Sri. K.Ratna Kumar

(Fair) IX ADJ COURT, CDM 1 NSC No.389/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

CHODAVARAM

APVS130001472024Present: Sri K.RATNA KUMAR IX Additional District & Sessions Judge,(FTC) Chodavaram.

Monday this the 7th day July, 2025

NSC.NO.389/2015 (Cr.No.31/2015 of G.Madugula P.S.) Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, G.Madugula P.S.

….. Complainant

And

1) Dannina Nookaraju, S/o.Late Ramulu, 35 Years, BC-Ayyayarakulu, Cultivation, Ravanapalli Village, Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

2) Singidi Chinnababu, S/o.Late Appa Rao (died - abated)

3) Kimidi Shiva, S/o.Late Bheemannadora, 36 Years, St Bhagatha, Coolie, Sadika Village, Chintapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

(A.2 reported died, DC of A.2 filed, case against A.2 was

abated as per the docket order dt.12.07.2024) …… Accused No’s.1 and 3

This case is coming on 04-07-2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri U.Venkata Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor for the

State and of Sri B.Pydiraju, Advocate for Accused No’s.1 and 3 and on perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1) Accused No’s.1 and 3 were tried for the offence U/s.20(b)(ii)(C) r/w 8(c) of NDPS Act.

(Fair) IX ADJ COURT, CDM 2 NSC No.389/2015

2)Sub-Inspector of Police, G.Madugula P.S. filed charge sheet against Accused No’s.1 to 3 for the offence U/s.20(b)(1) of NDPS Act with the following allegations in brief.

On 27.04.2015, on reliable information LW-10-D.Sekharam, SI of

Police, G.Madugula PS along with his staff and mediators proceeded to

MRO Office Junction and conducted vehicle checking, at 04.30 PM they apprehended A.1 to A.3 while proceeding on Hero Honda Glamour

Motor Bike with one gunny bag and interrogated them. On interrogation, accused revealed their names and identity particulars and confessed that they are transporting ganja. LW-10-D.Sekharam, SI of Police, G.Madugula PS verified the bags, noticed smell of ganja. He seized the bag containing ganja and cash of Rs.40,000/- from the possession of accused in the presence of mediators under the cover of mediators report and produced before LW-3-P.Panthulu, MEM,

G.Madugula (gazetted officer) for conducting search and seizure proceedings under NDPS Act. LW-3-P.Panthulu, MEM, G.Madugula in turn conducted search and seizure proceedings verified the bag and noticed ganja leaves, flowers and seeds. He drew samples from gunny bags and packed separately. He got weighed gunny bag which came to 20 Kgs and prepared a mediators report to that effect. Later, LW-10-

D.Sekharam, SI of Police, G.Madugula PS took A.1 to A.3 along with seized property to the police station and registered a case in

Cr.No.31/2015 u/sec.20(b)(1) of NDPS Act and issued FIR. He arrested (Fair) IX ADJ COURT, CDM 3 NSC No.389/2015

A.1 to A.3 and send them to judicial remand. He forwarded the samples to Chemical Examiner for Chemical Analysis Report. Chemical

Examiner issued Chemical Analysis Report and opined that samples are tested positive as ganja. Hence, the charge.

3) Considering the material on record the learned Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam took cognizance of offence under

Section 20(b)(1) of NDPS Act and assigned NSC.No.389/2015 and made over to this court for disposal according to law on point of jurisdiction.

4)A.2 reported died, DC of A.2 filed, case against A.2 was abated as per the docket order dt.12.07.2024.

5) On appearance of Accused No’s.1 and 3, case copies were furnished to them as per Section 207 Cr.P.C., A.1 and A.3 were examined

U/sec.228 Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel, this court framed the charge under

Section 20(b)(ii)(C) r/w.8(c) of NDPS Act against Accused No’s.1 and 3, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6)To bring home the guilt of Accused No’s.1 and 3, prosecution examined PW.’s.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.’s. P1 to P16 and MO’s 1 & 2.

(Fair) IX ADJ COURT, CDM 4 NSC No.389/2015

7)After the closure of prosecution evidence, Accused No’s.1 and 3 were examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The incriminating evidence spoken by the prosecution witnesses against Accused No’s.1 and 3 was read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the same and reported no evidence in defence.

8)PWs 1 and 2 are independent mediators, PW-3 is ASI of Police,

PW-4 is SI of Police/Investigating Officer, PW-5 is Another SI of Police who prepared Inventory of seized articles, Ex.P.1 is signature of PW-1 on mediators report dt.27.04.2015 at 04.00 PM, Ex.P.2 is signature of

PW-1 on search mediators report dt.27.04.2015 at 5.45 PM, Ex.P.3 is signature of PW-2 on mediators report dt.27.04.2015 at 04.00 PM,

Ex.P.4 is signature on search mediators report dt.27.04.2015 at 5.45

PM, Ex.P.5 is Mediators report dt.27.04.2015 at 04.00 PM, Ex.P.6 is mediators report dt.27.04.2015 at 05.45 PM, Ex.P.7 is Notice served on

PW-1, Ex.P.8 is Notice served on PW-2, Ex.P.9 is Notice served on LW-3-

P.Panthulu, MRO, G.Madugula, Ex.P.10 is FIR in Cr.No.31/2015 u/sec.20(b)(1) of NDPS Act, Ex.P.11 is Letter addressed to Chemical

Examiner, REL, Visakhapatnam dt.05.05.2015, Ex.P.12 is Letter of

Advice, Ex.P.13 is Laboratory Analysis Report, Ex.P.14 is Annexure-I-

Inventory of seized NDPS u/sec.52A(2) of NDPS Act, Ex.P.15 is

Certificate issued by JFCM, Paderu certifying the correctness of inventory, Ex.P.16 is One photograph Annexed to Ex.P.15 containing (Fair) IX ADJ COURT, CDM 5 NSC No.389/2015 seized ganja bag. MO-1 is Two sample packets and MO-2 is Hero Honda

Glamour Motor bike bearing No.AP 31 CN 9420

9)Heard arguments.

10)Now the Point for determination is “Whether the prosecution has made out the case against Accused

No’s.1 and 3 for the offence u/Sec.20(b)(ii)(C) r/w 8(C) of

NDPS Act beyond all reasonable doubts?”

11)Point :

PWs 1 and 2 are the independent mediators and they testified that about 14 years back on one day SI of Police, G.Madugula PS called them to the police station and obtained their signatures on 02 written reports. Ex.P1 is signature of PW-1 on mediators report dt.27.04.2015 at 04.00 PM, Ex.P.2 is signature of PW-1 on search mediators report dt.27.04.2015 at 5.45 PM, Ex.P.3 is signature of PW-2 on mediators report dt.27.04.2015 at 04.00 PM, Ex.P.4 is signature on search mediators report dt.27.04.2015 at 5.45 PM. PWs 1 and 2 further testified that they did not know the contents of said 02 mediators report, they do not know A.1 to A.3 (A.2 died – abated) and they do not know anything about the present case.

Declaring them as hostile, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor cross examined them but nothing substantial was elicited from their cross examination in support of prosecution version.

(Fair) IX ADJ COURT, CDM 6 NSC No.389/2015

12)PW-3 is ASI of Police and he testified about receiving credible information about transportation of ganja on 27.04.2015 by PW-4, proceeding to the scene of offence along with mediators, PW-4 and his staff members and apprehending in A.1 to A.3 (A.2 died – abated) along with MO-2 Hero Honda Glamour Motor Bike containing white colour gunny bag, interrogating A.1 to A.3 (A.2 died – abated) by SI of

Police recording confession statements of A.1 to A.3 (A.2 died – abated), seizure of plastic gunny bag and cash of Rs.40,000/- under the cover of Ex.P.5 mediators report, producing A.1 to A.3 (A.2 died – abated) before MRO, G.Madugula, MRO verifying the bag and noticing ganja leaves, flowers and seeds, got weighing gunny bag which came to 20 Kgs by MRO, drawing of MO-1 samples by MRO and preparation of Ex.P.6 mediators report.

13)PW-4 is the SI of Police and he testified about receiving information about transportation of ganja on 27.04.2015 at 04.00 PM while he was present in police station, entering the information in writing in general diary and informing to his superior officers, securing the presence of mediators and his staff and proceeding to scene of offence after serving Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 notices on PWs 1 and 2 mediators, apprehending of A.1 to A.3 (A.2 died – abated) along with

Hero Honda Glamour Motor Bike without number plate and one gunny bag, interrogating to A.1 to A.3 (A.2 died – abated) recording their (Fair) IX ADJ COURT, CDM 7 NSC No.389/2015 confession statements, seizure of cash of Rs.40,000/- from the possession of A.1, one gunny bag, MO-2-Hero Honda Glamour motor bike without number plate under the cover of Ex.P.5 mediators report, taking A.1 to A.3 (A.2 died – abated) along with seized property to MRO

Office, G.Madugula and producing them before LW-3-P.Panthulu, MRO by serving Ex.P.9 notice on MRO, MRO opening the gunny bag and noticing ganja leaves, flowers, buds and seeds, calling the weigher and got weighed gunny bag which came to 20 Kgs by MRO, drawing of MO- 1 samples by MRO, preparation of Ex.P.6-mediators report, taking A.1 to A.3 (A.2 died – abated) along with seized property to the police station, registering Ex.P.10 FIR, arrest of A.1 to A.3 (A.2 died – abated) and sending them to judicial remand, informing to superior officers over phone about arrest of accused and seizure of ganja, forwarding samples to Chemical Examiner on 05.05.2015 for chemical analysis report under Exs.P.11 and P.12, receipt of Ex.P.13 laboratory analysis report on 01.06.2015 and filing of charge sheet.

