Ms. K.spandana

* 1 *

Juvenile Justice Board, Eluru, J.C.C.No.5/2025, dt.28.02.2025.

CALENDAR AND FINAL ORDER

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, WEST GODAVARI:: ELURU.

JUVENILE CALENDAR CASE No.79/2025

1 Date of Offence 10.02.2025 2 Date of FIR 04.04.2025 3 Date of Apprehension of CICL -- 4 Date of Commencement of Trial 19.09.2025 5 Date of Closure of Trial 19.09.2025 6 Date of Final Order 10.10.2025 7 Complainant The State, Represented by its Sub Inspector of Police, Iragavaram Police Station.

8 Name of the Child in Conflict with 1) Tamanampudi Yogendra Reddy, S/o Law (CICL) Papa Reddy,Age 15 years, C/Reddy, D.No.2-105, Eletipadu village of Iragavaram Mandal.

2) Indugumilli Siva Venkata Santhosh, S/o Kesava Rao, Age 16 years, C/Kapu, D.No.2-117, Garuvu street, Pekeru village, Iragavaram Mandal.

3) Pothireddy Naga Pavan, S/o Venkata Satyanarayana, Age 16 years, C/Kapu, D.No.1-112, Ithampudi village, Iragavaram Mandal.

9 Offence Under Sections 305(a), 317(2) of BNS 10 Plea of CICL Pleaded Not guilty.

11 Finding Not found to be in conflict with law.

12 Result In the result, CICL Nos.1 to 3 are not found to be in conflict with Law for the offences under

Sections 305(a), 317(2) of BNS and thereby, they are acquitted under Sec.17(1) Juvenile

Justice Act, 2015. The bail bonds of CICL

Nos.1 and 2 shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as contemplated under

* 2 *

Juvenile Justice Board, Eluru, J.C.C.No.5/2025, dt.28.02.2025. Section 480 of BNSS. As per orders of this

Board in Crl.M.P.No.5891 dt.19.09.2025, MO.1 to MO.20 which were already given to PW.1 towards interim custody, shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time. The CICL

Nos.1 and 2 had not undergone any observation period.

13 Explanation for delay ---

Sd/-K.Spandana,

SPL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS(EXCISE), ELURU.

PRL. MAGISTRATE, JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

Copy submitted to : The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru, through CD.

* 3 *

Juvenile Justice Board, Eluru, J.C.C.No.5/2025, dt.28.02.2025.

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, WEST GODAVARI :: ELURU

Present: Smt K.Spandana,

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Eluru. FAC.Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, West Godavari, Eluru. Smt.D.Padma, Member, JJB, Eluru.

Friday, this the 7th day of October, 2025.

J.C.C.No.79/2025

FORM – A

Complainant The State, Represented by its Sub Inspector of Police, Iragavaram Police Station.

Represented by Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Child in Conflict with 1. Tamanampudi Yogendra Reddy, S/o Papa Law (CICL) Reddy,Age 15 years, C/Reddy, D.No.2-105, Eletipadu village of Iragavaram Mandal.

2. Indugumilli Siva Venkata Santhosh, S/o Kesava Rao, Age 16 years, C/Kapu, D.No.2- 117, Garuvu street, Pekeru village, Iragavaram Mandal.

3. Pothireddy Naga Pavan, S/o Venkata Satyanarayana, Age 16 years, C/Kapu, D.No.1-112, Ithampudi village, Iragavaram Mandal.

Represented by Sri B.V.N.Chintha Rao, Advocate for CICL.

FORM – B

Date of offence 10.02.2025

Date of FIR 04.04.2025

Date of Final Report 10.10.2025

Date of Examination 19.09.2025

Date of Commencement of evidence 19.09.2025

Date of which Final Order is reserved -

Date of the Final Order 10.10.2025

* 4 *

Juvenile Justice Board, Eluru, J.C.C.No.5/2025, dt.28.02.2025. Date of the Sentencing Order, if any -

CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW (CICL) DETAILS :

Rank Name of Date of Date of Offences Whether SentePeriod of of CICL appreheReleascharged Acquittence Detention the nsion e with d or imposUndergone CICL punished ed during Trial for purpose of section 428 of Cr.P.C.

1. 1)Taman41-A -- Under Acquitte- - ampudi Cr.P.C Sections d Yogendra notice 305(a), Reddy 317(2) of 2)InduguBNS milli Siva Venkata Santhosh 3)Pothire ddy Naga Pavan

This case was placed before me for final hearing on 19.09.2025 in the presence of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri B.V.N.Chintha Rao, Advocate for CICL Nos.1 to 3, and upon perusing the record and hearing both sides and the matter having stood for consideration till this day, this Board delivered the following:

F I N A L O R D E R

The Sub Inspector of Police, Iragavaram Police Station had filed Final

Report against the Child in conflict with laws(herein after referred as CICL

Nos.1 to 3 in connection with Crime No.211/2024 for the offences under

Sections 331(3), 305 or 317(2) of BNS.

02. The brief facts of the case as per Final report are :

* 5 *

Juvenile Justice Board, Eluru, J.C.C.No.5/2025, dt.28.02.2025. [a] On 21.02.2025, PW.1/Tamanampudi Papa Reddy went to

Eletipadu village from Singapore, as his son i.e., CICL No.1 fell severe ill health. Later PW1, admitted CICL No.1 in GSL Hospital at

Rajamahendravaram for treatment and returned to his home on 26.03.2025 along with CICL No.1. On the same day, PW1 got down the zip suit case to look for gold and silver articles, which he had hidden on the sun shade of the bed room of his house and PW1 noticed that, zip of suit case was broken and all gold and silver articles were found missing. All the gold articles are weighing about 34 sovereigns and silver articles weighing nearly 1 KG. On 04.04.2025 PW.1 went to the police station and lodged a report.

[b] Basing on the said report, LW.11/Jana Satish-SI of Police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.58/2025 and investigated into. LW.11, examined PW.1 and recorded his statement. On 04.05.2025, LW.11, visited the scene of offence, observed the same and prepared rough sketch and there he examined LW.1 to LW.7 and recorded their statements. The descriptive particulars of Gold and Silver articles are given by wife of PW1, while recording her statement by LW11. LW11 had suspecion on son of LW1 i.e., CICL 1, hence, he did not add him as witness, kept his movement under watch. As the worth of stolen property is enhanced as per the statement of

LW7, and as the case comes under grave nature, as per APPM order No.52, investigation was handed over by LW4/ASI to LW12/SI. LW12 got prepared scene observation report by visiting the scene through mediators LW9 and 10.

