Sri K. Guru Aravind

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

PILER.

Present:Ms.N. GAYATHRI

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Piler.

Friday this the Twenty Fifth (25th ) of April, 2025.

C.C.No.233 / 2023

Between :

The State rep by the Enforcement Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB Piler Station. … Complainant And :

Kandukuri Mahesh, age 48 years, S/o Venkataramana, R/o Srinadhapuram colony, Piler Mandal. …. Accused

This case is coming on 25-04-2025 for final hearing before this court for consideration after hearing both sides on today in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri P.Jayasekhar, Advocate for Accused and on perusal of the material on record this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Enforcement Sub-Inspector of Police, S.E.B. Piler Police Station has laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/Sec.7 (A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act-1995.

2) In brief the case of the prosecution as set out in the Charge sheet is stated as follows:

(a) On 21.10.2019 at about 06.15 A.M. as per the instructions of Prohibition & Excise Inspector Piler, during the raids conducted by LW.3/ K.Bhagyalakshmi, SI of Police SEB Piler Station along with her staff raided at Rajiv Nagar Colony Cross on Piler-Chittoor bus road of Piler Mandal and found the accused was sitting and keeping three white urea bags with his right hand having in possession 05 liters of ID Arrack for illegally selling the same for higher price for

AJMFC , Piler2 C.C.No.233 of 2023 his pecuniary benefits. On seeing the police party in uniform, the Accused try to ran away. Immediately LW.3 and her staff caught hold the accused and brought

before the LW.3. On enquiry of LW.3 about his perturbing and about the ID

Arrack in his Possession, the Accused confessed the Possession of I.D. Arrack. Then LW.3/ SI of Police seized the said I.D. Arrack, she had drawn 180 ml of I.D. Arrack sample for analysis purpose and arrested the accused brought to the accused to the Police station along with the seized property.

(b) Basing on the Special report, LW.3/ SI of Police registered a case in crime No.140/2019 U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act-1995 and issued F.I.R Copies to all concerned and sent the Original F.I.R before this Court, served a notice under section 41 (A) Cr.P.C., but the accused refused to take it, hence, she sent the accused to this Court for judicial custody. Subsequently the accused was released on bail. Then, LW.3 destroyed the remaining I.D.Arrack and sent the sample bottle to chemical analysis, after receipt of analysis report, she filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8, (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act-1995.

4.The accused appeared before this Court on receipt of Summons and copies of documents are supplied to the accused as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P.Prohibition Act-1995 and explained the contents in Charge, for which, he denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of prosecution PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P3 and MO.1 is marked. P.W.1 is the Police constable S.E.B.Piler P.S. PW.2 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, S.E.B.Piler Station who detected the offence and

AJMFC , Piler3 C.C.No.233 of 2023

Investigated this case. EXs.P1 to P.3. EX.P.1 is the Special report dt:21.10.2019. EX.P.2 is the First Information Report. EX.P3 is the Chemical Analysis Report.

7.After closure of evidence on the side of Prosecution, the accused was examined U/Sec.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. No witnesses were examined, and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

8. The learned A.P.P. argued that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the contents of EXs.P.1 to P.3 and MO.1 to proved the case of prosecution and prayed to convict the accused as per Law. The learned APP given up the evidence of LWs.1 and 3 as PW.1 evidence is sufficient, hence given up LWs.1 and 3 as his evidence is covered through PW.2.

9.The learned defence counsel argued that the accused did not commit the alleged offence. The SEB, Piler Police foisted this false case against the accused for statistical purpose. The alleged offence took place at about 06.15 AM and the scene of offence is situated in busy locality comprises 100 houses, if none were came forward to act as mediators. P.W.1 summon the V.R.O or VRA to act as mediators. He further argued that as per the Special report PWs.1 and 2 are the official witnesses and they are interested witnesses to the prosecution case and no independent witnesses were examined to prove the case of the prosecution and prayed to acquit the accused on benefit of doubt.

10.Now the point that arises for determination is: “Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for

the charge U/Sec.7 (A) r/w (E) of the A.P. Prohibition Act beyond

reasonable doubt ?”

11.POINT:

AJMFC , Piler4 C.C.No.233 of 2023

The gravamen of the allegations against the accused is that on 21.10.2019, at about 06.15 AM at Rajiv Nagar colony of Piler Mandal the accused was found selling ID arrack unauthorizedly, and on interrogation, the accused confessed the commission of the offence, L.W.3 arrested the Accused, seized the 05 liters of ID Arrack under the cover of special Report Ex.P.1. Then, P.W.1 lifted two 180 ml sample from the the bag for the purpose of chemical analysis and brought the Accused to the police station, registered a case in Cr.No.140 of 2019 for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act-1995 and issued Ex.P.2 FIR, and forwarded the sample to the chemical examiner.