14)PW-5 is another SI of Police and he testified about preparation of inventory of seized articles and certifying the correctness of inventory through JFCM, Paderu under Exs.P.14 to P.16.

15)The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor argued that though independent mediators i.e. PWs 1 and 2 turned hostile and failed to support the case of the prosecution, the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 is (Fair) IX ADJ COURT, CDM 8 NSC No.389/2015 directly incriminating the accused and their evidence coupled with the evidence of PW-5 and Exs.P.5 to P.16 and MOs 1 and 2 clearly establishes the case of the prosecution for the offence u/sec.20(b)(ii) (C) r/w 8(c) of NDPS Act and prays to convict A.1 & A.3.

16)Per contra, the learned counsel for A.1 and A.3 argued that independent mediators i.e., PWs 1 and 2 completely turned hostile and failed to support the case of the prosecution, the evidence of Pws 3 to 5 lacks independent corroboration, seizure of cash and MO-2 is not proved by independent evidence, PW-4 violated the mandatory provisions i.e. Sections 42, 43, 50 and 57 of NDPS Act and PW-5 violated the mandatory provision i.e., 52A of NDPS Act. MO-1 samples are not the original samples drawn by MRO at his office and they were recently prepared and produced before this court, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against A.1 and A.3 and prays to acquit A.1 and A.3 on the ground of benefit of doubt.

17)Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is evident that

PWs 1 and 2 independent mediators turned hostile and failed to support the case of the prosecution. The evidence to be scrutinized is the evidence of Pws 3 to 5.

(Fair) IX ADJ COURT, CDM 9 NSC No.389/2015

18)Now coming to the evidence of PW-3 he did not depose before this court about informing the accused, about their right to be searched before the Gazetted Officer and he did not depose before this court about serving of Section 50 of NDPS Act notice on A.1 and A.3.

PW-3 categorically deposed that SI of Police searched the accused and seized cash of Rs.40,000/- at the scene of offence under the cover of

Ex.P.5 which is nothing but gross violation Section 50 of NDPS Act which will be discussed in the later part of the judgment.

19)PW-3 during his cross examination admitted that “in his presence

SI of Police did not seize the documents of Hero Honda Glamour Motor

Cycle, he cannot say the names of A.1 to A.3 (A.2 died – abated), he do not know whether seizure of cash of Rs.40,000/- from A.1 was mentioned in Ex.P.5 or not, he do not notice the serial numbers of cash of Rs.40,000/-, he did not sign on Exs.P-5 and P.6 and MO-1, MO-1 samples packets appears to be fresh, he cannot say whether MO-1 sample packets are the sample packets drawn at MRO Office on 27.04.2015 or not, no markings were found on MO-1 sample packets”.

The said admission of PW-3 clearly discloses that he cannot say the names of A.1 to A.3 (A.2 died – abated). Infact, PW-3 did not sign on

Exs.P.5 and P.6 and MO-1. In the absence of signatures of Pw-3 on

Exs.P.5, P.6 and MO-1 his very presence at the scene of offence or at

MRO Office is doubtful. It at all he was present at the scene of offence (Fair) IX ADJ COURT, CDM 10 NSC No.389/2015 and at MRO Office, definitely he might have deposed the names of A.1 to A.3 (A.2 died – abated), might have signed on Exs.P.5, P.6 and MO-1.

Infact, PW-3 admitted that MO-1 sample packets appears to be fresh and he cannot say whether MO-1 sample packets are the sample packets drawn at MRO Office on 27.04.2015 or not. The said admission of PW-3 creates doubt about MO-1 sample packets. As per Ex.P.6 markings were given to MO-1 sample packets as A1 and A2 but surprisingly, the said markings were not found on MO-1 sample packets produced before this court. So, it can be said that MO-1 samples are not the original samples drawn by MRO Office. So, the evidence of PW-3 who did not sign on Exs.P.5 and P.6 and MO-1 is not inspiring confidence as it is not supported by independent mediators i.e., PWs 1 and 2 and it is not safe to rely his evidence.

20)Now coming to the evidence of PW-4 he too categorically admitted that he searched A.1 to A.3 and seized cash of Rs.40,000/- at the scene of offence and the same was also mentioned in Ex.P.5, but he did not depose before this court that he informed A.1 and A.3 about their right to be searched before Gazetted Officer and he did not serve

Section 50 of NDPS Act Notice on A.1 and A.3. Without informing A.1 and A.3 about their right to be searched before Gazetted Officer and without serving Section 50 of NDPS Act notice on A.1 and A.3, PW-4 straight away conducted personal search of the accused and seized (Fair) IX ADJ COURT, CDM 11 NSC No.389/2015 cash of Rs.40,000/- which is nothing but gross violation Section 50 of

NDPS Act which will be discussed in the later part of the judgment.

21)The evidence of PW-4 lacks independent corroboration as it is not supported by independent mediators i.e., PWs 1 and 2. Infact, the seizure of cash of Rs.40,000/- is not proved by adducing appropriate evidence before this court. PW-4 also categorically admitted in his cross examination that “serial numbers as A1 and A2 are not mentioned on MO-1 sample packets”. So, it appears that MO-1 sample packets which are produced before this court are recently prepared and those samples are not the samples of originally drawn at MRO

Office by MRO. As per Ex.P.6 markings as A1 and A2 were given to two sample packets drawn by MRO at MRO Office but surprisingly, MO-1 sample packets which were produced before this court does not contain those markings which clearly appears that MO-1 sample packets are not the original samples drawn by MRO in the present case. So, the evidence of PW-4 who did not serve Section 50 of NDPS

Act notice on A.1 and A.3, who did not inform A.1 and A.3 about their right to be searched before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and whose evidence is not supported by independent mediators i.e., PWs 1 and 2 not inspiring confidence as he also violated the mandatory provisions for NDPS Act.

(Fair) IX ADJ COURT, CDM 12 NSC No.389/2015

22)Now coming to the evidence of PW-5, he did not depose before this court that he drew representative samples in the presence JFCM,

Paderu. Though it was mentioned in Ex.P.15 that one sample @ 100 grams is drawn in the presence of magistrate, the said sample was not produced either before this court or before Chemical Examiner. So, it can be safely conclude that no representative samples were drawn in the presence of JFCM, Paderu. Infact, PW-5 prepared inventory of seized articles in the present case on 22.12.2017 though the alleged offence took place on 27.04.2015. So, abnormal delay in preparing inventory of seized ganja for more than 2 years 7 months is fatal to the case of the prosecution and it is not safe to rely upon the inventory proceedings prepared by PW-5 and certified by JFCM, Paderu.

23)The learned counsel for the accused contended that PW-4 failed to follow the mandatory provision i.e. Sections 42, 43, 50 and 57 of

NDPS Act and PW-5 failed to follow the another mandatory i.e. Section 52A of NDPS Act. This court finds force in the said contention. PW-4 is silent about informing A.1 and A.3 about their right to be searched

before Gazetted Officer and did not serve Section 50 of NDPS Act

notice on A.1 and A.3 which a gross violation of Section 50 of NDPS Act

Notice.

24)At this juncture, it is relevant to refer judgment of Hon’ble Apex

Court in RANJAN KUMAR CHADHA Vs STATE OF HIMACHAL (Fair) IX ADJ COURT, CDM 13 NSC No.389/2015

PRADESH where in the requirements envisaged by Section 50 of NDPS

Act are summarized as follows:-

(i) Section 50 provides both a right as well as an obligation. The person about to be searched has the right to have his search conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate if he so desires, and it is the obligation of the police officer to inform such person of this right before proceeding to search the person of the suspect.

(ii) Where, the person to be searched declines to exercise this right, the police officer shall be free to proceed with the search. However, if the suspect declines to exercise his right of being searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, the empowered officer should take it in writing from the suspect that he would not like to exercise his right of being searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and he may be searched by the empowered officer.

(iii) Before conducting a search, it must be communicated in clear terms though it need not be in writing and is permissible to convey orally, that the suspect has a right of being searched by a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.

(iv) While informing the right, only two options of either being searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate must be given, who also must be independent and in no way connected to the raiding party.

(v) In case of multiple persons to be searched, each of them has to be individually communicated of their right, and each must exercise or waive the same in their own capacity. Any joint or common communication of this right would be in violation of Section 50.

