upon credible information about accused no.4, himself along with

PW1 and other staff members proceeded to Kondapagiripalli Cross where they arrested accused no.4 under the cover of Ex.P2 - Confession, Arrest panchanama. He further deposed that on 13.10.2022 he arrested accused no.2 at Gandi Temple under the cover of Ex.P4 - Police proceedings. Later, LW9 has arested accused no.2 at Adalamarri cross on 17.10.2022 under the cover of

Ex.P5 - Confession, Arrest cum police proceedings. PW-2 further testified that he has sent the samples for Analysis and received report that it is Indian made

Liquor vide Ex.P6 - Analysis report. Later, PW2 received Ex.P7 - Destruction

Proceedings, basing on which he has destroyed the crime property under the cover of Ex.P.8- Panchanama. After completion of his investigation, he filed charge sheet.

15.Section 34 of Act connotes:

“Penalties for illegal import, etc.:-

Whoever, in contravention of this Act or of any rule, dt.28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli 6 C.C.No. 485/2022 notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any license or permit granted or issued under this Act.--

Section 34 (a) speaks for speaks for imports, exports, transports, manufacturers, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant.

(i) removes any intoxicant from any distillery, brewery or ware house licensed, established or continued under this Act...

16. In order to bring the case within the ambit of section 34 (a) of A.P

Excise Act, it is necessary for prosecution to prove that accused was in possession of crime property without any permit. It is also the duty of prosecution to probe by sending the seized sample to chemical analysis to find out as to whether the bottles contain Indian made liquor.

17. The evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2 who are Police officials is that on 11.10.2021, they along with other staff reached the scene of offence which is situated at Anjaneyapuram there they noticed accused nos.1 to 3 with liquor bottles, they seized the crime property and got prepared Ex.P1 police proceedings.

18. On careful scrutiny of the evidence, it is manifest that the place of offence is situated in busy area, there are MPDO and MRO offices in

Chakrayapeta, but P.Ws-1 and 2 did not make any efforts to secure independent persons to act as mediators. Hence, it is clear from the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2 that they did not try to secure the presence of local inhabitants of scene of offence locality. On perusal of Ex.P1-police proceedings, it does not reveal about the venture of PWs in securing the mediators.

19. In S. Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. The state of A.P., reported in dt.28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli 7 C.C.No. 485/2022 2009 (4) A.P.L.J., 57 (HC), it was held that :

“ The evidence let in by the prosecution must create confidence and must be reliable. Since no efforts were made to take independent mediator in this case, it appears that it is not desirable to convict the accused on the evidence of Pws 1 and 2, the Court below did not consider the importance of taking local respectable independent mediators, hence their judgments resulted in miscarriage of justice and liable to be set a side.”

20. No receipt was issued to the accused to show that EX.P1 - Police proceedings was prepared at the place of arrest and the property was seized in his presence. As Ex P1 is silent about efforts of investigating agency to secure independent witnesses, it gives raise to a doubt about the very presence of accused at the place of arrest and the seizure of property from the accused.

21. Further P.Ws-1 and 2 who are the Police personals deposed with regard to procedural aspects only and the prosecution has failed to examine any of the local inhabitants in support of its case. Except the oral evidence of official witnesses, there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act. The learned defence counsel also argued that there is no corroboration.

22. In Karolla Chinnaiah and another Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh, reported in 2014(2) ALD (Crl.) 641, it was held that :

“When the evidence of PW2 creates some doubt as to the correctness of his search, both trial Court and appellate Court have grossly erred in accepting the evidence of PW2, without any corroboration. In fact, this objection was raised before the trial Court, but the learned Trial Judge referring to Section 134 of Evidence Act observed that as there is no quantum fixing the minimum number of witnesses, the Court can act on the solitary testimony. No doubt, there is no quantum fixing any number of witnesses to be examined and solitary testimony can be accepted. But that solitary testimony can be accepted. But that solitary testimony should be dt.28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli 8 C.C.No. 485/2022 free from all doubts highly trustworthy and convincing. But here this PW2 being the complainant and Investigating Officer is naturally interested in getting a conviction. He cannot be treated as an independent witness.”