12. P.W.1, the Police constable, who assisted the LW.3 for conducting raid was examined as P.W.1, he stated that on 21.10.2019 at about 06.15 AM during the raids conducted by Prohibition & Excise SI of Police LW.3 at Rajiv Nagar Colony Cross, Piler-Chittoor bus road and found the accused having in possession of one urea bag containing 05 liters of ID Arrack for illegally selling for higher price for his pecuniary benefits. On seeing the police personnel the accused tried to escape from the scene but the police personnel detailed the accused. Later Lw.3 drafted 180 ml sample for chemical analysis purpose and prepared special report dt: 21.10.2019 based on the special report LW.3 registered the case in Cr.No.140/2019 against the accused for the offence U/Sec.7 (A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act-1995. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that the scene of offence is about 3 KMs to the police station. She has not drawn the rough sketch. It is true that she has not secure the VRO, VRA, Panchayath Secretary of Rajiv Nagar Colony to act as mediators and whereas none came forward.

13. PW.2 the SI of Police deposed on the similar lines deposed by PW.1. in his cross-examination, it is elicited that the scene of offence is about 02 KMs to the police station. It is true that he do not remember the time when they started the scene of offence in the morning hours. It is true that he did not try to secure the independent mediators, he did not secure the VRO, VRA, Panchayath Secretary of the village to act as mediators and whereas none came forward.

AJMFC , Piler5 C.C.No.233 of 2023

14. Admittedly, the accused was charge-sheeted for an alleged offence punishable under Sec.7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act-1995. A careful perusal of Exs.P.1 to P.3 P.W.2 did not make any efforts to secure the presence of independent mediators at Rajiv Nagar Colony of Piler Mandal where seizure was made. P.W.2 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that Rajiv Nagar Colony is a residential locality it is located near 02 KMs to SEB Piler Station. From the above admission, it is clear that though the scene of offence is a residential locality, PW.2 did not take minimum steps to secure the presence of at least two respectable inhabitants of the locality for search and seizure as envisaged in Code of Criminal Procedure.

Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C speaks about search and seizure in the presence of mediators. Sec.100(4) and (5) Cr.P.C reads as follows: “Section 100.Persons in charge of closed place to allow search.- (4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

(5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless especially summoned by it.

In view of the above statutory provisions, it is clear that whenever any search and seizure is conducted by any officer, he has to take effective steps to secure the presence of at least two respectable inhabitants of the locality.

AJMFC , Piler6 C.C.No.233 of 2023

15. The object of Sec.100 Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbors and in the public that a genuine search has been made and the incriminating material is found and not planted. Therefore, the presence of independent respectable mediators at the time of search is always desirable and the presence of mediators of that locality is more suggestible. But where, in a case, the police officials, having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, did not make any efforts to take such mediators, certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version. As already stated above, P.W.2 did not make any efforts to secure the presence of local mediators and there is no explanation by P.W.2 for not securing the respectable inhabitants of the alleged scene of occurrence locality.

16. The Hon'ble High court of A.P in between 'S.Babu saheb @babu Vs The State of A.P' reported in '2010(1) A.L.T(Crl.) 32 A.P' the lordship held that: “When they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the Excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. As referred to in the above provisions, the Excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under sub section (4) of section 100 of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100 of Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbors and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted”

17.In another case the Hon'ble High court of A.P in between Adapa Ramababu @ Ramu Vs State of A.P 2014 (1) ALD (Crl)966 (A.P).,the lordship held that “whatever be the truthfulness or otherwise of the evidence of Police officials, it is not at all safe to convict an individual on the basis of that. It is only in extreme cases where other evidence is not available and the suspicion that surrounds the evidence of a police officials is almost removed, that the court can rest its conclusion on the evidence of the police officials.

18. For the above said ratio of the judgments is clearly applicable to present facts of the case. Moreover, PW.2 not drafted any rough sketch at the scene of offence. Admittedly, PWs.1 and 2 are the official witnesses and they are

AJMFC , Piler7 C.C.No.233 of 2023 interested witnesses to the prosecution case. The entire prosecution case was based on the confessional report given by the accused. According to Sec.25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, the confessional statement of the accused before the Police Officer cannot be admissible in evidence and fatal to the case of prosecution. Even though prosecution could prove that the MO.1 is ID Arrack, by way of marking Ex.P.3 Chemical Analysis Report, it is no way helpful to the prosecution case to convict the accused for the offence punishable U/s.7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act for the reason, the possession of such contraband for the purpose of selling the same for higher price without any permit or license by the accused was not proved.

19. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

20.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act-1995 and he is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in CPR.No.68/2023 shall be destroyed after six months from the date of this judgment.

Dictated to the personal Assistant, after transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 25 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- N.Gayathri

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Piler.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution Side:Accused side:

AJMFC , Piler8 C.C.No.233 of 2023

PW.1: L. Balakrishna – Police ConstableNONE PW.2: P.Lakshmi Narasaiah - SI of Police, SEB Piler Station.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Prosecution Side:Accused side: EX.P1 : Is the Special Report, dt: 21.10.2019 NONE Ex.P2 : Is the First Information Report. Ex.P3 : Is the Chemical Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

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

Sd/- N.Gayathri

AJMFC,Piler

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PILER.

PRESENT: Ms. N. Gayathri, Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Piler. FAC-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Piler.

Tuesday, this the Fifteenth (15th ) day of April, 2025.