(vi) Where the right under Section 50 has been exercised, it is the choice of the police officer to decide whether to take the suspect before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate but an endeavour should be made to take him before the nearest

Magistrate.

(vii) Section 50 is applicable only in case of search of person of the suspect under the provisions of the NDPS Act, and would (Fair) IX ADJ COURT, CDM 14 NSC No.389/2015 have no application where a search was conducted under any other statute in respect of any offence.

(viii) Where during a search under any statute other than the NDPS Act, a contraband under the NDPS Act also happens to be recovered, the provisions relating to the NDPS Act shall forthwith start applying, although in such a situation Section 50 may not be required to be complied for the reason that search had already been conducted.

(ix) The burden is on the prosecution to establish that the obligation imposed by Section 50 was duly complied with before the search was conducted.

(x) Any incriminating contraband, possession of which is punishable under the NDPS Act and recovered in violation of Section 50 would be inadmissible and cannot be relied upon in the trial by the prosecution, however, it will not vitiate the trial in respect of the same. Any other article that has been recovered may be relied upon in any other independent proceedings.

25)Coming to the case on hand PW-4 did not inform A.1 and A.3 about their right to be searched before either Gazetted Officer or

Magistrate and he did not serve Section 50 of NDPS Act notice on A.1

and A.3.Section 50 provides both a right as well as an obligation. The person about to be searched has the right to have his search conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate if he so desires, and it is the obligation of the police officer to inform such person of this right before proceeding to search the person of the suspect. Before conducting a search, it must be communicated in clear terms though it need not be in writing and is permissible to convey orally, that the suspect has a right of being searched by a Gazetted

Officer or Magistrate. While informing the right, only two options of (Fair) IX ADJ COURT, CDM 15 NSC No.389/2015 either being searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate must be given, who also must be independent and in no way connected to the raiding party.

26)As per the judgment referred supra, it is very clear that PW-4 violated the mandatory provision i.e., Section 50 of NDPS Act and personal search conducted by PW-4 without serving Section 50 of

NDPS Act Notice and without informing A.1 and A.3 about the right to be searched before Gazetted Officer and seizure of cash of Rs.40,000/- from the accused at the scene of offence under the cover of Ex.P.5 is nothing but gross violation of Section 50 of NDPS Act as such it can be safely conclude that PW-4 violated the mandatory provision i.e.,

Section 50 of NDPS Act.

27)Now coming to another mandatory provisions i.e., Sections 42 and 43 of NDPS Act, whenever the information has been received by

Investigation Officer, the said information has to be reduced into writing and after the arrest and seizure of Narcotic Drug of

Psychotropic Substance, Investigation Officer has to inform the same to the superior officers within 72 hours.

28)In the instant case, PW-4 though deposed in his chief examination that he reduced the information received by him about the transportation of Ganja into writing and forwarded the information to (Fair) IX ADJ COURT, CDM 16 NSC No.389/2015 the higher officials or to his superior officers within 72 hours in respect of information about transportation of Ganja, arrest of A.1 and A.3 and seizure of Contraband i.e., Ganja and other material objects from

Accused No.1 and A.3 he categorically admitted in his cross examination that he did not file the copy of General Diary before this court or copy of information which was reduced into writing in General

Diary before this court. PW.4 also did not file any document before this court to show that he informed to his higher officials within 72 hours after arrest of Accused No’s.1 and A.3 and seizure of Ganja from the possession of Accused No’s 1 and 3 as per provisions of Section 42 and 43 of NDPS Act. So, it can be safely conclude that PW4 violated the mandatory provisions i.e. Sections 42 and 43 of NDPS Act.

29)Now coming to the another mandatory provision i.e. Section 52A of NDPS Act as already discussed above as there is not evidence that representative samples were drawn in the presence of magistrate.

Though it was mentioned in Ex.P.15 that one sample @ 100 grams was drawn as the said samples was not produced before this court and as the inventory prepared in the present case after the delay of more than 02 years 07 months is of no use, it can be safely conclude that PW-5 violated the mandatory provision i.e., Section 52A of NDPS Act.

30)Now coming to another mandatory provision i.e. Section 57 of

NDPS Act. Whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure under this (Fair) IX ADJ COURT, CDM 17 NSC No.389/2015 act, he shall within 48 hours next after such arrest or seizure, makes full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate superior officer.

31)In the instant case, PW-4 did not make a full report of all the particulars of arrest of A.1 to A.3 to his superior officer and there is no evidence on record that PW-4 complied the mandatory provision i.e.

Section 57 of NDPS Act. So, non compliance of Section 57 of NDPS Act is also fatal to the case of the prosecution.

32) In the instant case, Investigation Officer i.e., PW-4 did not follow mandatory provisions i.e., 42, 43, 50 and 57 of NDPS Act and PW-5 did not follow the mandatory provision i.e. Section 52A of NDPS Act. This court is unable to understand as to why PWs 4 and 5 failed to follow the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act and also law laid down by the

Apex Court.

33)To prove the guilt of the Accused No’s.1 and 3 prosecution must collect all possible oral, documentary and material evidence available from the witnesses, crime scene and from things and sources. It is well known fact that the success or failure of criminal prosecution depends largely upon the amount and quantity of evidence accumulated during the investigation and how much of evidence legally admitted before a trial court.

(Fair) IX ADJ COURT, CDM 18 NSC No.389/2015

34)Criminal cases cannot be decided on mere suspicion. It is a trite law in any criminal case that the prosecution shall prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused by producing cogent, reliable and trust worthy evidence.

35)In the instant case, PW-4 miserably failed to follow the provisions of Sections 42, 43, 50 and 57 of NDPS Act and PW-5 miserably failed to follow the provisions of Section 52A of NDPS Act regarding the seizure of M.O.1 Sample Ganja packets.

36)So in the light of above discussion it can safely be conclude that

A.1 and A.3 are entitled for an acquittal for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) r/w 8(c) of NDPS Act. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour Accused No’s.1 and 3 and against the prosecution.

37)In the result, Accused No’s.1 and 3 are found ‘not guilty’ for the offence u/Sec.20(b)(ii)(C) r/w 8(c)of NDPS Act and they are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused No’s.1 and 3 shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of the

Judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO-1 shall be produced

before Drug Disposal committee for destruction and MO-2 which was

already given to A.1 for interim custody vide orders in

Crl.M.P.1081/2015 dt.04.08.2015 shall be made absolute after

(Fair) IX ADJ COURT, CDM 19 NSC No.389/2015 the expiry of appeal time and subject to the result of the appeal if appeal is filed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-II of IX ADSJ Court, Chodavaram,

transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 7 th day of July, 2025.

xx Sd/- Sri K. Ratna Kumar

IX Addl. District & Sessions Judge

Chodavaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1 : Vanthala Ganapathi -NONE-

PW-2 : Vaddadi Srinivasa Rao

PW-3 : Sublari Nagaraju

PW-4 : D.Sekharam

PW-5 : K.Srinu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Signature of PW-1 on mediators report dt.27.04.2015 at 04.00 PM

Ex.P.2 : Signature of PW-1 on search mediators report dt.27.04.2015 at 5.45 PM

Ex.P.3 : Signature of PW-2 on mediators report dt.27.04.2015 at 04.00 PM

Ex.P.4 : Signature on search mediators report dt.27.04.2015 at 5.45 PM

Ex.P.5 : Mediators report dt.27.04.2015 at 04.00 PM

Ex.P.6 : Mediators report dt.27.04.2015 at 05.45 PM

Ex.P.7 : Notice served on PW-1

Ex.P.8 : Notice served on PW-2

Ex.P.9 : Notice served on LW-3-P.Panthulu, MRO, G.Madugula (Fair) IX ADJ COURT, CDM 20 NSC No.389/2015

Ex.P.10 : FIR in Cr.No.31/2015 u/sec.20(b)(1) of NDPS Act

Ex.P.11 : Letter addressed to Chemical Examiner, REL, Visakhapatnam dt.05.05.2015

Ex.P.12 : Letter of Advice

Ex.P.13 : Laboratory Analysis Report

Ex.P.14 : Annexure-I-Inventory of seized NDPS u/sec.52A(2) of NDPS Act

Ex.P.15 : Certificate issued by JFCM, Paderu certifying the correctness of inventory

Ex.P.16 : One photograph Annexed to Ex.P.15 containing seized ganja bag.

For defence: - NIL - .

