Smt. Jonnapalli Bala Tripura Sundari Devi

C.C.No.831/2023 1 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.27-02-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER PCR ACT-CUM-

IX ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MACHILIPATNAM.

Present: Smt. J.B.T.S.Devi, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam.

Friday, this the 27th day of February, 2026.

Calendar Case No. 831 of 2023

Between : State represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Pedana police station. … Complainant.

Versus

1. Katta Nagamalleswara Rao, s/o.Munu Swami, 77 years, Nandamuru village, Pedana mandal.

2. Pitchuka Hemanth Kumar, s/o.Kota Venkateswara Rao, 36 years, 4th Ward, Pathapet, Pedana mandal. … Accused.

-oo00oo-

This case came before me on 25.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.Matta Venkata Ramaiah, learned counsel for A1 and A2, and upon hearing both sides, and 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, Pedana police station filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.179/2022 of Pedana Police

Station for the offence punishable under Section 7B read with 8(a) of the

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

C.C.No.831/2023 2 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.27-02-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

02. The allegations mentioned in the charge sheet are as follows:

(a)On 11.05.2022 at 06.00 P.M., on receipt of credible information, LW-5/T.Suresh Kumar, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Pedana Police

Station along with his staff i.e., PW.1, LW-1/HC.654 and mediator i.e., PW-2 and LW.4/Manepalli Mohini, MSK proceeded towards Nandamuru village of

Pedana mandal and found gas stove, aluminum vessel and the samples of

Illicit liquor. On enquiry, he came to know that the land belongs to government, then LW-5/T.Suresh Kumar, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Pedana Police Station seized the 05 liters of ID arrack under the cover of mediators’ report.

(b)On the same day, on receipt of credible information received by LW-5/T.Suresh Kumar, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Pedana Police

Station with regard to absconded of A1, then LW-5/T.Suresh Kumar, Assistant

Sub-Inspector of Pedana Police Station along with PW.1, LW-1/HC.654 and mediator i.e., PW-2 and LW.4/Manepalli Mohini, MSK proceeded to Pathapeta village of Pedana mandal. A.1 who tried to escape upon seeing them. Then

LW-5/T.Suresh Kumar, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Pedana Police Station along with his staff apprehended A1. The accused No.1 confessed that the income through the cooli works is not sufficient, hence, he manufactured the ID arrack and sold the same to the villagers and supplied the same to the villagers for monitory gain. He further confessed that he purchased the jaggery from A2 for manufacturing of ID arrack. On searching, LW-5/T.Suresh Kumar, Assistant

Sub-Inspector of Pedana Police Station found 05 liters of ID arrack and he seized the arrack from the possession of A1 for the purpose of chemical examination. PW-3 arrested A1 and informed the ground of arrest and sent him for judicial remand. Basing on the report, LW-5/T.Suresh Kumar, Assistant

Sub-Inspector of Pedana Police Station registered a case in Crime

No.179/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 7B read with 8(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and investigated into

C.C.No.831/2023 3 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.27-02-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

it. Based on the confessional statement of A1, LW-5/T.Suresh Kumar, Assistant

Sub-Inspector of Pedana Police Station served notice on A2 under Section 41A Cr.P.C., Later, LW-5/T.Suresh Kumar, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Pedana

Police Station sent the seized property to Government Regional Prohibition &

Excise Laboratory, Kakinada for chemical analysis. After completion of investigation, PW.3 filed charge sheet against A1 & A2 for the offence punishable 7B read with 8(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment)

Act, 2020.

03.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under under

Section 7B read with 8(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment)

Act, 2020 against the accused and summons were issued to them.

04.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as mandated under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. The accused persons were examined under Section 239 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure for which they denied the accusation levied against them. Charges for the offences punishable under Section 7B read with 8(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 were framed against them. The charges are read over and explained to them in

Telugu for which, they denied the same, pleaded “not guilty”, and claimed to be tried.

05.On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and

Exs.P1 to P4 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. The evidence of LW-1/HC.654,

LW.4/Manepalli Mohini, MSK and LW.6/T.Murali, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Pedana P.S., was given up by the Prosecution.

06.After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by

C.C.No.831/2023 4 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.27-02-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

putting forth the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances and stated that they have no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed.

07.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

08. The point for determination is:

( i) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 7B read with 8(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 ??

P O I N T :

09.In the present case, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The record reveals that PW-2 has been working as a Mahila

Samrakshana Karyadarsi. PW-1 and PW-3 belong to the police department.

That being the case, it cannot be said that PW-2 is an independent witness to the offence. As such, it is borne by record that there is no independent witness to support the case of the prosecution. The pivotal contention of the prosecution is that PWs.1 and 3 along with the other police personnel and mediator proceeded to the scene of offence, seized the arrack from the possession of the accused, arrested the accused, and drafted a report accordingly. Thus, the entire case of the prosecution rests on the report drafted at the scene of offence.

10.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the complainant and the investigating officer in the present case are one and the same. It is borne by record that PW-3 happens to be the investigating officer as well as

C.C.No.831/2023 5 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.27-02-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

the de-facto complainant. While the same does not entirely vitiate the case of the prosecution, the investigation could have been carried out by a different investigating officer to avoid the question of any vested interest, prejudice against the accused, and most importantly to uphold the principle that “Justice must not only be done, it must also appear to be done.” Be that as it may, the same cannot be a sole ground to discard the entire case of the prosecution.