PRC. No.23 of 2023

Between: The State rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Kallur Circle.….. Complainant

And: Thenepalli Gurrappa, age 37 years, S/o T.Subramanyam, R/at Bonamvaripalli village, H/o Peddagottigallu, Rompicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. Caste by Kummara, Occ: Auto Driver. ….Accused

This case is coming before this court today i.e., on 15-04-2025 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri T. Niranjan, Advocate for Accused and upon hearing and duly considering the matter, this court made the following :

COMMITTAL ORDER

1.The Inspector of Police, Kullur Circle filed a charge sheet against the sole accused alleging that he has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.376 IPC in Cr.No.52/2023 of Rompicherla P.S.

2.The case of the prosecution as disclosed from the charge sheet is as under: This is a case of “Rape on Woman” that occurred on 17.09.2023 at about 06.15 PM, the accused being the driver of the Auto bearing Regn. No. AP03 X 6127 took the complainant Shaik Munni @ Shabana into Bandakindapalli Tank, dragged her out from the auto and committed rape on her forcibly and when she raised cries the passengers came and rescued her. Then the accused escaped from the spot. In this connection a case was registered and investigated.

3. Basing on the complaint of the complainant LW.1/ Shaik Shabana, LW.14 / B. Krishnaiah the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rompicherla P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.52/2023 for the offence U/Sec.376 IPC and submitted express FIR’s to all the officers concerned and took up investigation in to this case.

4.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/Secs.376 IPC against the accused. After completion of investigation LW.15 filed charge sheet in this case, taken on file for the offences U/Secs.376 against the accused. On appearance of accused the copies of records relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. Then, the LW.14 Sub-Inspector of police sent the victim woman along with escort PCs to Area Hospital, Piler with a request to examine the victim woman physically and for issuance of medical certificate whether she was subjected to sexual inter course and for sending the same to RFSL, Tirupait for analysis. LW.11-Dr.S. Manjula CAS. Govt. Hospital, Piler examined the victim woman and preserved 1) Vaginal Swabs, 2) Vaginal smears, 3) Pubic hair, 4) Nail clipping for chemical examination purpose.

6.Then on 18.09.2023 at about 8.30 AM the LW.15-Inspector of Police Kallur Circle visited the Area Hospital, Piler secured the presence of victim and her relative as LWs.1 and 2 examined them and recorded their detailed statement U/Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. Then he left the Area Hospital Piler and visited the scene of offence at about 10.45 AM, secured the presence of witnesses i.e., LWs.3 to 6 examined them and recorded the detailed statements U/Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. and observed the scene minutely and seized 1) Auto, 2) RC, 3) Aadhar Card, 4) one pair of footwear under cover of scene observation and seizure mahazar duly attested by the panchayathdars and drafted the detailed rough sketch of the scene of offence. Then he visited the auto stand in Rompicherla, secured the presence of LW.7/ Kuncha Ashok examined him and recorded his statement U/Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C.

7.During the course of investigation, on 19.09.2023 at about 12.30 PM, at Kammollapalli cross Bus stop of Bandakindapalli panchayath of Rompicherla Mandal, the LW.15 the Inspector of Police arrested the accused and seized hisclothes under cover of arrest and seizure Mahazar duly attested by the panchayathdaars. Then he brought the accused to Rompicherla P.S. after informing the grounds of the accused U/Sec.50 Cr.P.C. and also informed his arrest to his relatives U/Sec.50(A) (1) Cr.P.C. and remanded him to judicial custody. Hence the charge.

8. Perused the F.I.R., charge sheet and other material papers enclosed thereto. I am satisfied that there is prima-face case made out against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.376 IPC against the accused which is exclusively triable by the Spl. Judge for trial of offences against woman by the Hon'ble VI Addl. District Court, Chittoor Division, Chittoor. Hence, the case is committed to the Hon'ble VI Addl. District Court, Chittoor Division, Chittoor U/Sec.209 (a) Cr.P.C.

9. The Accused was released on bail as per Orders in Crl.M.P.No.1257/2023, dt.08.12.2023 by the Hon’ble VI Addl. District Judge, cum Special Judge for trial of offences against women, Chittoor. Accused is ordered to be continued on bail during and until the conclusion of trial by the Hon’ble Court of VI Additional District Court, Chittoor U/Sec.209 (b) Cr.P.C.

10. When questioned with regard to legal aid, the accusedreported that he has means to engage a counsel on his behalf. The office is directed to submit all the records along with property, if any, to the Hon’ble VI Additional District Court, Chittoor at an early date as per Sec.209 (c) of Cr.P.C.

11. The Office is directed to Notify the order of committal to the Public Prosecutor U/Sec.209 (d) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the personal Assistant, after transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 15th day of April, 2025.

Additional Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Piler.

FAC - Judl. Magistrate of I Class, PILER.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- Nil-

AJMFC, PILER.