During the course of investigation LW1 informed that, his son/CICL 1,

* 6 *

Juvenile Justice Board, Eluru, J.C.C.No.5/2025, dt.28.02.2025. admitted his guilt of committing theft of gold and silver articles along with CICL 2 and 3/his close friends. LW12 in the presence of LWs 9 and 10, mediators, while questioning CICL 1 he disclosed about details of commission of offence along with CICL 2 and 3. CICL 1 stated that, he gave one gold chain with sutrams to CICL 2 for selling it and one gold haram to CICL 3 for selling and making money. CICL 1 handed over the remaining gold and silver property along with him, which was hidden by him in one cloth bundle under his dresses to LW12, LW12 opened it in the presence of LW1, identified it as stolen property, LW12 recovered property from CICL 1 under cover of 1st mediators report. Later, CICL 1 showed the houses of CICL 2 and 3 and

LW12 in the present of mediators recovered one gold chain with sutrams and one gold haram from the possession of CICL 2 and 3, under the covers of 2nd and 3rd mediators reports prepared by LW9 and LW10. As such, CICLs 1 to 3 confessed about commission of offence and stolen property is also recovered from the possession of CICLs 1 to 3, pursuant to their confession. Therefore, prosecution alleged that, CICL 1 to 3 are liable for the punishment for the offences leveled against them. LW.12 served Sec.35(3) of BNSS notices on

CICL Nos.1 to 3. Hence, the final report.

03. This Board took cognizance for the offence under Sections Sections 305(a), 317(2) of BNS and issued notice to CICL Nos.1 to 3.

04. On appearance of CICL Nos.1 to 3, copies were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

* 7 *

Juvenile Justice Board, Eluru, J.C.C.No.5/2025, dt.28.02.2025.

05. As the offence alleged to have been committed by CICL Nos.1 to 3 are serious/grave in nature, Preliminary assessment was conducted as mandated under section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act, 2015 and an order was passed. Having satisfied with the report submitted by Social Worker, member of Board and Psychologist, this Board opined that that matter be disposed by trying CICL Nos. 1 to 3 as Child.

06.The CICL Nos. 1 to 3 were examined under Section 14 of

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against them for the offence Under Sections 305(a), 317(2) of BNS, for which, they denied the offence and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, summons were issued, requiring presence of witnesses to commence inquiry.

07. During the course of inquiry, in order to prove the case, the prosecution had examined Papa Reddy/defacto complainant as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 and MOs.1 to 20.

08. Since PW.1 compromised the matter with CICL Nos. 1 to 3, the learned APP has given up the remaining witnesses i.e., LW.2 to LW.12 as no purpose would be served when the defacto complainant had denied the allegations leveled against CICL Nos. 1 to 3.

09. As there is no incriminating material in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the examination of CICL Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 351 of BNSS is dispensed with.

10. Heard the arguments of learned APP and the defense counsel.

* 8 *

Juvenile Justice Board, Eluru, J.C.C.No.5/2025, dt.28.02.2025.

11. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the Prosecution was able to prove the guilt of CICL

Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable Under Sections 305 or 317(2) of BNS beyond all reasonable doubt?

12. POINT:

[a] It is the case of prosecution that, the CICL Nos. 1 to 3 committed theft of MOs.1 to 20 from the house of PW.1, which are punishable under

Sections 305(a), 317(2) of BNS. It is the case of defence that, they never committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and prayed that the

CICL Nos.1 to 3 are not in conflict with law.

[b] In order to establish the guilt of the CICL Nos.1 to 3, the prosecution had examined the LW.1, who is the defacto complainant as PW.1.

According to prosecution, the evidence of PW.1 is crucial and material to prove the case as against CICL Nos.1 to 3. It is peculiar that, while adducing his evidence before this Board, PW.1 have stated that he compromised the matter with CICL Nos.1 to 3. PW.1/Papa Reddy deposed that, in the month of

February, 2025, he came home from Singapore, as his son/CICL No.1 is unwell. He got admitted CICL No.1 in SIMS Hospital for treatment. In the need of money for hospital expenses, PW1 intended to pledge gold and silver ornaments of him in the month of April, 2025. On that, he verified the box in which, the gold and silver ornaments are placed. The said box is placed in the sun shade of his house in the bed room. He came to know that, the gold and silver ornaments were stolen. They are, One pair of gold bangles-23.80 gms,

Three petta gold chain-26.58 gms, One Govindarajula gold ring-7.93 gms,

* 9 *

Juvenile Justice Board, Eluru, J.C.C.No.5/2025, dt.28.02.2025. One pair of cheek pins-10.23 gms, One gold uggu bowl-4.00 gms, One gold bracelet-41.87 gms, One gold necklace-28.66 gms, One gold Venkateswara

Swamy ring-8.18 gms, One pair of gold earrings-2.28 gms, One pair of gold murugulu-8.05 gms, One pair of gold earrings-2.10 gms, One gold cucumber ring-4.26 gms, Three gold children rings-3.06 grms, One gold Saibaba ring- 3.03 gms, One gold papidibilla-4.12 gms, One gold chain with Ganesh locket- 20.19 gms, One gold locket with colored stone and one gold ear matti-2.96 gms, One gold chain with two mangalasutras-37.94 gms, One gold haaram- 40.64 gms. Silver articles (One plate, Two glasses, Three small bowls, One big bowl and one medium bowl, One kumkuma barine, one pair of anklets,

One small ganta, One Lakshmi and one Ganesh idols, small size) Total weight - 1013.00 gms. Police recovered the gold and silver property, he went to the police station and identified the property belonging to him. PW1 had deposed during his cross examination that he is compromising with CICL Nos.1 to 3.

There is no cogent evidence to prove the ingredients of the offenses alleged to have been committed by the CICL Nos.1 to 3.

[c] Thus, the very victim at the hands of CICL Nos.1 to 3 had not supported the case of prosecution. From the evidence of P.W.1, it appeared to this Board that, some compromise was affected between defacto complainant and CICLs 1 to 3. In absence of corroborative other evidence against the

CICL Nos.1 to 3 to prove the guilt for the said offences, this Board finds that the prosecution had not proved the guilt of CICL Nos.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

* 10 *

Juvenile Justice Board, Eluru, J.C.C.No.5/2025, dt.28.02.2025.

13. In the result, CICL Nos.1 to 3 are not found to be in conflict with

Law for the offences under Sections 305(a), 317(2) of BNS and thereby, they are acquitted under Sec.17(1) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act, 2015. The bail bonds of CICL Nos.1 to 3 shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as contemplated under Section 480 of BNSS. As per orders of this Board in Crl.M.P.No.5891 dt.19.09.2025, MO.1 to MO.20 which were already given to PW.1 towards interim custody, shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time. The CICL Nos.1 to 3 has not undergone any observation period.