11.It is stated that the accused confessed to having committed the offence in the presence of the police personnel and the mediator. It is also admitted that the said confession was made to none other than the police personnel and the mediator. Save for the aforesaid contention, there is no other argument in favour of the prosecution. It is seen that Pws.1 and 3 belongs to the police department.

12.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the accused contended that despite the availability of independent witnesses, PW-3 failed to secure their presence. The record reveals that even as per the version of the prosecution, PW-3 secured the presence of PW-2 after receiving information regarding the arrack and thereafter, he proceeded to the scene of offence. It is not the case of the prosecution that PW-3 made efforts to secure an independent and impartial witness. That being the case, what precluded PW-3 from securing the presence of an independent and impartial witness is something that definitely needs to be pondered over and deliberated upon. No reason whatsoever has been adduced in this regard. Thus, this inaction on the part of PW-3 is fatal to the case of the prosecution and thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused does not hold water.

13.As such, it stands that the said confession is admitted to have been made by the accused in the presence of the police personnel though

C.C.No.831/2023 6 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.27-02-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

strictly not to the police personnel. That being the case, the said confession squarely falls within the ambit of Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Consequently, the same cannot be proved against the maker/accused. It is not the case of the prosecution that the confession of the accused led to the discovery of any fact. As such, the application of section 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act is categorically excluded. That being the case, the very seizure of the arrack from the possession of the accused has not been proved by the prosecution.

14.One other thing that needs to be pondered over is that the seized property i.e., 05 liters of arrack has neither been destroyed nor has the same been produced before this Court. The learned counsel for the accused contended that no steps were taken in this regard. However, a perusal of the record reveals that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedana PS., sent proposals for the destruction of arrack seized in certain cases including the arrack purported to have been seized in the present case. As such, it cannot be said that the investigation officer has not taken steps to dispose of the property as per law. Thus, this contention of the learned counsel is devoid of merits.

However, the record does not reveal whether the aforesaid proposal has been implemented or not. Be that as it may, the production of the arrack or its disposal as per law would have little effect upon the case, more specifically when the very seizure of the arrack from the possession of the accused has not been proved. The contention of A2 that possession of jaggery is not an offence. In this regard, though the prosecution has shown the supplier of the jaggery as A2 but no satisfactory evidence is adduced by the prosecution in order to elicit the truth.

15.Keeping in view of the fact that there is no independent and impartial witness to the offence, the inability or reluctance of the investigating

C.C.No.831/2023 7 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.27-02-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

officer in securing such a witness, the investigating officer himself being the de-facto complainant, and the confession purported to have been made by the accused that cannot be proved against them, this Court is inclined to hold that the prosecution failed to even make out a solid case against the accused much less proved the same. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

16.In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7B read with 8(a) of the Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. M.Os.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal or appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected, and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27 th day of February, 2026.

Sd/-Smt.J.B.T.S.Devi,

Judl.Magistrate of I Class Spl.Mobile Court

for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-

IX Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class,

Machilipatnam.

Appendix of Evidence

(Witnesses examined)

Prosecution Defense

PW-1: K.Krishna Murthy, Constable -None- PW-2: Pedasingh Mounika, GMSK.

PW-3: T.Suresh Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Pedana PS.

Exhibits marked

Prosecution Defense

C.C.No.831/2023 8 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.27-02-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

Ex.P1: Mediator’s report. -NIL-

Ex.P2: First Information Report in crime No.179/2022.

Ex.P3: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Ex.P4: Analysis report.

Material objects marked

M.Os.1 and 2 : Sample bottles.

Sd/-Smt.J.B.T.S.Devi,

Judl.Magistrate of I Class Spl.Mobile Court

for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-

IX Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class,

Machilipatnam.

//True copy//

IXAJFCM,MTM

C.C.No.831/2023 9 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.27-02-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case tried by the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile

Court For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act- Cum - IX Addl. Judl. Magistrate

of First Class, Machilipatnam.

Date of Report ofAppre-Date of CommenClose of Sentence orReasons for Offencecomplainthensionrelease cement TrialOrderdelay of Accusedon bailof trialRemarks 11.05.2211.05.2211.05.2227.05.2203.07.2425.02.2627.02.2026--

Judgment in C.C.No.831/2023 on the file of the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam.

Complainant: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedana police station.

Accused: 1. Katta Nagamalleswara Rao, s/o.Munu Swami, 77 years, Nandamuru village, Pedana mandal.

2. Pitchuka Hemanth Kumar, s/o.Kota Venkateswara Rao, 36 years, 4th Ward, Pathapet, Pedana mandal.

Offence: Under Section 7B read with 8(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

Finding: Accused Nos.1 & 2 are found not guilty.

Sentence:In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7B read with 8(a) of the Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. M.Os.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal or appeal time.

Sd/-Smt.J.B.T.S.Devi,

C.C.No.831/2023 10 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.27-02-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

Judl.Magistrate of I Class Spl.Mobile Court

for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-

IX Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class,

Machilipatnam.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam.

