Ms. K.Prasanthi, MBA, L.L.B.,

PJCJ COURT, ELURU, W.G.DT

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ELURU.

Present: Ms. K.Prasanthi

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru.

Saturday, 21st day of April, 2018

CC 15/2017

(Cr.No.240 of 2015 of Eluru Town Circle)

Between:

The State: Inspector of Police, Eluru Town Circle, Eluru. … Complainant. AND

A-1: Dumpalapalli Nagalaxmi, W/o late Pothuraju, 20 yrs, SC Mala, R/o near Saibaba temple, Eastern Street, Eluru.

A-2: Gedela Kamalamma, W/o late Raju, 50 yrs, Chenchulu, Chenchula Colony, Near Vinayaka Temple, Eluru.

A-3: Thuraka Swarna,W/o Durga Rao, 27 yrs, Vaddera, Vanga Yagudem Centre, Eluru. … Accused.

This case is coming on 20-04-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri

K.N.V.S.R.Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the accused no.1 and 3 and Sri B.J.Reddy,

Advocate for the accused no.2, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The State represented by Inspector of Police, Eluru Town Circle, filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.240/2015 for the offence punishable U/Sec 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act.

2) The brief accusation in the Police Report is as follows:

On 18.11.2015 at 1.45PM on credible information, Lw-15 N.Rajasekhar sent

Lw-4 K.Ratnalu as a decoy to Donka road, back side of Panduranga Theatre, Eluru and found three accused and four other women prostitutes then he arrested the accused under the cover of mediators report, then Lw-14 K.Rama Rao registered the mediators reportas a case in Cr.No.240/2015 u/s.4 of ITP Act then Lw-15

N.Raja Sekhar took up further investigation then he observed the scene of offence and prepared scene observation report then LW-15 N.Rajasekhar examined

PJCJ COURT, ELURU, W.G.DT

2 witnesses and recorded their statements. During the course of investigation

LW-15 N.Rajasekhar released accused after obtaining sufficient sureties and after completion of investigation LW-15 N.Rajasekhar filed charge sheet against the accused.

3) The case was taken on file by the Second Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class,

Eluru for the offence U/Sec 4 of ITP Act against the accused 1 to 3. Subsequently the case was transferred to this court as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble

Principal District Court, Eluru in Dis.No. 3156 dated 08-05-2017.

4) When accused appeared before the court, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5) Accused 1 to 3 were examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. Charge U/Sec.4 of

ITP Act has been framed against the accused read over and exaplained to them in

Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the case is posted for trial.

6) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11, Exs.P1 to P12 and MOs 1 and 2 were marked.

7) After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused were examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in oral and documentary evidence for which they denied the same. Accused were called upon to enter into defence evidence for which they reported no defence.

8) Heard arguments on both sides.

9) Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the

accused 1 to 3 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 4 of ITP Act., beyond

all reasonable doubt?

[10) POINT:: To establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under

Sec.4 of ITP Act prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11.

PJCJ COURT, ELURU, W.G.DT

3

11) P.W.1 D.Srinivasa Rao deposed that he does not know about the facts of the case and police never examined him. As P.W.1 did not support the case of prosecution he was cross examined by learned APP. During cross examination

PW1 denied the 161 Cr.P.C statement stated to the police as in Ex.P1.

12) P.W.2 S.Govinda Reddy deposed that he does not know about the facts of the case and police never examined him. As P.W.2 did not support the case of prosecution he was cross examined by learned APP. During cross examination

PW2 denied the 161 Cr.P.C statement stated to the police as in Ex.P2.

13) P.W.3 Sailaja deposed that she does not know A1 to A3 and facts of the case and police never examined her. As P.W.3 did not support the case of prosecution she was cross examined by learned APP. During cross examination

PW3 denied the 161 Cr.P.C statement stated to the police as in Ex.P3.

14) P.W.4 S.Rehmatha deposed that she does not know A1 to A3 and facts of the case and police never examined her. As P.W.4 did not support the case of prosecution she was cross examined by learned APP. During cross examination

PW4 denied the 161 Cr.P.C statement stated to the police as in Ex.P4.