23. Hence, in view of the above decisions, the prosecution has failed to establish its case against accused nos.1 to 4, beyond all reasonable doubt.

23. IN THE RESULT, accused nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act and thereby, they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C., of the said offence. Bail bond of accused nos.1 to 4 shall stand canceled after lapse of appeal time. M.Os.1 and 2 i.e., one nip of Old Admiral VSOP Brandy, One nip of Silver cup VSOP Indian Brandy vide

C.P.R. No.361/2022 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class for prohibition and Excise offences, Kadapa. FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Lakkireddipalli

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1: G.V.Subba Reddy, Head Constable, Chakrayapeta PS P.W.2: V.Mallikarjuna Reddy, the then SI of Police, -None- Chakayapeta Police Station

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

 Ex.P1 - Police proceedings dt.11.10.2021  Ex.P2 – Confession, Arrest cum seizure Panchanama  Ex.P3 - First Information Report.

 Ex.P4 - Police proceedings dt.13.10.2022.

 Ex.P.5- Confession cum Arrest Police Proceedings dt.17.10.2022.

 Ex.P.6 – Analysis Report dt.28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli 9 C.C.No. 485/2022  Ex.P7 - Destruction proceedings  Ex.P8 - Panchanama

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

 M.O.1 - one nip of Old Admiral VSOP brandy  M.O.2 – One nip of Silver Cup VSOP Indian Brandy

Intld/- HSJR, Spl. JFCM, for P & E, KDP

FAC JFCM,

Lakkireddipalli dt.28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli 10 C.C.No. 485/2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District : Annamayya

Calendar and Judgment tried by Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram Spl. Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise offences, Kadapa FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Lakkireddipalli

Date of

Apprehen- ReleaseCommence-Close of OffenceReportsion ofJudgment on bailment of trialtrial accused 11-10-’2125-10-’21 (A1)(A1) 17-10-’2217-10-’22 (A2)(A2) 11-10-’2111-10-’2119-12-'2326-03-'2528-03-'25 13-10-’2220-10-’22 (A3)(A3) 16-10-’2122-10-’21 (A4)(A4)

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.485/2022 on the file of the Judl. Magistrate of

First Class, Lakkireddipalli.

Complainant : The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chakrayapeta P.S., Cr.No.95/2021

Name of the accused with AgeCallingResident father’s name

1. Chittiboyina Venkata D.No.91/21-2, Mamillapalli Ramana, 40 yrs-Village, Chinthakommadinne S/o. Late Kondaiah Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

2. Shaik Tashala Nabisa @ Basha Resident of D.No.8/921, S/o. Shaik Tashala Razak30 yrs-Devanakonda Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

3. Kallu Veera Teja Kumar @ Teja Resident of D.No.8/75, Azad S/o. Basi Reddy28 yrs-Nagar, Chinthakomma Dinne Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

4. Nunkanaboyina Siva D.No. 1/184, Gonumakulapalli Sankar, 35 yrs-village, Veerapunayunipalli S/o. Pedda Eswaraiah Mandal, Now at Kadapa Town.

dt.28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli 11 C.C.No. 485/2022

Offence: U/s. 34(a) of AP Excise Act

Finding : Accused nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty.

Sentence : accused nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act and thereby, they are acquitted under

Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C., of the said offence. Bail bond of accused nos.1 to 4 shall stand canceled after lapse of appeal time. M.Os.1 and 2 i.e., one nip of Old

Admiral VSOP Brandy, One nip of Silver cup VSOP Indian Brandy vide C.P.R.

