Ms. J.nandini

APAN0E0018922022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: DHARMAVARAM

PRESENT: Smt. JETTIM NANDINI,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram

Tuesday, the 19 th day of May, 2026

CALENDER CASE NO.1097 OF 2022

Between:-

State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Kanaganapalli Police Station.... Complainant

-Versus-

Erukala Venkatappa, S/o E. Eswaraiah, aged 30 years, Thippepalli Village, Kambaduru mandal.

… Accused.

This case coming before me on 12.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri M.P Subbarao, Sri. D. Abdul Sab, Advocates for the accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kanaganapalli P.S filed charge sheet in Crime No.248/2021 alleging that the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act 1968 Second Amendment

Act 2020.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief is that: On 28.12.2021,

LW.8/PY. Anjineyulu/SI of police has received credible information about transporting of liquor, on that he along with his staff reached towards

Varadhipuram Middelu, at Maddelacheruvu village of Kanaganapalli mandal at 10.15 am, caught hold of the accused and seized 30 Hyawards Cheers whiskey 90 ml tetra packets and arrested the accused at 11.10 am, in the

C.C.No.1097/2022 2 C.C.No.1097/2022 presence of mahazardars under cover of his confession, arrest and seizure mahazarnama. The accused confessed in his involvement in Cr.No.161/2021

U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act.

28.12.2021 at 12.00 pm, LW.8/SI of police has registered a case in

Cr.No.248/2021 U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act. Later Lw.8 has forwarded the sample liquor packet to the chemical examiner, Regional Prohibition &

Excise Laboratory, Chittoor on 03.02.2022 and received analysis report from chemical examiner vide CE.No.207/2022, SLNo.2,397 Dt.14.02.2022.

LW.8 has destroyed 30 Haywards Cheers whiskey 90 ml tetra packets at an empty space, on Ramagiri – Kalpavalli road, Ramagiri mandal on 19.07.2022 under the supervision of SEB, Superintendent, Sri Sathya Sai

District, Inspector of police, SEB, CK Palli, Sri Sathya Sai District, Inspector of police, Ramagiri Circle, in the presence of LW.4 and LW.5 under cover of panchanama Dt.19.07.2022 as per C.No.61/SEB-ATP/2022 Dt.28.06.2022.

3.The offence was taken cognizance on file against the accused

U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968.

4.When the accused appeared before the court, copies of all the documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/S.207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. to which he denied the offence. Thereafter, charge U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968 of the Act has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 to

PW.5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. In view of the evidence PW.1 to PW.5 the learned Sr. A.P.P. has given up the evidences of LW.2/K. Narasimhulu,

PC, LW.3/A. Obulesu ASI and LW.7/N. Babaiah.

C.C.No.1097/2022 3 C.C.No.1097/2022 7.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined

U/S.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, for which, he pleaded all such evidence is false and reported no defense.

8.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9.The point for determination is ___

Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of Accused for

the offence U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act beyond all reasonable

doubt?

10.POINT:-

The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted the prosecution has proved its case by examined PW.1 to 5 and by producing Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and MO.1 therefore the accused shall be convicted and be punished. On the other hand the learned Advocate for the accused counsel submitted that the prosecution failed to prove its case, Hence the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.

11.PW.1/E. Naresh/Constable,Bathalapalli Police Station has deposed that on 28.12.2021 at 9.30 am, himself and PW.3/SI of police, LW2 and LW.3 along with PW.5 and PW.2 totally six members left the police station to the

Kanaganapalli mandal Vaaradhi puram middela reached at about 10.00 am, on seeing the police officials the accused tried to escape from that place but then the police officials caught hold of the accused and enquired in the presence of Lw.4and LW.5 and the accused voluntarily confessed his name has Erikala Venkatapa and on due search the accused was in possession of white colour bag containing 30 Haywards cheers whiskey of Karnataka liquor of 90 ml tetra packets and further on due search and drawn sample from the each variant. Then he questioned the accused whether the accused is having any valid license or permit for the possession of liquor for that he replied that he did not have such permission or license then he informed him

C.C.No.1097/2022 4 C.C.No.1097/2022 about the grounds of arrest and arrested the accused and seized the remaining contraband under cover of confession, arrest and seizure mahazarnama. Then they brought the accused, seized contraband to the

Excise station. LW.8 registered the case in Cr.No.248/2021 and took up investigation.

12.PW.2/Vonnurappa has deposed that he do not know the accused in this case, and he do not know LW.4 and do not know anything about this case. when he went to the police station on his personal work, the police has obtained his signature on some typed papers. The police did not arrest the accused and seized property in his presence. He do not know the contents of confession, arrest and seizure mahazarnama. He can identify his signature. Ex.P1 is the signature of the witness on the confession, arrest and seizure mahazarnama Dt.18.12.2021.

