Ms. K.krishnaveni

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), TADIPATRI

Present:- SMT.K.KRISHNA VENI,

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Friday, this the 4th day of April, 2025.

Original Suit No.110/2022

Between:

Kasibatla Satya Narayana Murthy,

S/o K.Sreenivasa Sastry, Hindu, aged about 63 years,

Retired School Assistant,

Resident of Flat No.504, Sai Lakshmi Homes,

Kadapa Road, Opp.Rural Police Station,

Tadipatri Town, Ananthapuramu District. ...PLAINTIFF.

AND

Naraavula Venkata Venu Gopal,

S/o. N.Venkata Krishna, Hindu, aged about 38 years,

Working as Physical Director,

Sree Prakasam Municipal High School,

Tailors colony, Tadipatri Town, Ananthapuramu.

...DEFENDANT.

This suit is coming on 4.4.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.A.Krishnaiah & Smt.A.Rajeswari, Advocates for the Plaintiff and Sri.P.Kondaiah, Advocate for defendant and having stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against defendant for recovery of amount of Rs.3,79,800/- basing on suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for 3,00,000/- on 05.02.2021 and for future interest and costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

(i) The plaintiff submitted that the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 05.02.2021 for his family and business necessities and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day agreeing to re-pay the same with interest at 24% p.a.

(ii) The plaintiff further submitted that he made several demands on the defendant demanding him to pay the amount due with interest. But the defendant failed to pay any amount. Hence this suit.

3.The defendant filed the written statement stating that the allegations made by the plaintiff in his plaint that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on 05.02.2021, from the plaintiff for his family necessities and he executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. is false and hereby specifically denied. The defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff forged his signatures and filed this false suit against the defendant for wrongful gain.

The allegations made in the plaint that the plaintiff made several demands calling upon the defendant to repay the said amount is false and 3 hereby specifically denied. The attesters are the close friends of the plaintiff.

All of them connived together and fabricated the suit promissory note. Filing of this suit is a clear misuse and abuse of the process of law. There are no merits in this suit.

4. Basing on the above pleadings following issues were settled for trail.

1. Whether the suit promissory note dt.05.02.2021 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for ?

3. To what relief?

5.On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note dt.05.02.2021 for

Rs.3,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. On behalf of defendant, from dt.01.04.2024 to dt.5.03.2025 number of times the matter posted for the defendant evidence, inspite of the conditional order the defendant did not choose to adduce his evidence, hence the defendant side evidence is treated as nil. Hence the matter posted for arguments.

6.Heard the learned counsels for the plaintiff.

7. Issue No.1: Whether the suit promissory note dt.05.02.2021, is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from him and executed Ex.A1 in the presence of attestors, who is examined as PW2. On the other hand it is the contention of 4 the defendant that he never borrowed any amount as stated in the suit from the plaintiff. But the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for wrongful gain.

8. In order to prove due execution of Ex.A1, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and deposed by reiterating the averments of the plaint.

During cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that he is a retired Government teacher. The defendant is also working in their department as Physical

Education Director. During his tenure himself and the defendant worked together on some occasions. There were no previous monitory disputes between himself and the defendant. He denied the suggestion that he was not doing chit business. He stated that for a period of 2 years, he had done private chit business. He further stated that one of the attester

P.V.Ramanappa is also working in Education department. The attester

P.V.Ramanappa and himself also worked together during his tenure. He denied the suggestion that the signatures on Ex.A1 are not that of the defendant. He further denied the suggestion that the defendant has no necessity to borrow amount from him under Ex.A1 and he is deposing falsehood.

9.In support of the evidence of P.W.1, the attester by name

P.V.Ramanappa examined as PW2. He deposed by corroborating the evidence of PW1 that he cannot say on which day Ex.A1 was executed. On 5.2.2021 Ex.A1 was executed in the house of PW1. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsehood to help PW1 to get wrongful gain from the defendant.

10.On the other hand the defendant did not adduce any evidence on his behalf.

5

11.The evidence of PW1, PW2 clearly shows that the plaintiff discharged his initial burden and proved the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by the defendant. The statutory presumption U/Sec. 118 of Negotiable

Instrument Act comes into operation in favour of the plaintiff as to the passing of consideration and the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the said presumption. In order to rebut the said presumption though the defendant cross examined PWs.1 and 2 he himself did not examine and did not adduce any evidence. As defendant nothing is placed in the form of document and evidence to disprove the case of the plaintiff and to rebut the presumption. Mere denial of suit by defendant will not be considered as the evidence to disprove his execution. No efforts were kept by the defendant to disprove his execution. On perusal of the record the court observed that no

Application filed by the defendant to show that the Ex.A1 is fabricated ones.