No.361/2022 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for the delay : The case is taken on file and numbered as

C.C.485/2022. On appearance of accused nos.1 to 4, copies of documents were furnished to them. On 12.07.2023 accused nos.1 to 4 were examined u/s. 239 of

Cr.P.C., read over and explained to them in Telugu and that accused nos.1 to 4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution evidence commenced from 09.08.2023 and closed the trial on 19.11.2024. Accused nos.1 to 4 examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., on 28.11.2024, Heard both sides on 26.03.2025. Judgment is pronounced on this day. Hence, the delay.

Remarks : NIL

Sd/-Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class for prohibition and Excise offences, Kadapa. FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Lakkireddipalli

Copy submitted to

The Hon'ble 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa. Dis. No.

dt.28.03.2025 JFCM, Lakkireddipalli

Fair 1 Draft (O.S.53/2020)

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), LAKKIREDDIPALLI.

Present: Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class for

Prohibition and Excise Offences, Kadapa.

FAC Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Lakkireddipalli

Monday, the 7 th day of April, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT NO: 53/2020

Between: Thimmireddy Ramamohan Reddy, S/o. Obul Reddy, aged about 46 years, Resident of Appakondaiahgaripalli, Lakkireddipalli Village and Post, Lakkireddipalli Mandal, Kadapa District. … Plaintiff.

- And -

Dakshinapu Ramamohan, S/o. Reddanna, aged about 42 years, Resident of Putakaravandla Palli, B.Yarragudi Post and Villae, Lakkireddipalli Mandal, Kadapa District. … Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 02.04.2025 in the presence of Sri V.Balaji Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri P.Reddy Basha,

Sri S.Md. Taheer, Advocates for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- under three suit promissory notes which comes to a tune of Rs.2,58,000/- with interest and costs.

The facts of the plaintiff's case, in brief, is that :-

2. On 18.09.2017 the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and has executed three promissory notes on the same day, promising to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally, the defendant failed to discharge the debt due under three promissory notes. The plaintiff issued legal notice demanding repayment but in vain. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of suit amount.

Dt. 07-04-2025 Civil Judge (JD), LR.Palli

Fair 2 Draft (O.S.53/2020)

Written statement contentions:

3. The defendant filed his written statement denying all the plaint averments and contended that he has borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 18.09.2017 and has issued three promissory notes towards security for the above said amount. He further submits that the plaintiff has agreed to return the promissory notes after repayment of the debt. On 07.02.2018 the defendant has paid Rs.42,416/- towards part payment of the debt and agreed that he would return the promissory notes after receipt of balance of Rs.10,000/-. It is also the contention of the defendant that no consideration was passed under suit promissory notes, the plaintiff never demanded him to pay any debt and hence prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Based on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled by my learned predecessor - in - office :

1 ) Whether the service of summons on defendant is

proper service ?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of claim for

suit amount as prayed for from the defendant ?”

3) To what relief ?

5. To support his claim, the plaintiff adduced his own evidence as PW1 and also examined P.Ws.2 and 3 – Attestors. Exs.A1 to A5 documents were marked.

Ex.A1 – Original Promissory note dt. 18.09.2017, for an amount of Rs.50,000/-

Ex.A2 – Original Promissory note dt. 18.09.2017, for an amount of Rs.50,000/-

Ex.A3 - Original Promissory note dt. 18.09.2017, for an amount of Rs.50,000/-

Ex.A4 – Office copy of legal notice dt.10.09.2020

Ex.A5 - Unserved postal cover with acknowledgment dt.16.09.2022

6.When the matter is coming up for defence evidence, the defendant did not turn up to adduce his evidence and hence defence evidence was closed.

7.Heard learned counsel for plaintiff. No arguments were advanced on behalf of defendant.

Dt. 07-04-2025 Civil Judge (JD), LR.Palli

Fair 3 Draft (O.S.53/2020)

8.Perused the record.

9.Upon considering oral and documentary submissions of both the parties, the issues settled were taken up for discussion as under :

ISSUE No.1 :

“Whether the service of summons on defendant is

proper service ?”

10. As already the defendant himself came on record and filed his written statement, this court is of the opinion that this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff.