15) P.W.5 A.Uma Maheswari deposed that she does not know A1 to A3 and facts of the case and police never examined her. As P.W.5 did not support the case of prosecution she was cross examined by learned APP. During cross examination PW5 denied the 161 Cr.P.C statement stated to the police as in Ex.P5.

16) P.W.6 Kengam Ratnalu deposed that he does not know the accused, he does not know Pws 1 to 5 and at about 3 years back on one day the Inspector of

Police, Eluru I Town Ps called him to the Ps then he visited Eluru I Town Ps there at the request of police he signed on mediators report but he does not know the contents of the report. Ex.P6 is the signature of PW.6 on mediators report. As

P.W.6 did not support the case of prosecution he was cross examined by learned

APP. During cross examination PW6 denied the 161 Cr.P.C statement stated to the police as in Ex.P7.

PJCJ COURT, ELURU, W.G.DT

4

17) P.W.7 I.Jhansi Lakshmi deposed that she does not know accused and facts of the case and police never examined her. As P.W.7 did not support the case of prosecution she was cross examined by learned APP. During cross examination PW7 denied the 161 Cr.P.C statment stated to the police as in Ex.P8.

18) P.W.8 P.Raju deposed that he does not know about the facts of the case and police never examined him. As P.W.8 did not support the case of prosecution he was cross examined by learned APP. During cross examination PW8 denied the 161 Cr.P.C statment stated to the police as in Ex.P9.

19) P.W.9 T.Sadasivarao deposed that on 18.11.2015 at the request of Lw-15

N.Rajasekhar inspector of police, Eluru he visited the I Town Ps and from there himself along with LW-11 V.Seethadevayya and another mediator accompanied

LW-15 N.Rajasekhar proceeded to Panduranga theatre back side, Eluru at about 1.45PM at Donka road there Lw-15 N.Rajasekhar called PW6 then Pw6 visited the scene of offence, then LW-15 N.Rajasekhar handed over Rs.500/- to Pw6 to act as decoy witness then Pw6 procured the woman for prostitution and accused and

Pws 3 to 6 visited the scene of offence then LW-15 N.Rajasekhar arrested A1 to A3 and detained Pws 3 to 6 and got confessed A1 to A3 and seized cash Rs.1500/- from the possession of A1 to A3 and one cellphone from A1 under the cover of mediators report drafted by Lw-15 N.Rajasekhar. Ex.P10 is the mediators report.

MO.1 FDR for Rs.1500/- and MO.2 cell phone.

20) PW.10 V.Seethadevayya constable deposed that on 18.11.2015 the

Inspector LW-15 N.Rajasekhar, received credible infromation about the prostitution run by A1, on the instructions Lw-15 N.Rajasekhar Inspector of police he made a phone call to A1 for want of woman for that A1 agreed to suply the woman then on 18-11-2015 Lw-15 N.Rajasekhar secured PW6 and PW9 and LW-13 Sumathi mediators and visited Eluru I Town PS, then LW-15 N.Rajasekhar handed over

Rs.500/- to Pw6 then himself, PW9 and Lw-13 J.Sumathi accompanied LW-15

N.Rajasekhar and proceeded to Panduranga theatre Eluru at about 1.45PM by that time A1 to A3 got down from auto, then PW6 talked withA1 and handed over

Rs.500/- to A1, then Pws 4 to 7 got down another auto then LW-15 N.Rajasekhar

PJCJ COURT, ELURU, W.G.DT

5 arrested A1 to A3 and seized 1500/- from the possession of A1 to A3 and one cell phone from A1 under the cover of mediators report then they returned to the PS along with accused and case property. Upon the instructions of LW-15

N.Rajasekhar,LW-14 K.Ramarao, SI of Police registered the case.