Typed by Typist on my dictation; corrected and pronounced by me in open Board, on this the 10th day of October, 2025.

Sd/-K.Spandana,

SPL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS(EXCISE), ELURU.

PRL. MAGISTRATE, JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution :-

RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE

(Eye witness, Police Witness, Expert witness, Medical witness, Panch witness, other witness)

PW.1 Tamanampudi Papa Defacto complainant Reddy

For Defence Evidence :-

RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE

(Eye witness, Police Witness, Expert witness, Medical witness, Panch witness, other witness)

* 11 *

Juvenile Justice Board, Eluru, J.C.C.No.5/2025, dt.28.02.2025. NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 : Report of PW.1

FOR DEFENCE EVIDENCE : Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

MO.1: One pair of gold bangles-23.80 gms

MO.2: Three petta gold chain-26.58 gms

MO.3: One Govindarajula gold ring-7.93 gms

MO.4: One pair of cheek pins-10.23 gms

MO.5: One gold uggu bowl-4.00 gms

MO.6: One gold bracelet-41.87 gms

MO.7: One gold necklace-28.66 gms

MO.8: One gold Venkateswara Swamy ring-8.18 gms

MO.9: One pair of gold earrings-2.28 gms

MO.10: One pair of gold murugulu-8.05 gms

MO.11: One pair of gold earrings-2.10 gms

MO.12: One gold cucumber ring-4.26 gms

MO.13: Three gold children rings-3.06 grms

MO.14: One gold Saibaba ring-3.03 gms

MO.15: One gold papidibilla-4.12 gms

MO.16: One gold chain with Ganesh locket-20.19 gms

MO.17: One gold locket with colored stone and one gold ear matti-2.96 gms

MO.18: One gold chain with two mangalasutras-37.94 gms

MO.19: One gold haaram-40.64 gms

* 12 *

Juvenile Justice Board, Eluru, J.C.C.No.5/2025, dt.28.02.2025. MO.20: Silver articles (One plate, Two glasses, Three small bowls, One big bowl and one medium bowl, One kumkuma barine, one pair of anklets, One small ganta, One Lakshmi and one Ganesh idols, small size) Total weight - 1013.00 gms

Id/-K.S

PM, JJB, ELURU.

Smt.D.Padma, JJB Member, ELURU.

//1// CC.391/2019, Dt.09.10.2025

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-

CUM-II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

ELURU.

Present: Smt.K.Spandana

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Eluru. FAC.II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru.

Thursday, the 9th day of October, 2025

C.C.No.391/2019

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Eluru III Town Police Station. Crime No.63/2019 …Complainant

And

Chatta Mahesh, S/o Malleswara Rao, Age 28 years, C/T.Kapu, V.V.Nagar, Market Yard, Komadavole Panchayathi, Eluru, Driver of TATA ACE Truck Bearing No. AP 37 TF 2626. …Accused

This case is coming on 19.09.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, for complainant and

Sri. Eluru Venkateswra Rao, Advocate for the accused; and upon perusing the material on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The Sub Inspector of Police, Eluru III Town Police Station filed this case in Cr.No.63/2019 alleging that accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC’).

2. The case of prosecution, in brief that the LW-1/Ganta Vijaya Durga is Defacto Complainant and she is resident of V.V.Nagar, Komadavole //2// CC.391/2019, Dt.09.10.2025

Panchayat, Eluru Mandal of West Godavari District. The deceased works as lorry driver. On 27.02.2019, having returned home from duty, on the same day at about 4.30 P.M. the deceased Ganta Venkata Ramana went out from the house. After some time i.e. at about 6.15 P.M. the deceased

Venkata Ramana made phone to his wife and said to her that, he along with another driver were distributing the stock to the shop from the

Godown situated near the Railway Station on the vehicle. On the same i.e. on 27.02.2019, at about 7.00 P.M. the above noted accused driver of the TATA ACE Van bearing No. AP 37 TF 2626, who is distributing the liquor stock to the shops from the Gowdowns situated near Railway

Station, Eluru on the TATA ACE Van bearing No. AP 37 TF 2626, while the van was proceeding in the low bridge in opposite to the Green City in the Mini Bypass Road at Satrampadu, the accused Mahesh drove the van in a rash and negligent manner without warning the deceased Ganta

Venkata Ramana @ Ali, who sat on the van to unload the stock at the shops, to sit while the van was proceeding under the railway track bridge.

Due to which, the deceased's head hit to the Iron girder of the railway bridge forcefully. As a result of which, he sustained severe injury to his head and lost his consciousness. Immediately he was shifted to the

Government Hospital, Eluru, from there he was shifted to the Government

General Hospital, Guntur for better treatment. While undergoing treatment, he died in the G.G. Hospital, Guntur on 28.02.2019, at about 10.35 A.M., LW 1 who is wife of the deceased lodged a report in Eluru III

Town Police Station about the death of her husband in the road accident.

Basing on the hospital death intimation and statement of LW1, a case in Cr.No.63/2019, under section 304-A IPC on 28.02.2019 at 09:00

P.M., submitting FIR/Ex.P8 to all the concerned officers and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, On 01.03.2019, LW14 //3// CC.391/2019, Dt.09.10.2025 examined the scene of offence in the presence of mediators i.e., LWs 9 and 10, who drafted scene observation report/Ex.P10 and examined all the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements and got drafted

Rough Sketch of Scene of offence. On 01.03.2019, at about 11.00 AM to 01.00 PM LW-14/D.S.A.Deekshithulu conducted inquest over the body of the deceased, in the presence of blood relatives and in the presence of inquest Panchayatdars. After completion of inquest, the dead body was referred to autopsy. LW12/Dr.V.Siva Kameswara Rao, conducted autopsy over dead body of the deceased and issued PM certificate/Ex.P12. Later,

Section 41-A Cr.P.C notice was served against accused. After completion of investigation made by LW14, LW.15 laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

3. On 19.03.2019, this Court took cognizance of the offence

U/Sec.304-A of IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of case papers as required

U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C were furnished to him.

5. Accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation under Section 304-A of IPC is read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined PW.1 to

PW.5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. The learned APP given up the evidences of LW.2/Ganta Pravallika, L.W4/Chodapureddy Kamala,

L.W.5/Chodapureddy Durgarao, L.W.6/Chepena Ravikiran, L.W.9/Paturi

Ramamohan Rao, L.W.10/Racheti Anand Babu, L.W.11/Sk.Abdul Rahim,

L.W.12/Dr.V.Siva Kameswara Rao, L.W.13/M.P.Raj, Assistant MVI,

L.W.14/D.S.A.Deekshithulu, ASI of police.