Issue No.2 :

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of claim for

suit amount as prayed for from the defendant ?”

11. At the outset, this is a suit for recovery of principal amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- with interest which has come to a tune of Rs.2,58,000/- alleged to be due by the defendant under three suit promissory notes. According to P.W1, defendant has borrowed the principal amount on 18.09.2017 under Exs.A1 to A3, agreeing to repay with interest at 24% p.a. Since then the defendant did not make any repayment even on demands, PW1 has issued legal notice under

Ex.A4 demanding repayment but the same was unserved to the defendant.

Ex.A5 is the unserved postal cover with acknowledgment. So, P.W1 has knocked the doors of this Court for recovery of the debt alleged to be due from the defendant and he has filed Exs.A1 to A3 – Promissory notes dt.18.09.2017 for Rs.50,000/- each. The defendant on one hand categorically denied about execution of Exs.A1 to A3 and borrowing of the principal amount, on the other hand, has taken a defence that he has borrowed only Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff and has made part payment. He cross examined PW1 wherein it was suggested that he has signed empty promissory notes towards security for borrowing Rs.50,000/- from PW1. PW1 denied the said suggestion. It was further suggested to PW1 and denied by him that at the time of signing Exs.A1 to A3 by

Dt. 07-04-2025 Civil Judge (JD), LR.Palli

Fair 4 Draft (O.S.53/2020) the defendant, none of the attestors and scribe were present. With the above suggestions the defendant has categorically admitted that Exs.A1 to A3 contains his signatures. However, it is the version of defendant that Exs.A1 to A3 were signed blank as a security towards borrowing of Rs.50,000/- from PW1. As the defendant agreed that the signatures in Exs.A1 to A3 belongs to him, without any effort on the part of plaintiff, the execution of Exs.A1 to A3 were established.

However, PW1 has adduced the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and they have testified in their chief supporting the version of PW1 in letter and spirit. The defendant has cross examined P.Ws.2 and 3 also in the same manner as PW1 by suggesting them that, he has borrowed only Rs.50,000/- from PW1 and signed three blank promissory notes towards security. Like PW1, Pws.2 and 3 also denied the said suggestion. Hence, as seen from any angle the initial burden of plaintiff was discharged with the self shattering admission of the defendant. Therefore, the presumption under section 118 of Negotiable

Instruments Act comes to his rescue. Section 118(a) of Negotiable

Instruments Act reads as follows: –

“Until the contrary is proved the following presumptions shall be

made:

(a)That every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration …………….”

12.Accordingly, the presumption under Section 118(a) of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 is drawn in favour of plaintiff that the suit promissory note is made for consideration and the onus shifts to the defendant to prove that no consideration was passed under Exs.A1 to A3 and that they are fabricated.

Unfortunately the defendant failed to adduce any evidence in support of the same and hence, the claim of the plaintiff has proved. Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of plaintiff.

Dt. 07-04-2025 Civil Judge (JD), LR.Palli

Fair 5 Draft (O.S.53/2020)

ISSUE NO.3:

To what relief ?

13.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.2,58,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Eight thousand only) with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and further interest at 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/-/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 7 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class

for prohibition and Excise offences, Kadapa,

FAC Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Lakkireddipalli

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff :-For Defendant :-

P.W.1: Thimmireddy Ramamohan Reddy -None-

P.W.2 :Nallathimmareddigari

Chandrasekhar Reddy

P.W.3 : Shaik Budan Sab

Documents marked

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1 – Original Promissory note dt. 18.09.2017, for an amount of Rs.50,000/-

Ex.A2 – Original Promissory note dt. 18.09.2017, for an amount of Rs.50,000/-

Ex.A3 - Original Promissory note dt. 18.09.2017, for an amount of Rs.50,000/-

Ex.A4 – Office copy of legal notice dt.10.09.2020

Ex.A5 - Unserved postal cover with acknowledgment dt.16.09.2022

For Defendant :- - Nil -

Sd/- Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class

for prohibition and Excise offences, Kadapa,

FAC Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Lakkireddipalli

Dt. 07-04-2025 Civil Judge (JD), LR.Palli

1 Draft (O.S.210/2023)

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAMALAPURAM

Present: Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class for

Prohibition and Excise Ofences, Kadapa.