13.PW.3-P. Y.Anjineyulu/SI of police, Bathalapalli P.S has deposed that on 28.12.2021 at about 9.00 pm, he received credible information about transportation of Karnataka liquor they proceeded to Maddalacheruvu Village towards Varadhipuram Middelu. There they found one person holding one white polythene bag and on suspicion, he enquired and the accused on that revealed his whereabouts and voluntarily confessed about the offence and also confessed another crime number Cr.No.161/2021 U/sec.34(a) of AP

Excise Act and then the police personnel verified the polythene bag and found 30 Haywards cheers whiskey 90 ml tetra packets and drawn 90 ml tetra packet as sample for chemical analysis under cover of confession, arrest seizure mahazarnama Ex.P2 is the mahazarnama and registered a case in Cr.No.248/2021 U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act. MO.1 is sample. He sent sample for chemical analysis along with Letter of Advice and on 15.02.2022 vide C.E.No.207/2022 it was opined that sample is Indian made liquor i.e., MO.1 on 19.07.2022 case property was destructed in the presence

C.C.No.1097/2022 5 C.C.No.1097/2022 of LW.6 and LW.7 After completion of investigation he field charge sheet against the accused

14.PW.4/N. Yagna/VRO, has deposed that on 19.7.2022 while she was at Tahsildar’ office, on the instructions of Tahsildar she along with LW.7 act as Panchayatdaars at the time of destruction of contraband she along with LW.7, went to Kalpavalli road, the police has destructed the seized property in 08 crimes in the presence of herself and LW.7 the present crime also included in the destructions. After destruction she along with LW.7 has attested in the destruction panchanama Dt.19.7.2022.

15.PW.5-M. Chandramohan/VRA, Kanaganapalli has deposed that on 28.12.2021 at about 9.00 pm, he was at Tahsildar Office, LW.2 called him to act as mediator for which he along with PW.2 went to the Kanaganapalli

P.S. The police officials went to Maddalacheruvu village towards

Varadhipuram Middelu. Then the PW.3/SI of police found one person holding one white polythene bag and on suspicion PW.3 has enquired accused, on enquiry he revealed his name as Erikala Venkatappa and confessed about the commission of offence and the SI of police verified the bag and found 30

Haywards cheers whiskey 90 ml tetra packets and then SI of police prepared mahazarnama in the presence of him and other staff. Ex.P4 is signature of

PW.5 in the mahazarnama. On further enquiry the accused has stated that he has committed similar offence previously also and PW.3 has arrested the accused.

16.Perused the material on record. Pw.1 and PW.3 has deposed that 28.12.2024 at about 9.00 am, PW.3 has received credible information about transportationof Karnataka liquor on that PW.3 deputed LW.2 to secure mediators on the they secure PW.2 and LW.4. immediately they left police station along with the staff and went to Maddalacheruvu village towards Varadhipuram Middelu and found one person by holding one polythene bag and on suspicion Pw.3 has enquired that person on that he

C.C.No.1097/2022 6 C.C.No.1097/2022 stated his name as E. Venkatappa, S/o E. Eswaraiah and on the verification of the bag in the presence of mediators they found 30 Haywards cheers whiskey 90 ml tetra packets and prepared mahazarnama in the presence of mediators

17.PW.2 was resiled from the version of prosecution for the reasons best known to him. On perusal of the evidence of PW.5 it can be found that on 28.12.2021 at about 9.00 am, when he was in MRO office LW.2 informed to come to police station to act as mediator on that he went along with PW.2 to the Kanaganapalli Police station and from there they went to

Maddalacheruvu village towards Varadhipuram Middelu there PW.3 found one person by holding one white polythene bag and on verification he stated his name as E. Venkatappa and on verification of the bag in the presence of mediator they found 30 haywards cheers whiskey 90 ml tetra packets. From the evidence of PW.4 the prosecution has elicited about destruction of seized property on 19.07.2022 in the presence of PW.4 and LW.7 who acted as panchayatdars.

18.On combine reading of evidence of PW.1, PW.3 to PW.5 and the contents of Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 and MO.1 clearly established the prosecution case. The entire reading of the material on record is not creating any doubt as to the trustworthiness of the prosecution case and genuineness of the evidence of Pw.1, PW.3 to PW.5

19.The learned Advocate for the accused submitted that as the mediator i.e., PW.2 was resiled from the version of prosecution the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.

20.On perusal of the entire evidence on record it can be found that the evidence of Pw.1, Pw.3 and PW.5 is consistent moreover same is corroborated with the version of prosecution and it established that the accused was in illegal possession of liquor tetra packets and the same were

C.C.No.1097/2022 7 C.C.No.1097/2022 seized by the PW.3 in the presence of mediators i.e., PW.5 by preparing

Ex.P2 and recorded confession of the accused.

Further PW.3 has stated in his chief examination that the accused has confessed his offence and he was involved in another Cr.No.161/2021

U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and to corroborate the version of PW.3, PW.5 also stated before this court that the accused has stated that he has committed similar offences previously also. During the cross examination of

Pw.3 and 5 the accused counsel has not put any suggestions or questions to deny the previous crimes of accused. Though the prosecution has not filed any document before this court to show that the accused was involved in another crime also, by mentioning except Cr.No.161/2021, this court opines the prosecution has proved that another crime is pending against accused, now the burden shifts on the accused to prove that the accused was never involved in any other crimes.

Though PW.2 was resiled from the version of prosecution by stating that police obtained his signatures on typed papers and the police did not arrest the accused and seized property in his presence other witness i.e.,

PW.5, who acted as mediator along with PW.2 has deposed evidence against the accused. Hence the contention of accused counsel that PW.2 was resiled from the evidence of prosecution hence the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused will not sustain.

During the cross examination of PW.1, PW.3, PW.4 and PW.5 the accused counsel has put mere suggestions to the witness which are denied by the prosecution witness and not elicited even single line from the mouth of witnesses to support the version of accused.