On observing the evidence of PW2 it was not so corroborative to the plaintiff.

12.Considering facts and circumstance of the case, the evidence on record and the above discussion this Court is of view that the plaintiff has proved that the suit promissory note dt.05.02.2021 is true valid and binding on the defendant. Accordingly issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

13. Issue No.2 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for ?

It is the case of the plaintiff that after lending the amount and execution of Ex.A1 the plaintiff has not got recovered any amount, the defendant has not repaid any amount. It is not the case of the defendant that he discharged the amount due under Ex.A1 promissory note, so the plaintiff 6 was constrained to file this suit against the defendant for recovery of suit amount.

14.Since the defendant borrowed amount under Ex.A.1 from the plaintiff and he failed to discharge the same, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the entire suit amount with future interest from the defendant, as prayed for.

Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

15. Issue No.3: To what relief?

In view of the finding on issue Nos.1 and 2, this court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled for decree, as prayed for.

16.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.3,79,800/- from the defendant together with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 4th day of April, 2025.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

TADIPATRI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

7

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT :

PW.1: Kasibhatla Satyanarayana Murthy -None-

PW2: Pasupuleti Venkata Ramanappa

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1:Original promissory note dated 05.02.2021 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/-.

FOR DEFENDANT

NIL

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

TADIPATRI

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), TADIPATRI

Present:- SMT.K.KRISHNA VENI,

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Friday, this the 4th day of April, 2025

Original Suit No.365/2024

Between:

Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, A. Kondapuram, Represented by its Branch Manager, A. Kondapuram, Putlur Mandal,

Anantapuramu District. ...PLAINTIFF

And

1. Pottipati Gangadhar, S/o. P.Pedda Rangaiah, aged 47 years, Hindu, agriculturist, residing at Kondugarikunta Village, Kummanamala post, Putlur Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

2. G.Rambabu, S/o. G.Kullayappa, aged 44 years, Hindu, agriculturist, residing at Kondugarikunta Village, Kummanamala post, Putlur Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

…DEFENDANTS

This suit is coming on 3.4.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.N.V.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and defendants remained exparte and having stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff bank filed this suit against the defendants for recovery of suit amount of Rs.3,51,759/- being the principal and interest due on agreement of agricultural advances dated 14.12.2015 for Rs.1,25,000/- of loan amounts borrowed by the defendant, for future interest and for costs of the suit.

2

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff bank submitted that the defendant No.1 approached plaintiff bank for financial assistance for raising crops. Accordingly plaintiff bank sanctioned loan of Rs.1,25,000/- on 14.12.2015 under loan account No.

91011771995 under PKCC (Pragathi Kisan Credit Card scheme). Defendant

No.1 executed agreement on 14.12.2015 agreeing to repay with interest at 7% p.a. Defendant No.2 agreed to stood as guarantor and executed guarantee agreement on 14.12.2015. Defendant No.1 withdrawn loan amount on 14.12.2015 by cheque. Defendant No.2 is surety and admitted his liability.

Hence Defendant No.2 is having liability, jointly and severally to pay the debt.

Plaintiff bank made several demands on defendants to repay the amount. But they failed to pay any amount. However Defendants No.1 and 2 executed acknowledgment of debt on 13.12.2018 and again on 03.12.2021 admitting their liability. Even after repeated demands made by plaintiff defendants failed to pay any amount. Plaintiff bank issued notice dt.08.01.2022 to defendants.

Even then defendants failed to pay amount. So defendants committed default in repaying loan amount. Defendants are due Rs.3,51,759/- as on 03.03.2023 as per ledger extract. Hence the suit.

3. Summons of defendant No.1 and 2 were served on 31.12.2024, defendants No.1 and 2 are absent and there was no representation on behalf of the defendants No.1 and 2. Service held sufficient. Hence the defendants 1 and 2 were set exparte.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff’s bank, the Manager of plaintiff bank himself examined as P.W1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9.

5.Heard the learned Counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record.

3 6.Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount

from the defendants 1 and 2 as prayed for?