FAC/ Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram.

Tuesday, the 01 st day of April, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO: 210/2023

Between:

Buchupalle Narendra Reddy, S/o Pedda Subba Reddy, aged about 56 years, Hindu, Employee in India Cements Ltd., Chilamakuru village, Yerraguntla Mandal, Kadapa District. … Plaintif.

- And -

Yetti Yacob, S/o Devadatta, aged about 50 years, Business, Residing at Chilamakuru village, Yerraguntla Mandal, Kadapa District.

… Defendant.

This suit is coming before me for fnal hearing on 01.04.2025 in the presence of Sri B. Narayana Reddy, Advocate for the plaintif and

Sri T. Venkata Siva, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit fled for recovery of an amount of Rs.50,000/- based on suit promissory note dt.09.07.2021 which comes to a tune of

Rs.64,720/- with interest and costs.

The facts of the plaintiffs case, in brief, is that :-

2. On 09.07.2021 the defendant has borrowed an amount of

Rs.50,000/- from the plaintif and has executed the suit promissory note on the same day, promising to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., to the plaintif or to his order on demand. On demand of the plaintif, on 27.06.2022 the defendant has made part payment of

Dt : 01-04-2025JCJ/KMP.

2 Draft (O.S.210/2023)

Rs.10,000/-. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif personally, the defendant failed to discharge the debt due under suit promissory notes. Hence, the plaintif is constrained to fle this suit for recovery of suit amount.

Written statement contentions:

3. The defendant fled his written statement denying all the plaint averments and contended that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintif, never executed any promissory note and never made any repayment as alleged by the plaintif. He further contends that the suit promissory note is a fabricated document and hence prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Based on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled by my learned predecessor - in - ofce :

1) Whether the suit promissory notes dt.

09.07.2021 for Rs.50,000/- executed by

defendant in favour of plaintif ?

2) Whether the defendant paid Rs.10,000/- on

27.06.2022 towards the suit promissory note

debt as part payment and endorsed on the

back side of promissory note dt.

09.07.2021 ?

3) Whether the suit promissory note dt.

09.07.2021 for Rs.50,000/- is true, valid and

binding on the defendant?

4) Whether the plaintif is entitled for the relief as prayed for ?

5) To what relief ?

5. To support his claim, the plaintif adduced his own evidence as PW1 and exhibited two documents.

Ex.A1 – Original Promissory note dt. 09.07.2021 for an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/-

Ex.A2 – Part payment endorsement of Rs.10,000/- dt.27.06.2022 on the back side of suit pronote.

Dt : 01-04-2025JCJ/KMP.

3 Draft (O.S.210/2023)

6.When the matter is coming up for defence evidence, the defendant did not turn up to adduce his evidence and hence defence evidence was closed.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Perused the record.

9.Upon considering oral and documentary submissions of both the parties, the issues settled were taken up for discussion as under :

ISSUE NO.1 to 4 :

“Whether the suit promissory notes dt.

09.07.2021 for Rs.50,000/- executed by

defendant in favour of plaintif ?

Whether the defendant paid Rs.10,000/- on

27.06.2022 towards the suit promissory note

debt as part payment and endorsed on the

back side of promissory note dt.

09.07.2021 ?

Whether the suit promissory note dt.

09.07.2021 for Rs.50,000/- is true, valid and

binding on the defendant?

Whether the plaintif is entitled for the relief

as prayed for ?” As the discussion and fnding to all the four issues are interwoven, they are discussed together as under -

10. At the outset, this is a suit for recovery of principal amount of

Rs.50,000/- with interest which has come to a tune of Rs.64,720/- alleged to be due by the defendant under the suit promissory note.