21) Pw.11 N.Rajasekhar, Inspector of Police deposed that on 17-11-2015 he received credible information about the running of prostitution by A1, then he instructed PW.6 to go to A1 and talk about the woman for prostitution then on 18.11.2015 he secured the mediators Pw6, Pw.9 and LW-13 J.Sumathi and proceeded to puntha road back side of Panduranga theatre, Eluru and handed over cash of Rs.500/- to PW.6 and send him as decoy to A1, by that time A1 to A3 got down from auto, then PW6 talked with A1 and handed over Rs.500/- to A1, then Pws 4 to 7 got down another auto then LW-15 N.Rajasekhar arrested A1 to A3 and seized 1500/- from them he detained Pws 3, 4,5 and 7 and arrested and seized Rs.1500/- from the possession of A1 to A3 and one cell phone from A1 under thecover of mediators report drafted by LW-13 J.Sumathi then they returned to the Ps along with accused and case property. PW.11 further deposed that upon his instructions LW14 K.Rama Rao registered the case in Cr.No.240/2015 under

Sec.4 and 5 of ITP Act. Ex.P11 is the FIR. PW11 took up investigation and on furnishing sufficient sureties he releasedthe accused on bail then he visited the scene of offence and examined witnesses and on completionof investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Ex.P12 is the call details.

22) On careful scrutinisation of the evidence on record P.Ws 1 and 2 are the eye witness as per the version of prosecution. But Pws 1 and 2 did not support the case of prosecution. Pws 3,4 5 and 7 the victim women did not support the case of prosecution. Pw.6 the decoy witness also did not support the case of prosecution. Pw.8 the auto driver and eye witness also did not support the case of prosecution. Pw.s 10 and 11 are the police personnel. The alleged confession of the accused in the presence of Pws 10 and 11 is hit by Sec.25 of

Indian Evidence Act, whcih makes the confession before police inadmissible into evidence. Pw.9 is the mediator for arrest of accused and seizure of Mos 1 and 2.

Pw.9 stated in his evidence that Pw11 drafted the mediator report. But Pw.11 the

PJCJ COURT, ELURU, W.G.DT

6 investigating officer deposed that Lw-13 J.Sumathi drafted the mediator report.

PW.9 further deposed during cross examination he cannot identify the accused.

Hence the evidence of Pws 9 is not inspiring the confidence of this court and cast a doubt about his presence at the time of arrest of the acused and seizure of Mos 1 and 2. Hence there is no evidence on record to connect the accused for the alleged offence. Therefore in view of above foregoing discussion this Court opines that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence U/sec 4 of ITP

Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

17) In the result accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence U/sec 4 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and thereby they are acquitted U/s.248(1)

Cr.P.C and set at liberty. The bonds of the accused if any shall stand cancelled.

MO1 cash of Rs.1500/- which is in the form of FDR shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time. MO.2 cell phone shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court, on this the 21st day of April, 2018.

Sd/-K.Prasanthi

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil

P.W.1 : D.Srinivasa Rao P.W.2 : S.Govina Reddy P.w.3 : Sailaja P.W.4 : S.Rehmatha P.W.5 : A.Uma Maheswari P.W.6 : K.Ratnalu P.W.7 : I.Jhansi Lakshmi P.W.8 : P.Raju P.W.9 : T.Sadasivarao P.W.10: V.Seethadevayya P.W.11: N.Rajasekhar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW1

Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW2

Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW3

PJCJ COURT, ELURU, W.G.DT

7

Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW4

Ex.P5 : 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW5

Ex.P6: PW6 signature on mediators report

Ex.P7 : 161 Cr.P.C statement by P6

Ex.P8 : 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW7

Ex.P9 : 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW8

Ex.P10: Mediators report

Ex.P11: FIR

Ex.P12: call details

For Defence: Nil

M.Os. MARKED:

M.O.1 : FDR Rs.1500/-

M.O.2: Cell phone

Id/-K.P Prl.J.C.J Eluru.

PJCJ COURT, ELURU, W.G.DT

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ELURU.

Present: Ms. K.Prasanthi

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru.

Saturday, 21st day of April, 2018

C.C.No.113/2017

(Cr.No.45 of 2014 of Veeravasaram Police Station)

Between: The State: Sub Inspector of Police, Veeravasarm PS … Complainant. AND

1. Chekuri Vara Prasad, S/o.Krishnamurthy, 43 year, Kamma, Door No.2-42, Andaluru(V), Veeravasaram (M)

2. Srigiri Ratnacharyulu, S/o Subrahmanyam, 50 years, Viswa Brahmin, Andaluru (V), Veeravasaram (M) … Accused.

This case is coming on 17.04.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri

K.V.Ramakrishna, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this

Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Veeravasaram

Police Station filed Charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.45/2014 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 171(E) , 188 r/w 34 IPC.