7. On closure of evidence let in by the prosecution, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material //4// CC.391/2019, Dt.09.10.2025 available against him, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the learned APP and counsel for accused.

9. After hearing the arguments on both sides and on considering the entire material on record, now the points for determination before the court is :

1) Whether the accused is the rider of TATA ACE Bearing No. AP 37 TF 2626?

2) Whether the accused drove the crime vehicle with a

rash or negligent manner and caused the death of

deceased?

3) Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt of

accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT Nos.1 to 3:

10. In this case PW.2 to PW.4 turned hostile and they did not support the case of prosecution and they pleaded ignorance with regard to the manner of accident. Their statements were marked as Ex.P3 to Ex.P5.

P.W.1 is defacto complainant denied knowledge of case facts and recording of 161 Cr.P.C statement of her. As such her signature on report and her 161 Cr.P.C statement are marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 respectively.

11.PW1/Ghata Vijaya Durga, who is the wife of the deceased deposed in her evidence that, Seven years back, on 27th February, she came to know that, her husband met with an accident and was in

Government hospital Eluru. She went to GGH, Eluru with the help of LW3 and later, as she was working in Asram hospital, Eluru, they shifted her deceased husband to Asram hospital. Later, they shifted her husband to

GGH, Guntur, on suggestion of doctors. PW1’s husband died after taking him to hospital at Guntur. She signed on a written paper, she do not know //5// CC.391/2019, Dt.09.10.2025 the contents in the said written paper. Ex.P1 is her signature on written paper.

12.PW2/Ghanta Satya Krishna, deposed in his evidence that, he was studying in Visakhapatnam, by staying in hostel. About 7 years ago, on 27th February, he came to house and on evening he received the phone call from one Kiran that, his father met with an accident and was shifted to

GGH, Eluru. PW2 rushed to hospital and later, he took his father to

Asram Hospital, Eluru. On suggestion of Doctors, at Asram hospital they shifted his father to GGH, Guntur. His father was put under observation and on the next morning they were informed that, his father succumbed to death.

13. PW5/N.Ravi Kumar, SI of police, GRP, Vijayawada deposed in his evidence that, he had received complaint from LW1 along with hospital intimation and registered the same as FIR in Cr.No.63/2019, of Eluru III

Town PS, on 28.02.2019, at 09.00 PM. Ex.P6 is hospital intimation,

Ex.P7 is the complaint, Ex.P8 is FIR. LW15 proceeded scene of offence on the same day in presence of mediators LW9 and 10, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence and scene observation report. Ex.P9 is rough sketch and Ex.P10 is scene observation report. On the same day, he examined and recorded statements of LWs 1 to 8. On 01.03.2019, inquest and post-mortem was conducted. Ex.P11 is inquest report.

Ex.P12 is PM Report. He gave requisition for conducting MVI inspection to LW13. Ex.P13 is MVI report. On 02.03.2019, he received a case record from LW14, for investigation.

In his Cross examination, he admitted that, as per Ex.P13/report the company of the crime vehicle is mentioned as Bolero Maxi truck and not

TATA ACE and it is different from crime vehicle.

//6// CC.391/2019, Dt.09.10.2025

AS per admission of IO, the seized crime vehicle is different from the alleged actual crime vehicle involved. Thereby is no clarity the accused was hit to the iron girder of the railway bridge forcefully. There is no identification of driver/accused by LWs 1 to 8, even IO admitted to it in cross examination. Because of these discrepancies in crucial material aspects of the case, this Court is unable to believe the evidence deposed done by the IO. PWs 1 and 2 are hearsay witness and they did not depose anything about the details of crime vehicle as such their evidence is no way helpful to prosecution case, they both turned hostile. He denied the suggestion that, he had conducted table investigation and foisted case upon accused. P.W.5 further stated that it is not true, he had not verified the record of investigation submitted by LW14.

14. As seen from the record, P.W.1/Complainant and PW.2 to PW.4 who are alleged eyewitnesses to the accident, turned hostile and even though cross examined by prosecution, no useful evidence is elicited from them.

15. On culmination of the entire prosecution evidence on record, it clearly reveals that there is no positive evidence on record to constitute the offence under Section 304-A of IPC against the accused. The remaining evidence available on record is only in-respect of the official witness i.e. PW.5. The role of official witness came into picture after the accident. In this type of cases, there is no dispute with regard to the death of deceased. No doubt, as per the documents filed along with the charge sheet and the other witnesses examined by the prosecution, the deceased died due to road accident. Moreover, the alleged witnesses i.e.,

PW.2 to PW.4 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution stating that they did not know anything about the case and they are not eyewitness to accident. As such, said evidence is no way helpful to the case of prosecution to establish the act of rash or negligence of driver of //7// CC.391/2019, Dt.09.10.2025 crime vehicle. In this type of cases, the identification of driver of crime vehicle and the factum of rash or negligent manner has to be established by the prosecution in order to tag the accused for the offence leveled against him. At the same time, the Investigating Officer did not seize any record from the possession of accused to show that he is the driver of crime vehicle. Viewed from any angle, there is no sufficient material

before this Court to tag the accused for the offence U/Sec.304-A of IPC.

Relying solely on the evidence of official witnesses in the absence of any corroborative evidence from the independent witnesses is unsafe. Hence, this Court is not inclined to decide the guilt of accused based on sole evidence of P.W.5. The prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 to 3 answered.

16. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 304-A of I.P.C. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of Six Months under Section 437-A of Cr.PC.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 9th day of October, 2025.

Sd/K.Spandana

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Eluru. FAC.II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class(Excise), Eluru.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1: Ghanta Vijaya Durga None

PW.2: Ghanta Satya Krishna //8// CC.391/2019, Dt.09.10.2025

PW.3: Gandhamaneni Rajesh

PW.4: Yerakula Suribabu

PW.5: N. Ravi Kumar, S.I of Police

Documents Marked:

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil.

Ex.P1: Signature on statement of PW.1

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3

Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4

Ex.P6: Hospital Intimation

Ex.P7: Complaint

Ex.P8: First Information Report

Ex.P9: Rough Sketch

Ex.P10: Scene Observation report

Ex.P11: Inquest report

Ex.P12: PM Report

Ex.P13: MVI report

Material Objects Marked:

- Nil -

Id/K.S

SJFCM(E), ELURU.

FAC.II AJMFC, ELURU.

//9// CC.391/2019, Dt.09.10.2025

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.391/2019 ON THE FILE OF

THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-SPECIAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, (EXCISE), ELURU.

DATE OF

Offence ComplaiApprehensRelease Taken CommencClose of Order of nt or ion of on bail on file ement of trial sentence report accused trial 27.02.227.02.2041-A -- 19.03.225.06.20222.07.209.10.202 019 19 Cr.P.C. 019 5 025 5 Notice

Explanation for delay: No avoidable delay took place.