Material objects marked

MO-1 : Two sample packets

MO-2 : Hero Honda Glamour Motor bike bearing No.AP 31 CN 9420

xx Sd/- Sri K. Ratna Kumar

IX Addl. District & Sessions Judge Chodavaram Copy to:

1. The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravathi

2. The Superintendent of Police, Alluri Seetharama Raju District.

3. Addl. Public Prosecutor, IX ADSJ Court, Chodavaram.

(Fair) IX ADJ COURT, CDM 21 NSC No.389/2015

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE COURT OF IX ADDL. DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE’S COURT AT CHODAVARAM

NSC No. 389/2015

Date of Offence:27.04.2015

Date of Report or Complaint:27.04.2015

Date of apprehension of Accused:A.1 : 28.04.2015 A.3 : 28.04.2015

Date of Accused released on bail:A.1 : 11.06.2015 A.3 : 11.06.2015

Date of Commencement of Trial:18.12.2024

Date of Closure of trial:04.07.2025

Date of sentence or order of Court:07.07.2025

Explanation for Delay &Remarks:

This NDPS Case is made over from Hon’be Metropolitan Session

Judge’s Court on 14.03.2024 Trial is commenced from 18.12.2024. PWs

1 to 5 were examined and Ex’s. P1 to P16 and MOs 1 and 2 were marked. Section 313 Cr.P.C examination of Accused No’s.1 and 3 was held on 22.04.2025 Arguments heard on 04.07.2025. Judgment

pronounced on 07.07.2025.

Name & Address of complainant : State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of G.Madugula P.S.

Name of Accused:

1) Dannina Nookaraju, S/o. Late Ramulu, 35 Years, BC-Ayyayarakulu, Cultivation, Ravanapalli Village, Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

2) SingidiChinnababu, S/o. Late Appa Rao (died - abated) (Fair) IX ADJ COURT, CDM 22 NSC No.389/2015

3) Kimidi Shiva, s/o. Late Bheemannadora, 36 Years, St Bhagatha, Coolie, Sadika Village, Chintapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

(A.2 reported died, DC of A.2 filed, case against A.2 was

abated as per the docket order dt.12.07.2024)

Section of law: U/sec.20(b)(ii)(C) r/w 8(c) of NDPS Act

Finding of Court: “Found not Guilty”

Sentence or Order of Court :

In the result, Accused No’s.1 and 3 are found ‘not guilty’ for the offence u/Sec.20(b)(ii)(C) r/w 8(c)of NDPS Act and they are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused No’s.1 and 3 shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of the

Judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO-1 shall be produced

before Drug Disposal committee for destruction and MO-2 which was

already given to A.1 for interim custody vide orders in

Crl.M.P.1081/2015 dt.04.08.2015 shall be made absolute after

the expiry of appeal time and subject to the result of the appeal if appeal is filed.

xx Sd/- Sri K. Ratna Kumar IX Addl. District & Sessions Judge Chodavaram

SOP 18/2016 Dt.: 08-09-2023 1 PSCJC/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :K.Ratna Kumar

Principal Senior Civil Judge

Visakhapatnam.

Friday, this the 8th day of September, 2023

S.O.P.No.18/2016

Between :

1. Tutika Satyavathi, W/o late Eswara Rao, Hindu, aged 50 years, r/at D.No.36-93-301/3, Indira Nagar, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

2. Kolusu Siva Lakshmi, W/o late Seshu Kumar, D/o late Tutika Eswara Rao, Hindu, aged 31 years, rest – do -.

3. Guttula Kanaka Mahalakshmi, W/o Guttula Panduranga Rao, D/o late Tutika Eswara Rao, Hindu, aged 30 years, rest -do-.

4. Tutika Satish Kumar, S/o late Eswara Rao, Hindu, aged 28 years, rest - do-. … Petitioners

A n d : Tutika Jayalakshmi, W/o late Eswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 50 years, r/at Singalammapuram, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. … Respondent

This petition is coming on 05-09-2023 for hearing before me in the presence of Ms.K.Jaya & Sri.Premananda Rao, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Sri.A.Santhosh Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed by the petitioners 1 to 4, U/Sec.372 of Indian

Succession Act seeking succession certificate in their favour.

2. Brief facts of the petition reads as under :

1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife, petitioners 2 and 3 are married daughters and 4th petitioner is unmarried son of late Tutika Eswara Rao. The marriage in between 1st petitioner and late Tutika Eswara Rao took place on 03-02-1979 at Visakhapatnam and out of the wedlock petitioners 2 to 4 were

SOP 18/2016 Dt.: 08-09-2023 2 PSCJC/VSP

born. Deceased Tutika Eswara Rao also married one Jayalakshmi, the respondent herein who has no children, as such the petitioners allowed the respondent to join with them and used to live together under one roof. Tutika

Eswara Rao during his lifetime deposited Rs.3,00,000/- with Vysakhi Mutually

Aided Co-operative Society Limited, Visakhapatnam on 07-07-2015 vide FDR

No.140 for a period of two years and shown the respondent as nominee with a condition that she should enjoy the said amount till her demise and thereafter, the said amount should devolve upon petitioners 2 to 4. Deceased Tutika

Eswara Rao also constructed a house at Singalammapuram Village in the name of respondent with a condition that she should enjoy the said house till her demise and later the same shall devolve upon the petitioners 2 to 4. Deceased

Tutika Eswara Rao also deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 27-01-2015 and

Rs.44,000/- on 27-01-2015 with Vysakhi Mutually Aided Co-operative Society

Limited, Visakhapatnam vide CDR Nos.328 and 329 for a period of three years where the name of 1st petitioner shown as nominee.

3.Tutika Eswara Rao died on 22-11-2015 leaving behind him the petitioners 1 to 4 and respondent as his legal heirs. The amounts deposited by deceased Eswara Rao were in the Vysakhi Mutually Aided Co-operative

Society Limited, Visakhapatnam and when they approached Vysakhi Mutually

Aided Co-operative Society Limited, Visakhapatnam for release of amounts they requested the petitioners to submit succession certificate obtained from a competent Court of law. 4th petitioner also approached the Tahsildar,

Visakhapatnam for issuance of legal heir certificate of deceased Eswara Rao but officials expressed their inability to issue the same. The petitioners issued registered legal notice to Tahsildar-Visakhapatnam, District Collector-

SOP 18/2016 Dt.: 08-09-2023 3 PSCJC/VSP

Visakhapatnam, Vysakhi Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Limited,

Visakhapatnam and to the respondent on 04-02-2016 calling upon them to issue legal heir certificate in favour of petitioners and they also called upon the respondent not to receive the amounts from the Vysakhi Mutually Aided Co- operative Society Limited, Visakhapatnam and not to alienate the house property to third parties but there was no response. During the pendency of the petition the respondent died and there were no legal heirs to respondent except the petitioners 1 to 4. Hence, the petition.

4.After registering the S.O.P., this Court ordered publication in Justice

Today daily newspaper and notice to respondent, accordingly, the publication was filed before this Court but no rival claimants appeared before this Court and raised objection in granting succession certificate in favour of petitioners and respondent.

5.On receipt of notice, the respondent during her lifetime filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition and submitted that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased Tutika Eswara Rao, her marriage was performed with Tutika Eswara Rao on 18-02-1981 as per Hindu religious rites and customs in the presence of family members and well wishers. After the marriage she came to know that Tutika Eswara Rao has illegal contacts with the 1st petitioner, out of love and affection she accepted the relationship of

Tutika Eswara Rao with the 1st petitioner and she looked after the children of 1st petitioner with utmost love and affection treating them as her own children.

Tutika Eswara Rao addicted to bad vices and spent all his salary to his bad vices and used to spent the remaining amount to the 1st petitioner and almost neglected her. Government granted patta in her favour for an extent of

SOP 18/2016 Dt.: 08-09-2023 4 PSCJC/VSP

25sq.yds. of site covered by survey no.275, plot No.4 of Singalammapuram,

Adivivaram Village limits, Visakhapatnam and she constructed house by selling her gold ornaments. Deceased Tutika Eswara Rao also deposited an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with Vysakhi Mutually Aided Co-operative Society

Limited, Visakhapatnam on 07-07-2015 vide FDR No.140 for a period of two years and he also deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 27-01-2015 and Rs.44,000/- on 27-01-2015 with Vysakhi Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Limited,

Visakhapatnam vide CDR Nos.328 and 329 for a period of three years nominating the 1st petitioner. Her husband Eswara Rao never imposed any condition on enjoyment and utilization of amount deposited in her name. The petitioners are not entitled for any relief as there is no valid marriage in between 1st petitioner and deceased Tutika Eswara Rao and prays to dismiss the petition.

6.On behalf of petitioners, PW.1 to PW.3 were examined and Ex.A1 to

Ex.A17 were marked. On behalf of respondent, she herself was examined as

RW.1 in chief and got marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and subsequently she reported died and a memo was filed to that effect and another memo was filed by the petitioners stating that except the petitioners there are no other legal heirs to deceased respondent.

7.Heard arguments of the counsel for petitioners.

8. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the petitioners are entitled for succession certificate as

prayed for ?

POINT :

SOP 18/2016 Dt.: 08-09-2023 5 PSCJC/VSP

9.It is the case of the petitioners that 1st petitioner is the wife, petitioners 2 and 3 are married daughters and 4th petitioner is unmarried son of deceased

Tutika Eswara Rao. The marriage in between 1st petitioner and deceased

Tutika Eswara Rao was performed on 03-02-1979 at Visakhapatnam and out of the wedlock petitioners 2 to 4 were born. Tutika Eswara Rao during his lifetime also married the respondent and the petitioners along with respondent and Tutika Eswara Rao lived under one roof. During his lifetime Tutika

Eswara Rao deposited an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with Vysakhi Mutually

Aided Co-operative Society Limited, Visakhapatnam on 07-07-2015 vide FDR

No.140 for a period of two years by showing the respondent as nominee.