FAC-JMFC, PILER

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PILER

Register Extract in

PRC No.23 of 2023

1.Number of the case: PRC.No.23 / 2023 in PRC.23/2023 of Cr.No.52/2023 of Rompicherla P.S. Rompicherla for the offence U/Sec.376 IPCPolice Station

2. Name of the accused, Fathers’ name & age : Thenepalli Gurrappa, age 37 years, S/o T. Subramanyam, R/at Bonamvaripalli village, H/o Peddagottigallu, Rompicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. Caste by Kummara, Occ: Auto Driver. ….Accused

3. Substance of the complaint:

a) This is a case of “Rape on Woman”. In this case the victim woman Shaik Munni @ Shabana is a resident of Brahmin Street, Sodum village and Mandal, Chittoor District and she lives by doing coolie works and begging in the favour of Bismillah Madarasa, Madanapalli. About 3 years ago her husband went to Kuwait for livelihood. She is having three daughters. At present she is begging at the shops by moving in the surrounding villages in favour of Bismismillah Madarasa, Madanaplli among the begging amount she took some part of amount for her livelihood and remains she would give to Madarasa. As usually on 17.09.2023 at about 9.00 AM she left Sodum and came to Rompicherla at about 11.00 AM and begged in Rompicherla. After begging money from the shops in Rompicherla, at about 6.00 PM she boarded an auto bearing Regn.No.AP03X6127 belongs to the accused T.Gurrappa at Rompicherla Bus stand to go to Piler. On seeing the victim boarded lonely in his auto, the accused decided to fulfill his lust with her, so he started his auto with her only and proceeded towards Piler side, while on the way at about 6.15 PM near Bandakindapalli village, he find the desolation place at the tank, turned his auto towards the tank situated beside the road and took the auto into the tank. Then he pulled her out from the auto, when she tried to escape from the accused, he caught hold of her tightly, lift her and pushed down her, shut her mouth with his 2 hand and then committed rape on her forcibly. After she was raped by him, she escaped from him and ran towards road side by shouting loudly, on hearing her shouts, the passengers i.e., LWs.3 to 6 B. Veerasekhar, N. Vijay Kumar, N.Hari Babu, P.Lakshmaiah who are proceeding on their motorcycles towards Piler side, stopped their motorcycles, came to her and asked her what was happened. Then the victim informed them about the incident. Immediately LWs.3 to 6 rushed towards the spot, but on observing their arrival, the accused escaped from the spot by leaving his auto, footwear at the spot. In this case the investigation clearly established that the accused committed heinous offence of Rape and hence, prima facie case was well established against the accused U/Sec.376 IPC.

a) During the course of investigation on 17.09.2023 LW.14 the SI of police registered a case in Cr.No. 52/2023 for the offence U/Sec. 376 IPC of Rompicherla P.S. and also he sent the victim woman to Area Hospital, Piler under proper escort for medical examination. Then the LW.11- Dr. S. Manjula CAS, CHC Piler examined the victim woman and preserved the following :

1) Vaginal Swabs, 2) Vaginal smears, 3) Pubic hair, 4) Nail clipping for chemical examination.

b) Thereafter LW.15 the Inspector of Police, Kallur Circle took up investigation, he visited the Area Hospital Piler on 18.09.2023, secured the presence of the victim and her relative, examined them as LWs.1 and 2 and recorded their statements U/Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. After the examination of the victim he collected the clothes of victim i.e., 1) Burakha, 2) Jacket, 3) Petticoat, under cover of police proceedings . Then he visited the scene of offence at 10.45 AM and secured the presence of witnesses i.e., LWs.3 to 6 examined them and recorded their detailed statements U/Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C.

c) Thereafter, LW.15 visited the scene of offence from their he seized 1) Auto,

2) RC, 3) Aadhar Card, 4) One pair of footwear under cover of scene observation and seizure Mahazar duly attested by the panchayathdars and drafted detailed rough sketch of the scene of offence. Later he sent the accused before LW.12 for examination aud issuance of potency certificate.

3

On 18.10.2023 Lw.12 examined the accused and issued a report stating that “ There is nothing to suggest that the individual examined is not capable of performing sexual act”. On 2010.2023 the LW.15 forwarded the material objects along with letter of advice to the RFSL, Tirupati for examination by expert. On 11.10.2023 LW.13 the Hon’ble addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Piler has recorded the statement of victim U/Sec. 164 Cr.P.C.

d) Then LW.15 received RFSL report from LW.10- Dr.J.Rajasekhar, Asst. Director RFSL,Tirupati who examined the material object vide file No. RFSL/TPT/1376/SER/ 276/2023 dt: 26.10.2023 issued report stating that “ Item 1 to 4 are examined.

Human semen and spermatozoa are detected on item Nos. 3 and 12, but

their blood group could not be determined. Human blood is detected on

Item No.3 , but it’s blood group could not be determined. Semen and

spermatozoa are not detected on Item Nos.1,2, 4, to 11. Foreign hair is

not found in Item No.8. Foreign material is not detected on Item No.9”.

e)Basing on the report of LW.10, the Lw.11 Dr.S. Manjula CAS Govt. Hospital, Piler issued her report and has opined that” Intercourse might have been occurred”.

f)During the course of investigation he visited the auto stand in Rompicherla and secured the presence of LW.7/ Kuncha Ashok examined him and recorded his statement U/Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, on 19.09.2023 at about 12.30 PM, at Kammollapalli cross Bus stop of Bandakindapalli panchayath of Rompicherla Mandal, the LW.15 the Inspector of Police arrested the accused and seized his clothes under cover of arrest and seizure Mahazar duly attested by the panchayathdaars. Then he brought the accused to Rompicherla P.S. after informing the grounds of the accused U/Sec.50 Cr.P.C. and also informed his arrest to his relatives U/Sec.50(A) (1) Cr.P.C. and remanded him to judicial custody. Hence the charge.