//True copy//

IXAJFCM,MTM

C.C.No.2510/2021 1 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.11-03-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPL.MOBILE COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER PCR ACT-CUM-

IX ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MACHILIPATNAM.

Present: Smt. J.B.T.S.Devi, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam.

Wednesday, this the 11th day of March, 2026.

Calendar Case No. 2510 of 2021

Between : State represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Pedana police station. … Complainant.

Versus

1. Pindi Kishore Kumar @ Kishore, s/o.Babu Rao, 32 years, R/o.Polavaram village, Guduru mandal.

2. Busam Kishore, s/o.Arjunarao, 40 years, R/o.Polavaram village, Guduru mandal. … Accused.

-oo00oo-

This case came before me on 09.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri.Suresh Babu Perni, learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 and 2, and upon hearing both sides, and 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, Guduru police station filed the chargesheet against the accused in crime No.242/2020 of Guduru Police

C.C.No.2510/2021 2 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.11-03-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

Station for the offence punishable under section 7A read with 8(e) of the

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

02. The averments of the charge sheet:

(a)On 07.09.2020 at 06:00 P.M., PW-3/the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Guduru Police Station along with his staff i.e., LW-1/PC.1757 and PW- 1/PC.2424 and the mediators i.e., PW-2/VRO and LW-4/Pothana

Veeranjaneyulu proceeded to the scene of offence; where they found two male persons who tried to escape upon seeing them. PW-3, along with his staff and mediators apprehended the said persons and the persons revealed their identity particulars as those of the accused Nos.1 and 2 herein. They stated that the income through the cooli works is not sufficient, hence, they used to sell the ID arrack for monitory gain. PW-3 searched them and found five liters of ID arrack in a plastic tin and he seized the arrack from the possession of accused under the cover of a mediators’ report.

(b)Basing on the report, PW-3 registered a case in crime

No.242/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 7A read with 8(e) of the

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and investigated into it.

PW-3 arrested the accused, informed the grounds of arrest and sent them for judicial remand. Thereafter, PW-3 sent the seized property to RFSL, Kakinada for chemical analysis. After completion of the investigation, LW.7/P.Sirisha,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Guduru PS., filed the charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Section 7A read with 8(e) of the Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

C.C.No.2510/2021 3 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.11-03-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

03.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under section 7A read with 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 against the accused and summons were issued to them.

04.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as mandated under section 207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. The accused were examined under Section 239 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure for which they denied the accusation levied against them.

Charge for the offence punishable under section 7A read with 8(e) of the

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 was framed against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the same, pleaded “not guilty”, and claimed to be tried.

05.On behalf of the prosecution, Pws.1 to 3 were examined and

Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.1 were marked. The evidence of LW-1/PC.1757,

LW.4/Pothana Veeranjaneyulu, LW.6/Ch.K.Durga Prasad, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Guduru PS., LW.7/P.Sirisha, Sub-Inspector of Police, Guduru PS., was given up by the Prosecution.

06.After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by putting forth the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances. No evidence, either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused.

07.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

08. The point for determination is:

C.C.No.2510/2021 4 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.11-03-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 7A read with 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 ?? P O I N T :

09.In the present case, Pws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The record reveals that PW-2 has been working as a Village

Revenue Officer. Pws.1 and 3 belong to the police department. That being the case, it cannot be said that PW-2 is an independent witness to the offence. As such, it is borne by record that there is no independent witness to support the case of the prosecution.The pivotal contention of the prosecution is that Pws.1 to 3 along with the other police personnel and the mediators proceeded to the scene of offence, seized the arrack from the possession of the accused, arrested the accused, and drafted a report accordingly. Thus, the entire case of the prosecution rests on the report drafted at the scene of offence.

10.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the de facto complainant and the investigating officer in the present case are one and the same and the police did not seize any ID arrack from the possession of the accused directly. It is borne by record that PW-3 happens to be one of the investigating officer as well as the de facto complainant. While the same does not entirely vitiate the case of the prosecution, the investigation could have been carried out by a different investigating officer to avoid the question of any vested interest, prejudice against the accused, and most importantly to uphold the principle that “Justice must not only be done, it must also appear to be done.” Be that as it may, the same cannot be a sole ground to discard the entire case of the prosecution.

C.C.No.2510/2021 5 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.11-03-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

11.It is stated that Ex.P1 shows that when the PW-3 along with his staff and mediators reached the scene of offence, the accused tried to skulk away on seeing the police. On enquiry by the police, the accused confessed to have committed the offence in the presence of the police personnel and the mediators. It is also admitted that the said confession was made to none other than the police personnel and the mediators. Save for the aforesaid contention, there is no other argument in favour of the prosecution. It is seen that Pws.1 and 3 belong to the police department.

12.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the accused contended that despite the availability of independent witnesses, PW-3 failed to secure their presence. The record reveals that even as per the version of the prosecution, PW-3 secured the presence of PW-2 and LW-4/Pothana

Veeranjaneyulu after receiving information regarding the arrack and thereafter, he proceeded to the scene of offence. It is not the case of the prosecution that

PW-3 made efforts to secure an independent and impartial witness. That being the case, what precluded PW-3 from securing the presence of an independent and impartial witness is something that definitely needs to be pondered over and deliberated upon. No reason whatsoever has been adduced in this regard.