The Government of AP issued GOMS.No.411 where it permits possession of three bottles of liquor of any seize and beyond the permissible limit, if any person is in possession of liquor, Section 34(A) of AP Excise Act will attract. In the present case at hand, the accused was in the possession of 30 Haywards cheers whiskey tetra packets of 90 ml each without permit or

C.C.No.1097/2022 8 C.C.No.1097/2022 license. From the evidence of PW.1 it can be found that the accused confessed that he did not have any valid licence or permission for the possession of liquor

U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act: “Penalties for illegal import, export etc.,

Whoever, in contravention of this act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed there under or of any licence or permit granted or issued under this Act,

Imports, exports, transport, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant; or...” 21.Therefore it can be said that the accused was in the possession of more quantity of liquor without permit or license hence this court in opinion that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence the accused is liable under section 34(A) of AP

Excise Act. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of prosecution against the accused.

22.In the result the accused is found guilty with the offence punishable U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and he is convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C and the MO.1 shall be destroy after appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-J.Nandini

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

DHARMAVARAM.

Hearing on quantum of sentence & sentence.

Accused is present before this court. Upon questioning about quantum of sentence which may be imposed against him, he stated that, he has old aged parents and minor children and he is sole bread winner to his family and requested to take lenient view on him.

C.C.No.1097/2022 9 C.C.No.1097/2022

In view of the nature of the offence it is fit case to take lenient view and not fit case to invoke benevolent provisions of probation of offenders Act. Accordingly the accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of one year (01) and the accused is also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only). In case of default in payment of fine the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for the period of 06 months (Six Months) for the offence punishable

U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968.

The sentence and default sentence imposed against the accused shall run consecutively. Accused was in judicial custody from 28.12.2021 to 04.01.2022 total 08 (Eight) days, same shall be set off under Section 438

Cr.P.C. The accused is apprised of his legal right to prefer appeal before

Appellate court. Judgment copy given to the accused in open court.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: PW-1: E. Naresh PW-2: Vonnurappa PW-3: P.Y Anjineyulu PW.4: N. Yagna PW.5: M. Chandramohan

For Defence:-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Signature of PW.2 Ex.P2: Mahazarnama Ex.P3: First Information Report Ex.P4: Signature of PW.5

For Defence: -NIL-

MOs: MO.1 is the sample. ID/-J.Nandini J.F.C.M./D.M.M.

C.C.No.1097/2022 10 C.C.No.1097/2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURUM

Calendar cases tried by the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram.

Date of Date ofReportApprehensionReleasedCommence-Close ofSentence Offenceof Accusedon bailment of trialtrial 28.12.202128.12.202128.01.202104.01.202216.03.202313.11.202519.05.2026

Judgment in C.C.No.1097/2022 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram. Complainant :: Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanaganapalli P.S Cr.No:248/2021

Sl.NoName of theAgeFather’s NameCallingReligionResidenceMandal Accused

1.Erukala30E. Eswaraiah-----ThippepalliKambaduru Venkatappa

Offence :-For the offence U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act

Finding :-Accused Found guilty.

Sentence :- In the result the accused is found guilty with the offence punishable U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and he is convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C and the MO.1 shall be destroy after appeal time.

Accordingly the accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of one year (01) and the accused is also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only). In case of default in payment of fine the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for the period of 06 months (Six Months) for the offence punishable U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968.

The sentence and default sentence imposed against the accused shall run consecutively. Accused was in judicial custody from 28.12.2021 to 04.01.2022 total 08 (Eight) days, same shall be set off under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The accused is apprised of his legal right to prefer appeal before Appellate court. Judgment copy given to the accused in open court.

Sd/-J.Nandini

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DHARMAVARAM

C.C.1143/2022 1

APAN0E0019582022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: DHARMAVARAM

PRESENT: Smt. JETTIM NANDINI,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram

Wednesday, the 29 th day of April, 2026

Calendar Case No.1143 of 2022

Between: State rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, C.K Palli Police Station.

... Complainant.

And

Kiran Naik, S/o Late Narayana Naik, aged 30 years, Nagepalli thanda, Pavagaa Taluk, Karnataka state. …Accused.

This case came on 27.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.P

Subbarao and Sri D. Abdul Sab, Advocates for the accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01. The Sub Inspector of Police, C.K Palli police station filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No.136/2020 for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

The brief case of the prosecution is that:-

02.On 10.06.2020 at about 12.30 pm, LW.8/G. Ramesh babu/SI of police has received credible information then the SI of police along with his staff reached at Mustikovela Village outskirts of C.K Palli mandal, on seeing the police jeep one person were tried to ran away along with a plastic gunny bags on his motor cycle. On suspicion LW.8/SI of police has caught hold of the accused with the support of his staff caught hold of him and asked him

C.C.1143/2022 2 about his identity and he disclosed his whereabouts and voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence. On verification of the plastic gunny bags found total 2 plastic bottles each containing 2 liters of ID arrack, total 4 liters of ID arrack in the said bag and drawn one bottle of ID arrack sending for chemical analysis and seized the contraband and the motorcycle bearing No.AP02AS4660 and arrested the accused under cover of police proceedings. Basing on the police proceedings, LW.8/SI of police has registered a case in Cr.No.136/2020 U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition

Act and later then the SI of police has served U/sec.41(A) Cr.P.C notice against the accused.