4. Name of the Complainant : The Inspector of Police, Kallur Circle of Rompicherla PS.

5. Name of the witnesses for the complainant:

1. Shaik Munni @ Shabana

2. Shaik Noorulla

3. Bonam Veera @ Veera Sekhar

4. Nagisetty Vijay Kumar

5. Nagisetty Hari Babu

6. P.Lakshmaiah

7. Kuncha Ashok

8. S. Mubarak Basha

9. Shaik Irfan Ali

10. Dr.J.Raja Sekhar, RFSL,TPT

11. Dr. S. Manjula-CAS-Piler.

12. Dr. M. Ananda Mohan-CAS Govt. Area Hospital Piler.

13. Ms. N.Gayathri -Hon’ble Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Piler

14. Sri B.Krishnaiah- SI of Police, Rompicherla P.S.

15. Sri K. Sreenivasulu Inspector of Police, Kallur Circle.

6. Summary of the facts proved: Vide Separate Committal Order

7. Result of the enquiry : The case is committed to the

Hon’ble VI Addl. District

Court, Chittoor.

8. Date of the offence : 17.09.2023

9. Date of complaint : 17.09.2023

10. Date of appearance of the accused : 11.03.2024

11. Date of the close of the enquiry : 15.04.2025

12. Explanation for delay : ----

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Piler FAC-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Piler.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PILER.

PRC No.23 of 2023

Diary Extract in PRC No.23 of 2023

Cr.No.52/2023 of Rompicherla P.S.

29.12.2023This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence U/Sec.376 IPC. Call on 11.03.2024 11.03.2024Summons of accused served & returned. Accused present. Copies furnished to him. For furnishing sureties call on 15.04.2024. 15.04.2024Accused called present. For furnishing sureties & hearing call on 06.05.2024. 06.05.2024P.O. is on Transfer , case is reposted to 11.06.2024.

11.06.2024P.O. is on Transfer , case is reposted to 25.07.2024.

25.07.2024Accused called present. For sureties as the last chance call on 09.08.2024 09.08.2024Accused called present. For furnishing sureties call on 17.10.2024 17.10.2024P.O. is on Transfer, case is reposted to 10.12.2024.

10.12.2024Accused called present. Surety affidavits filed and accepted. For committal call on 27.12.2024 27.12.2024P.O. is on Training, case is reposted to 03.01.2025.

03.01.2025P.O. is on Training, case is reposted to 15.04.2025 15.04.2025For Committal Accused called present. This case against accused committed to the

Honourable VI Additional District Court, Chittoor Division,

Chittoor U/Sec.209 (a) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/Secs.376- IPC which prima facie found against accused which is exclusively triable by the court of Honourable VI

Additional District Court, Chittoor. The accused is released

on bail. The office is directed to submit entire case records and property, if any, to the Court of Sessions, Chittoor Division, Chittoor and notify U/Sec.209 (d) Cr.P.C. to the Public Prosecutor about the commitment of the case to the Honourable VI Additional District Court, Chittoor U/Sec.209 (d) Cr. P.C.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Piler FAC-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Piler.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

PILER.

Present: Ms. N. GAYATHRI

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Piler.

Friday the Twenty Fifth (25th ) of April, 2025.

C.C.No.471 / 2023

Between :

The State rep by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise Station, Piler.

....Complainant

And :

Bukke Doraswamy Naik, S/o B. Jayaram Naik, age 42 years, R/at Ramanaik Thanda, Piler Mandal.

…. Accused

This case is coming on 24-04-2025 for final hearing before this court for consideration after hearing both sides on today in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri M.D.Irfan, Advocate for Accused and on perusal of the material on record this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition & Excise Station, Piler has laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/Sec.7 (A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020.

2)In brief the case of the prosecution as set out in the Charge sheet is stated as follows:

(a)On 27-05-2020 at about 8.20 A.M., L.W.3/ Smt. P.Bhagya Lakshmi, Sub- Inspector of Police, Prohibition & Excise Station, Piler received credible information about the illegal sales of I.D.Arrack at Vanka west to Tamanaik Thanda, Piler Mandal and immediately she rushed to the scene of offence along with her staff LWs.1 and 2 by that time, they found the accused was having in

AJMFC , Piler 2 C.C.No.471 of 2023 possession of one plastic can containing 15 liters of ID Arrack for illegally selling the same for higher price for his pecuniary benefits. On seeing the police party in uniform, the Accused try to ran away. Immediately her staff caught hold the accused and brought before LW.3. On enquiry about him perturbing and about the ID Arrack in his Possession, the Accused confessed the Possession of I.D. Arrack. Then 0.0001113/ SI of Police seized the said I.D. Arrack, she had drawn 180 ml of I.D. Arrack sample for analysis analysis and arrested the accused brought to the station along with the seized property under cover of special proceedings.