Thus, this inaction on the part of PW-3 is fatal to the case of the prosecution and thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused does not hold water.

13.As such, it stands that the said confession is admitted to have been made by the accused in the presence of the police personnel though strictly not to the police personnel. That being the case, the said confession squarely falls within the ambit of section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Consequently, the same cannot be proved against the maker/accused. It is not the case of the prosecution that the confession of the accused led to the

C.C.No.2510/2021 6 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.11-03-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

discovery of any fact. As such, the application of section 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act is categorically excluded. That being the case, the very seizure of the arrack from the possession of the accused has not been proved by the prosecution.

14.One other thing that needs to be pondered over is that the seized property i.e., 05 liters of arrack has neither been destroyed nor has the same been produced before this Court. The learned counsel for the accused contended that no steps were taken in this regard. However, a perusal of the record reveals that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Guduru Police Station, sent proposals for the destruction of arrack seized in certain cases including the arrack purported to have been seized in the present case. As such, it cannot be said that the investigation officer has not taken steps to dispose of the property as per law. Thus, this contention of the learned counsel is devoid of merits. However, the record does not reveal whether the aforesaid proposal has been implemented or not. Be that as it may, the production of the arrack or its disposal as per law would have little effect upon the case, more specifically when the very seizure of the arrack from the possession of the accused has not been proved.

15.Keeping in view the fact that there is no independent and impartial witness to the offence, the inability or reluctance of the investigating officer in securing such a witness, one of the investigating officers himself being the de facto complainant, and the confession purported to have been made by the accused that cannot be proved against them, this Court is inclined to hold that the prosecution failed to even make out a solid case against the accused much less prove the same. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

C.C.No.2510/2021 7 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.11-03-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

16.In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7A read with 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal or appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected, and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11 th day of March, 2026 .

Judl.Magistrate of I Class Spl.Mobile Court

for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-

IX Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class,

Machilipatnam.

Appendix of Evidence

(Witnesses examined)

Prosecution Defense

PW-1: Ch.Durga Vara Prasad/PC 2424. -None- PW-2: Lankisetti Saibabu, VRO

PW-3: Y.Chittibabu, HC.2117 of Guduru PS.

Exhibits marked

Prosecution Defense

Ex.P1: Mediators’ report. -NIL-

Ex.P2: First Information Report in crime No.242/2020.

Ex.P3: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Ex.P4: Analysis report.

Material objects marked

C.C.No.2510/2021 8 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.11-03-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

M.O.1 : Unexpended portion of Sample bottle.

Judl.Magistrate of I Class Spl.Mobile Court

for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-

IX Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class,

Machilipatnam.

C.C.No.2510/2021 9 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.11-03-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case tried by the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile

Court For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act- Cum - IX Addl. Judl. Magistrate

of First Class, Machilipatnam.

Date of Report ofAppre-Date of CommenClose of Sentence orReasons for Offencecomplainthensionrelease cement TrialOrderdelay of Accusedon bailof trialRemarks 07.09.2107.09.2107.09.2121.09.2123.01.2409.03.2611.03.26--

Judgment in C.C.No.2510/2021 on the file of the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam.

Complainant: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Guduru police station.

Accused: 1. Pindi Kishore Kumar @ Kishore, s/o.Babu Rao, 32 years, R/o.Polavaram village, Guduru mandal.

2. Busam Kishore, s/o.Arjunarao, 40 years, R/o.Polavaram village, Guduru mandal.

Offence: Under Section 7A read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

Finding: Accused are found not guilty. Sentence:In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7A read with 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal or appeal time.

Judl.Magistrate of I Class Spl.Mobile Court

for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-

IX Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class,

Machilipatnam. Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam.

C.C.No.357/2023 1 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.27-02-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPL.MOBILE COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER PCR ACT-CUM-

IX ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MACHILIPATNAM.

Present: Smt. J.B.T.S.Devi, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam.

Friday, this the 27th day of February, 2026.

Calendar Case No. 357 of 2023

Between : State represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Bandar Taluka police station. … Complainant.

Versus

Kokkiligadda Durga Rao, s/o.Nancharaiah, 25 years, Gilakaladindi, Machilipatnam.…. Accused.

-oo00oo-

This case came before me on 27.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.M.Venkata Ramaiah, learned counsel for Accused and upon hearing both sides, and 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, Bandar Taluka police station filed the chargesheet against the accused in crime No.152/2022 of Bandar Taluka

Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

02. The averments of the charge sheet:

On 19.04.2022 at 11:00 P.M., on receipt of credible information, the Sub-Inspector, Bandar Taluka police/PW-1 left the police station along with her staff i.e., LW.1/G.V.Durga Rao, PC.1213 and LW.2/G.Rama Krishna,

C.C.No.357/2023 2 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.27-02-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

PC.1786 proceeded towards Gowdapalem, Pedakaragraharam village and found one male person who tried to escape upon seeing them. PW-1, along with her staff apprehended the said person and revealed his identity particulars as those of the accused. The accused stated that the income through the cooli works is not sufficient, hence, he purchased the ID arrack from an unknown persons at lower price and sell the same at higher price.