Deceased Tutika Eswara Rao also deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 27-01-2015 and

Rs.44,000/- on 27-01-2015 with Vysakhi Mutually Aided Co-operative Society

Limited, Visakhapatnam vide CDR Nos.328 and 329 for a period of three years by showing the name of 1st petitioner as nominee. Tutika Eswara Rao died on 22-11-2015 leaving behind him the petitioners and respondent as his legal heirs. After his death they approached Vysakhi Mutually Aided Co-operative

Society Limited, Visakhapatnam claiming amounts but they advised them to obtain succession certificate from a competent Court of law. Hence, they were constrained to file the present petition seeking succession certificate.

10.In support of their contention, 1st petitioner is examined as PW.1 and she reiterated the contents of the petition and she exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A17.

Ex.A1 is death certificate of T.Eswara Rao. Ex.A2 is wedding card of deceased Eswara Rao and 1st petitioner. Ex.A3 is marriage photo of the deceased Eswara Rao and 1st petitioner with C.D. Ex.A4 is photo copy of household card of the deceased Eswara Rao and petitioners. Ex.A5 is photo

SOP 18/2016 Dt.: 08-09-2023 6 PSCJC/VSP

copy of cumulative deposit receipt No.328 for Rs.1,00,000/-. Ex.A6 is photo copy of cumulative deposit receipt No.329 for Rs.44,000/-. Ex.A7 is photo copy of fixed deposit receipt No.140 for Rs.3,00,000/-. Ex.A8 is photo copy of receipt issued by AP Online. Ex.A9 is photo copy of voter ID card of 1st petitioner. Ex.A10 is photo copy of voter ID card of 2nd petitioner. Ex.A11 is photo copy of voter ID card of 4th petitioner. Ex.A12 is office copy of registered lawyer’s notice. Ex.A13 is postal receipts (4 in no.). Ex.A14 is acknowledgment card of District Collector, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A15 is acknowledgment card of respondent. Ex.A16 is returned postal cover of the

Manager, Vaisakhi Co-op Society, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A17 is acknowledgment card of the Manager, Vaisakhi Co-op Society,

Visakhapatnam.In support of their contention the petitioners also examined the 2nd petitioner as PW.2 and one third party as PW.3 and they supported the version of petitioners on all material aspects. PW.1 to PW.3 were examined by the counsel for respondent at length but nothing fruitful was elicited from their cross-examination to disprove the case of the petitioners more particularly

Ex.A1 to Ex.A17.

11.It is the case of the respondent that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased Tutika Eswara Rao, her marriage was performed with Tutika Eswara

Rao on 18-02-1981 as per Hindu religious rites and customs in the presence of family members and well wishers. After the marriage she came to know that

Tutika Eswara Rao has illegal contacts with the 1st petitioner but out of love and affection she looked after the petitioners 2 to 4 as her own children.

There is no valid marriage between the 1st petitioner and deceased Tutika

Eswara Rao, as such the petitioners are not entitled for succession certificate as

SOP 18/2016 Dt.: 08-09-2023 7 PSCJC/VSP

prayed for. To substantiate her case the respondent during her lifetime examined herself as RW.1 and exhibited Ex.R1 to Ex.R5. Ex.R1 is original wedding card. Ex.R2 is photo copy of ration card of respondent. Ex.R3 is photo copy of aadhaar card. Ex.R4 is photo copy of pension card two papers.

Ex.R5 is two photographs with C.D. When the matter was posted for continuation of chief-examination of RW.1, RW.1 did not turn up before this

Court and subsequently a memo was filed by the petitioners’ counsel before this Court stating that respondent died on 05-06-2022 and there were no legal heirs to respondent except the petitioners 1 to 4. The counsel for petitioners contended that the petitioners by examining PW.1 to PW.3 and by exhibiting

Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 categorically proved their case. In fact the present petition was filed for issuance of succession certificate in favour of petitioners as well as respondent but during the pendency of the petition respondent died, the petitioners are the only legal heirs of deceased Tutika Eswara Rao as such they are entitled for succession certificate.

12.Having considered the contention of the petitioners’ counsel and on perusal of entire oral and documentary evidence, initially the present petition is filed by the petitioners 1 to 4 seeking succession certificate in their favour and also in favour of respondent and it is an undisputed fact that during the pendency of the present petition respondent reported died on 05-06-2022 and no legal heirs were brought on record and a memo was filed by the counsel for the petitioners that except petitioners 1 to 4 there are no other legal heirs to the respondent. Respondent during her lifetime filed her counter and categorically admitted that she was not blessed with any children so it is evident from the counter that there are no children to the respondent. The dispute raised by the

SOP 18/2016 Dt.: 08-09-2023 8 PSCJC/VSP

respondent is that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased Tutika Eswara

Rao and 1st petitioner is not at all a legally wedded wife and there is only a illegal relationship between deceased Tutika Eswara Rao and the 1st petitioner.

To substantiate her contention during her lifetime respondent did not place any evidence before this Court, on the other hand, the 1st petitioner by examining herself as PW.1 and by exhibiting Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 categorically proved her case that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased Tutika Eswara Rao. 1st petitioner mainly relied upon Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 wedding card and marriage photograph and those two documents discloses the marriage in between 1st petitioner and deceased Tutika Eswara Rao even the petitioners are not disputing the marriage of respondent with deceased Tutika Eswara Rao. The only contention of the petitioners is that respondent is the second wife of

Tutika Eswara Rao, the marriage in between deceased Tutika Eswara Rao and the respondent is not at all disputed by the petitioners.

13.As the respondent died during the pendency of the present petition and as there is no evidence on record to show that there are other legal heirs of respondent and as the respondent herself admitted in her counter that she was not blessed with any children, the Court can come to a conclusion that petitioners 1 to 4 are the only surviving class-I legal heirs of deceased Tutika

Eswara Rao. It has to be noted at this stage that even after issuance of paper publication no other rival claimants appeared before this Court raising objection for granting succession certificate in favour of petitioners and respondent. In these circumstances as the petitioners by examining PW.1 to

PW.3 and by exhibiting Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 categorically proved their case and as the respondent during pendency of the present petition died and as there

SOP 18/2016 Dt.: 08-09-2023 9 PSCJC/VSP

were no other legal heirs to the respondent, this Court has no other go except to conclude that petitioners 1 to 4 are surviving class-I legal heirs of deceased

Tutika Eswara Rao and they are entitled for succession certificate.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of petitioners.

14.In the result, petition is allowed without costs granting succession certificate in favour of petitioners 1 to 4 in respect of amount mentioned in the schedule annexed to the petition. The petitioners are directed to deposit the succession fee amount into the Court within two months to receive succession certificate from this Court.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8th day of September, 2023.).

Sd/- K.RATNA KUMAR

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

Appendix of evidence

No. of witnesses examined for

For Petitioners : For Respondent :

PW.1 : T.SatyavathiRW.1 : T.Jaya Lakshmi PW.2 : K.Siva Lakshmi PW.3 : N.Nookaratnam

No. of documents marked for

For Petitioners :

Ex.A1 : Death certificate of T.Eswara Rao. Ex.A2 : Wedding card of deceased Eswara Rao and 1st petitioner. Ex.A3 : Marriage photo of the deceased Eswara Rao and 1st petitioner with C.D. Ex.A4 : Photo copy of household card of the deceased Eswara Rao and petitioners. Ex.A5 : Photo copy of cumulative deposit receipt No.328 for Rs.1,00,000/-. Ex.A6 : Photo copy of cumulative deposit receipt No.329 for Rs.44,000/-. Ex.A7 : Photo copy of fixed deposit receipt No.140 for Rs.3,00,000/-. Ex.A8 : Photo copy of receipt issued by AP Online. Ex.A9 : Photo copy of voter ID card of 1st petitioner. Ex.A10 : Photo copy of voter ID card of 2nd petitioner. Ex.A11 : Photo copy of voter ID card of 4th petitioner.

SOP 18/2016 Dt.: 08-09-2023 10 PSCJC/VSP

Ex.A12 : Office copy of registered lawyer’s notice. Ex.A13 : Postal receipts (4 in no.). Ex.A14 : Acknowledgment card of District Collector, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A15 : Acknowledgment card of respondent. Ex.A16 : Returned postal cover of the Manager, Vaisakhi Co-op Society, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A17 : Acknowledgment card of the Manager, Vaisakhi Co-op Society, Visakhapatnam.

For Respondent :

Ex.R1 : Original wedding card. Ex.R2 : Photo copy of ration card of respondent. Ex.R3 : Photo copy of aadhaar card. Ex.R4 : Photo copy of pension card two papers. Ex.R5 : Two photographs with C.D.

