J . Upender Rao

Dt. 12.10.20181O.S.NO.37 OF 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

THORRUR

Friday, the 12th day of October, 2018

PRESENT: Sri J. UPENDER RAO, Junior Civil Judge, Thorrur.

O.S.NO.37 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

Gajavelli Sathaiah, S/o. Pullaiah, Age : 65 years, Occu : Business, R/o. Thirumalayapalli Village, Rayaparthy Mandal, Warangal Dist.

...Plaintif AND 1.Sudhagani Veeramurali, S/o. Laxman, Age : 45 years, Occu : RTC Mechanic,

2. Adepu Prakash, S/o. Somaiah, Age : 50 years, Occu : LIC Agent, Both are R/o. Wardhannapet Village and Mandal, Warangal Dist. (The suit against defendant No.2 is dismissed as not pressed).

...Defendants

**** This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 27.09.2018 in the presence of Sri V.Mahesh, Advocate for the plaintif and Sri B.Venkanna, Advocate for the defendant No.1 the suit against defendant No.2 dismissed as not pressed, and having heard and stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,38,500/- from defendants basing on the promissory note.

[2].The brief facts of the case are that the plaintif and the defendants well acquainted with each other, out of such acquaintance the defendant No.1 approached the plaintif and borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for his family and financial necessities on 07.09.2015.

Having received the same, the defendant No.1 executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @2% per month and the defendant No.2 stood as guarantor. Subsequently the plaintif demanded the defendants several times to repay the promissory note amount with interest, but they paid deaf ear. On 02.01.2017 the plaintif issued legal notice to the defendants through registered post,

Dt. 12.10.20182O.S.NO.37 OF 2017

having received the notice, the defendants neither paid the amount nor gave any reply. Hence, the plaintif filed a suit.

[3.]On the other hand, the defendants having received the summons, they engaged the services of an advocate and filed written statement denying the averments of the plant and resisted the claim of the plaintif. They pleaded that they are law abiding citizens and having sufficient earning to maintain themselves and their family, and that the defendants never in need of money. They further pleaded that they did not borrow any amount from any person much less this plaintif at any point of time and never executed any promissory note and bond in favour of plaintif. They further pleaded that with ill-motive to defame the defendants and their family the plaintif got prepared the factious and fabricated document by forging the signatures of the defendants as usually they never sign as in document created by the plaintif and all these reasons the defendants prayed Court to dismiss the suit.

[4.]Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the Court settled the following issues:

1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 07.09.2015 is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants?

3. To what relief?

[5.]To substantiate the case of the plaintif, the plaintif himself is examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A4 documents are marked. The defendant is examined as DW1 and no exhibits are marked on their behalf. Ex. A1 is the original promissory note for Rs.2,00,000/- dated

Dt. 12.10.20183O.S.NO.37 OF 2017

07.09.2015. Ex. A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 02.01.2017.

Ex. A3 is the original postal receipts 2 in number. Ex. A4 is the original postal acknowledgments card 2 in number.

[6.]Heard both sides.

[7.]The learned Counsel for the plaintif argued that both plaintif and defendants are known to each other, and out of such acquaintance the defendantNo.1 borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintif for his financial and family necessities and the defendant No.1 executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintif and the defendant

No.2 stood as guarantor to the defendant No.1 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 2% per month either on his demand or his order.

Subsequently after repeated demands made by the plaintif, the defendants not paid the borrowed amount with interest, having no other go, the plaintif got issued Ex. A2 legal notice demanding the defendants to repay the promissory note amount with interest. Having received Ex. A2 legal notice, the defendants neither paid the promissory note amount nor gave any reply. He further argued that the plaintif has established onus of burden that Ex. A1 suit promissory note is supported by consideration and the burden shifted to the defendant No.1 to disprove as he has not received any consideration and the promissory note under Ex. A1 is not supported by any consideration. Therefore, the suit claimed is proved.

8.On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the defendants argued that the defendants earning sufficient amount as such no need to them to borrow amount from the plaintif, he further argued that the defendant No.1 never borrowed amount much less the amount covered in Ex. A1/promissory note. Ex. A1 is not supported by consideration and it is fabricated and created by forgering the signatures of

Dt. 12.10.20184O.S.NO.37 OF 2017

defendants by the plaintif to defame the defendants and their family.

Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

9.ISSUE No.1:After hearing both the counsel, having perused the evidence of PW-1 and Exs.A-1 to A-4 scrutinized and scanned. The evidence affidavit of PW-1 is runs the contents of the plaint averments.

He deposed before the Court that the defendant No.1 borrowed an amount of Rs.2Lakshs from him, having received the same, he executed Ex. A1/promissory note in favour of the plaintif in the presence of witnesses. His evidence further reveals that the defendant

No.2 stood as guarantor when he demanded the defendants several times to repay the amount covered under Ex. A1 promissory note, but they paid deaf ear. Having no other go, he got issued Ex. A2/legal notice demanding the defendants to repay Ex. A1 amount with interest. Having received Ex. A2 through exhibits A4 postal acknowledgments the defendants neither gave reply nor paid the promissory note amount with interest. The contention of the defendant

No.1 that Ex. A1 document is a fabricated and created one and he is earning sufficient amounts as such no need to borrow amount from the plaintif, but no steps taken by DW1 to send the Ex.A1 to expert for obtaining opinion, it was admitted by DW.1 in his cross examination, moreover the DW.1 clearly admitted that he know the attesters of the

Ex.A1/Promissory note as they belongs his village, in case if the contention of the defendant No.1 true that the signature on Ex.A1 as executant is not belongs to him, he might have examine the attesters of Ex.A1 to prove that he has not executed the said document and the signature bears in Ex.A1 is forged, so the contention of the defendant

No.1 is not believable. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 categorically established that he advanced Rs.2lakshs to the defendant No.1 on 07.09.2015. Unless the defendant No.1 produced rebuttal evidence to

Dt. 12.10.20185O.S.NO.37 OF 2017

prove that he has not received consideration under Ex. A1. The evidence of PW-1 categorically established that the defendant No.1 executed the Ex. A1. During the cross examination of PW.1 it is suggested that one Laxman who is the father of defendant No.1 borrowed amount and the PW.1 obtained the signed blank promissory notes from said Laxman and misused the same and filed this suit, but the PW.1 denied the same, moreover the defendants nowhere pleaded the same in their written statement, so the contention of the defendant

No.1 cannot be taken in into consideration.

[10.] When once initial onus of burden is proved by the plaintif, it is shifted to the defendant No.1 to disprove that he has not received consideration under Ex. A1 document. Therefore, once execution is proved, the presumption u/sec.118 of Negotiable Instrument Act that it is supported by consideration automatically applies. Here the defendant.1 fails to produce any rebuttal evidence, to rebut the presumption that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration. Therefore, the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant No.1 and supported with consideration. In the light of discussion, issue No.1 is decided negative to the defendant

No.1 and in favour of the plaintif.

11.ISSUE No.2:It is already discussed in the preceding paragraphs that the defendant No.1 borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintif and after receipt of consideration he executed a promissory note. After execution of Ex. A-1 document the plaintif demanded the defendants to repay the amount covered under

Ex. A1 promissory by issuing Ex. A2- legal notice, the same is received by the defendant no.1 by way of Ex.A-4 acknowledgment, however the defendant did not pay any amount. Since the document under Ex. A-1 is proved that the defendant No.1 executed the same and the

Dt. 12.10.20186O.S.NO.37 OF 2017

document also supported with consideration. In view of deciding the issue No.1 in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant No.1, the issue No.2 is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant No.1.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.2,38,500/- (Rupees two lakhs

Thirty-eight thousand five hundred only) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till decree on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only), thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization of decretal amount.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, after correction, pronounced by me in the Open Court this the 12th day of October, 2018.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

THORRUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW1 : Gajavelli SathaiahDW1: Sudhagani Veeramallu (D1)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex. A1 is the original promissory note for Rs.2,00,000/- dated 07.09.2015. Ex. A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 02.01.2017. Ex. A3 is the original postal receipts 2 in number. Ex. A4 is the original postal acknowledgments card 2 in number

For Defendants:

- Nil -

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

THORRUR

Dt.12.10.2018 CC No. 457 of 2013 Page 1 of 5

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS AT

THORRUR

PRESENT: J.UPENDER RAO,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thorrur

Friday, this the 12rd day of October, 2018

CC.No. 457 of 2013

Between:

The State of Telangana rep., through P.S Narsimhulapet. … Complainant AND

A1 Kagithapu Laxmaiah, S/o. Boddaiah, Age : 32 years, Caste : Mala, Occu : Auto driver, R/o. Gundamrajpally village, Narsimhulapet Mandal. A2 Kagithapu Papamma, w/o. Boddaiah, Age : 65 years,Caste : Mala, R/o. Gundamrajpally village, Narsimhulapet Mandal. A3 Kagithapu Venkanna, S/o. Boddaiah, Age : 32 years, Caste : Mala, Occu : RMP Doctor, R/o. Gundamrajpally village, Narsimhulapet Mandal. A4 Kagithapu Rammurthy, S/o. Boddaiah, Age : 28 years, Caste : Mala, Occu : Coolie, R/o. Gundamrajpally village, Narsimhulapet Mandal. …. Accused No.1 to 4 ***

This case came before me on 11.10.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Learned APP for the prosecution and Sri. V.Iloni, counsel for accused, having heard and stood over both sides for consideration till date this court delivered following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police Narsimhulapet has filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.123/2013 for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the marriage of PW1 was performed with A1 at about thirteen years back. During the wedlock

Dt.12.10.2018 CC No. 457 of 2013 Page 2 of 5 she blessed with two daughters. Due to the harassment of her husband

PW1 went to her parents village at Lenin Nagar, Mahabaubabad and residing, since then the A1 not visited to her till today and the other accused made A1 with delusion words against PW1.

3.On receipt of the above report LW8 – V.Vinay Kumar, SI of police PS

Narsimhulapet registered a case in Cr.No. 123/2013 U/Sec. 498-A of IPC, issued FIR, sent to all concern and took up investigation. During the course of investigation he examined the witnesses, recorded their statements. On 4-7-2013 at 0900 hours, LW8 – V.Vinay Kumar, SI arrested the accused and produced before the Hon’ble court for judicial remand. On completion of investigation the Investigation officer filed charge sheet.

4.The case was taken on file U/Sec. 498-A of IPC, against the accused

No.1 to 4. On appearance of accused the relevant copies of documents were furnished to them U/Sec. 207 of Cr.PC.

5.The accused No.1 to 4 were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.PC, charge

U/Sec. 498-A of IPC, against accused have been framed, read over and explained the contents to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. Hence the case was posted for trial.

6.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1, the learned APP given up the evidence of LW2/Burgula

Papiah, LW3 / Burgula Yakamma, LW4 / Kocherla Veeraswmay, LW5/

Koutam Sailu, LW6 / Guniganti Mohan, LW7 / Payyala Mallaiah, LW8 /

Dt.12.10.2018 CC No. 457 of 2013 Page 3 of 5

V.Vinay Kumar, SI of police stating that the material witness is turned hostile if the remaining witnesses are examined no purpose will be served.

No witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the defence.

7. After completion of prosecution evidence the examination U/Sec.

313 of CrPC dispensed with as there is no incriminating material against the accused.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the

accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A

of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubts?

10.In order to prove the guilt of the accused as stated supra, the prosecution examined PW-1 and got marked ExP1. The prosecution examined PW-1, who is the defacto-complainant/victim not corroborated the contents of report. With regard to exhibits ExP1 is signature of PW-1 on report.

11.POINT: It is the evidence of the PW-1 that due to petty disputes between her and accused in this regard LW2 / B.Papaiah obtained her signatures on some written papers and gave it to police Narsimhulapet.

She ignored the contents of the report and she clearly stated that she was not examined by the police and her statement was not recorded. The prosecution is permitted to cross examine the witness as she deviated from her earlier statement and not supported the case of prosecution. It is

Dt.12.10.2018 CC No. 457 of 2013 Page 4 of 5 the elicited in the cross examination of witness that she compromised the case with accused, as such speaking false hood. However, the PW-1 made admission in her cross examination that she compromised with accused.