PW-1 searched him and found 02 liters of ID arrack in plastic bottle and seized the arrack from the possession of accused under the cover of an occurrence report. Basing on the report, PW-1 registered a case in crime No.152/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and investigated into it. PW-1 arrested the accused and informed the grounds of arrest and sent him for judicial remand.

Thereafter, LW.4/G.Vasu, Sub-Inspector of Police, Bandar Taluka PS., sent the seized property to RFSL, Kakinada for chemical analysis. After completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

03.The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under

Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 against the accused and summons were issued to them.

04.Upon the appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as mandated under section 207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. The accused was examined under Section 239 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure for which he denied the accusation levied against him.

Charge for the offences punishable under Section under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 was framed against

C.C.No.357/2023 3 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.27-02-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

him. The charges were read over and explained to him in Telugu for which, he denied the same, pleaded “not guilty”, and claimed to be tried.

05.On behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to

P3 and M.O.1 were marked. The evidence of LW.1/G.V.Durga Rao, PC.1213;

LW.2/G.Rama Krishna, PC.1786 and LW.4/G.Vasu, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Bandar Taluka PS., was given up by the Prosecution.

06.After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by putting forth the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances. No evidence, either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused.

07.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

08. The point for determination is:

( i) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 ??

P O I N T :

09.In the present case, PW-1 was examined on behalf of the prosecution. As such, it is borne by record that there is no independent witness to support the case of the prosecution.The pivotal contention of the prosecution is that PW.1 along with the other police personnel proceeded to the scene of offence, seized the ID arrack from the possession of the accused, arrested the accused, and drafted a report accordingly. Thus, the entire case of the prosecution rests on the report drafted at the scene of offence.

C.C.No.357/2023 4 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.27-02-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

10.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the de facto complainant and the investigating officer in the present case are one and the same. It is borne by record that PW-1 happens to be the investigating officer as well as the de facto complainant. While the same does not entirely vitiate the case of the prosecution, the investigation could have been carried out by a different investigating officer to avoid the question of any vested interest, prejudice against the accused, and most importantly to uphold the principle that “Justice must not only be done, it must also appear to be done.” Be that as it may, the same cannot be a sole ground to discard the entire case of the prosecution.

11.It is stated that the accused confessed to having committed the offence in the presence of the police personnel. It is also admitted that the said confession was made to none other than the police personnel. Save for the aforesaid contention, there is no other argument in favour of the prosecution. It is seen that LW.1/G.V.Durga Rao, PC.1213 and LW.2/G.Rama Krishna,

PC.1786 belong to the police department. At this juncture, the learned counsel

for the accused contended that despite the availability of independent

witnesses, PW-1 failed to secure their presence. It is not the case of the prosecution that PW-1 made efforts to secure an independent and impartial witness. That being the case, what precluded PW-1 from securing the presence of an independent and impartial witness is something that definitely needs to be pondered over and deliberated upon. No reason whatsoever has been adduced in this regard. Thus, this inaction on the part of PW-1 is fatal to the case of the prosecution and thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused does not hold water.

12.As such, it stands that the said confession is admitted to have been made by the accused in the presence of the police personnel though

C.C.No.357/2023 5 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.27-02-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

strictly not to the police personnel. That being the case, the said confession squarely falls within the ambit of section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Consequently, the same cannot be proved against the maker/accused. It is not the case of the prosecution that the confession of the accused led to the discovery of any fact. As such, the application of section 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act is categorically excluded. That being the case, the very seizure of the bottles from the possession of the accused has not been proved by the prosecution.

13.One other thing that needs to be pondered over is that the seized property i.e., 02 liters of ID arrack has neither been destroyed nor has the same been produced before this Court. The learned counsel for the accused contended that no steps were taken in this regard. A perusal of the record reveals that the Sub-Inspector of police, Bandar Taluka Police Station sent proposals for the destruction of the ID arrack seized in certain cases including the bottles purported to have been seized in the present case. As such, it cannot be said that the investigation officer has not taken steps to dispose of the property as per law. Thus, this contention of the learned counsel is devoid of merits. However the record does not reveal whether the aforesaid proposal has been implemented or not. Be that as it may, the production of the bottles or their disposal as per law would have little effect upon the case, more specifically when the very seizure of the ID arrack from the possession of the accused has not been proved.

14.Keeping in view the fact that there is no independent and impartial witness to the offence, the inability or reluctance of PW-1 in securing such a witness, the investigating officer himself being the de facto complainant, and the confession purported to have been made by the accused that cannot be proved against him, this Court is inclined to hold that the prosecution failed to

C.C.No.357/2023 6 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.27-02-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

even make out a solid case against the accused much less prove the same.

Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437A of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal or appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected, and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27 th day of February, 2026.

Judl.Magistrate of I Class Spl.Mobile Court

for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-

IX Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class,

Machilipatnam.

Appendix of Evidence

(Witnesses examined)

Prosecution Defense

PW-1: J.Lakshmi, Sub-Inspector of Bandar Taluka PS. - None-

Exhibits marked

Prosecution Defense

Ex.P1: Occurrence report.

Ex.P2: First Information Report in crime No.152/2022.

Ex.P3: Analysis report.

Material objects marked

M.O.1 : Sample bottle of ID arrack.