7.The learned counsel for the plaintiff bank submitted that the defendant

No.1 approached plaintiff bank for getting loan. The plaintiff bank has sanctioned loan of Rs.1,25,000/- to the defendant No.1 for which defendant

No.2 is the guarantor and subsequently the defendants No.1 and 2 failed to repay the same as agreed, and the defendants No.1 and 2 fell due of

Rs. 3,51,759/- and they failed to repay the same. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file this suit for recovery of amount.

POINT:

8.In order to prove its case, the Manager of plaintiff bank himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. Ex.A1 is the original loan agreement dt.14.12.2015 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff bank. Ex.A2 is the cheque dt. 14.12.2015 executed by the 2nd defendant.

Ex.A3 is the cheque dt.14.12.2015 showing withdrawl of amount by the 1st defendant. Ex.A4 is the acknowledgement of debt dt.13.12.2018 executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff bank. Ex.A5 is the acknowledgement of debt st.03.12.2021 executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff bank.

Ex.A6 is the office copy of legal notice dt.08.01.2022. Ex.A7 is the served postal acknowledgement dt.12.01.2022 addressed to the 1st defendant. Ex.A8 is the served postal acknowledgement dt.17.1.2022 addressed to the 2nd defendant. Ex.A9. Is the account extract dt.03.03.2023.

9.PW-1 deposed by reiterating the averments of plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff and also the evidence of PW.1 that the defendant No.1 borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- for which defendant No.2 is the guarantor under 4

EX. A1 to A9 and the defendants 1 and 2 fell due of Rs.3,51,759/- from the plaintiff bank and as per Ex. A1 to A9.

10.The defendants 1 and 2 remained exparte. The evidence of P.W1 and

Ex. A1 to A9 are un-challenged. So, the plaintiff is able to prove that the defendant No.1 borrowed an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from plaintiff bank and the defendants 1 and 2 fell due of Rs.3,51,759/-. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the entire suit amount from the defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally as prayed for. Accordingly point is answered.

11.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount of Rs.3,51,759/- from the defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally with future interest at the rate of 6 % p.a from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.1,25,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 04th day of April, 2025.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

TADIPATRI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS :

PW.1:Cheeli Judas -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1:Original loan agreement dt.14.12.2015 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff bank. Ex.A2Cheque dt. 14.12.2015 executed by the 2nd defendant.

Ex.A3Cheque dt.14.12.2015 showing withdrawl of amount by the 5 1st defendant. Ex.A4Acknowledgement of debt dt.13.12.2018 executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff bank. Ex.A5Acknowledgement of debt st.03.12.2021 executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff bank. Ex.A6Office copy of legal notice st.08.01.2022.

Ex.A7Served postal acknowledgement dt.12.01.2022 addressed to the 1st defendant. Ex.A8Served postal acknowledgement dt.17.1.2022 addressed to the 2nd defendant. Ex.A9Account extract dt.03.03.2023

FOR DEFENDANTS

NIL

CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

TADIPATRI

6

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), TADIPATRI

Present:- SMT.K.KRISHNA VENI,

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Friday, this the 4th day of April, 2025

Original Suit No.365/2024

Between:

Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, A. Kondapuram, Represented by its Branch Manager, A. Kondapuram, Putlur Mandal,

Anantapuramu District. ...PLAINTIFF

And

1. Pottipati Gangadhar, S/o. P.Pedda Rangaiah, aged 47 years, Hindu, agriculturist, residing at Kondugarikunta Village, Kummanamala post, Putlur Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

2. G.Rambabu, S/o. G.Kullayappa, aged 44 years, Hindu, agriculturist, residing at Kondugarikunta Village, Kummanamala post, Putlur Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

…DEFENDANTS

This suit is coming on 3.4.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.N.V.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and defendants remained exparte and having stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff bank filed this suit against the defendants for recovery of suit amount of Rs.3,51,759/- being the principal and interest due on agreement of agricultural advances dated 14.12.2015 for Rs.1,25,000/- of loan amounts borrowed by the defendant, for future interest and for costs of the suit.

2

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff bank submitted that the defendant No.1 approached plaintiff bank for financial assistance for raising crops. Accordingly plaintiff bank sanctioned loan of Rs.1,25,000/- on 14.12.2015 under loan account No.

91011771995 under PKCC (Pragathi Kisan Credit Card scheme). Defendant

No.1 executed agreement on 14.12.2015 agreeing to repay with interest at 7% p.a. Defendant No.2 agreed to stood as guarantor and executed guarantee agreement on 14.12.2015. Defendant No.1 withdrawn loan amount on 14.12.2015 by cheque. Defendant No.2 is surety and admitted his liability.

