Sri. K.syam Babu

1

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.202/2014

Crime No.8/2014 of Dowlaiswaram Police Station

1. Date of Offence 10-01-2014

2. Date of Complaint 10-01-2014

3. Apprehension of Accused 10-01-2014

4. Released on Bail --

5. Commencement of Trial 14-03-2017

6. Close of Trial15-12-2017

7. Date of order 14-08-2018

8. Complainant State:- Rep.by its Inspector of Police,

Dowlaiswaram Police Station

9. Accused Nukapayye Nani, S/o Abbulu,

Age:19 yrs, Caste: SC-Mala,

D.NO.8-102, Sunnambatti Street,

Dowlaiwaram(v)

10. Offence Under Section 447,506,509 Indian

Penal Code

11. Finding Not Guilty

12. Order/Sentence:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 447,506,509 Indian Penal Code, and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.,

13. Remarks Delay due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Sd/- K.Syam Babu

VII A.J.F.C.Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram

Copy Submitted to:

The Hon’ble. Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl.Senior Civil Judge, E.G.

Dist. Rajamahendravaram.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS; RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: K.Syam Babu VII Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class

Tuesday the 14th day of August- 2018

C.C.No.202/2014

Between:

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dowlaiswaram Police ...Complainant

AND

Nukapayye Nani, S/o Abbulu,

Age:19 yrs, Caste: SC-Mala,

D.NO.8-102, Sunnambatti Street,

Dowlaiwaram(v)… Accused

This case has come before me for final hearing on 31.07.2018 in the presence of Smt Ch. Padmavathi, Assistant Public Prosecutor, counsel for prosecution and of Sri G.Mahalakshmi Advocate for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has made the following

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dowlaiswaram filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under sec. 447,506,509 Indian Penal Code and in Cr.No.08/2014 of Dowlaiswaram Police Station.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows :

The L.W.1/ Complainant in this case by name Godi Kanchana D/o

Paddayya is aged about 18 years and she belongs to SC-Mala community and she is the resident of D.No.8-89, Dowlaiswaram(v), the L.W.1 complainant is studying 1st year B.Com. The accused in this case is having good acquaitance with the L.W.1/complainant and he is the neighbour of the L.W.1/ complainant. The L.W.1/ Complainant alleged that the accused in this case accused in this case in trying to grab the properrty of the L.W.1/ complainant, pertaining to that mater cold war is taking place betwen the

L.W.1/ complainant and the accused. As the matter stood thus on 10-01- 2014 at about 11-00 AM while the L.W.1/ complainant in this case situated at her house, at the same time the accused in this case trespassed into the compound of the hosue of the LW1/complainant and raised dispute with 3 her and abused her in filthy language and threatened her that he will rape her unless they vacates the house. As per the evidence of L.W.1 to 5 it is evidently proved that the accused in this case L.W.1/ complainant and hence he altered the section of Law from 341 IPC to 447 IPC.

3.Basing on the report of L.W.1/complainant the L.W.6 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.8/2014 U/sec. 341, 506,509 IPC of Dowlaiswram

PS on 20-01-2014 at 11-00 AM and despatched copies of FIRs to all concerned officials and investigated into this case.

4.During the course of investigation L.W.6 examined Lws 1 to 5 and recorded their detailed statements in part-II of his case diary separately and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence.

5.As per the evidence of L.Ws 1 to 5 it is evidently proved that the accused in this case tresspassed into the compound of the house of the

L.W.1/complainant and hence L.W.6 altered section of law from 341 IPC to 447 IPC. Subsequently L.W.7 who is the SI of police, Dowlasiwaram PS have verified the investigation made by L.W.6 and in furthereance he investigated this case.

6.On 23-01-2014 the accused noted above was arrested by LW6 and sent him to judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

7.On a careful perusal of charge sheet and other relevant material placed on record, cognizance of offence punishable under section 447,506,509 Indian Penal Code was taken against accused. The accused attended before the court, and copies, furnished to him under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code

8.The accused person was examined under section 239Criminal

Procedure Code and explained, read over to him in Telugu, charges framed under section 447,506,509 IPC, upon which he pleaded not guilty, duly claimed to be tried.