According to P.W1, defendant has borrowed the principal amount on 09.07.2021 under Ex.A1, agreeing to repay with interest at 24% p.a.

PW1 testifed in chief that on 27.06.2022, the defendant has made part payment of Rs.10,000/- vide Ex.A2 towards discharge of debt due under Ex.A1. Since then the defendant did not make any repayment

Dt : 01-04-2025JCJ/KMP.

4 Draft (O.S.210/2023) even on demands. So, P.W1 has knocked the doors of this Court for recovery of the debt alleged to be due from the defendant and he has fled Ex.A1 – Promissory note dt.09.07.2021 for Rs.50,000/- and Ex.A.2 – Part payment endorsement dt. 27.06.2022. The defendant who has categorically denied about execution of Ex.A1 and borrowing of the

principal amount along with the question of part payment has cross

examined PW1 wherein it is elicited that both himself and defendant are working in ICL. PW1 denied the suggestion that the issued promissory note was scribed by him without the knowledge of defendant and the defendant did not made any part payment. He further denied the suggestion that the signatures in Exs.A1 and A2 are not one and the same and they are not belonging to the defendant. He also denied the suggestion that the signatures of defendant in Exs.A1 and A2 are forged. Except the above suggestions no worthy material has been elicited from the cross examination of PW1 to establish that

Exs.A1 and A2 are fabricated by forging the signature of PW1. The defendant who is strongly denying signatures in Exs.A1 and A2 as if not belonging to him and are diferent from each other did not even choose to send the same to Scientifc expert for opinion. Knowing well from the date of fling written statement that his signatures has been forged, he did not took any steps for sending Ex.A1 to expert. Except barefaced suggestions that Exs.A1 and A2 are fabricated and its signatures were forged, the defendant did not even choose to adduce his evidence. By virtue of oral evidence of PW1 coupled with contents in Exs.A1 and A2, the plaintif has discharged his initial burden of execution. Therefore, the presumption under section 118 of Negotiable

Instruments Act comes to his rescue. Section 118(a) of Negotiable

Instruments Act reads as follows: –

Dt : 01-04-2025JCJ/KMP.

5 Draft (O.S.210/2023)

“Until the contrary is proved the following presumptions

shall be made:

(a) That every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or

transferred for consideration …………….”

11.Accordingly, the presumption under Section 118(a) of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 is drawn in favour of plaintif that the suit promissory note is made for consideration and the onus shifts to the defendant to prove that no consideration was passed under Ex.A1 and that Exs.A1 and A2 are fabricated. Unfortunately the defendant failed to adduce any evidence in support of the same and hence, the claim of the plaintif has proved. Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of plaintif.

ISSUE NO.5:

To what relief ?

12.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.64,720/- (Rupees sixty four thousand seven hundred and twenty only ) with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of fling of the suit till the date of decree and further interest at 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.50,000/-/- (Rupees ffty thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 01st day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Smt. J. Hema Sravanthi,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class

for prohibition and Excise ofences, Kadapa,

FAC/ Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram.

Dt : 01-04-2025JCJ/KMP.

6 Draft (O.S.210/2023)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintif :-For Defendant :-

P.W.1: B. Narendra Reddy. -None-

Documents marked

For Plaintif :-

Ex.A1 – Original Promissory note dt.09.07.2021 for an amount of

Rs.50,000/-.

Ex.A2 – Part payment endorsement of Rs.10,000/- dt.27.06.2022 on the back side of suit pronote.

For Defendant :- - Nil -

Sd/- Smt. J. Hema Sravanthi,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class

for prohibition and Excise ofences, Kadapa,

FAC/ Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram.

Dt : 01-04-2025JCJ/KMP.

1 (O.S.211/2024)

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAMALAPURAM.

Present: Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class for

Prohibition and Excise Offences, Kadapa.

FAC : Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram.

Tuesday, the 15 th day of April, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT NO: 211 /2024.