(b) Basing on the Special report LW.3/ SI of Police registered a case in crime No.130 of 2020 U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P.Prohibition Act and issued F.I.R Copies to all concerned and sent the Original F.I.R before this Court, served a notice under section 41 (A) Cr.P.C., but the accused refused to take it, hence, she sent to this Court for judicial custody. Subsequently the accused was released on bail. Then, LW.3 destroyed the remaining I.D.Arrack under Ex-P3 and sent the sample bottle to chemical analysis, after receipt of analysis report under Ex-P3, and she filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

4.The accused appeared before this Court on receipt of Summons and copies of documents are supplied to the accused as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P.Prohibition Act and explained the contents in Charge, for which, he denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of prosecution PWs.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.P1 to P3 and MO.1 is marked. P.W.1 is the WPC of Prohibition and Excise Station, Piler and PW.2 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition & Excise Station, Piler who detected the offence and Investigated this case. EXs.P1 to P.3. EX.P.1 is the

AJMFC , Piler 3 C.C.No.471 of 2023 special report, dated 27.05.2020. EX-.P.2 is the First Information Report. EX.P3 is the Chemical Analysis Report. EX.P.4 is the Confiscation orders dt: 02.01.2022. EX.P.5 is the destruction Mahazarnama. During the course of further investigation the SHO, Prohibition & Excise Station Piler sent the sample bottle to the Chemical Examiner, Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor and opined that the sample is licitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

7.After closure of evidence on the side of Prosecution, the accused was examined U/Sec.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. No witnesses were examined, and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

8. The learned A.P.P argued that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the contents of EXs.P.1 to P.3 and MO.1 to proved the case of prosecution and prayed to convict the accused as per Law. The learned APP given up the evidence of LWs.2 to 4 as PW.1 evidence is sufficient, hence given up as their evidence is covered through PW.2.

9.The learned defence counsel argued that the accused did not commit the alleged offence. The SEB Police foisted this false case against the accused for statistical purpose. The alleged offence took place at about 11.30 AM and the scene of offence is situated in busy locality, if none were came forward to act as mediators. P.W.2 summon the V.R.O or VRA to act as mediators. He further argued that as per the Police proceedings PWs.1 and 2 are the official witnesses and they are interested witnesses to the prosecution case and no independent witnesses were examined to prove the case of the prosecution and prayed to acquit the accused on benefit of doubt.

10. Now the point that arises for determination is: “Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the charge U/Sec.7 (A) r/w (E) of the A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt ?”

AJMFC , Piler 4 C.C.No.471 of 2023

11.POINT:

The gravamen of the allegations against the accused is that on 27.05.2020 at about 11.30 AM at Vanka of Ramanaik Thanda of Piler Mandal the accused was found selling ID arrack unauthorizedly, and on interrogation, the accused confessed the commission of the offence, P.W.2 arrested the Accused, seized the 15 liters of ID arrack under the cover of Special report Ex.P.1. Then, LW.3 lifted two 180 ml sample from the plastic can for the purpose of analysis and brought the Accused to the police station, registered a case in Cr.No.130 of 2020 for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act and issued Ex.P.2 FIR, and forwarded the sample to the chemical examiner.

12. PW.1, the WPC of Prohibition & Excise, Station Piler Police, who assisted the LW.3. for conducting raid was examined as P.W.1, she deposed the similar lines to the evidence of P.W.2. PW.2 in his cross-examination, it is elicited that the scene of offence is about 15 Kms to the police station. He has not drawn the rough sketch. It is true that he has not secure the VRO, VRA, Panchayath Secretary of Ramanaik Thanda village to act as mediators and whereas none came forward.

13.Admittedly, the accused was charge-sheeted for an alleged offence punishable under Sec.7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act. A careful perusal of EXs.P1 to P.3 P.W.2 did not make any efforts to secure the presence of independent mediators at Ramanaik Thanda of Piler Mandal where seizure was made. P.W.2 categorically admitted in the cross-examination that R Ramanaik Thanda of Piler Mandal is a residential locality it is located near 15 KMs to Police Station. From the above admission, it is clear that though the scene of offence is a residential locality, PW.2 did not take minimum steps to secure the presence of at least two respectable inhabitants of the locality for search and seizure as envisaged in Code of Criminal Procedure.

Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C speaks about search and seizure in the presence of mediators. Sec.100(4) and (5) Cr.P.C reads as follows:

AJMFC , Piler 5 C.C.No.471 of 2023 “Section 100.Persons in charge of closed place to allow search.- (4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. (5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless especially summoned by it.

In view of the above statutory provisions, it is clear that whenever any search and seizure is conducted by any officer, he has to take effective steps to secure the presence of at least two respectable inhabitants of the locality.

14. The object of Sec.100 Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbors and in the public that a genuine search has been made and the incriminating material is found and not planted. Therefore, the presence of independent respectable mediators at the time of search is always desirable and the presence of mediators of that locality is more suggestible. But where, in a case, the police officials, having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, did not make any efforts to take such mediators, certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version. As already stated above, P.W.2 did not make any efforts to secure the presence of local mediators and there is no explanation by P.W.2 for not securing the respectable inhabitants of the alleged scene of occurrence locality.

15. The Hon'ble High court of A.P in between 'S.Babu saheb @babu Vs The State of A.P' reported in '2010(1) A.L.T(Crl.) 32 A.P' the lordship held that: “When they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the Excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. As referred to in the above provisions, the Excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under sub section (4) of section 100 of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100 of Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbors and in the public in general that a

AJMFC , Piler 6 C.C.No.471 of 2023 genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted”

16.In another case the Hon'ble High court of A.P in between Adapa Ramababu@Ramuv Vs State of A.P 2014 (1) ALD (Crl)966 (A.P).,the lordship held that “whatever be the truthfulness or otherwise of the evidence of Police officials, it is not at all safe to convict an individual on the basis of that. It is only in extreme cases where other evidence is not available and the suspicion that surrounds the evidence of a police officials is almost removed, that the court can rest its conclusion on the evidence of the police officials.