Sd/- K.RATNA KUMAR

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

O.S.787/2017, Dt : 11-09-2023 1 PSCJC/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :K.Ratna Kumar

Principal Senior Civil Judge

Visakhapatnam.

Monday, this the 11th day of September, 2023.

Original Suit No.787/2017

Between : Gavireddy Apparao, S/o late Ramunaidu, Hindu, aged 50 years, r/at D.No.12-780, Gandhinagar, Arilova Colony, Visakhapatnam, Aadhaar No.6603 6352 2190, Cell No.96423 75857. … Plaintiff

A n d :

1. Garikina Suribabu, S/o late Jagayya, Hindu, aged 48 years, r/at D.No.1-70, Jodugullupalem, Visakhapanam.

2. Garikina Mani, W/o Suribabu, Hindu, aged 40 years, r/at D.No.1-70, Jodugullupalem, Visakhapatnam. … Defendants

This suit is coming on 05-09-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ms.K.Jyothi & Sri.Kakara Govindu, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri.K.Vinod Kumar, Advocate for the Defendants and the suit against 1st defendant is dismissed as abated on 26-12-2022 and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of

Rs.9,86,800/- being principal amount and interest due under suit promissory note, dt.20-11-2014 executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in his favour payable with subsequent interest at 24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the date of suit till realization and for costs.

2. Brief facts of the plaint reads as under :

On 20-11-2014 defendants 1 and 2 jointly borrowed an amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff for their family expenses and to clear their sundry

O.S.787/2017, Dt : 11-09-2023 2 PSCJC/VSP

debts and executed suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Later inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, defendants did not pay the amount due under the promissory note.

Hence, the suit.

3.On receipt of summons, 1st defendant filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and the same was adopted by 2nd defendant. 1st defendant submitted that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff along with the 2nd defendant, suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and it is fabricated document brought into existence for wrongful gain, there is no need or necessity for him and 2nd defendant to borrow Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff, the plaintiff, scribe and attestors colluded with each other and brought the suit promissory note into existence to grab amount from him and 2nd defendant, he is also suspecting the financial capacity of the plaintiff, no notice was issued prior to the filing of the present suit, there is no cause of action in filing the present suit and prays to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings my predecessor in office framed the following issues for trial :-

1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 20-11-2014 is true, valid, genuine, supported by consideration and binding on the defendants No.1 and 2 ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim ?

3. To what relief ?

O.S.787/2017, Dt : 11-09-2023 3 PSCJC/VSP

5.On behalf of plaintiff, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Ex.A1 was marked. On behalf of defendants, DW.1 is examined and no documents were marked on their behalf.

6.Heard both sides. The plaintiff’s counsel also filed written arguments.

7. Issues 1 and 2 :

It is the case of the plaintiff that on 20-11-2014 defendants 1 and 2 jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from him for their family expenses and to discharge their sundry debts and executed suit promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Later inspite of repeated demands made by him, defendants did not pay any amount due under promissory note. Hence, he was constrained to file the present suit for recovery of amount.

8.In support of his contention, plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1 and he reiterated the contents of the plaint and he exhibited Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is promissory note, dt.20-11-2014. In support of his contention, he also examined first attestor of Ex.A1 as PW.2 and he supported the version of plaintiff in all material aspects as far as execution of Ex.A1 is concerned. PW.1 and PW.2 were cross-examined at length by the counsel for defendants, during the cross-examination of PW.1,

Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked. Ex.B1 is certified copy of complaint in

C.C.465/2015. Ex.B2 is certified copy of deposition of PW.1 in C.C.332/2016 on the file of VI Special Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam. Ex.B3 is certified copy of calendar and judgment in C.C.332/2016. Ex.B4 is certified copy of promissory note, dt.10-09-2010. PW.2 during his cross-examination admitted that “he do not

O.S.787/2017, Dt : 11-09-2023 4 PSCJC/VSP

know the exact address particulars of defendants 1 and 2 but they used to reside in a hut near Rushikonda”.

9.It is the case of the defendants that they never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff, suit promissory note is not supported by consideration it is a fabricated document brought into existence with the help of scribe and attestors. In support of their contention, the 2nd defendant is examined as DW.1 and she reiterated the contents of the written statement filed by 1st defendant which was adopted by her. In support of their contention the defendants did not choose to examine any other witnesses but however they mainly relied upon Ex.B1 to Ex.B4.

10.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff by examining

PW.1 and PW.2 and by exhibiting Ex.A1 categorically proved his case and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 relied upon by the defendants are in no way connected to the present suit.

DW.1 admitted her signature on Ex.A1 promissory note and it is for them to prove that no consideration was passed under Ex.A1 but defendants miserably failed in that aspect and prays to decree the suit. The learned counsel for the defendants contended that defendants by examining DW.1 and by exhibiting Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 categorically proved their case that their signatures were obtained on blank promissory notes and Ex.A1 is not supported by consideration. Ex.B2 which is a certified copy of deposition of PW.1 in C.C.332/2016 clearly establish the case of the defendants wherein the plaintiff categorically admitted that he obtained empty signed promissory notes from the defendants 1 and 2 and basing on that promissory note he filed the present suit and prays to dismiss the suit.

O.S.787/2017, Dt : 11-09-2023 5 PSCJC/VSP

11.Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is evident that the plaintiff examined

PW.1 and PW.2 and exhibited Ex.A1, whereas the defendants examined 2nd defendant as DW.1 and exhibited Ex.B1 to Ex.B4. From the documents marked on behalf of both sides Ex.B2 is a crucial document which is certified copy of deposition of plaintiff who was examined as PW.1 in C.C.332/2016 on the file of

VI Special Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam. As per Ex.B2, the plaintiff categorically admitted that “every time when he lent amount he obtained promissory note from the accused and obtained the document of his land, he do not remember the date when he have obtained blank promissory note from the accused with regard to all the amounts he lent to the accused after 18-10-2010, the accused and his wife also signed on the said blank promissory note, the accused delivered the said blank signed promissory note with his signature and his wife for all the amounts lent by him to them from the year 2011 to June 2012, he have filed civil suit against the accused in O.S.787/2017 basing on the said promissory note on the file of Hon’ble Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Visakhapatnam”. The said admissions of the plaintiff who was examined as PW.1 in C.C.332/2016 supports the case of the defendants that suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and the defendants signed on blank promissory note. Admittedly, the plaintiff in the present suit is complainant in C.C.332/2016 and 1st defendant is the accused in C.C.332/2016.

12.Ex.B2 was marked during the cross-examination of plaintiff without any objection by my predecessor in office. When Ex.B2 was marked without any objection from the plaintiff side it has to be looked into by this Court. There is no

O.S.787/2017, Dt : 11-09-2023 6 PSCJC/VSP

dispute that the plaintiff is complainant in C.C.332/2016, a portion of cross- examination of PW.1 in C.C.332/2016 which was referred above clearly discloses that the plaintiff categorically admitted that he obtained empty signed promissory note from the 1st defendant and his wife and he filed the present suit i.e. suit in

O.S.787/2017 on the file of this Court basing on the said promissory note. The

said admission clearly establishes the case of the defendants that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and the plaintiff obtained the signatures of the defendants on empty signed promissory note.

13.PW.2 the attestor of Ex.A1 also categorically admitted in his cross- examination that he does not know the address particulars of defendants 1 and 2 which further strengthens the case of the defendants that Ex.A1 is brought into existence with the help of PW.2. If at all PW.2 was present at the time of execution of Ex.A1 definitely he might have been aware about the address particulars of defendants 1 and 2 or at least he might have enquired about address particulars of defendants 1 and 2. So the admission of PW.2 that he does not know the address particulars of defendants 1 and 2 creates doubt regarding the presence of PW.2 at the time of suit transaction. So, Ex.B2 coupled with admission of PW.2 in his cross-examination that he does not know the address particulars of defendants 1 and 2 strengthens the case of the defendants that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and it was brought into existence by filling up the same. In these circumstances, this Court has no other go except to conclude that suit promissory note is not true valid genuine, supported by consideration and binding on the defendants 1 and 2 and plaintiff is

O.S.787/2017, Dt : 11-09-2023 7 PSCJC/VSP

not entitled for suit claim. Accordingly, I answer issues 1 and 2 against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.

14. Issue No.3 : In view of my findings on issues 1 and 2, plaintiff is not entitled for decree as prayed for.

15.In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of September, 2023.).

Sd/- K.RATNA KUMAR

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

Appendix of evidence

No. of witnesses examined for

For Plaintiff : For Defendants : PW.1 : G.Appa RaoDW.1 : G.Mani PW.2 : L.Srinivasa Rao

No. of documents marked for

For Plaintiff : Ex.A1 : Promissory note, dt.20-11-2014. For Defendants : Ex.B1 : Certified copy of complaint in C.C.465/2015. Ex.B2 : Certified copy of deposition of PW.1 in C.C.332/2016 on the file of VI Special Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam. Ex.B3 : Certified copy of calendar and judgment in C.C.332/2016. Ex.B4 : Certified copy of promissory note, dt.10-09-2010.