Hence Defendant No.2 is having liability, jointly and severally to pay the debt.

Plaintiff bank made several demands on defendants to repay the amount. But they failed to pay any amount. However Defendants No.1 and 2 executed acknowledgment of debt on 13.12.2018 and again on 03.12.2021 admitting their liability. Even after repeated demands made by plaintiff defendants failed to pay any amount. Plaintiff bank issued notice dt.08.01.2022 to defendants.

Even then defendants failed to pay amount. So defendants committed default in repaying loan amount. Defendants are due Rs.3,51,759/- as on 03.03.2023 as per ledger extract. Hence the suit.

3. Summons of defendant No.1 and 2 were served on 31.12.2024, defendants No.1 and 2 are absent and there was no representation on behalf of the defendants No.1 and 2. Service held sufficient. Hence the defendants 1 and 2 were set exparte.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff’s bank, the Manager of plaintiff bank himself examined as P.W1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9.

5.Heard the learned Counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record.

3 6.Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount

from the defendants 1 and 2 as prayed for?

7.The learned counsel for the plaintiff bank submitted that the defendant

No.1 approached plaintiff bank for getting loan. The plaintiff bank has sanctioned loan of Rs.1,25,000/- to the defendant No.1 for which defendant

No.2 is the guarantor and subsequently the defendants No.1 and 2 failed to repay the same as agreed, and the defendants No.1 and 2 fell due of

Rs. 3,51,759/- and they failed to repay the same. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file this suit for recovery of amount.

POINT:

8.In order to prove its case, the Manager of plaintiff bank himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. Ex.A1 is the original loan agreement dt.14.12.2015 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff bank. Ex.A2 is the cheque dt. 14.12.2015 executed by the 2nd defendant.

Ex.A3 is the cheque dt.14.12.2015 showing withdrawl of amount by the 1st defendant. Ex.A4 is the acknowledgement of debt dt.13.12.2018 executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff bank. Ex.A5 is the acknowledgement of debt st.03.12.2021 executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff bank.

Ex.A6 is the office copy of legal notice dt.08.01.2022. Ex.A7 is the served postal acknowledgement dt.12.01.2022 addressed to the 1st defendant. Ex.A8 is the served postal acknowledgement dt.17.1.2022 addressed to the 2nd defendant. Ex.A9. Is the account extract dt.03.03.2023.

9.PW-1 deposed by reiterating the averments of plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff and also the evidence of PW.1 that the defendant No.1 borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- for which defendant No.2 is the guarantor under 4

EX. A1 to A9 and the defendants 1 and 2 fell due of Rs.3,51,759/- from the plaintiff bank and as per Ex. A1 to A9.

10.The defendants 1 and 2 remained exparte. The evidence of P.W1 and

Ex. A1 to A9 are un-challenged. So, the plaintiff is able to prove that the defendant No.1 borrowed an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from plaintiff bank and the defendants 1 and 2 fell due of Rs.3,51,759/-. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the entire suit amount from the defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally as prayed for. Accordingly point is answered.

11.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount of Rs.3,51,759/- from the defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally with future interest at the rate of 6 % p.a from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.1,25,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 04th day of April, 2025.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

TADIPATRI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS :

PW.1:Cheeli Judas -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1:Original loan agreement dt.14.12.2015 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff bank. Ex.A2Cheque dt. 14.12.2015 executed by the 2nd defendant.

Ex.A3Cheque dt.14.12.2015 showing withdrawl of amount by the 5 1st defendant. Ex.A4Acknowledgement of debt dt.13.12.2018 executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff bank. Ex.A5Acknowledgement of debt st.03.12.2021 executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff bank. Ex.A6Office copy of legal notice st.08.01.2022.

Ex.A7Served postal acknowledgement dt.12.01.2022 addressed to the 1st defendant. Ex.A8Served postal acknowledgement dt.17.1.2022 addressed to the 2nd defendant. Ex.A9Account extract dt.03.03.2023

FOR DEFENDANTS

NIL

CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

TADIPATRI

6

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

TADIPATRI

Present :- Smt K.Krishna Veni,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri.