2) The brief accusation in the Police Report is as follows:

On 06.05.2014 at about 11.30PM on credible information LW-1 K.Naga

Venkateswara Rao, along with flying squad Lws 2and 3 P.Rambabu and

M.Sivaji proceeded to 3rd ward, Andaluru(V) of Veeravasarm, when they reached 3rd ward, Andaluru the accused were observing hand written voters list of 3rd ward and on seeing them they tried to skulk away then police caught them and found them having possession of cash and they stated that they are going to distribute money to the voters and searched the person of

A1 found possession of 56,200/- and A2 having possession of Rs.36,000/- then they were brought to Veeravasaram police station and produced them

before the police and received the report of Lw-1 K.Naga Venkateswara Rao,

PJCJ COURT, ELURU, W.G.DT

2 LW-5 R.S.Krishna Varma SI of Police registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.45/14 u/s 171(E), 188 r/w 34 IPC of Veeravasaram Ps and investigated into. During the course of investigation LW-5 R.S.Krishna Varma arrested the accused and he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3) The case was taken on file by the II Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Bhimavaram for the offence U/Sec. 171(E) r/w 34 of I.P.C against the accused 1 and 2 .

4) When accused appeared before the court, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5) Accused were examined u/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation leveled against them for the offence U/Sec. 171(E) r/w 34 IPC, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the case is posted for trial. During the course of trail the case was transferred to this court as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Chief Judl.Magistrate, West

Godavari, Eluru in Dis.No. 160 dated 25-03-2015.

6) In order to prove its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3, Exs.P1 to P3 and Mo1 were marked.

7) After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in oral and documentary evidence for which they denied the same. Accused were called upon to enter into defence evidence for which they reported no defence.

8) Heard arguments on both sides.

9) Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.171(E) r/w 34 IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?

10) POINT:: To establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under

Secs.171(E) r/w 34 I.P.C prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3.

PJCJ COURT, ELURU, W.G.DT

3

11) P.W.1 K.Naga Venkateswara Rao deposed that he was appointed as

Asst.Expenditure observer for Bhimavaram Assembly Constituency, 2014

Elections, on 05.05.2014 while he was present in the MRO office,

Bhimavaram he received phone call from MDO office, Veeravasaram stating that some persons distributing money to voters in Andaluru Village, then himself, LW-2 P.Rambabu, Lw-3 M.Sivaji proceeded to Andaluru Village there they noticed 2 pesons and on seeing them they tried to skulk away, then police detained the said persons and on enquiry they revealed their identity as A1 and A2 and confessed that they are distributing money to voters then police seized cash of Rs.92,200/- and voters list from the possession of accused and prepared report. Ex.P1 is the report. PW.1 also deposed that they brought the accused to Veeravasaram PS, handed over the accused along with cash of Rs.92,200/- and voters list to police. Ex.P2 is the hand writing voters list. Mo.1 is the FDR for Rs.92,200/-. At the time of producing case property police have produced 2 FDRs . One FDR of principal amount for Rs.92,200/- marked as MO1 and another FDR of interest amount of

Rs.23,985/-

12) P.W.2 P.Rambabu ASI of police deposed that on 05.05.2014 he is deputed as member of flying squad for 2014 Assembly Elections, PW1 received phone call from MDO office Veeravasaram stating that some persons are distributing money to voters in Andaluru village, then himself

LW-3 M.Sivaji, Lw-4 I.Venkateswara Rao accompanied PW1 and proceeded to

Andaluru village there they noticed 2 pesons, on seeing them they tried to skulk away then they detained the said persons and on enquriy by PW1 they revealed their identity as A1 and A2 and stated that they are verifying the voters list. PW.2 also deposed that as the accused are in possession of cash of Rs.92,200/- then PW1 seized cash of Rs.92,200/- and voters list from the possession of accused under the cover of report Ex.P1 then they brought the accused to Veeravasaram PS handed over the accused along with cash of

Rs.92,200/- and voters list to police.