Between:

Chama Ramana Reddy, S/o Bayapu Reddy, aged about 78 years, Business, R/o D.No.4-5-612, Mahatma Nagar, Yerraguntla town-516309, YSR District. … Plaintiff.

- And -

Alavalapati Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o Ramachandra Reddy, aged about 40 years, R/o D.No.1-75, Diguva Lingala Village, Lingala Mandal, YSR District-516396. … Defendant.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on this day i.e., on 15.04.2025 in the presence of Sri B. Gurrappa Naidu, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant having remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of

Rs.84,000/-, Rs.1,46,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- based on five suit promissory notes which comes to a tune of Rs.6,30,000/- with interest and costs.

The facts of the plaintiff's case, in brief, is that :-

2. On 17.08.2022, 07.08.2022, 27.08.2022, 01.08.2024 and on 17.03.2024 the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.84,000/-,

Rs.1,46,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and has executed five suit promissory notes on different dates,

Dt. 15-04-2025 J.C.J., KMP.

2 (O.S.211/2024) promising to repay the same with interest at 18% p.a., to the plaintiff or to him order on demand. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally, the defendant failed to discharge the debt.

Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of suit amount.

3.The defendant was set exparte on 01.4.2025 as he did not appear before this Court.

4.In support of his case, the plaintiff got himself examined as

P.W.1 and got marked Exs. A.1 to A.5.

Ex.A1 – Original promissory note, dt. 17.08.2022 for Rs.84,000/-.

Ex.A2 - Original promissory note, dt. 07.08.2022 for Rs.1,46,000/-.

Ex.A3 – Original promissory note, dt. 27.08.2022 for Rs.2,00,000/-.

Ex.A4 – Original promissory note, dt. 01.08.2024 for Rs.1,00,000/-.

Ex.A5 – Original promissory note, dt. 17.03.2024 for Rs.1,00,000/-.

5.Perused the pleadings and exhibit available.

6.Now the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?”

POINT:

7.The Plaintiff/PW.1 filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination and confirmed the contents of the same. He testified in chief that the defendant for his family and legal necessities has borrowed an amount of

Rs.84,000/- on 17.08.2022, Rs.1,46,000/- on 07.08.2022, Rs.2,00,000/- on 27.08.2022, Rs.1,00,000/- on 01.08.2024 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 17.03.2024 and executed Exs.A1 to A5 promissory notes agreeing to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Subsequently, inspite of

Dt. 15-04-2025 J.C.J., KMP.

3 (O.S.211/2024) repeated demands made by him, the defendant did not choose to repay the debt due under Exs.A1 to A4. As the defendant was set exparte, the evidence of P.W.1 stood unchallenged and uncontraverted as not cross examined by the defendant. In the light of evidence of P.W.1 and contents of documentary evidence, the case of the plaintiff is proved. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.8,18,852/- (Rupees eight lakhs eighteen thousand eight hundred and fifty two only) with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and further interest at 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.6,30,000/-.

Typed to my dictation to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 15th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class

for prohibition and Excise offences, Kadapa,

FAC : Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff :-For Defendant :-

P.W.1 : C. Ramana Reddy. -None-

Documents marked

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1 - Original promissory note, dt. 17.08.2022 for Rs.84,000/-.

Ex.A 2 - Original promissory note, dt. 07.08.2022 for Rs.1,46,000/-.

Dt. 15-04-2025 J.C.J., KMP.

4 (O.S.211/2024)

Ex.A3 - Original promissory note, dt. 27.08.2022 for Rs.2,00,000/-.

Ex.A4 - Original promissory note, dt. 01.08.2024 for Rs.1,00,000/-.

Ex.A5 - Original promissory note, dt. 17.03.2024 for Rs.1,00,000/-.

For Defendant :- - Nil -.

Sd/- Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class for prohibition and Excise offences, Kadapa,

FAC: Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram.

Dt. 15-04-2025 J.C.J., KMP.