Monday, this the 2 nd day of September, 2024

P.R.C.No.24 of 2024

Between:-

The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Town PS. …… Complainant

-Versus-

Nadiminti Ramanjineyulu, age 46 years, S/o. N.Subbabba (Husband of the deceased) Resident of 3rd Road, Jayanagar Colony,

Tadipatri Town. ….. Accused.

* * *

This Case is coming on this day before me for Committal in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri N.U.Devanatha Reddy, Advocate for the accused and after hearing on both sides and this matter having stood over for determination till this day and this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

1.The Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Uraban PS filed charge sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.38 of 2024 for the offence u/section 302 of IPC.

2.On 24.2.2024 the accused picked up quarrel with his wife i.e., the deceased Nadiminti Harilatha @ Aruna and attacked on the deceased with the “Rokaliband” (Pestle) and hit hardly on her head twice and murder her.

The deceased died while she examined by duty doctor and declared that she was brought dead. After filing of Charge sheet, this Court had taken on file u/ss.302 of IPC against the Accused. On appearance of the Accused, the

Copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

3.On perusal of Case records, it appears that, the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, Ananthapuramu. Hence, I commit the Case to the Honourable Court of Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu u/s 209 (a) Cr.P.C.

4.Accused was were remanded to Judicial custody on 25.2.2024 and he was enlarged on bail as per orders in Crl.MP.No.51 of 2024, dated 4-4-2024 of

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

Tribes (POA) Act-cum- VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu (FAC)

VI Additional Sessions Judge, Gooty is ordered to be continued on bail, and on such terms and conditions as imposed at the time of granting of bail. Same sureties shall continue till conclusion of trial before Sessions Court.

5.The entire case records and property, if any are ordered to be submitted to the Court of Sessions Under Section 209 (C ) Cr.PC.

6. Notify the Public Prosecutor about the commitment of this case to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions under Section 209 (d) Cr.PC.

7.When the Accused had asked about his means to engage a defence Counsel on his behalf to defend him in the case, before the Court of

Sessions, he stated that he had means to engage a defence Counsel at

Session’s Court.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on System, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 2 nd day of September, 2024.

Judl. Magistrate of the First Class,

Tadipatri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

-None-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

J.M.F.C, TDP.

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

TADIPATRI

Present :- Smt K.Krishna Veni,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri.

Monday, this the 2 nd day of September, 2024

P.R.C.No.24 of 2024

Between:-

The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Town PS. …… Complainant

-Versus-

Nadiminti Ramanjineyulu, age 46 years, S/o. N.Subbabba (Husband of the deceased) Resident of 3rd Road, Jayanagar Colony,

Tadipatri Town. ….. Accused.

* * *

This Case is coming on this day before me for Committal in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri N.U.Devanatha Reddy, Advocate for the accused and after hearing on both sides and this matter having stood over for determination till this day and this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

1.The Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Uraban PS filed charge sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.38 of 2024 for the offence u/section 302 of IPC.

2.On 24.2.2024 the accused picked up quarrel with his wife i.e., the deceased Nadiminti Harilatha @ Aruna and attacked on the deceased with the “Rokaliband” (Pestle) and hit hardly on her head twice and murder her.

The deceased died while she examined by duty doctor and declared that she was brought dead. After filing of Charge sheet, this Court had taken on file u/ss.302 of IPC against the Accused. On appearance of the Accused, the

Copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

3.On perusal of Case records, it appears that, the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, Ananthapuramu. Hence, I commit the Case to the Honourable Court of Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu u/s 209 (a) Cr.P.C.

4.Accused was were remanded to Judicial custody on 25.2.2024 and he was enlarged on bail as per orders in Crl.MP.No.51 of 2024, dated 4-4-2024 of

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

Tribes (POA) Act-cum- VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu (FAC)

VI Additional Sessions Judge, Gooty is ordered to be continued on bail, and on such terms and conditions as imposed at the time of granting of bail. Same sureties shall continue till conclusion of trial before Sessions Court.

5.The entire case records and property, if any are ordered to be submitted to the Court of Sessions Under Section 209 (C ) Cr.PC.

6. Notify the Public Prosecutor about the commitment of this case to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions under Section 209 (d) Cr.PC.

7.When the Accused had asked about his means to engage a defence Counsel on his behalf to defend him in the case, before the Court of

Sessions, he stated that he had means to engage a defence Counsel at

Session’s Court.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on System, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 2 nd day of September, 2024.

Judl. Magistrate of the First Class,

Tadipatri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

-None-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

J.M.F.C, TDP.