Sd/- K.RATNA KUMAR

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

O.S.787/2017, Dt : 11-09-2023 8 PSCJC/VSP

Date of Presentation : 31-07-2017 Date of Filing : 31-07-2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :K.Ratna Kumar

Principal Senior Civil Judge

Visakhapatnam.

Monday, this the 11th day of September, 2023.

Original Suit No.787/2017

Between : Gavireddy Apparao, S/o late Ramunaidu, Hindu, aged 50 years, r/at D.No.12-780, Gandhinagar, Arilova Colony, Visakhapatnam, Aadhaar No.6603 6352 2190, Cell No.96423 75857. … Plaintiff

A n d :

1. Garikina Suribabu, S/o late Jagayya, Hindu, aged 48 years, r/at D.No.1-70, Jodugullupalem, Visakhapanam.

2. Garikina Mani, W/o Suribabu, Hindu, aged 40 years, r/at D.No.1-70, Jodugullupalem, Visakhapatnam. … Defendants

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs.9,86,800/- being principal amount and interest due under suit promissory note, dt.20-11-2014 executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in his favour payable with subsequent interest at 24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the date of suit till realization and for costs.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.9,86,000/- and a Court fee of Rs.12,326/- is paid U/Sec.20 r/w Sch-I, Art.I (b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

This suit is coming on 05-09-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ms.K.Jyothi & Sri.Kakara Govindu, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri.K.Vinod Kumar, Advocate for the Defendants and the suit against 1st defendant is dismissed as abated on 26-12-2022 and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court doth order and passed the following :

O.S.787/2017, Dt : 11-09-2023 9 PSCJC/VSP

D E C R E E

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed; and

2. that the plaintiff do also pay to the defendants a sum of Rs.2/- (Rupees two only) towards institutional costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 11th day of September, 2023.

Sd/- K.RATNA KUMAR

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff : For Defendants :

No costs memo filed by either side.

Stamps on VakalatRs.2-00

Total Institutional Rs.2-00 Costs Allowed

Sd/- K.RATNA KUMAR

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

O.S.321/2017, Dt : 12-09-2023 1 PSCJC/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :K.Ratna Kumar

Principal Senior Civil Judge

Visakhapatnam.

Tuesday, this the 12th day of September, 2023.

Original Suit No.321/2017

Between : Telaprolu Narasinga Rao, S/o Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged 42 years, r/at D.No.38-38-39, Ramalayam Veedhi, Shanku Chakra Enclave, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. … Plaintiff

A n d : Surabhi Nageswara Rao, S/o Satyam, Hindu, aged about 60 years, working as Technician-I, C & W/Mech/Coching Department, P.F.No.799107, East Coast Railways, Visakhapatnam, r/at D.No.38-35-48, Rana Pratap Nagar, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. … Defendant

This suit is coming on 11-09-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.B.Jagannadha Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri.G.Ramesh Naidu, Advocate for the Defendant and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of

Rs.5,94,128/- being principal amount and interest due under suit promissory note, dt.10-03-2015 executed by the defendant in his favour payable with subsequent interest at 24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the date of suit till realization and for costs.

2. Brief facts of the plaint reads as under :

On 10-03-2015 defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Later inspite

O.S.321/2017, Dt : 12-09-2023 2 PSCJC/VSP

of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, defendant did not repay the amount due under the promissory note. Hence, the suit.

3.On receipt of summons, defendant filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and submitted that there is no necessity for him to borrow such huge amount from the plaintiff, he is an employee and drawing handsome salary to meet his necessities, the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and it is a forged document brought into existence with a view to grab money from him, there is no cause of action in filing the present suit and prays to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings my predecessor in office framed the following issues for trial :-

1. Whether the suit promissory note dt.10-03-2015 is true, valid, genuine, supported by consideration and binding on the defendant ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim ?

3. To what relief ?

5.On behalf of plaintiff, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Ex.A1 was marked. On behalf of defendant, DW.1 is examined and no documents were marked on his behalf.

6.Heard arguments.

7. Issues 1 and 2 :

It is the case of the plaintiff that on 10-03-2015 defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from him for his family expenses and executed suit promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Later inspite of repeated demands made by him, defendant did not repay

O.S.321/2017, Dt : 12-09-2023 3 PSCJC/VSP

the amount due under the promissory note. Hence, he was constrained to file the present suit for recovery of money.

8.In support of his contention, plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1 and he reiterated the contents of the plaint and he exhibited Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is demand promissory note, dt.10-03-2015 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. In support of his contention, he also examined the scribe of Ex.A1 as PW.2 and he supported the version of plaintiff in all material aspects as far as execution of

Ex.A1 is concerned. PW.1 and PW.2 were cross-examined at length by the counsel for the defendant but nothing fruitful was elicited from their cross- examination to disprove the case of the plaintiff more particularly the execution of

Ex.A1 by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.

9.It is the case of the defendant that he did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and he did not execute any promissory note in favour of plaintiff, there is no necessity for him to borrow such huge amount from the plaintiff, he is an employee and drawing handsome salary to meet his necessities, the suit promissory note is forged document not supported by consideration. In support of his contention he himself was examined as DW.1 and he reiterated the contents of his written statement. In support of his contention he did not choose to examine any other independent witness and did not place any documentary evidence before this Court. Except contending that suit promissory note is a forged document and not supported by consideration he did not take any steps seeking to send Ex.A1 to the expert for his opinion to substantiate his case that the suit promissory note is a forged document.

O.S.321/2017, Dt : 12-09-2023 4 PSCJC/VSP

10.The learned counsel for the defendant at the time of arguments contended that PW.1 admitted in his cross-examination that since five years he has been residing in the address given in the chief-examination affidavit prior to that he was staying in Railway Quarters as his father was a Railway Employee and since two years he was staying at his brother’s house not at Shankuchakra Apartment, so the admissions of PW.1 in his cross-examination shows that PW.1 has not resided in the address mentioned in his chief-examination affidavit by the date of execution of Ex.A1. I see no force in the said contention, the address particulars of the plaintiff mentioned in his chief-examination affidavit and the address particulars mentioned in Ex.A1 are one and the same, so when the address was clearly mentioned in Ex.A1 which is matching with the address particulars mentioned in chief-examination affidavit there is no need to discredit the evidence of PW.1 only basing on the above said admission in the cross-examination.

11.The another contention of the counsel for the defendant at the time of arguments is that PW.1 admitted in his cross-examination that PW.2 is his relative but PW.2 during his cross-examination stated that he is not relative so there is no corroboration between the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and there is no need to believe their version. This Court does not find force in the said contention. The evidence of PW.2 as far as execution of Ex.A1 supports the case of plaintiff regarding borrowing amounts from the plaintiff by the defendant and execution of

Ex.A1. So, the contention that there are two different versions regarding the relationship in between PW.1 and PW.2 cannot falsify the entire case of the plaintiff.

O.S.321/2017, Dt : 12-09-2023 5 PSCJC/VSP

12.The defendant in his written statement categorically taken a plea that the suit promissory note is a forged document and not supported by consideration. To substantiate the same defendant did not take any steps to prove that Ex.A1 is a forged document. No petition was filed by the defendant seeking to send Ex.A1 to the expert for his opinion to substantiate his case that suit promissory note is forged document. So in the absence of any petition seeking to send Ex.A1 to the expert for his opinion and in the absence of the opinion of the expert it can safely conclude that defendant though contended that Ex.A1 is forged document miserably failed to prove the said contention. The plaintiff by examining himself as PW.1 and by examining scribe of Ex.A1 as PW.2 categorically proved his case that the defendant borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- from him on 10-03-2015 and executed

Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff. So in these circumstances as the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 remained unshaken inspite of cross-examination by counsel for the defendant this Court has no other go except to conclude that suit promissory note is true, valid genuine, supported by consideration and binding on the defendant and plaintiff is entitled for suit claim. Accordingly, I answer issues 1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

13. Issue No.3 :

In view of my findings on issues 1 and 2, plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for.

14.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.5,94,128/- (Rupees five lakh ninety-four thousand one hundred and twenty-eight only) in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant together with subsequent interest at 6% per

O.S.321/2017, Dt : 12-09-2023 6 PSCJC/VSP

annum on principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakh only) from the date of suit till realization.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of September, 2023.).

Sd/- K.RATNA KUMAR

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

Appendix of evidence

No. of witnesses examined for

For Plaintiff : For Defendant : PW.1 : T.Narasinga RaoDW.1 : S.Nageswara Rao PW.2 : K.Sai Divakar

No. of documents marked for

For Plaintiff : Ex.A1 : Demand promissory note, dt.10-03-2015 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. For Defendant :

Sd/- K.RATNA KUMAR

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

O.S.321/2017, Dt : 12-09-2023 7 PSCJC/VSP

Date of Presentation : 27-03-2017 Date of Filing : 27-03-2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :K.Ratna Kumar

Principal Senior Civil Judge

Visakhapatnam.

Tuesday, this the 12th day of September, 2023.