Complainant : The Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru III Town Police Station.

ACCUSED: Chatta Mahesh, S/o Malleswara Rao, Age 28 years, C/T.Kapu, V.V.Nagar, Market Yard, Komadavole Panchayathi, Eluru, Driver of TATA ACE Truck Bearing No. AP 37 TF 2626.

Offence: under Section 304-A of IPC. Crime No.63/2019 of Eluru III Town P.S

Finding: Found not guilty.

RESULT: Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of Six

Months under Section 437-A of Cr.PC.

Sd/K.Spandana

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Eluru. FAC.II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Eluru. Seal: Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru through CD.

//1// CC.391/2019, Dt.09.10.2025

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-

CUM-II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

ELURU.

Present: Smt.K.Spandana

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Eluru. FAC.II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru.

Thursday, the 9th day of October, 2025

C.C.No.391/2019

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Eluru III Town Police Station. Crime No.63/2019 …Complainant

And

Chatta Mahesh, S/o Malleswara Rao, Age 28 years, C/T.Kapu, V.V.Nagar, Market Yard, Komadavole Panchayathi, Eluru, Driver of TATA ACE Truck Bearing No. AP 37 TF 2626. …Accused

This case is coming on 19.09.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, for complainant and

Sri. Eluru Venkateswra Rao, Advocate for the accused; and upon perusing the material on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The Sub Inspector of Police, Eluru III Town Police Station filed this case in Cr.No.63/2019 alleging that accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC’).

2. The case of prosecution, in brief that the LW-1/Ganta Vijaya Durga is Defacto Complainant and she is resident of V.V.Nagar, Komadavole //2// CC.391/2019, Dt.09.10.2025

Panchayat, Eluru Mandal of West Godavari District. The deceased works as lorry driver. On 27.02.2019, having returned home from duty, on the same day at about 4.30 P.M. the deceased Ganta Venkata Ramana went out from the house. After some time i.e. at about 6.15 P.M. the deceased

Venkata Ramana made phone to his wife and said to her that, he along with another driver were distributing the stock to the shop from the

Godown situated near the Railway Station on the vehicle. On the same i.e. on 27.02.2019, at about 7.00 P.M. the above noted accused driver of the TATA ACE Van bearing No. AP 37 TF 2626, who is distributing the liquor stock to the shops from the Gowdowns situated near Railway

Station, Eluru on the TATA ACE Van bearing No. AP 37 TF 2626, while the van was proceeding in the low bridge in opposite to the Green City in the Mini Bypass Road at Satrampadu, the accused Mahesh drove the van in a rash and negligent manner without warning the deceased Ganta

Venkata Ramana @ Ali, who sat on the van to unload the stock at the shops, to sit while the van was proceeding under the railway track bridge.

Due to which, the deceased's head hit to the Iron girder of the railway bridge forcefully. As a result of which, he sustained severe injury to his head and lost his consciousness. Immediately he was shifted to the

Government Hospital, Eluru, from there he was shifted to the Government

General Hospital, Guntur for better treatment. While undergoing treatment, he died in the G.G. Hospital, Guntur on 28.02.2019, at about 10.35 A.M., LW 1 who is wife of the deceased lodged a report in Eluru III

Town Police Station about the death of her husband in the road accident.

Basing on the hospital death intimation and statement of LW1, a case in Cr.No.63/2019, under section 304-A IPC on 28.02.2019 at 09:00

P.M., submitting FIR/Ex.P8 to all the concerned officers and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, On 01.03.2019, LW14 //3// CC.391/2019, Dt.09.10.2025 examined the scene of offence in the presence of mediators i.e., LWs 9 and 10, who drafted scene observation report/Ex.P10 and examined all the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements and got drafted

Rough Sketch of Scene of offence. On 01.03.2019, at about 11.00 AM to 01.00 PM LW-14/D.S.A.Deekshithulu conducted inquest over the body of the deceased, in the presence of blood relatives and in the presence of inquest Panchayatdars. After completion of inquest, the dead body was referred to autopsy. LW12/Dr.V.Siva Kameswara Rao, conducted autopsy over dead body of the deceased and issued PM certificate/Ex.P12. Later,

Section 41-A Cr.P.C notice was served against accused. After completion of investigation made by LW14, LW.15 laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

3. On 19.03.2019, this Court took cognizance of the offence

U/Sec.304-A of IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of case papers as required

U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C were furnished to him.

5. Accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation under Section 304-A of IPC is read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined PW.1 to

PW.5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. The learned APP given up the evidences of LW.2/Ganta Pravallika, L.W4/Chodapureddy Kamala,

L.W.5/Chodapureddy Durgarao, L.W.6/Chepena Ravikiran, L.W.9/Paturi

Ramamohan Rao, L.W.10/Racheti Anand Babu, L.W.11/Sk.Abdul Rahim,

L.W.12/Dr.V.Siva Kameswara Rao, L.W.13/M.P.Raj, Assistant MVI,

L.W.14/D.S.A.Deekshithulu, ASI of police.

7. On closure of evidence let in by the prosecution, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material //4// CC.391/2019, Dt.09.10.2025 available against him, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the learned APP and counsel for accused.

9. After hearing the arguments on both sides and on considering the entire material on record, now the points for determination before the court is :

1) Whether the accused is the rider of TATA ACE Bearing No. AP 37 TF 2626?

2) Whether the accused drove the crime vehicle with a

rash or negligent manner and caused the death of

deceased?

3) Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt of

accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT Nos.1 to 3:

10. In this case PW.2 to PW.4 turned hostile and they did not support the case of prosecution and they pleaded ignorance with regard to the manner of accident. Their statements were marked as Ex.P3 to Ex.P5.

P.W.1 is defacto complainant denied knowledge of case facts and recording of 161 Cr.P.C statement of her. As such her signature on report and her 161 Cr.P.C statement are marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 respectively.

11.PW1/Ghata Vijaya Durga, who is the wife of the deceased deposed in her evidence that, Seven years back, on 27th February, she came to know that, her husband met with an accident and was in

Government hospital Eluru. She went to GGH, Eluru with the help of LW3 and later, as she was working in Asram hospital, Eluru, they shifted her deceased husband to Asram hospital. Later, they shifted her husband to

GGH, Guntur, on suggestion of doctors. PW1’s husband died after taking him to hospital at Guntur. She signed on a written paper, she do not know //5// CC.391/2019, Dt.09.10.2025 the contents in the said written paper. Ex.P1 is her signature on written paper.