PJCJ COURT, ELURU, W.G.DT

4

13) Pw.3 R.S.Krishna Babu, SI of Police deposed that on 06.05.2014 at 12.30PM while he was present in the Ps Pws 1 and 2, Lws 3 and 4 M.Sivaji and I.Venkateswara Rao came to the Ps and gave report and handed over accused and MO.1 and Ex.P2. Basing on Ex.P1 he registered a case in

Cr.No.45/2014 under Sec.171(E), 188 r/w 34 IPC. Ex.P3 is the FIR then he submitted original FIR to the Hon’ble court and copies to the concerned then he examined witnesses and recorded their statements then he arrested the accused and send them for judicial custody and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

14) On careful scrutinisation of the evidence on record the evidence of

PW1 discloses that the accused confessed that they are distributing money to the voters in his presence. But PW2 who accompanied PW1 deposed that the accused stated that they are verifying the voters list on enquiry by PW1.

So the evidence of Pw2 does not disclose the alleged confession of accused.

The testimony of Pw3 discloses about registring of FIR and investigation.

Both Pws 1 and 2 deposed that by the time they reached the scene of offence the accused are not distributing money to the voters. So except the alleged confession of the accused there is no evidence on record to connect accused to the offence. But the alleged confession of the accused was not reduced into the mediators report. Both Pws 1 and 2 admitted that no mediator report was drafted to show that MO1 was seized from the possession of the accused. PW.3 the investigating officed depsoed that no incriminating material was seized from the scene of offence. Even Pw3 failed to ascertain on behalf of which party the accused is distributing money to the voters. So the evidence of PW1 with regard to the allged confession of the accused is not inspiring the confidence of this court with regard to the offence. Pw.3 failed to secure the local inhabitants to act as mediators at the scene of offence at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of Mo1.

Non-securing the local inhabitants at the place of arrest of the accused and seizure of property vitiates entire seizure as per 100(4) Cr.P.C. Hence there is no evidence on record to show that accused were distributing money to

PJCJ COURT, ELURU, W.G.DT

5 the voters on the date of alleged incident. Therefore in view of above foregoing discussion, this court opines that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence U/s 171(E) r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt

16) In the result accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence 171(E) r/w 34 of IPC and thereby they are acquitted U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C and set at liberty. The bonds of the accused if any shall stand cancelled. Mo.1

Cash of Rs.92,200/- which is in the form of FDR shall be confiscated to State after expiry of appeal time. At the time of producing case property police have produced 2 FDRs. One FDR of principal amount for Rs.92,200/- marked as MO1 and another FDR of interest amount of Rs. 23,985/- .

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 21st day of April, 2018.

Sd/-K.Prasanthi

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil

P.W.1 : K.Naga Venkateswara Rao

P.W.2 : P.Rambabu

P.W.3 : R.S.Krishna Babu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1:Report

Ex.P2:hand writing voters list

Ex.P3:FIR

For Defence: Nil

M.Os. MARKED:

MO 1: FDR for Rs. 92,200/- At the time of producing case property police have produced 2 FDRs . One FDR of principal amount for Rs.92,200/- marked as MO1 and another FDR of interest amount of Rs 23,985/-

Id/-K.P Prl.J.C.J

PJCJ COURT, ELURU, W.G.DT

6 Eluru.

PJCJ COURT, ELURU, W.G.DT

Page No.1O.S.200/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ELURU.

PRESENT: Ms.K.Prasanthi

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

Thursday, the 19th day of April, 2018

O.S.No200/2017

Between:

Maganti Murali Krishna … Plaintif

and

Talari Venu Gopala Krishna … Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 13-04-2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri E.Srinivasa Babu, Advocate for plaintif and of Sri G.V.Nageswara

Rao, Advocate for defendant and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintif filed the suit for recovery of sum of Rs 2,57,500/- being the

principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 20-08-2014 executed by

the defendant in his favour for Rs.1,50,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs.