During the course of investigation, LW.8/SI of police forwarded the sample I.D arrack bottle to the Govt. Regional Prohibition and Excise

Laboratory Chittoor and obtained analysis report vide C.E.No.605/2020,

Dt.15.06.2020 that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

3.The offence was taken cognizance on file against the accused

U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995.

4.When the accused appeared before the court, copies of all the documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/S.207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. to which he denied the offence. Thereafter, charge u/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 of the Act has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 to

PW.6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. In view of the evidence of PW.1 to

PW.6, the learned Sr. A.P.P has given up the evidence of LW.2/S. Zeelan

Basha P.C and the evidence of LW.7/Vadde Nagaraju was closed by the court.

C.C.1143/2022 3 7.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined

U/S.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, for which, he pleaded all such evidence is false and reported no defense.

8.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9.The point for determination is ___

Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of Accused for

the offence U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all

reasonable doubt?

10.The learned APP argued that the evidence arising from the testimony of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution, is consistent and sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore he is liable to be convicted for the charges leveled against him.

11.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel contended that the prosecution failed to follow the procedure for search and seizure of alleged contraband and that no efforts were made by the police to secure independent witnesses and that itself shows the police foisted false case against the accused for their statistical purpose and as there is no testimony of any independent witness, prayed the Hon’ble court to extend benefit of doubt and acquit the accused.

12.PW.1/K. Pothanna/Constable , C.K Palli Police station has deposed that on 10.06.2020 at about 12.30 pm, PW.6 has received credible information about the illegal possession of I.D arrack he along with and other staff proceeded to outskirts of Mustikovela Village, there they noticed the accused was coming on the bike bearing No.AP02AS4660 on opposite direction by holding one plastic bag on the instructions of PW.6 they have

C.C.1143/2022 4 verified the bag and they found 4 liters of ID arrack in two cans, PW.6/SI of police has drawn sample and seized the property and drafted panchanama.

13.PW.2/S. Hanumanthareddyhas deposed that on 10.06.2020 at about 11.00 am, PW.6/SI of police has informed him that there is destruction of ID arrack and requested him to act as mediator. On that he along with LW.7 has went to near Cheeki bushes at Nyamaddala Village bus road, C.K Palli mandal there the ID arrack was destructed in total 12 cases and the present case 04 liters of ID arrack was also included and he atttested on the destruction panchanama. Ex.P1 is the Signature of PW.2 on the destruction panchanama.

14.PW.3/AppaSwamy/HeadConstable,PW.4/U.

Sreenivasulu/Constable and PW.5/T. Bharat Kumar Constable of C.K Palli

P.S has deposed that on 10.06.2020 at about 12.30 PM, PW.6 has received credible information they along with and other staff proceeded to reach

Mustikovela outskirts and noticed one person standing in his bike bearing

No.AP02AS4660 with possession of Polythene bag, on seeing the the police officials the accused tried to skulk away from that place but then the police officials apprehended the accused and enquired on that he disclosed his identity particulars. PW.6 has verified the bag found 2 liters of ID arrack and seized the ID arrack along with vehicle from his possession and drawn sample of 180 ml for chemical analysis and arrested him. PW.6 has prepared panchanama.

15.PW.6/G. Ramesh Babu/SI of police, C.K Palli Police Stationhas deposed that on 10.06.2020 at about 12.30 pm, while he was present in the police station he has received credible information about the illegal transportation of ID arrack. On that he along with his staff proceeded to reach Mustikovela out skirts, C.K Palli Mandal, and there they noticed one person standing in the bike bearing No.AP02AS4660 with possession of gunny bag, on seeing the police officials the accused tried to skulk away

C.C.1143/2022 5 from that place but then the police officials apprehended and enquired on that the accused disclosed his identity particulars. He verified the bag found 4 liters of ID arrack in two liters and seized the ID arrack along with vehicle from the possession of accused and drawn sample of 180 ml for chemical analysis and arrested him under cover of police proceedings ExP2 is the police proceedings. Basing on the police proceedings he registered a case in Cr.No.136/2020 U/se.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, Ex.P3 is the FIR and Ex.P4 is the Analysis report. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

From the evidence of PW.2 prosecution can prove that there is a destruction of seized property in the presence of mediator. But it does not prove that the seized property is recovered from the possession of accused.

The evidence of PW.2 who is destruction mediator is no use for the prosecution case. Hence, it is a fit case to grant benefit of doubt to the accused.

16.PW1 to PW.6 categorically deposed that they witnessed the

Accused in possession of contraband, which was seized in this case. The police at the time of seizure of property, must follow the procedure enshrined in Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. i.e., the police shall secure the presence of independent witnesses and in their presence as mediators, the police should seize the contraband. But, there is no piece of evidence on record that police secured the presence of independent witnesses. No reason was specified either in the charge sheet or in the prosecution evidence for non-issuance of written notices to the persons available at in and around the scene of offence. PW.1 to PW.6 deposed that the scene of offence is a busy area and numerous persons were present at the time. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that, despite availability of numerous persons at the scene of offence, non-securing the independent witnesses at the time of seizure, creates doubt as to the genuineness of the case of the prosecution. The failure of the prosecution to comply with Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. adds strength to the

C.C.1143/2022 6 argument on behalf of the accused and raised doubt as to the case of the prosecution. Except police officials, no independent witnesses were present in this case. The prosecution failed to connect the MO.1 i.e., seized contraband with the accused. Therefore, there is no cogent and corroborative evidence to implicate the complicity of the Accused in commission of this offence.