12.PW2/Ghanta Satya Krishna, deposed in his evidence that, he was studying in Visakhapatnam, by staying in hostel. About 7 years ago, on 27th February, he came to house and on evening he received the phone call from one Kiran that, his father met with an accident and was shifted to

GGH, Eluru. PW2 rushed to hospital and later, he took his father to

Asram Hospital, Eluru. On suggestion of Doctors, at Asram hospital they shifted his father to GGH, Guntur. His father was put under observation and on the next morning they were informed that, his father succumbed to death.

13. PW5/N.Ravi Kumar, SI of police, GRP, Vijayawada deposed in his evidence that, he had received complaint from LW1 along with hospital intimation and registered the same as FIR in Cr.No.63/2019, of Eluru III

Town PS, on 28.02.2019, at 09.00 PM. Ex.P6 is hospital intimation,

Ex.P7 is the complaint, Ex.P8 is FIR. LW15 proceeded scene of offence on the same day in presence of mediators LW9 and 10, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence and scene observation report. Ex.P9 is rough sketch and Ex.P10 is scene observation report. On the same day, he examined and recorded statements of LWs 1 to 8. On 01.03.2019, inquest and post-mortem was conducted. Ex.P11 is inquest report.

Ex.P12 is PM Report. He gave requisition for conducting MVI inspection to LW13. Ex.P13 is MVI report. On 02.03.2019, he received a case record from LW14, for investigation.

In his Cross examination, he admitted that, as per Ex.P13/report the company of the crime vehicle is mentioned as Bolero Maxi truck and not

TATA ACE and it is different from crime vehicle.

//6// CC.391/2019, Dt.09.10.2025

AS per admission of IO, the seized crime vehicle is different from the alleged actual crime vehicle involved. Thereby is no clarity the accused was hit to the iron girder of the railway bridge forcefully. There is no identification of driver/accused by LWs 1 to 8, even IO admitted to it in cross examination. Because of these discrepancies in crucial material aspects of the case, this Court is unable to believe the evidence deposed done by the IO. PWs 1 and 2 are hearsay witness and they did not depose anything about the details of crime vehicle as such their evidence is no way helpful to prosecution case, they both turned hostile. He denied the suggestion that, he had conducted table investigation and foisted case upon accused. P.W.5 further stated that it is not true, he had not verified the record of investigation submitted by LW14.

14. As seen from the record, P.W.1/Complainant and PW.2 to PW.4 who are alleged eyewitnesses to the accident, turned hostile and even though cross examined by prosecution, no useful evidence is elicited from them.

15. On culmination of the entire prosecution evidence on record, it clearly reveals that there is no positive evidence on record to constitute the offence under Section 304-A of IPC against the accused. The remaining evidence available on record is only in-respect of the official witness i.e. PW.5. The role of official witness came into picture after the accident. In this type of cases, there is no dispute with regard to the death of deceased. No doubt, as per the documents filed along with the charge sheet and the other witnesses examined by the prosecution, the deceased died due to road accident. Moreover, the alleged witnesses i.e.,

PW.2 to PW.4 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution stating that they did not know anything about the case and they are not eyewitness to accident. As such, said evidence is no way helpful to the case of prosecution to establish the act of rash or negligence of driver of //7// CC.391/2019, Dt.09.10.2025 crime vehicle. In this type of cases, the identification of driver of crime vehicle and the factum of rash or negligent manner has to be established by the prosecution in order to tag the accused for the offence leveled against him. At the same time, the Investigating Officer did not seize any record from the possession of accused to show that he is the driver of crime vehicle. Viewed from any angle, there is no sufficient material

before this Court to tag the accused for the offence U/Sec.304-A of IPC.

Relying solely on the evidence of official witnesses in the absence of any corroborative evidence from the independent witnesses is unsafe. Hence, this Court is not inclined to decide the guilt of accused based on sole evidence of P.W.5. The prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 to 3 answered.

16. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 304-A of I.P.C. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of Six Months under Section 437-A of Cr.PC.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 9th day of October, 2025.

Sd/K.Spandana

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Eluru. FAC.II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class(Excise), Eluru.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1: Ghanta Vijaya Durga None

PW.2: Ghanta Satya Krishna //8// CC.391/2019, Dt.09.10.2025

PW.3: Gandhamaneni Rajesh

PW.4: Yerakula Suribabu

PW.5: N. Ravi Kumar, S.I of Police

Documents Marked:

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil.

Ex.P1: Signature on statement of PW.1

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3

Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4

Ex.P6: Hospital Intimation

Ex.P7: Complaint

Ex.P8: First Information Report

Ex.P9: Rough Sketch

Ex.P10: Scene Observation report

Ex.P11: Inquest report

Ex.P12: PM Report

Ex.P13: MVI report

Material Objects Marked:

- Nil -

Id/K.S

SJFCM(E), ELURU.

FAC.II AJMFC, ELURU.

//9// CC.391/2019, Dt.09.10.2025

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.391/2019 ON THE FILE OF

THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-SPECIAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, (EXCISE), ELURU.

DATE OF

Offence ComplaiApprehensRelease Taken CommencClose of Order of nt or ion of on bail on file ement of trial sentence report accused trial 27.02.227.02.2041-A -- 19.03.225.06.20222.07.209.10.202 019 19 Cr.P.C. 019 5 025 5 Notice

Explanation for delay: No avoidable delay took place.

Complainant : The Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru III Town Police Station.

ACCUSED: Chatta Mahesh, S/o Malleswara Rao, Age 28 years, C/T.Kapu, V.V.Nagar, Market Yard, Komadavole Panchayathi, Eluru, Driver of TATA ACE Truck Bearing No. AP 37 TF 2626.

Offence: under Section 304-A of IPC. Crime No.63/2019 of Eluru III Town P.S

Finding: Found not guilty.

RESULT: Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of Six

Months under Section 437-A of Cr.PC.

Sd/K.Spandana

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Eluru. FAC.II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Eluru. Seal: Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru through CD.

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) -

CUM-

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ELURU.

Present: Smt K.Spandana, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Eluru. FAC II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru.

Friday, the 10th day of October, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.380/2023

Revulagadda Dinesh Babu, S/o Sapru, age 30 years, R/o D.No.3-41, Madepalli village, Eluru Mandal. … Plaintiff.

Vs

Gandikota Veera Swamy, S/o Kanaka Raju, age 50 years, R/o D.No.4-143, Madepalli village, Eluru Mandal. … Defendant

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 28.08.2025 in the presence of Sri C.V.Srinivasa Sastry, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri D.U.M.R., Advocate for defendant and after hearing the Counsel of plaintiff, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

The suit is filed for recovery of money for an amount of ₹ 19,38,533/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Three

Only) with subsequent interest at the rate 24 percent per annum on the

principal amount of ₹ 14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Only) from the

date of the suit till the date of realization and for costs.