17. For the above said ratio of the judgments is clearly applicable to present facts of the case. Moreover, PW.2 not drafted any rough sketch at the scene of offence. Admittedly, PWs.1 and 2 are the official witnesses and they are interested witnesses to the prosecution case. The entire prosecution case was based on the confessional report given by the accused. According to Sec.25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, the confessional statement of the accused before the Police Officer cannot be admissible in evidence and fatal to the case of prosecution. Even though prosecution could prove that the MO.1 is ID Arrack, by way of marking Ex.P.3 Chemical Analysis Report, it is no way helpful to the prosecution case to convict the accused for the offence punishable U/s.7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act for the reason, the possession of such contraband for the purpose of selling the same for higher price without any permit or license by the accused was not proved.

18. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

19.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act and he is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in CPR.No.127/2023 shall be destroyed after six months from the date of this judgment.

AJMFC , Piler 7 C.C.No.471 of 2023

Dictated to the personal Assistant, after transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 25 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- N.Gaythri,

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Piler.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution Side:Accused side: PW.1: G. Krishnaveni WPC P & E Station, Piler. NONE PW.2: P. Lakshmi Narasaiah- SI of Police, Prohibition & Excise, Station

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Prosecution Side:Accused side: EX.P1 : Is the Special report , dt: 27.05.2020 Ex.P2 : Is the First Information Report. Ex.P3 : Is the Chemical Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

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

Sd/- N.Gaythri,

AJMFC,Piler

AJMFC , Piler 8 C.C.No.471 of 2023

CC/72/2021 -1-

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

PILER

Present : Ms. NEELAPU GAYATHRI, Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Piler

Thursday, this the 24th day of April, 2025

CALENDER CASE No. 72 / 2021

Between: State, Represented by, The Sub-Inspector of Police, Piler Urban Police Station

....Complainant

And

C.Jayachandra Naidu @ Jayachandra Reddy S/o late C.Venkata Subbaiah, R/at D.No.18-35-S5-225, Dwarakanagar, K.T.Road, Tirupati Urban, Balaji District. ….Accused

This case is coming on 23-04-2025 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri R. Chandrasekhar, Advocate for the Accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following: -

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Piler Urban Police Station, filed charge Sheet in

Crime No.11/2021 U/Sec.420 IPC and Sec.10 r/w 24 of Emigration Act.

2. The case of prosecution in nut shell is as follows:-

This is a case of cheating a woman by exporting her as a slave and compels her to work as house maid by the accused who is illegal agent. The said incident occurred on 12.01.2021 at Indiramma colony, Piler town and Mandal in which the accused Jayachandra Reddy who is illegal agent sent the complaint to Kuwait for employment as house maid by receiving an amount of Rs.50,000/- from her. When the complainant working as house maid in Kuwait she was subjected to harassment, concealing her Indian passport and insisted her to do bonded slavery. When the complainant asked the accused to bring back her to India, for which the accused demanded the complainant to give an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and there by the

CC/72/2021 -2- accused cheated the complainant.

3.Basing on the written report presented by the LW.1, the SI of Police was registered a case as Cr.No.11/2021 U/Sec.420 IPC and Sec.10 r/w 24 of

Emigration Act of Piler Urban P.S. After investigation, the police have filed charge sheet against the accused U/Sec.420 IPC and Sec.10 r/w 24 of Emigration Act.

4. The case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 IPC and

Sec.10 r/w 24 of Emigration Act. After appearance of the Accused, copies of the documents were furnished to him as per Section.207 Criminal Procedure Code 1973. The Accused was examined Under section 239 Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation alleged for the offences U/Sec.420 IPC and Sec.10 r/w 24 of Emigration

Act against the Accused was read over and explained to him in Telugu language for which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial to substantiate its version, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C

6. Heard arguments of Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Accused and perused the material on record

7. Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether Accused committed an offence punishable U/s. 420

IPC and Sec.10 r/w 24 of Emigration Act ?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable 420 IPC and Sec.10 r/w 24 of

Emigration Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT Nos.1 and 2 :-

8. The case of the prosecution is as stated above. The defence of the accused is of total denial. Now, the prosecution has to establish the guilt of the

CC/72/2021 -3- accused for the said offences beyond all reasonable doubt.

9. To prove its case, the prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of

PWs.1 to 4 and Exs.P1 to P5. The PWs.1 to 3 did not depase anything about the accused and they turned hostile.

10. PW-4 K.B. Siva Kumar SI of Police Piler P.S. in his evidence that on 12.01.2021 at about 3.00 PM, while he was present in the Piler P.S., the complainant LW.1 came to the Piler P.S. and gave written complaint in Telugu.

Basing on the above complaint he registered a case in Cr.No.11/2021 for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 IPC and Sec.10 r/w 24 Emigration Act, then he submitted the concerned documents along with FIR to all concerned officers.

Through him Exs. P.4 and P.5 are marked. Ex.P.4 is the written report and Ex.P.5 is the FIR dated 12.01.2021. Then, he recorded statements U/Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C.