17.Now, it is clear that except the evidence of PW.1 to PW6 who are interested witnesses, prosecution does not have any other evidence on record. Testimony of PW.1 to PW.6 failed to examine any neighbours of the scene to show possession of the ID arrack and raw material by the accused.

18.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act and he is acquitted u/Sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as prescribed u/s.437-A Cr.P.C. MO1 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation to Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 29thday of April, 2026.

Sd/-J.Nandini

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Dharmavaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1 : K. Pothanna None PW.2 : S. Hanumantha Reddy PW.3 : Appa Swamy PW.4 : U. Sreenivasulu PW.5 : T. Bharat Kumar PW.6 : G. Ramesh Babu

C.C.1143/2022 7

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW.2 panchanama

Ex.P2 : Police proceedings

Ex.P3 : First Information Report

Ex.P3 : Chemical Analysis report

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MOS MARKED FOR

MO.1 : Sample ID arrack

Id/-J.Nandini J.M.F.C.

// True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram.

C.C.1143/2022 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURUM

Calendar cases tried by the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram.

Date ofReportApprehensionReleasedCommence-Close ofSentence Offenceof Accusedon bailment of trialtrial 10.06.202010.06.202010.06.2020--10.10.202515.04.202429.04.2026

Judgment in C.C.No.1143/2022 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram. Complainant :: Sub-Inspector of Police, C.K Palli P.S Cr.No:136/2020

Sl.NoName of theAgeS/o or W/oCallingReligionResidenceMandal Accused

1.Kiran Naik30Late Narayana-----Nagepalli Pavagaa NaikThandaTaluk

Offence :-For the offence U/sec.7(A) R/w 8(e) of AP Proh. Act, 1995

Found not guilty. Finding :-

Sentence :- IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act and he is acquitted u/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as prescribed u/s.437-A Cr.P.C. MO1 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.

Sd/-J.Nandini

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DHARMAVARAM

Submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuram

Dis No. Dt. // True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram.

1

APAN0E0009082021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: DHARMAVARAM

PRESENT: Smt.JETTIM NANDINI,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram

Friday, the 24 th day of April, 2026

CALENDER CASE NO.491 OF 2021

Between:-

Sub-Inspector Special Enforcement Bureau, Dharmavaram.

... Complainant

-Versus-

R. Sreenivasa Naik, S/o Late R. Rama Chandra Naik, S/o Late R. Rama Chandra Naik, R/o Ramaswamy Nsaik Thanda, Mudigubba mandal. … Accused

This case coming before me on 22.04.2026 final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri M. Narasimhamurthy and Sri. G. Sankariah, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB Station Dharmavarm, filed charge sheet in Crime No.05/2020 alleging that the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief is that: On 09.01.2020 at about 8.00 am, LW.3/M. Masthan Rao/SI of police has received reliable information about illegal selling of ID liquor on that the police officials raided at Nelakota Thanda cross on Dharmavaram to Krishnapuram bus road on

Dhamavaram mandal, there they noticed one male person in possession of one white plastic can. Then the police personnel doubtfully verified the can found 2 liters of ID liquor and enquired on enquiry the accused did not give proper reply. Then the SI of police has drawn sample bottle from property for 2 chemical analysis and seized the property duly sealed and labeled and arrested the accused under cover of Special report. Basing on the special report LW.3/SI of police has registered a case in Cr.No.05/2020 U/sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act 1995 and served U/sec.41(A) Cr.P.C notice against the accused.

During the course of investigation LW.3/SI of police has sent the sample to the Chemical Examiner, Chittoor for analysis purpose, and the

Chemical Examiner examined the sample and opined that , “the sample is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injuries to health and vide C.E.No.290/2020 Dt.20.03.2020.

Thus the accused has committed an offence and punishable

U/Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act. Hence the charge.

3.The offence was taken cognizance on file against the accused for the offence U/Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1968.

4.When the accused appeared before the court, copies of all the documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/S.207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. to which he denied the offence. Thereafter, charge U/sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 &

PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P4. MO.1 is the sample. In view of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. The court has closed the evidences of

LW.2/B.Purusotham P.C and LW.4/SK. J. Sydul/Inspector of police.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined

U/S.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, for which, he pleaded all such evidence is false and reported no defense evidence.

3 8.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9.The point for determination is ___

Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of Accused for

the offence U/Sec. 7(a) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act beyond all

reasonable doubt?

10.The learned APP argued that the evidence arising from the testimony of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution, is consistent and sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore he is liable to be convicted for the charges leveled against him.

11.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel contended that the prosecution failed to follow the procedure for search and seizure of alleged contraband and that no efforts were made by the police to secure independent witnesses and that itself shows the police foisted false case against the accused for their statistical purpose and as there is no testimony of any independent witness, prayed the Hon’ble court to extend benefit of doubt and acquit the accused.