The defence counsel contended that since the material witness exhibited hostile attitude, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

12.As seen from the evidence of PW-1 she pleaded ignorance of the contents of the report which is basis for registration of FIR.

13.The admission made by PW-1 in his cross examination that she compromised with the accused is significant, thus it is clear that PW1 is not interested in continuation of case.

14.Therefore, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to implicate the complicity of the above accused in the commission of the offence. It is well known that penal statutes should be strictly construed and the prosecution need to prove the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt, which is lacking in the present case on hand. The material produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond doubt. Thereby, the point is decided in favour of the defence and against prosecution.

15.IN THE RESULT: Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 498-A of IPC, and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.

248(1) of CrPC. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 4 and their sureties shall stand canceled after the expiry of six months. Police seized no material

Dt.12.10.2018 CC No. 457 of 2013 Page 5 of 5 objects during the course of investigation, hence no order as to property.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, after correction pronounced by me in the open Court on 12th day of October, 2018.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Thorrur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined

For prosecution:

PW-1 (LW-1): Kagithapu Jyothi – Informant

For Defence : NIL

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex:P1: Signature of PW-1 on written information - through PW-1

For Defence: NIL

Material Objects Marked: NIL

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Thorrur

Dt.12.10.2018 CC No. 457 of 2013 Page 6 of 5

:: CALENDER EXTRACT ::

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

THORRUR.

CALENDER CASE NO. 457 / 2013

01.Name of the Police Station:: Narsimhulapet

02.Crime Number:: 123/2013

03.Offence:: U/Sec. 498-A of IPC

04. Name of the accused:: A1 Kagithapu Laxmaiah A2 Kagithapu Papamma A3 Kagithapu Venkanna A4 Kagithapu Rammurthy

05.Date of :

a) Date of offence:: Prior to 04-06-2013

b)Date of Complaint:: 04-06-2013

c)Date of Arrest:: 04-07-2013

d)Date of Release:: 05-07-2013

e)Commencement of trial :: 11-10-2018

f)Close of trial:: 11-10-2018

g)Date of Judgment:: 12-10-2018

f)R E S U L T : IN THE RESULT: Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 498-A of IPC, and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) of CrPC. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 4 and their sureties shall stand canceled after the expiry of six months. Police seized no material objects during the course of investigation, hence no order as to property.

06.Explanation for delay::Due to non-production of the witnesses in time, the delay is caused in disposal of this case. Dis.No.Date:

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thorrur. To The Hon’ble I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Warangal.

CC.No.429/2015Dt.12.10.2018 1 of 3

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

THORRUR.

PRESENT:- SRI J. UPENDER RAO,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thorrur.

Friday, this the 12 th day of OCtober, 2018.

CC.No. 429 OF 2015

Between:-

State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Narsimhulapet. ….Complainant AND

A1-Jatoth Raju, S/o.Bichya,Age: 25 years, Caste: Lambada, Occu: Owner cum driver of lorry bering No. AP 36 TA 9449, R/o.Dubba thanda, H/o. Kommulavancha village,

A2-Sk. Thaheer Pasha, S/o. Mahabub Ali,Age: 28 years, Caste: Muslim, Occu: Owner cum driver of lorry Bearing No. AP 29-V 9059, R/o.Kommulavancha village. …. Accused No.1 and 2.

This case is coming before me 12.10.2018 for hearing in the presence of Police, Narsimhulapet, and the accused, having heard and stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a case fled by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station,

Narsimhulapet against the accused for the ofence punishable U/Sec.379 of

I.P.C, Sec.21(1)MM Act.

[2].Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 5.6.2015 at 08.30 hours the informant LW1/N. Srinivas Rao lodged a written information with the Police stating that on 5.6.2015 as per instructions of superior ofcer he along with

LW2/M.Gyaneshwar Rao, LW3/Ch.Ramesh went to Danthalapally village and conducting patrolling duty, where they found two lorries bearing Nos. AP 36 TA 9449, AP 29 V 9059 coming with sand load at Danthalapally outskrits at

Bodlada cross road, on seeing them the drivers absconded, immediately they called two panchas and seized the sand load lorries in the presence of mediators as such he requested to take for necessary action against them.