The prosecution commenced trial by examining P.Ws.1 to 7 supported by marking documents as Exs.P1 to P5. Upon closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused person was examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code explaining about incriminating evidence appearing against him from prosecution side witnesses and he denied the same. He did not choose to examine any defence witness nor mark documents on his behalf.

4

9.Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and Defence Counsel counsel for accused.

The points for determination are :

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence

U/sec 447 IPC beyond all reasonable doutb?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence

U/sec 506 IPC beyond all reasonable doutb?

3. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence

U/sec 509 IPC beyond all reasonable doutb?

Point No.1 to 3:

According to the case of prosecution the accused trespassed into the property of P.W.1 with an intention threaten her and insult her.

10.Since the offences 447,506 and 509 were occurred at the same time

It is appropriate to discuss about all these points 1 to 3 together. The evidence of P.W1 is that on 10-01-2014 when she was washing her face the accused entered into the front yard (vakili) and threatened the P..W.1 and it was witnessed by the P.W.4 and 5. The P.W.1 also stated that she lodged report in English Language.

11.The defacto- complainant who is examined as P.W.1 deposed that on 10-01-2014 at 09-00 AM while she was washing her face the accused entered into her house at vakili (front yard) abused the P.W.1, threatened her by stating that he will rape P.W.1 and it was witnessed by P.W.4 and 5.

The P.W.1 further stated that the P.Ws 2 and 3 who are the mother and sister of P.W.1 were also present at the time of incident.

During the cross examination of P.W.1 she stated that the surrounding residents were not come to the scene of offence at the time of alleged incident. Though the P.W.1 stated that the P.W.4 and 5 are eye witnesses to the incident, they turned hostile and not supported the version of PW1.

12.The mother of P.W.1 examined as P.W.2 and as per her evidence the accused trespassed into the house and abused the P.W.1 in the filthy language as “bastard” and on that the P.W.1 lodged report. On scrutiny of 5 the evidence PWs 1 and 2 there is a contradictory version in between their evidence with regard to place of incident. As per the version of P.W.1 the accused trespassed into vakili(front yard) and as per the version of P.W.2 the accused trespassed into the house. Though the discrepancy with regard to the place of incident, in between the versions of PWs 1 and 2, is seems to be a minute one but the non availability any independent evidence is weakening the case of prosecution. If the independent witnesses PWs 4 and 5 supported the version of prosecution, then this discrepancy can be treated as a minute one and it can be striked out. In view of the non supporting of version of PWs 1 and 2 by PW4 and 5 the discrepancy with regard to place of incident is fatal to the case of prosecution.

The sister of P.W.1 is examined as P.W.3. As seen from the evidence of P.W.3 she never stated about the alleged tresspass. Hence this court is of opinion that the inconsistency in between the versions of PWs 1 and 2 with regard to the place of alleged incident ,the prosecution failed to prove its case for the offence U/sec. 447 IPC

13.According the version of P.W.1 in view of the previous disputes in between her family and the uncle’s family of accused, the accused trespass into the vakili (front yard) of PW1 and threatened her by stating that he will rape P.W.1. During the cross examination of P.W.1, she stated that she lodged report on the date of incident. It is was also elicited that one person scribed the report and the same was given to P.W.1 and thereafter she typed the report. The evidence P.W.1 clearly shows that she lodged report on the date of incident. On perusal of Ex.P.1 report and the evidence of P.W.1 the alleged incident was occurred on 10-01-2014. But as per the endorsement of the police on Ex.P1 and date beneath the signature of P.W.1 shows that the report was given to the police on 20-01- 2014. It clearly shows that there is a delay of 10 days in between the date of alleged incident and the date of lodging report. The P.W.1 clearly stated in her evidence that she lodged report and date of incident itself. The record itself shows that there is a delay of 10 days and the P.W.1 is speaking false with regard to the date of lodging report. If really the P.W.1 lodged report on the date of alleged incident it might be on 20-01-2014.

Under these circumstance this court is of opinion that the discrepancy with 6 regard to the date of lodging report is fatal to the case of prosecution. The

P.W.1 not stated any reason for lodging report with delay of 10 days. The investigation officers who are examined as P.Ws 6 and 7 failed to speak about the reason for delay in lodging report. During the evidence of P.W.6 the learned APP conducted re-examination, where in the P.W.6 stated that the P.W.1 consulted both parties and as such delay was occurred. When the P.W.1 failed to speak about the reason for delay in lodging the report ,the explanation given by the P.W.6 during the re examination is seems to be an attempt made to fill up the gap in the case of prosecution with regard to the delay in lodging the report. Even if the version of P.W.6 is considered as true with regard to consulting the both parties, the non examination of any of the elders is fatal to the case of prosecution. Hence the version stated by the PW6 during the re-examination is a failed attempt.