12. PW.1/B. Bhagaya Lakshmi/Constable, SEB Dharmavaram P.Shas deposed that on 09.01.2020 at about 8.00 am, as per the instructions of the

Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Dharmavaram, PW.2 along with staff raided at Nelakota thanda cross on Dharmavaram to Krishnampuram bus road on

Dharmavaram mandal. There they found one male person possession of one white plastic can. On seeing the police officials the accused tried to skulk away from that place but then the police officials caught hold of him and enquired and on enquiry the accused revealed his identity particulars. PW.2 verified the plastic can found 2 liters of ID liquor and drawn sample bottle from the property for sending chemical analysis and seized the remaining contraband under cover of police proceedings. She drafted the police proceedings on the dictation of PW.2 and he signed on the police 4 proceedings. Ex.P1 is the police proceedings. PW.2 registered a case in

Cr.No.05/2020 U/sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act and took up further investigation.

13.PW.2/M. Masthan Rao/SI of police of SEB Dharmavaram P.S has deposed that on 09.01.2020 at about 8.00 am, Inspector of police has received credible information with regard to selling of ID arrack on that he along with his staff went to Nelakota thanda cross on Dharmavaram to

Krishnampuram bus road on Dharmavaram manda. There they found one male person holding the plastic bag. On seeing the police officials the accused tried to skulk away from that place but then the police officials caught hold of him and enquired and he revealed his identity particulars and on verification of bag found 2 liters of ID arrack and drawn sample bottle from the property for chemical analysis and seized the remaining contraband under cover of police proceedings. Basing on the police proceedings he registered a case in Cr.No.5/2020 U/sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act

Ex.P1 is the police proceedings. Ex.P2 is the FIR, Ex.P3 is the analysis report, Ex.P4 is the destruction proceedings, LW.4 has received destruction proceedings from his higher authorities on 07.07.2020. Ex.P5 is the destruction panchanama. After completion of investigation LW.4 has filed charge sheet against the accused.

14.PW1 & PW.2 categorically deposed that they witnessed the Accused in possession of contraband, which was seized in this case. The police at the time of seizure of property, must follow the procedure enshrined in Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. i.e., the police shall secure the presence of independent witnesses and in their presence as mediators, the police should seize the contraband. But, there is no piece of evidence on record that police secured the presence of independent witnesses. No reason was specified either in the charge sheet or in the prosecution evidence for non-issuance of written notices to the persons available at in and around the scene of offence. PW.1 & PW.2 deposed that the scene of offence is a busy area and numerous 5 persons were present at the time. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that, despite availability of numerous persons at the scene of offence, non- securing the independent witnesses at the time of seizure, creates doubt as to the genuineness of the case of the prosecution. The failure of the prosecution to comply with Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. adds strength to the argument on behalf of the accused and raised doubt as to the case of the prosecution. Except police officials, no independent witnesses were present in this case. The prosecution failed to connect the MO.1 i.e., seized contraband with the accused. Therefore, there is no cogent and corroborative evidence to implicate the complicity of the Accused in commission of this offence.

15.Now, it is clear that except the evidence of PW.1 & PW2 who are interested witnesses, prosecution does not have any other evidence on record. Testimony of PW.1 & PW.2 failed to examine any neighbours of the scene to show possession of the liquor bottles by the accused.

16.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s.7(a) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act and he is acquitted u/Sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as prescribed u/s.437-A Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-J.Nandini

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

DHARMAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: PW-1: B. Bhagaya Lakshmi PW-2: Masthan Rao

For Defence:-NIL- 6

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Police Proceedings Ex.P2: FIR Ex.P3: Analysis Report. Ex.P4: Destruction Proceedings Ex.P5: Destruction panchanama For Defence: -NIL-

MOs:

MO1 : Sample of ID arrack Id/-J.Nandini J.F.C.M./D.M.M.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURUM

Calendar cases tried by the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram.

Date ofReportApprehensionReleasedCommence-Close ofSentence Offenceof Accusedon bailment of trialtrial 09.01.202009.01.202009.01.2020--22.02.202407.04.202624.04.2026

Judgment in C.C.No.491/2021 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram. Complainant :: Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharmavaram SEB P.S Cr.No:05/2020

Sl.NoName of theAgeS/o or W/oCallingReligionResidenceMandal Accused

1.R. Sreenivasa23Late R.-----Ramaswamy Mudigubba NaikRamachandraNaik thadna naik

Offence :-For the offence U/sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act

Finding :-Found not guilty.

Sentence :- IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s.7(a) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act and he is acquitted u/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as prescribed u/s.437-A Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.

Sd/-J.Nandini

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DHARMAVARAM

Submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuram

Dis No. Dt. // True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram.

APAN0E0004542023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: DHARMAVARAM

PRESENT: Smt. JETTIM NANDINI,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram

Friday, the 24 th day of April, 2026

Calendar Case No.195/2023

Between:-

Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Dharmavaram.... Complainant

-Versus- Nagothi Venkatanarayana, S/o N. Narayanappa, aged 54 years, R/o #5-292, Sandhya Nagar, Dharmavaram town Sri Sathya Sai District. … Accused.