Then he secured the PWs.1 to 3 and recorded their 161 (3) Statements. Later on 29.01.2021 the accused voluntarily surrendered himself as accused in this case .

The he served Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused. After that he filed charge sheet against he accused for the offence U/Secs. 420 IPC and Sec.10 r/w 24 of

Emigration Act. In his cross examination he says that LW.1 did not give Ex.P.4 written report . And he never examinef PWS.1 to 3 and he did note recorded their statements. Nothing was elicited in his cross examination.

11.It is pertinent to mention here that when the P.W.1 to P.W.3 did not depose anything against the accused and have not supported the case of the prosecution this Court has no option but to concluded that the evidence on record is short coming to connect the Accused for the charged offences. Hence the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable

U/s.420 IPC and Sec.10 r/w 24 of Emigration Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the Accused is entitled for acquittal.

CC/72/2021 -4-

12.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/s.420 IPC and Sec.10 r/w 24 of Emigration Act and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Bail bonds of the Accused shall stands canceled after expiry of six months.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 24 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- N. Gayathri,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, PILER.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution Side:Accused side:

PW.1: Shaik Munna NONE PW.2: Syed Basha PW.3: K. Ramanaiah PW.4: K. B. Siva kumar -SI of Police

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Prosecution Side:Accused side:

Nil Ex.P.1 is the 161 (3) Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.1. Ex.P.2 is the 161 (3) Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.2. Ex.P.3 is the 161 (3) Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.3. Ex.P.4 is the written reported Ex.P.5 is the FIR dated: 12.01.2021

Sd/- N. Gayathri,

AJFCM, Piler.

CC/72/2021 -5-

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. Div,) :: PILER

PRESENT: Ms. N. GAYATHRI,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Piler.

Thursday , this the Twenty Fourth (24th ) day of April, 2025.

O.S.No.208 of 2019

Between:

Arava Narayana Reddy, aged about 63 years, S/o Venkata Reddy, R/at D.No. 2-427, Prasanth Nagar, Chittoor Road, Piler Post and Mandal.… Plaintiff

And:

Smt M. Sona Bai, W/o M.Venkata Ramana Naik, aged about 42 years, R/at D.No.2-2036, Chenna Reddy Street, Piler Mandal. … Defendant

This suit is coming on 21.04.2025 before this court for final hearing in the presence of Sri N. Raja Gopal, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant is set exparte, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,09,352/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dt:31.07.2016 borrowed and executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,22,000/- (Rupees One

Lakh Twenty two thousand) agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24%p.a. for subsequent interest and for costs.

2.On 31.07.2016 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,22,000/- ( Rupees

One Lakh Twenty two thousands) from the plaintiff for his family necessities and executed a suit promissory note in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. In spite of 2 repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the due amount.

Hence, the suit.

3.Summons issued to the defendant served. The defendant called absent. No representation on his behalf . Hence, the defendant set exparte.

4.To substantiate his claim, the plaintiff himself appeared as PW.1 through him

Exs. A.1 to A.5 are marked. Ex.A.1 is the Original Suit promissory note dated 31.07.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for an amount of

Rs.1,22,000/- (Rupees One Lakh twenty two thousands) and Ex.A.2 is the legal demand notice. Ex.A.3 is the dt: 02.07.2019 postal track consignment statement in taken proof of registered post. EX.A.4 is the dt: 03.07.2019 Replay notice of the defendant. Ex.A.5 is the dt:28.12.2019 Special Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of his representative Agent A. Vamsi, So A. Krishna Reddy filed by the plaintiff on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’ s Court, Piler.

5. Heard the arguments of the counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record.

6.The point for determination is :

“ Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?.

7.PW.1 Categorically reiterated the averments of the plaint in is chief examination affidavit. Pw.1 stated that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,22,000/- (Rupees One Lakh twenty two thousands) from him on 31.07.2016 and executed Ex.A.1 suit promissory note in his favour. It is further stated that in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the suit amount to PW.1. There is no evidence on behalf of the defendant to disprove 3 the execution of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 and he remained set exparte. The defendant executed the suit promissory note at the residence of plaintiff at Cherukuvaripalli,

Sodum Mandal within the jurisdiction of this court and within the limitation since the plaintiff filed suit on 20.01.2025. the unchallenged evidence of Pw.1 coupled with the contents of Ex.A.1 proved the claim of the plaintiff. Hence, the defendant has to pay the suit amount of Rs.1,22,000/- (Rupees One Lakh twenty two thousands only)

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, Corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- N. Gayathri,

Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) , Piler.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For PLAINTIFF: For DEFENDANT:

PW.1: Arava Narayana Reddy Ex-parte

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Is the Original Suit Promissory note, dt.31.07.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for an amount of Rs.1,22,000/-.

Ex.A2 : Is the legal demand notice. Ex.A3 : Is the dt: 02.07.2019 postal track consignment statement in taken proof of registered post Ex.A4 : Is the dt: 03.07.2019 Reply notice of the defendant Ex.A5 : Is the dt: 28.12.2018 Special power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of his representative/Agent A. Vamsi , S/o A. Krishna Reddy.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT: NIL

Sd/- N. Gayathri,

AJCJ,Piler.

4