Original Suit No.321/2017

Between : Telaprolu Narasinga Rao, S/o Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged 42 years, r/at D.No.38-38-39, Ramalayam Veedhi, Shanku Chakra Enclave, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. … Plaintiff

A n d : Surabhi Nageswara Rao, S/o Satyam, Hindu, aged about 60 years, working as Technician-I, C & W/Mech/Coching Department, P.F.No.799107, East Coast Railways, Visakhapatnam, r/at D.No.38-35-48, Rana Pratap Nagar, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. … Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.5,94,128/- being principal amount and interest due under suit promissory note, dt.10-03-2015 executed by the defendant in his favour payable with subsequent interest at 24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the date of suit till realization and for costs.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.5,94,128/- and a Court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid U/Sec.20 r/w Sch-I, Art.I (b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

This suit is coming on 11-09-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.B.Jagannadha Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri.G.Ramesh Naidu, Advocate for the Defendant and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court doth order and passed the following :

D E C R E E

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.5,94,128/- (Rupees five lakh ninety-four thousand one hundred and twenty-eight only) together with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on principal amount of

O.S.321/2017, Dt : 12-09-2023 8 PSCJC/VSP

Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakh only) from the date of suit till realization.;

and

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.21,528/- (Rupees twenty-one thousand five hundred and twenty-eight only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 12th day of September, 2023.

Sd/- K.RATNA KUMAR

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

Stamps on VakalatRs.2-00 No costs memo filed.

Stamps on PlaintRs.8,426-00

Advocate FeeRs.10,000-00

Junior Advocate FeeRs.3,000-00

Typing ChargesRs.100-00

Total Costs AllowedRs.21,528-00

Sd/- K.RATNA KUMAR

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

1 XII ADSJ Court, Visakhapatnam

Crl.M.P.No.498/2026

APVS000034772026

FAIR COPY

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri D.Vijay Goutam,

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes,

Visakhapatnam (I/C.) XII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam

Monday, the 18 th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P. No.498/2026

E.Courts Crl.M.P. No.1102/2026

(Cr.No.69/2026 of IV Town PS, Vsp.,)

Between :

1.Routhu Srinu,S/o. Paparao, aged 26 years, R/at. # 40-2-379/1, Santhinagar-1, Near Durga Devi Temple, Kailasapuram, Visakhapatnam.

2.Kona Santhshi, W/o. Pentaiah, D/o. Paparao, aged 32 years, R/at. # 40- 2-379/1, Santhinagar-1, Near Durga Devi Temple, Kailasapuram, Visakhapatnam.

… Petitioners/Accused 1 & 2

And

The State rep. by its Addl. Public Prosecutor through its S.H.O, IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam.

…Respondent/ Complainant

This petition came up for hearing on 15.05.2026 before me in the presence of Sri M.D.R.K (Raja), Advocate appearing for the petitioners/Accused 1 & 2 and of Ms. Y.Revathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for State/respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 XII ADSJ Court, Visakhapatnam

Crl.M.P.No.498/2026

O R D E R

1.This application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita. 2023 seeking to enlarge petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 on bail in connection with FIR.No.69/2026 of IV Town Police Station,

Visakhapatnam. The petitioners along with two others are alleged to have committed offence punishable under Sections 103(1) r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’, for brevity).

2.The facts in brief are, informant lodged a report with police stating that his eldest brother Prashanth Kumar was in a relationship outside marriage with accused No.2 and that Prashanth Kumar after working in Kuwait for sometime came back and continued his relationship outside marriage with accused No.2. It is stated that there were disputes between Prashanth Kumar and accused No.2 leading to shifting of house by them.

3.It is stated that Prashanth Kumar met with an accident in March 2024 leading to fracture of his right leg and after being treated, he went back to his native place. It is stated that on 21.04.2026 at about 10.30 pm accused No.2 called Prashanth Kumar over the phone and asked him to come to

Visakhapatnam and at her request Prashanth Kumar came to

Visakhapatnam. Prashanth Kumar along with Madisila Srinu and accused

No.2 had lunch at the house of a person by name Anjali.

4.It is further stated that on 23.04.2026, Prashanth Kumar took a room near Nathayyapalem bus stop and consumed alcohol with his friends. The report further states that accused No.1 who is the brother of accused No.2 came along with Sai (accused No.3) and Venkatesh (accused No.4) and they all consumed alcohol till 3.30 pm on 24.04.2026.

3 XII ADSJ Court, Visakhapatnam

Crl.M.P.No.498/2026

5.The informant further stated that his brother informed him that he requested Anjali to prepare food for him and accused No.2. It is further stated that accused No.1 called father of informant on the same Friday morning between 10 and 10.30 A.M, and complained to him about Prashanth Kumar’s behaviour and threatened with severe consequences.

6.It is stated that informant received a phone call on 24.04.2026 at about 11 pm informing him that his brother Prashanth Kumar was brutally murdered by accused No.1 with an iron rod and knife.

7.Basing on the report of informant, a case in FIR.No.69/2026 was registered against accused for offence punishable under Sections 103(1) r/w.3(5) of BNS. The present application is filed seeking enlargement of accused No.1 and 2 on bail in connection with the above case.

8.It is stated that despite previous disputes between deceased and accused No.2, they stayed together. But the police taking advantage of earlier disputes, falsely implicated accused No.2 in the above case. The petitioners contended that rivalry is a double edged sword and can be used to falsely implicate a person and placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in Suresh Raj & others v. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 (SC) 2207. By placing reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra, 2017 (3) ALT

(Crl.) 271 (SC), it is stated that personal liberty of accused cannot be curtailed and bail cannot be denied to them. The petitioners sought to enlarge them on bail.

9.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed counter and stated that accused No.2 took the help of her brother (accused No.1) and others in order 4 XII ADSJ Court, Visakhapatnam

Crl.M.P.No.498/2026

to do away with life of deceased. It is stated that accused No.1, 3 and 4 took deceased in an auto rickshaw to a vacant place near old Port High School,

Saligramapuram, Kailasapuram, had alcohol and thereafter accused No.1 bet deceased with an iron rod and later stabbed him with a knife.

10.It is stated that bail should not be granted in order to prevent tampering of evidence and also to ensure presence of accused and sought for dismissal of the application.

11.Heard both sides. Perused the Case Diary.

12.The learned counsel for petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 submitted that even according to informant, there were previous disputes between deceased and accused No.2 and that despite these disputes, they both lived together. It is submitted that report clearly shows that deceased consumed alcohol for three days from 22.04.2026 to 24.04.2026 and he must have met several others during this period.

13.He further submitted that police falsely implicated petitioners/accused

No.1 and 2 only on accused of previous disputes and submitted that enmity is a double edged sword and it can be used to falsely implicate accused No.1 and 2. He placed reliance on judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

Suresh Raj & others v. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 (SC) 2207.

14.He further submitted that personal liberty of accused cannot be curtailed only on the ground that sentiments of public will be hurt. By placing reliance on Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra, 2017 (3) ALT (Crl.) 271 (SC), he submitted that accused No.2 is lady. He further submitted that only basis to connect accused No.2 with alleged offence is 5 XII ADSJ Court, Visakhapatnam

Crl.M.P.No.498/2026

alleged confession of accused No.1 which is hit by Section 23 of the

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

15.He submitted that in absence of any independent material showing involvement of petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 in the alleged offence, coupled with the fact that all material objects have been recovered by police and all witnesses have been examined by them, the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 need not be detained any longer in judicial custody. He sought for enlarging petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 on bail.

16.Opposing grant of bail of the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that material collected during the

course of investigation clearly points to the role of petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 and two others in committing murder of deceased. She argued that accused No.1 is none other than the brother of accused No.2 and he will not implicate accused No.2 falsely without her actual involvement.

17.She argued that investigation is still pending and in the event if petitioners are enlarged on bail, they will tamper the evidence during the course of investigation. She sought for dismissal of application.

18.Now, the point for determination is :

“Whether petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 can be enlarged on bail

in connection with FIR.No.69/2026 of IV Town Police Station,

Visakhapatnam?

P O I N T :

19.The petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 along with two others are alleged to have committed murder of deceased Prashanth Kumar. The dispute essentially was between deceased and accused No.2 and roles said to have 6 XII ADSJ Court, Visakhapatnam

Crl.M.P.No.498/2026

been played by accused No.1, 3 and 4 is clearly stated in their remand report.

The accused persons are said to have caused fatal injuries to deceased with iron rod and knife.

20. It was argued that petitioners are falsely implicated due to previous enmity. The same can only be ascertained after completion of trial and is not relevant for consideration now. The personal liberty of petitioners cannot be at the cost of threat to society at large and witnesses in particular.

21.Considering nature of offence and fact that investigation is still under progress, petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 cannot be enlarged on bail. The point is answered accordingly against petitioners/accused No.1 and 2.

22.In the result, this application is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-II, transcribed by her, pronounced by

me in open Court, on this the 18 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- xx D.Vijay Goutam

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal

of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam I/C. XII Addl. District & Session Judge, Visakhapatnam