Judl.Magistrate of I Class Spl.Mobile Court

for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-

IX Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class,

Machilipatnam.

C.C.No.357/2023 7 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court Dt.27-02-2026 For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Machiliptnam

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case tried by the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile

Court For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act- Cum - IX Addl. Judl. Magistrate

of First Class, Machilipatnam.

Date of Report ofAppre-Date of CommenClose of Sentence orReasons for Offencecomplainthensionrelease cement TrialOrderdelay of Accusedon bailof trialRemarks 19.04.2219.04.2219.04.2226.04.2212.02.2627.02.2627.02.26--

Judgment in C.C.No.357/2023 on the file of the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court For Trial of Cases Under PCR Act-Cum-IX Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam.

Complainant: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bandar Taluka police station.

Accused: Kokkiligadda Durga Rao, s/o.Nancharaiah, 25 years, Gilakaladindi, Machilipatnam.

Offence: Under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

Finding: Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence:In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437A of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal or appeal time.

Judl.Magistrate of I Class Spl.Mobile Court

for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-

IX Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class,

Machilipatnam.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam.

1

IV ACJ(JD), MTM OS No.140/2025 Dt.12.05.2025

In the Court of IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Machilipatnam

Present: Smt. Jonnapalli B.T.S.Devi VI Addl.Civil Judge(Junior Division), Machilipatnam

Monday, this the 12th day of May, 2025

OS No.140/2025

Between Singaraju Vara Prasad, S/o Sri Rama Chandra Rao, aged about 52 years, Resident of D.No.1/143, Vullipalem, Pothepalli, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. …… Plaintiff

And

Arepalli Suresh, S/o Bhairagi, aged about 43 years, Employee, Resident of D.No.16-415-5B, Valandapalem, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. …… Defendant

This Suit is coming before me on 8.5.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.V.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Defendant remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T:-

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

Rs.5,43,200/-(Rupees Five Lakhs forty three thousand two hundred only) being the principal and interest due under a promissory note dated 24.7.2023, together with subsequent interest and for costs.

2. In brief, the averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees

Four lakhs only) from the plaintiff at his house on 24.7.2023 to purchase a site, the defendant executed a demand promissory note in the presence of attestors 2

IV ACJ(JD), MTM OS No.140/2025 Dt.12.05.2025 and scribe on the even date in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. to the plaintiff or his order whenever demand made by the plaintiff. Subsequently, inspite of several oral demands made by the plaintiff for repayment of promissory note debt, then the defendant issued a cheque bearing No.478578 drawn on State Bank of India, Gudivada Branch, for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on 13.3.2025 towards part payment of the promissory note debt and the said cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement “Payment stopped by drawer”. As the defendant failed to discharge the debt, the plaintiff is obliged to file this suit for recovery of the promissory note debt together with interest and costs. Hence, this Suit.

3. Though the summons issued by this Court were served personally on the defendant on 25.3.2025, the defendant was called absent. Hence, he was set exparte on 21.4.2025 and proceeded to record the exparte evidence.

4.During exparte evidence, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1. The learned counsel for the plaintiff reported no further evidence. Hence, plaintiff evidence is closed.

5.Heard the plaintiff through his learned counsel on record and perused the record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.5,43,200/- from the defendant as prayed for?

7.Point :

a)The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and marked Ex.A1. The evidence of PW1 adduced by way of chief affidavit is the reiteration of his plaint averments and thus oral evidence coupled with Ex.A.1 clearly and categorically 3

IV ACJ(JD), MTM OS No.140/2025 Dt.12.05.2025 proves the factum of debt and execution of Ex.A.1 by the defendant.

b) The said evidence of PW.1 has remained un-challenged and his un-controverted evidence proves the factum of debt and execution of Ex.A.1 by the defendant. Being the said evidence of PW.1 has remained unchallenged,

Section 118 Negotiable Instrument Act also favours P.W.1 and there is no rebuttal evidence to rebut the evidence of PW.1 as to Ex.A.1. Thus, by considering all the circumstances, this Court opines that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.5,43,200/- with subsequent interest as prayed for.

Accordingly, point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant, to pay the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.5,43,200/- (Rupees five lakhs forty three thousand two hundred only), together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realization on the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only).

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 12th day of May, 2025. Digitally signed by J B T S DEVI

J B T S DEVI

Date: 2025.05.12 15:17:20

+0530

IV Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division) Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

Pw.1 : S.Varaprasad. - Nil - 4

IV ACJ(JD), MTM OS No.140/2025 Dt.12.05.2025

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:Original Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- dated 24.7.2023.

J B T S

FOR DEFENDANT:Digitally signed by J B

T S DEVI

-Nil- DEVIDate: 2025.05.12 15:18:10 +0530

IV Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division)

Machilipatnam.