This case coming before me on 23.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri D. Abdul Sab, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bathalapalli P.S, filed charge sheet in Crime No.161/2022 alleging that the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief is that: On 23.07.2022 at about 8.15 am, on reliable information conducting the vehicle checking the raids by Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector, Dharmavaram and along with his staff and mediators at Dharmavaram to NS gate bus road near

Kakathiya school of Dharmavaram town, one male person coming towards one two wheeler scooty from NS gate to Dharmavaram bus road, then the

Inspector of police and staff stopped the vehicle white colour YAMAHA Z 2

CYGNUS RAY two wheeler vehicle bearing No.AP02AZ1641 along with possession of white polythene bag . Then the SEB Inspector, of Police has enquired the accused and he disclosed his identity particulars and the white polythene bag was containing Karnataka state liquor bottles and found 384

Dips of Haywards Cheers whiskey for sale in Karnataka state only and transportation. Then the SEB Inspector of Police drawn one 90 ml Haywards cheers whiskey tetra pacekt as sample for chemical analysis purpose from seized the property and duly sealed and labeled and arrested the accused and seized the remaining property and two wheeler vehicle under cover of panchanama. Basing on the panchanama LW.5/SK J. Sydul Inspector of police has registered a case in Cr.No.161/2022 U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise

Act 1968 second amendment act 2020.

During the course of investigation, LW.5 has sent the sample to the

Chemical examiner, Chittoor for analysis purpose, and the Chemical

Examiner examined the sample and opined that, “ the sample is Indian made liquor” fit for human consumption, and vide C.E.No.1113/2022 dt.24.08.2022.

Thus the accused has committed an offence and punishable

U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act. Hence the charge.

3.The offence was taken cognizance on file against the accused for the offence U/S.34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968.

4.When the accused appeared before the court, copies of all the documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/S.207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. to which he denied the offence. Thereafter, charge U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968 of the Act has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

6.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P3 and MO1 marked. In view of the evidence PW.1 to PW.3 the court has closed the evidences of LW.1/S.

Narayana, LW.4/E. Kiran Kumar P.C and LW.6/T. Susheelamma/Sub-

Inspector of Police.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined

U/S.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, for which, he pleaded all such evidence is false and reported no defense evidence.

8.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9.The point for determination is ___

Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of Accused for

the offence U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT:- In order to establish its case, as already noted, prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. MO-1 sample tetra packet and PW-1 is the panch witness for Scene of Offence – Cum-

Seizure Panchanama. PW-2 is the Proh. & Excise Constable and PW-4 is the Investigating Officer of the case. Exs.P1 is the signature of PW-1 on

Scene of Offence – Cum -Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P2 is Panchanama,

Ex.P3 is First Information Report and Ex.P4 is the Letter of Advice.

11.On perusal of prosecution evidence, though PW-2 & PW-3 has deposed that they conducted panchanama in the presence of PW-1. But

PW.1 deposed he do not know the facts of the case and no proceedings took place in his presence and police obtained his signature on white paper about two years back. Except admitting his signature, i.e., Ex.P1 on panchanama dt.23.07.2023, PW1 did not state anything against the accused.

4

12.PW.2/M. Girishkumar/Police Constable has deposed that on 23.07.2022 at about 8.15 am, PW.3 has received credible information on that he along with and other staff went to NS gate road near Kakathiya school, Dharmavaram for vehicle checking purpose. There they noticed one male person was coming from NS gate side to Dharmavaram on bike bearing NoAP02AZ1641 they stopped the vehicle and checked the vehicle and found 394 Dips of Haywards Cheers whiskey of karnataka state on further verification the accused has revealed his identity particulars and

PW.3 drawn 90 ml tetra packet sample for chemical analysis. On the dictation of PW.3 he has drafted the panchanama Ex.P2 is the Panchanam

Dt.23.07.2022 and PW.3 has arrested the accused and seized the property.

13.PW.3/T.V.Sriharsha/SI of police has deposed that on 23.07.2022 at about 8.15 am, he conducted vehicle checking at Kakathiya school, towards

NS gate in the presence of his staff and mediators i.e. LW.1 and PW1.

There they found one male person was coming from NS gate side to

Dharmvaram on white color YAMAHA bike bearing No.AP02AZ1641 along with one white polythene bag. There they stopped the vehicle and checked the vehicle and found 384 dips of Haywards cheers whiskey of Karnataka state. On further verification the accused disclosed his identity particulars and drawn 90 ml tetra packet sample for chemical analysis and seized the property and arrested him undercover of panchanama. Basing on the panchanama he registered a case in Cr.No.161/2022 U/sec.34(a) of AP

Excise Act. Ex.P3 is the FIR and Ex.P4 is the Letter of advice. On 24.08.2022 he received chemical analysis report from Chittoor and he opined that the liquor is fit for human consumption . Further he transferred and he handed over the CD file to the LW.6 for further investigation. After completion of investigation LW.6 has filed charge sheet against the accused.

14.Basing on the panchanama, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Proh. &

Excise (PW3) registered a case against the accused. Evidence of PW.2 the 5

Investigating Officer is replica of Charge Sheet. From his cross-examination, learned counsel for defense elicited that he did not do any further investigation in this case. PW.2 failed to examine the neighbours or consumers to establish possession of tetra packets by the accused or its sale by him. In these circumstances, the argument of defence attracts the attention of this court.

15.Now, it is clear that except the evidence of PW2 & PW.3, who are interested witnesses, prosecution does not have any other evidence on record. Testimony of PW.2 & PW.3 creates doubt of non-support of PW1 who is panch witnesses. Turning hostile of PW1 panch witness and more so, PW2 & PW.3 failed to examine any neighbours of the scene to show possession of the tetra packets by the accused.