CC.No.429/2015Dt.12.10.2018 2 of 3

[3].On receipt of the report, the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Narsimhulapet registered a case in Cr.No.90/2015 U/Sec.379 of I.P.C. Sec.21(1)MM Act and issued F.I.R. and took up investigation and on completion of investigation fled charge sheet against the both accused for the ofence u/Sec. 379 of I.P.C.

Sec.21(1)MM Act.

[4].This court took cognizance of the ofence against the both accused for the ofence punishable U/Sec.379 of I.P.C. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents are furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 CrPC.

[5].The Accused were examined U/Sec.239 CrPC explaining the substance of the accusation leveled against them for the ofences U/Sec. 379 of I.P.C. and they voluntarily admitted the ofence and pleaded guilty. This Court accepts the plea of the accused as true and voluntary one, without there being any threat, coercion or duress.

[6].IN THE RESULT, accused are found guilty of the ofence U/Sec. 379 of

I.P.C. and convict them for the same U/Sec. 241 Cr.P.C. Heard the accused on the quantum of sentence, they pleaded mercy on the ground that the committed offence due to ignorance and not intentionally. They further pleded that they are haivng respective wives and children and they are the only person to look after their family and now they are repenting for their mistake.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the accused are sentenced to pay a fne of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees fie thousand only) each for the offence punishable U/sec.799 of IPCC. In defult of payment of fne, they shall sufer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months each. Total fne of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only). No bail bonds executed by the accused hence no oorder as to bail bonds. The case property i.e., lorry Bearign

No. AP 36 TA 9449, AP 29 V 9059 which were given to the its owners vide orders in Crl.MP.No. 1510/2015, 1509/2015, dt.12.6.2015 shall be made absolute to after appeal period. The original certifcarte of registration (Form

No.23) of lorry bearing No. AP 36 TA 9449 shall be returned to its owner by obtaining receipt.

CC.No.429/2015Dt.12.10.2018 3 of 3

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 12th day of October, 2018.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

THORRUR.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :: --NIL--

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

THORRUR.

CC.206.18Dt.15.10.2018 1 of 2

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

THORRUR.

PRESENT:- SRI J. UPENDER RAO,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Thorrur.

Monday, this the 15 th day of October, 2018.

CC.NO. 206 OF 2018.

Between:- State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Thorrur.…. Complainant. AND

Jakkula Ramesh, S/o. Rajaiah, Age: 39 years, Caste: Golla, Occu;Driver (Ashok lay land TS 02 UB 8380) and Agriculture, R/o.Mated of Thorrur mandal. …. Accused .

This case is coming before me 15.10.2018 for hearing in the presence of Police, Thorrur, and the accused, having heard and stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a case fled by the Sub-Inspector of Police Thorrur, against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 279, 337 of I.P.C.

[2].Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 30.7.2017at 1430 hours the Informant LW1/M.Kiran lodged a written information with the Police stating that on 29.7.2017 night at about 2200 hours he along with

LW2/K.Ramesh left from Jammikunta with goods, at about 0130 hours they reached near Sreidevi hotel at Thorrur, in the mean time the driver of the

Ashok lay land trolley B. No.TS 02 8380 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed agaisnt the divider pole in opposite direction, due to which the driver received fractrue injury to his leg and other severe injureis over his head and waist and he also received injuries over his head, neck,left ribs and shoulders and the LW2/K.Ramesh also recived injuries and the left side bumper, body of the vehicle was totally damaged, the mirrors of the vehicle were broken the chasis was damaged and as such he requested to take necessary action against him.

[3].On receipt of the report, the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Thorrur registered a case in Cr.No.234/2017 U/Sec. 337, 279 of I.P.C. and issued F.I.R.

CC.206.18Dt.15.10.2018 2 of 2

and took up investigation and on completion of investigation fled charge sheet against the accused for the offences u/Sec. 279, 337 of I.P.C.

[4].This court took cognizance of the offences against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 279, 337 of I.P.C. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 CrPC.

[5].Accused was examined U/Sec.251 CrPC explaining the substance of the accusation leveled against him for the offence U/Sec. 279, 337 of I.P.C. and he voluntarily admitted the offence and pleaded guilty. This Court accepts the plea of the accused as true and voluntary one, without there being any threat, coercion or duress.