5

IV ACJ(JD), MTM OS No.140/2025 Dt.12.05.2025

In the Court of IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Machilipatnam

Present: Smt. M.V.VAHINI VI Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Machilipatnam

Monday, this the 21st day of April, 2025

OS No.395/2022

Between Ravi Naga Suresh, S/o.Vijaya Sivaramakrishna Prasad, aged about 35 years, R/o.Chodavaram Village, Pedana Mandal …… Plaintiff

And

Kagitha Veera Venkata Nagaraju, S/o.late Venkateswara Rao, aged about 45 years, R/o.Gandhinagar, Machilipatnam …… Defendant

This suit is filed by plaintiff basing on six promissory notes for recovery of Rs.8,15,990/- from the defendant with subsequent interest at rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.7,91,200/- and for the costs of the suit. Plaint presented on 26.7.2022;

The cause of action for the suit arose when the Plaintiff sold 500 bags of paddy covers to 22350 kgs delivered the same to the Defendant on 1.4.2022 and the Defendant is liable to pay Rs.3,85,458/- for the said transaction and on when the Plaintiff again sold 375 bags of paddy each bag which comes to 16115 kgs, and delivered to the Defendant at Chodavaram on 10.4.2022 and the Defendant is liable to pay Rs.2,88,630/- for the said transaction and on when Plaintiff again sold 519 bags of paddy and Defendant is liable to pay Rs 4,22,004/- to the Plaintiff and on when the Plaintiff was made to wait till the end of April, 2022 for payment and on when the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay the paddy amount, but the Defendant go on postponing from time to time and on when the Defendant voluntarily executed promissory notes with regard to the above said transactions and on when the Defendant himself written the chit showing that he received three lorries of paddy on three occasions, the total liability of him is Rs. 10.95,500/-and the earlier balance Rs.1,30,200/- is 6

IV ACJ(JD), MTM OS No.140/2025 Dt.12.05.2025 also adding with the existing liability, then it comes to Rs. 12,26,200/- and on when the Defendant has paid Rs 3,50,000/- through bank, then the remaining balance is Rs. 8,91,200/- and on when the Defendant has paid Rs.1,00,000/-cash out of Rs.8,91,200/- and on when the Defendant has executed six promissory notes on 17.6.2022, each one for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the Plaintiff and on 20.7.2022 when the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay Rs 7,91,200/- and on when the Defendant did not pay the same and at Chodavaram village, Pedana Mandal where the transaction took place within the jurisdiction of this court.

The value of the suit for Rs.8,15,990/-; the plaintiff paid court fee of Rs.10,626/- under section APCF and SV Act.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.S.Balaji Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri.G.V.Ramana, Advocate for the defendant and upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth Judgment

and

DECREE:-

a). That the suit be and the same is hereby partly decreed with proportionate costs directing the defendant to pay the sum of Rs.6,07,890/- to the plaintiff with the interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter @6% per annum till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only).

b). That the defendant do pay a sum of Rs.35,694/-to the plaintiff towards costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 21st day of April, 2025.

IV Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division) Machilipatnam.

Memorandum of Costs

ParticularsFor plaintiffFor defendant Stamp on Vakalat2-00Nill. Stamp on Plaint 8,526-00 Stamps on petitions90-00 7

IV ACJ(JD), MTM OS No.140/2025 Dt.12.05.2025

Process195-00 Pleader fee19,936-00 Jr.Advocate fee6,645-00 Writing and typing charges300-00 Total 35,694-00

JCJ, MTM.

Note: The parties are hereby directed to apply for return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve as soon as possible within three years as the record will liable to be de- stroyed three years after the date of decree of order.

8

IV ACJ(JD), MTM OS No.140/2025 Dt.12.05.2025 9

IV ACJ(JD), MTM OS No.140/2025 Dt.12.05.2025

1 O.S.No.575 of 2024, Dt.19.6.2025.

sIn the Court of IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Machilipatnam

Present: Smt. Jonnapalli B.T.S.Devi IV Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Machilipatnam

Thursday, the 19th day of June, 2025

O.S.No.575/2024

Between:

State Bank of India, Bazar Branch, Machilipatnam, Represented by it’s Branch Manager, Krishna District.

….. Plaintiff.

And

1.Kaniganti Raja Sekhar, S/o Sri Ramachandra Murthy, aged 38 years, D.No.30-36-97, PKM colonyh, Malakapatnam, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

2.Kaniganti Sri Ramachandra Murthy, S/o Kotaiah, aged 64 years, D.No.21/381-A, Bhaskarapuram, Machilipatnam.

….. Defendants.

This suit is coming before me on 18.6.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Surya Prakash, Advocate for plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2 remained set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1)This suit is filed by the Plaintiff bank for recovery of an amount of

Rs.3,41,910/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty One Thousand Nine Hundred and

Ten only) due by Defendants to the plaintiff’s Bank.

2 a) The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff is that the State Bank of

India is a statutory corporation incorporated under the State Bank of India Act of 1955, carrying on it’s Banking business at various places represented by it’s

Branch Manager, who are authorized to sue on behalf of the plaintiff-Bank.

2 O.S.No.575 of 2024, Dt.19.6.2025.

The present plaintiff -Bank is situated at Machilipatnam, Krishna District named as Bazar branch within the jurisdiction of this court.

b) The 1st defendant approached the plaintiff-Bank for obtaining

Mudra Loan and the Plaintiff–Bank sanctioned loan of Rs.2,56,000/- on 20.12.2017 for the purpose of doing business under the name and style of

M/s.Visual Wave Ad Agency, and 2nd defendant who is father of 1st defendant stood as guarantor. Both the defendants are agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12.75 % per annum at the time of sanction of loan and the present rate of interest @ 15.95% p.a. The loan is repayable in 60 months, each monthly installment is Rs.5,593/- as per the terms and conditions of the Bank.