16.In these circumstances, when the seizure of alleged contraband itself is not established by the prosecution, does not help the prosecution.

In that view of the matter, this Court opines that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilty of accused for the offence with which he is charged and accordingly entitled to benefit of doubt.

17.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act and he is acquitted u/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as prescribed u/s.437-A Cr.P.C. MO1 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-J.Nandini

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Dharmavaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: PW-1: G. Rangaswamy PW-2: M. Girishkumar PW-3: S.K.J Sydul 6

For Defence:-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 on panchanama Dt.23.07.2022. Ex.P2 : Panchanama Dt.23.07.2022 Ex.P3 : FIR Ex.P4 : Letter of Advice

For Defence: -NIL-

MOs: MO1 is sample of bottle.

Id/-J.Nandini J.F.C.M./D.M.M.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURUM

Calendar cases tried by the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram.

Date ofReportApprehensionReleasedCommence-Close ofSentence Offenceof Accusedon bailment of trialtrial 23.07.202223.07.202223.07.202210.08.2022201.07.202508.04.202624.04.2026

Judgment in C.C.No.195/2023 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram. Complainant :: Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB Dharmavaram P.S Cr.No:161/2022

Sl.NoName of theAgeFather’s NameCallingReligionResidenceMandal Accused

1.Nagothi54N.-----DharmavaramDharmavaram VenkatanarayNarayanappa ana

Offence :-For the offence U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act

Finding :-Found not guilty.

Sentence :- IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act and he is acquitted u/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as prescribed u/s.437-A Cr.P.C. MO1 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.

Sd/-J.Nandini

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DHARMAVARAM

1

APAN0E0001112023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):

DHARMAVARAM

PRESENT : SMT. JETTIM NANDINI,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)

DHARMAVARAM

Thursday, the 23 rd day of April, 2026

Original Suit No.53/2023

Between:

M. Adinarayana, S/o M. Pedda Ramappa, aged 66 years, residing at Musturu Village, Bathalapalli Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. … Plaintiff

And

A. Chandra Shekar, S/o Venkata Naidu, aged 48 years, Needigallu Village, Tadimarri Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. … Defendant.

This suit came before me on 10.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri.P. Guru Prasad, Sri. P. Sudharshana and Sri. K. Ramachandra Reddy,

Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, the court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of

Rs.1,29,540/- (Rupees On Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Forty only) being the principal and interest due under the suit Promissory note and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that on 11.11.2020 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.85,000/- (Rupees Eight Five Thousand only) for his family necessities and for business purpose from the plaintiff, and agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter in spite of repeated oral demands and in spite of issuance of legal notice on 27.10.2022, the defendant failed to repay the amount due under the promissory note. Hence, the plaintiff is 2 constrained to file this suit against the defendant for recovery of amount due under the suit promissory note. The defendant is not an agriculturist and the defendant is not entitled for the benefits under any debt relief Act.

3. On the other hand, the defendant failed to appear before this court in spite of paper publication issued. Hence, the defendant was set exparte to the suit proceedings on 06.10.2025.

4. During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4 by way of filing chief affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. As the defendant remained exparte cross examination of the plaintiff was treated as nil and as the counsel for the plaintiff reported no further evidence plaintiff side evidence was closed on 25.02.2026.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material available on record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed?

POINT:

7. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.85,000/- for his family necessities and business purpose from him on 11.11.2020 and executed suit promissory note in his favour. Later in spite of repeated oral demands and in spite of issuance of legal notice, the defendant failed to repay the suit amount. In order to prove his contention the plaintiff himself got examined as PW1 by way of filing chief affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. Ex.A1 is the promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff goes to show that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.85,000/- on 11.11.2020 from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same at the interest of 24% per annum. This shows that the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A2 is the legal 3 notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant dated 27.10.2022 asking the defendant to repay the amount due under Ex.A1. This goes to show that in spite of demanding the defendant, he did not paid the amount to the plaintiff after receiving the said notice. Ex.A3 is Postal receipt and Ex.A4 is the online postal tracking report. It seems in spite of demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not paid any amount to the plaintiff under Ex. A1.

8. The evidence of PW1 is unchallenged and unrebutted as the defendant in spite of having knowledge about the suit, did not turn up before this court to put forth his defence. As the defendant did not made his appearance before this court, and as the plaintiff proved his case by adducing evidence on his side, it can be taken as the defendant admitted the case of the plaintiff. Further the plaintiff by adducing oral and documentary evidence proved his case and hence in view of above discussion, this court believes the version of the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

9. In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to pay sum of Rs.1,29,540/- (Rupees

One Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Forty only) to the plaintiff with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till its realization on principal sum of Rs.85,000/-(Rupees Eight Five Thousand only).

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 23rd day of April, 2026.

Sd/-J. Nandini

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Dharmavaram.

4

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW.1 : M. Adinarayana -None-

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A1 : Original suit promissory note Dt.11.11.2020 Ex.A2: Original office copy of legal notice Dt.27.10.2022. Ex.A3: Postal receipt Dt.27.10.2022 Ex.A4: Online postal tracking report.

Exhibits marked for defendant

-Nil-

Id/-J.Nandini PCJ(Jr.D)/DMM