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

The plaintiff submits that he is acquainted with the defendant and as such defendant borrowed an amount of ₹ 14,00,000 from him on 18.02.2022, at his house at Madeppalli for the purpose of his family expenses and for discharging his sundry debts. And, the defendant executed a demand 2 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the event date agreeing to repay the same with interest at Rs.2/-, per 100 per month with yearly rest either to the plaintiff or to his order. The plaintiff made several demands personally and through mediators, but the defendant did not discharge the amount due under the above said suit promissory note with interest and on the other hand, kept dragging the matter on one pretext or the other by giving evasive replies.

Defendant is making severe efforts to alienate his only immovable property to avoid Debts of plaintiff and trying to alienate his only property. The defendant is doing business and he is not entitled to the reliefs under various debt relief enactments. Therefore plaintiff, prays to pass a decree in his favour and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.19,38,533 with a subsequent interest at contract rate from the date of plaint till the date of realization on the principal amount of ₹ 14,00,000, to award costs of the suit and to grant other such reliefs that are just and necessary under the circumstances of the case. He filed the suit without giving any prior notice to the defendant. Hence, the suit.

03. The stage of the suit is at framing of issues. No issues are framed, yet. The plaintiff filed the original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of him dated 18.02.2022 for marking it as Exhibit. The defendant did not file any documents. The defendant filed his written statement.

04. In order to establish the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W1 and got marked Exhibits A1 and A2. Exhibit A1 is the original promissory note dt.09.04.2022 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.6,00,000/-. Ex.A2 is the office copy of complaint in

STC.216/2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)’s Court,

Eluru, dated 27.06.2024.

5.The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant are that, the defendant denies all the main and material allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct and not sustainable. The defendant strongly believes that the alleged promissory note dated 18.02.2022 is not a 3 genuine one. It was created by the plaintiff. The defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff on the said date and he did not know either the attesters or scribe. The defendant did not execute the promissory note. On the said date, in favour of the plaintiff and it was a fabricated one. No prior notice has been issued to this defendant before filing the suit and if a notice was issued to the defendant he would definitely issue a suitable reply with true and correct facts. The intention of the plaintiff is much clear in non-issuance of the legal notice, the defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff much less the suit amount. No consideration was passed in the plaintiff’s house on the alleged suit promissory note date. The court do not have jurisdiction to precede the case. The defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's scribe and attesters colluded together and got filed this suit with a view to harass the defendant and grab money from him. He submits that he is an income tax assessee. If really he borrowed an amount it reveals in income tax returns. On the other hand if the plaintiff lent an amount to the defendant he would revealed his income tax returns on the date and on the said year. The plaintiff fails to produce the income tax. He did not give such huge amount to the defendant. The defendant further submits that he is not liable to pay interest at the rate demanded by the plaintiff in the plaint, the interest is excessive and also usurious, the defendant has no necessity to borrow such huge amount. The dates mentioned regarding to the pro-note is controversial; the present suit is false, frivolous and vexatious. The defendant further submits that alleged promissory note is not mine and also signature, the plaintiff forged signatures and falsely filed the present suit. The defendant did not either borrow or executed the promissory note. The signature of the defendant is forged on the suit promissory note by fabricating it by taking advantage of the signatures on the blank promissory note to file the case of fraud. It clearly shows on the original promissory note. On the other hand, the age of ink is also not one and the same. The alleged promissory note date is nothing but a material alteration and forged one. In fact, the alleged original promissory note shows at any stage the defendant will send to expert opinion 4 if necessary. The plaintiff has no capacity to lend amount to any others as he was a student. Actually the date of transaction was COVID-19 moment. So, on said date. The defendant did not visit the house of plaintiff and as such no transaction occurred.

6. The defendant further submits that he borrowed an amount of ₹ 12,00,000 from the Kottapally Sundaramma, wife of Anjibabu on 16.06.2016 under registered mortgage debt, the defendant cleared the mortgage debt on 28.01.2022. The said Sundaramma gave receipt and also cancelled the debt on the said date. The plaintiff is none other than the nephew of Kottapally,

Angibabu taking advantage of that plaintiff, filed a suit with forged signature. In fact the plaintiff’s father is Saidu Govardhan. The defendant has no acquaintance with the plaintiff, there is no debtor and creditor relationship in between them. At the time of conducting trial he will definitely produce documentary evidence before the court. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim any relief against him. The suit filed by the plaintiff is only speculative and is devoid of any merits. There is no cause of action to the present suit and said cause of action allegedly was created by the plaintiff for the purpose of wrongful gain from the defendant. There are no bonafides on the part of the plaintiff in filing the present suit. On the alleged pronote date transaction at

Madeppally, on the said date the defendant was not there and he was out of village. As such the transaction does not arise and said fact will be proved by him at the time of adducing evidence. Under the above circumstances, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

7.When the matter is coming for framing of issues, the matter got referred for mediation. Hence, no issues were settled for trial. Both the plaintiff and defendant were called present and at their request made orally the matter was referred for mediation Centre, District Legal Services Authority, Eluru,

West Godavari for amicable settlement. Accordingly, this court referred, the matter to the Mediation Center, eluru. West Godavari District. Accordingly the 5

Coordinator, Mediation Center and District Legal Services Authority, Eluru

West Godavari District to conduct mediation in between the parties.

8. This court received the file with the report of the mediator, wherein the plaintiff and the defendant have settled the matter before the mediator and entered into settlement of agreement with the following terms :-

1. The defendant agreed to pay an amount of ₹ 5,00,000 to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff agreed to receive the said amount.

3. The defendant paid an amount of ₹ 5,00,000 to the plaintiff and the matter was settled.

9. This Court ascertained the voluntariness from both the parties on the settlement of agreement entered into on 6.10.2025 for which they stated that they voluntarily agreed for the said terms.

10.Thus, as the parties to the present case settled the case as per the terms of the agreement of mediation and in view of the settlement of agreement arrived by the parties before the Mediation Center, eluru, West

Godavari before the mediator, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present case in terms of the settlement of agreement. In the result, the suit is disposed off as per the terms of compromise. Both the parties shall bear their own costs.

11. In the result, the suit is disposed off as per the terms of compromise. Both the parties shall bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist of this Court, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 10 th day of October, 2025.

Sd/-K.Spandana,

SPL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS(EXCISE), ELURU

FAC.II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary on either side.

Sd/-K.S.,

SJMFC(EXCISE), ELURU

FAC.II AJCJ, ELURU.

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

(EXCISE), ELURU, FAC.II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-

CUM-II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ELURU.