Both the defendants executed all necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff-Bank. The plaintiff-Bank arranged and sanctioned said loan on 20.12.2017 to the 1st defendant.

b)The repayments were highly irregular, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff-Bank and issued notice on 14.9.2024 to the defendants to repay the outstanding amount of Rs.1,81,801-34Ps. as on 6.7.2024 with subsequent interest thereon. The notice of 1st defendant was returned with an endorsement that “left without instructions”. The last payment was made on 7.12.2020 and within three years prior to date of filing of the suit.

Hence, this suit.

3)Inspite of giving paper publication, the defendants 1 and 2 were called absent and remained exparte on 16.5.2025 and proceeded further.

3 O.S.No.575 of 2024, Dt.19.6.2025.

4)During the course of the exparte evidence, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 towards documentary evidence.

5) Heard plaintiff counsel and perused the record.

6)Now the points for consideration are:

i) Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for the suit amount?

ii) To what relief?

7. Point No.1:

i) In order to substantiate the case of the plaintiff bank, the plaintiff bank has examined it’s bank manager as PW.1 towards ocular evidence and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 towards documentary evidence.

ii)It is the case of the plaintiff bank that the 1st defendant requested the plaintiff bank and sanctioned an amount of Rs.2,56,000/- for the purpose of doing business under the name and style of M/s.Visual Wave Ad agency and agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12.75 % per annum at the time of sanction of loan and the present rate of interest @ 15.95% p.a and executed Ex.A1 Original loan application from Pradhana Manthri Mudra

Yojana by 1st defendant, on 20.12.2017 and letter of arrangement executed by defendants 1 and 2 on 20.12.2017 under Ex.A2. The 1st defendant executed agreement of loan cum Hypothecation on 20.12.2017 under Ex.A3 and the 2nd defendant stood as guarantor under Ex.A4 original guarantee agreement by 2nd defendant on 20.12.2017. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff-Bank, the defendants did not choose to repay the outstanding loan 4 O.S.No.575 of 2024, Dt.19.6.2025.

amount of Rs.1,81,801-34 PS. and the plaintiff-Bank got issued registered notice to 1st defendant on 10.9.2024, the plaintiff-Bank received Ex.A6 return notice and postal receipt dated 10.9.2024, Ex.A7 is Attested copy of statement of account copy dated 25.9.2024 showing the outstanding amount of

Rs.1,81,801-10Ps. as on 6.7.2024 with subsequent interest thereon and they had committed default of the same.

iii)PW.1/Deputy Manager of the plaintiff bank through his chief examination affidavit reiterated the plaint averments hence, it is not repeated the same here. The evidence of PW.1 with respect to the factum of the loan availed by the 1st defendant is substantiated by Exs.A1 to A4. The defendants failed to pay outstanding amount as per Ex.A7, as such they are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff bank the outstanding amount for the loan account No.37368068093 of Rs.1,81,801/- with subsequent interest thereon.

iv)The evidence of PW.1 is not challenged by the defendants, as such there is no contra evidence on record to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1. The said Exs.A1 to A7 clearly proves that the 1st defendant availed Pradhana

Manthri Mudra Yojana loan for his business purpose, the 2nd defendant stood as guarantor and failed to repay the outstanding amount. Though, the plaintiff-

Bank claimed Rs.1,81,801.34 Ps., it was rounded to Rs.1,81,801/-. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for.

Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

8.Point N o.2: In the result, suit is decreed with costs, the defendants 1 and 2 are jointly and severally do pay the plaintiff bank for an amount of Rs.3,41,910/- (Rupees three lakhs forty one thousand nine hundred 5 O.S.No.575 of 2024, Dt.19.6.2025.

and ten only) with subsequent interest at 12.75% per annum on the outstanding amount of Rs.1,81,801/- (Rupees one lakh eighty one thousand eight hundred and one only) from the date of filing of the suit till date of realization.

Typed to my dictation to stenographer on computer, corrected, signed on draft judgment and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 19 th day of June , 2025 and digitally signed.

Sd/- Jonnapalli B.T.S.Devi

IV Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

Pw.1 : J.Chandra Sekhar. - Nil -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original Loan application from Pradhana Manthru Mudra Yojana executed by 1st defendant, dated 20.12.2017.

Ex.A2: Original letter of arrangement executed by defendants, dated 20.12.2017.

Ex.A3: Original agreement of loan cum Hypothecation executed by 1st defendant, dated 20.12.2017

Ex.A4: Original guarantee agreement executed by 2nd defendant, dated 20.12.2017,

Ex.A5: Office copy of registered notice issued by plaintiff bank to 1st defendant, dated 10.9.2024.

Ex.A6: Attested copy of return notice and postal receipt dated 10.9.2024.

Ex.A7: Attested copy of statement of accounts copy dated 25.9.2024.

6 O.S.No.575 of 2024, Dt.19.6.2025.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

-Nil-

Sd/- Jonnapalli B.T.S.Devi

IV Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Machilipatnam.