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

That the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) on 20.08.2014 from the plaintif for his business and family expenses purpose on executing a promissory note on the even date in favour of the plaintif agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum whenever it was demanded by the plaintif or by his order on demand. That even after repeated demands made by the plaintif personally and through mediators the defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintif and postponed the same from time to time. As per the demand made by the plaintif the defendant issued a cheque for Rs.90,000/- on 16.02.2016 towards part payment of the suit debt and the same was dishonoured. To that extent the plaintif has initiated criminal

PJCJ COURT, ELURU, W.G.DT

Page No.2O.S.200/2017 proceedings against the defendant in CC.No.492/2017 before the II Add.Judl.I

Class Magistrate, Eluru and the same was pending. That having vexed with the attitude of the defendant, the plaintif got issued legal notice dated 12.03.2016 calling upon the defendant to discharge the debt due under the pro-note with up to date interest. The defendant received the said notice and failed to comply with the demand of the plaintif. Hence the suit.

3)The defendant filed written statement denying averments made in the plaint. The brief averments in the written statement of defendant is as follows:

That the defendant never borrowed any amount much less the alleged amount of Rs.1,50,000/- neither from the plaintif nor from anybody, and had never executed any promissory note either in favour of the plaintif or in favour of anybody. The plaintif is a stranger to the defendant and the defendant had never seen the face of the plaintif at any point of time. The defendant had never signed any pronote and the same is forged by the plaintif for wrongful gain.

Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4) Basing on the pleadings of both the parties the following issues have been framed for the purpose of trial.

1. Whether the suit promissory note dt.20-08-2014 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for ?

3. To what relief ?

5) To substantiate the case of the plaintif, the plaintif himself is examined as P.W.1 and got examined scribe of suit promissory note as PW2 and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the defendant the defendant himself is examined as

DW1. No documents were marked.

6) Heard arguments on both sides.

Issue No.1:

PJCJ COURT, ELURU, W.G.DT

Page No.3O.S.200/2017

7)As per the assertion of the plaintif, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- from him on 20-08-2014 and executed Ex.A-1 in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to him or to his order on demand. Subsequently on repeated demands made by the plaintif the defendant failed to discharge the debt due under

Ex.A-1. On the other hand the defendant raised a plea that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintif, never executed any promissory note much less the alleged promissory note, but the signature on suit promissory note is forged by the plaintif for wrongful gain. Hence, the burden of proof lies on the plaintif to prove his contention.

8) In order to prove the case plaintif, the plaintif himself gave evidence as

P.W.1. As per the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A-1, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- under Ex.A-1. As per the evidence of Pw1 coupled with Ex.A2 inspite of several demands made by the plaintif the defendant failed to discharge the debt amount and so the plaintif got issued legal notice dt.12-03-2016. As per the evidence of Pw1 coupled with Ex.A3 the defendant received the legal notice and kept quiet. During cross examination Pw.1 deposed that the scribe and attestors of Ex.A1 are his friends. PW1 was suggested that the defendant never borrowed any amount from him but the signature on Ex.A1 is forged. PW1 denied the said suggestion. Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of PW1 to disprove the transaction under Ex.A1. In support of his case the plaintif got examined the scribe of Ex.A1 of promissory note as PW2.

PW2 stated in his evidence that on 20-08-2014 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintif and executed promissory note Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintif. Pw.2 also deposed that at the time of transaction under

Ex.A1 himself, the attestors M.Perraju and K.Balakrishna were present and defendant received consideration in their presence. Pw.2 also deposed that he scribed Ex.A1 promissory note. Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of

PJCJ COURT, ELURU, W.G.DT

Page No.4O.S.200/2017

Pw2 to disprove his presence at the time of transaction under Ex.A1. Hence the plaintif by relying upon the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A3 proved the transaction under Ex.A1. As such the plaintif being discharged the burden of proof lies upon him, the onus of proof shifts on defendant to prove otherwise.