STC.No.93/2024

1 Date of Offence19.08.2023 2 Date of Complaint10.10.2025 3 Date of Apprehension of Accused--- 4 Date of Commencement of Trial-- 5 Date of Closure of Trial-- 6 Date of Judgment 26.09.2025 7 ComplainantMallemoggala Durga Prasad, S/o Satyanarayana, Age 50 years, Business, R/o Near Kayvee Hospital, Narasimha Rao peta, Eluru.

8 Name of the AccusedKrishnavarapu Balaji, S/o Satyanarayana, Age 44 years, Attender, O/o District Treasure Office, Back side of Collector Office, Narasimharao peta, Eluru.

9 OffenceUnder Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 10 Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty.

11 FindingFound not Guilty.

12 Result In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

13 Explanation for delay-

Sd/ K.Spandana Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Eluru. FAC.II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class(Excise), Eluru.

Copy submitted to : The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru. // True Copy //

SJMFC(E), Eluru.

FAC.II AJFMC, Eluru.

2

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-

CUM-II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: ELURU.

Present: Smt.K.Spandana

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Eluru. II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru.

Friday, the 26 th day of September, 2025

STC.No.93 of 2024

Between:

Mallemoggala Durga Prasad, S/o Satyanarayana, Age 50 years, Business, R/o Near Kayvee Hospital, Narasimha Rao peta, Eluru. …Complainant

And

Krishnavarapu Balaji, S/o Satyanarayana, Age 44 years, Attender, O/o District Treasure Office, Back side of Collector Office, Narasimharao peta, Eluru. …Accused

This case is coming on 22.9.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Karicherla Satyanarayana, Advocate for complainant and Sri K.S.R.Bala, Advocate for Accused; and upon perusing the material on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

Interms of Mediation

1.This is the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of NI

Act read with Section 200 of CrPC against the accused. The complainant admits that he had acquaintance with the accused since more than 5 years.

Out of such acquaintance the accused borrowed an amount of ₹ 5,00,000(Rupess Five Lakhs Only) on 28.06.2021 for meeting his family expenses and to discharge his sundry debts, from the complainant, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate 24% per annum either to the complainant or to his order on demand. The complainant states that accused executed a demand promissory note in his favour by stipulating the above 3 mentioned conditions and the entire transaction took place in the residence of complainant at Narasimha Rao pet, Eluru. The complainant demanded the accused to discharge the pronote debt taken by him personally and through mediators. Subsequently accused approached the complainant on 18.08.2023 and issued a cheque bearing number 504708 drawn on State Bank of India and RR pet branch, Eluru, for an amount of ₹ 5,00,000 towards part payment of the above mentioned promissory note debt.

2.The complainant presented the said cheque at his banker i.e. Punjab

National Bank, Main Branch Eluru for collection on 18.08.2023 and the said cheque was returned on 19.08.2023 as unpaid for the reason of exceeds arrangement and issued a memo by the complainant's bank. Complainant got issued legal notice through his counsel on 28.08.2023 to accused and demanded the accused to arrange the amount covered under the cheque and the accused received the said notice and kept quiet. The accused issued spurious and worthless cheque knowing fully well that it exceeds arrangement to honour the cheque amount and the same will be dishonoured soon after its presentation. The accused with a cheating intention issued the cheque and thus committed the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. The complainant further submits that accused is a government employee, is an educated person and he is aware of legal consequences of a bounced cheque. There exists a valid and legally enforceable debt between himself and the accused and in experience of the said debt the accused issued the above mentioned cheque towards part satisfaction of said debt and same was dishonored.

Complainant submits that he followed procedure laid down under Provisions 4 of NI Act before filing the complaint. As accused committed offence under

Section 138 of NI Act he is liable for punishment. Therefore, the complainant prays to enquire and punish the accused under Section 138 of an Act, to award compensation to the complainant under Section 357 of CrPC and to pass such other reliefs that deems fit and just under the circumstances of the case.

3.The case is taken on file and cognizance is took for the offence under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the accused.

4.The summons were served on the accused and on his appearance, case copies were served on him under Section 207 of CrPC. At this stage, both the defacto-complainant and accused appeared and requested to refer the matter to Mediation Center for ascertaining settlement and for resolving all the disputes between them.

5.While the matter is pending for defence evidence finally, at this stage, both the parties requested to refer the matter to Mediation Center for mediation to resolve all the disputes between the parties. Heard. After noticing that there is possibility of settlement between the parties, with their consent the case was referred to Mediation Center Eluru vide. Order dated 19.09.2025.

6.As per the directions of this court, both the parties appeared before the

Mediation Center, Eluru and have amicably settled their disputes. The mediator has submitted mediator report along with the terms of settlement

dated 09.09.2025. Which was duly signed by both the parties and

communicated to this court vide Dis No. 1742/2025. The complaint and the 5 mediation report were gone through and the agreement/compromise is legal and there is no invalid condition in the terms of compromise.

7.Heard. The learned counsel for the parties.

8.The terms and conditions mentioned in memorandum of agreement for both the parties are as follows:

1. The accused agreed to pay an amount of ₹ 3,00,000/-., to the complainant, and the complainant agreed to the full and final settlement.

2. The accused paid an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-., to the complainant.

9. After settlement of dispute through mediation, both the parties appeared

before this court. Both the parties conceded that they have settled the dispute

voluntarily, and there is no collusion among them and they have no further claims against each other. The court is satisfied that the consent of the parties is free, voluntary and not obtained by fraud, coercion or undue influence.

10.Having regard to the facts and circumstances submitted by both the parties and on perusal of the memorandum of terms of compromise filed by both the parties, it is found that both parties voluntarily agreed for settlement of terms of compromise and entered into a memorandum of terms of compromise. Therefore, the agreement reached between the parties is lawful, as such the settlement is recorded as per the terms of settlement, mentioned in the mediation report appended with the petition.

11.To the effect of compromise, the complainant also filed a petition under

Section 257 of Cr.P.C., submitting that matter got settled between her and the accused, out of the court and complainant wants to withdraw the case against the accused and hence prayed for recording of the same and to permit the 6 complainant to withdraw the case against the accused in the interest of justice. said petition is allowed as prayed for.

12.Accordingly, the settlement of terms dated 22.09.2025, as mutually agreed upon by the parties, is hereby recorded. The Said settlement arrived outside of the court and also before the mediation center, Eluru, between the parties is accepted and recorded. In view of the said settlement, the accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall stand cancelled.

13. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 26th day of September, 2025.

Sd/ K.Spandana Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Eluru. FAC.II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class(Excise), Eluru.

Appendix of Evidence

No oral or documentary evidence on either side.

Id/ K.S

SJFCM(E), ELURU.

FAC.II AJMFC, ELURU.