[6].IN THE RESULT, accused is found guilty of the offence U/Sec.279, 337 of

I.P.C. and convict him for the same U/Sec. 252 Cr.P.C. Heard the accused on the qunatum of sentence, he pleaded mercy on the ground that the accident occurred unexpectedly long back and not intentionally. He further pleaded that he is having wife and children and he is the only person to look them and now he is repenting for his mistake. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case the accused is sentenced to pay a fne of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the ofence punishable u/sec.279 of IPC and he is further sentenced to pay a fne of Rs.500/- (Rupees fie hundred only) for the ofence U/sec.337 of IPC. In default of payment of fne, he shall suffer

Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month under each count. Total fne of Rs.1500/- (Rupees one thousand fie hundred only). Since no bail bonds executed by the accused there is no order as to cancellation of bail bonds. No property.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 15th day of October, 2018.)

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

THORRUR.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :: --NIL--

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

THORRUR.

CC.56.18Dt.15.10.2018 1 of 2

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

THORRUR.

PRESENT:- SRI J. UPENDER RAO,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Thorrur.

Monday, this the 15 th day of October, 2018.

CC.NO. 56 OF 2018.

Between:- State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Kodakandla.…. Complainant. AND Adhirala Venkateshwar Rao, S/o.Vidhyayya, Age: 41 years, Caste: Velma, Occu:Electrical Contractor and driver of TATA Indigo manza car B.No.AP 09 BZ 8379, R/o.H.No.7-17, Prakash Nagar Hafeezpet Miyapur, Hyderabad. …. Accused.

This case is coming before me 15.10.2018 for hearing in the presence of Police, Kodakandla, and the accused, having heard and stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a case fled by the Sub-Inspector of Police Kodakandla against the accused for the ofence punishable U/Sec. 338 of IPC.

[2].Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 18.1.2018 at 1730 hours, the Informant LW1/A.Sampath Rao, lodged a written information with the

Police stating that on 16.1.2018 the Lws.3to 5 went to Wardhannapet on Hero passion pro motor cycle B. No. AP 36 AU 2972, when they reached near

Laxmakkapally village, in the mean time one TATA Indigo Manza car B.No.AP 09

BZ 8379 proceeding from Palakurthy side and its driver drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the motor cycle, due to which LW5/G.Sudheer Rao received injuries on his stomach, front and backside of head and one teeth was broken, LW3/G.Rajini received injuries to her right leg thigh, foruth fnger of her foot, LW4/G.Keerthi also received injuries and as such he requested to take necessary action.

[3].On receipt of the report, the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Kodakandla registered a case in Cr.No.04/2018 U/Sec. 337 of I.P.C. and issued F.I.R. and took up investigation and on completion of investigation fled charge sheet against the accused for the ofence U/Sec. 338 of IPC.

CC.56.18Dt.15.10.2018 2 of 2

[4].This court took cognizance of the ofence against the accused for the ofence punishable U/sec.338 of IPC. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to her as contemplated U/Sec.207 CrPC.

[5].Accused was examined U/Sec.251 CrPC explaining the substance of the accusation leveled against her for the ofence U/Sec. 338 of IPC and he voluntarily admitted the ofence and pleaded guilty. This Court accepts the plea of the accused as true and voluntary one, without there being any threat, coercion or duress.

[6].IN THE RESULT, Accused is found guilty of the ofence U/Sec. 338 of IPC.

and convict him for the same U/Sec. 252 Cr.P.C. Heard the accused on the quantum of sentence, he pleaded mercy on the ground that the accident occurred unexpectedly long back and not intentionally. He further pleaded that he is having wife and children and he is the only person to look after them and now he is repenting for his mistake. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the accused is sentenced to pay a fne of Rs1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the ofence punishable u/sec. 338 of IPC. In default of payment of fne he shall sufer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. Total fne of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only). The Personal bond executed by the accused shall stands canceled after appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 15th day of October, 2018.)

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

THORRUR.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :: --NIL--

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

THORRUR.

CC.56.18Dt.15.10.2018 3 of 2