9) In order to substantiate the case of the defendant the defendant has filed his chief affidavit as DW1. Dw1 stated in his evidence that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintif much less the alleged amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- and never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintif, but the plaintif has forged the signature on promissory note for wrongful gain. If really the version of the defendant is true that the plaintif forged his signature on

Ex.A1 promissory note he could have taken steps legally against the plaintif or could have got issued reply notice to the legal notice of the plaintif. But no such steps were taken by the defendant. During cross examination DW1 deposed that he did not give any police report alleging that he never executed promissory note in favour of the plaintif but his signature is forged. DW.1 also deposed that he did not got issued reply notice to the legal notice of the plaintif. Even the defendant did not take steps to send Ex.A1 promissory note for expert opinion. The same is admitted by DW1 during cross examination. During cross examination DW1 deposed that the signature on Ex.A1 promissory note and signature on written statement appear to be similar. On one hand the defendant is contending that the plaintif is stranger to him. On the other hand the defendant has taken a plea that his signature on Ex.A1 promissory note is forged for wrongful gain. But the defendant did not assign any reasons why the plaintif intend to forge his signature on Ex.A1 promissory note. Hence there is no evidence on record to show that Ex.A1 is forged one. But the plaintif by examining Pws 1 and 2 and marking Exs.A1 to A3 proved that the Ex.A1 is true, valid and binding on the defendant. Accordingly the issue is answered in favour of the plaintif and

PJCJ COURT, ELURU, W.G.DT

Page No.5O.S.200/2017 against the defendant.

Issue No.2

10) In view of the findings given by this court in issue no.1 the plaintif is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for. Accordingly the issue is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.

Issue No.3:

11) In view of the findings given by this court in issues 1 and 2 the plaintif is entitled for decree amount with costs.

12) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.2,57,500/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty seven thousand and five hundred only) with 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% per annum till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees

One lakh fifty thousand only).

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of April, 2018.

Sd/-K.Prasanthi

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Eluru

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1:Maganti Murali Krishna D.w.1:Talari Venu Gopal Krishna

P.W.2:Neelapala Surya Chandra Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Promissory note dated 20.08.2014.

Ex.A2: O/c of legal notice dated 12.03.2016

Ex.A3: Postal acknowledgment.

FOR DEFENDANT:

-Nil- Id/-K.P Prl.J.C.J. ELURU.

P.J.C.J. COURT, ELURU, W.G.DT.,

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ELURU.

Present: Ms K.Prasanthi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

Monday, the 23rd day of April, 2018

O.S.No.94/2017

Between:

Gullinkala Venu …. Plaintif

Vs

1. Satyavarapu Prudhvi Raj

2. Satyavarapu Atchyutha (rep by their mother and GPA holder Satyavarapu Sujatha)

3. Satyavarapu Sujatha .... Defendants

Suit is filed by the plaintif to grant permanent injunction against the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the plaintif’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property until evicted by the defendant under due process of law and for costs of the suit.

This suit is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri E. Srinivasa Babu, Advocate for plaintif and of Sri K.V.P.

Madhava Rao, Advocate for 3rd defendant; upon perusing the material papers on record, having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Plaintif present, not press memo filed on behalf of plaintif stating matter is settled out of court. Hence, suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of April, 2018.

Sd/­ K. Prasanthi

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ELURU. 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Id/- K.P. P.J.C.J.

Eluru

P.J.C.J. COURT, ELURU, W.G.DT.,

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ELURU.

Present: Ms K.Prasanthi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

Monday, the 23rd day of April, 2018

O.S.No.94/2017

Between:

Gullinkala Venu …. Plaintif

Vs

1. Satyavarapu Prudhvi Raj

2. Satyavarapu Atchyutha (rep by their mother and GPA holder Satyavarapu Sujatha)

3. Satyavarapu Sujatha .... Defendants

Suit is filed by the plaintif to grant permanent injunction against the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the plaintif’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property until evicted by the defendant under due process of law and for costs of the suit.

This suit is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri E. Srinivasa Babu, Advocate for plaintif and of Sri K.V.P.

Madhava Rao, Advocate for 3rd defendant; upon perusing the material papers on record, having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Plaintif present, not press memo filed on behalf of plaintif stating matter is settled out of court. Hence, suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of April, 2018.

Sd/­ K. Prasanthi

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ELURU. 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Id/- K.P. P.J.C.J.

Eluru