If the P.W.1 properly explained the reason for delay in lodging the report then the version stated by the P.W.6 will be considered. But the

P.W.1 failed to speak about the delay in lodging the report and as such it clearly shows that the delay is not explained by the prosecution. According the version of P.W.1 one person scribed a report and the same was typed in English by the P.W.1. The P.W.1 not stated that the Ex.P1 or the original report which was prepared earlier to Ex.P1 was scribed on the dictation of

P.W.1. When the another person prepared the report, the P.W.1 has to speak that the report was prepared on the dictation of P.W.1. But the P.W1 not stated that the said report prepared on her dictation.

While arguing the matter the learned APP submitted that the delay is properly explained by the P.W.6 during the re-examination. When the P.W.1 failed to speak about the delay the explanation given by P.W.6 during the re examination cannot be considered as an explanation for the delay.

14.The P.W.1 stated during the evidence that basing on the previous disputes the accused committed this alleged offence. When the P.W.1 clearly stated that there were previous disputes, there is a chance of false implication of accused in this case and there is also a chance of occurrence of the alleged incident. When the evidence of prosecution witnesses failed to speak about the reasons for delay in lodging report and 7 the discrepancy with regard to the place of alleged incident, this court is of opinion that these discrepancies are fatal to the case of prosecution.

15. Under the aforesaid reasons this court is of opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case for the offences U/sec. 447,506,509

IPC and hence the Points of @@ Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence U/sec 447 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? ,Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence U/sec 506 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? and Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence U/sec 509 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? are decided in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 447,506,509 Indian Penal Code, and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.,

Typed to dictation to the stenographer-III corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court this the 14th day of August- 2018 #

Sd/- K.Syam Babu

VIIA.J.F.C.Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

Appendix of Evidence.

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution:Defence

P.W.1:Godi Kanchana -None-

P.W.2: Godi Padma

P.W.3: Godi Mamatha

P.W.4:Godi Jyothi Babu

P.W.5:Godi Ganapathi

P.W.6: Vasamsetti Sankarao

P.W.7: Geddapu Uma Maheswarao 8

Exhibits marked

Prosecution:Defence: -NIL

Ex.P1: Report lodged by P.W.1

Ex.P2: Relevant Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement

Ex.P3: Relevant Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement

Ex.P4: FIR

Ex.P5: Rough Sketch

VIIA.J.F.C.Magistrate Rajamahendravaram 9

1

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.2183/2018

Crime No.159/2015 of dowlasiwaram Police Station

1. Date of Offence 25-11-2015

2. Date of Complaint 25-11-2015

3. Apprehension of Accused 25-11-2015

4. Released on Bail --

5. Commencement of Trial 06-08-2018

6. Close of Trial07-08-2018

7. Date of order 14-08-2018

8. Complainant State:- Rep.by its Inspector of Police, Dowlaiswaram Police Station

9. Accused A1 Batchu Saireddy @Appalareddy, S/o Syamala Rao, A/32 yrs, C/Reddy, D.No.2-94, Kothapeta, Bommuru Village. A2 Batchu Syamala Rao, S/o (late) Appala Swamy, A/50 yrs, C/Reddy, D.No.2-94, Kothapeta, Bommuru Village. A3 Batchu Kondamma W/o Syamalarao,A/45 yrs, C/Reddy, D.No.2-94, Kothapeta Bommuru Village. A4 Batchu Dhanakalakshmi, D/o Syamalarao,A/23 yrs, C/Reddy, D.NO.2-94, Kothapeta, Bommuru Village.

10. Offence U/sec 498-A IPC and section 3 and 4 of DP Act

11. Finding Not Guilty

12. Order/Sentence: In the result, the A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence under section 498-A,Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Cr.P.C,

13. Remarks No delay

VII A.J.F.C.Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram 2

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS; RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: K.Syam Babu VII Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class

Tuesday the 14th of August- 2018

C.C.No.2183/2018

Between: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dowlaiswaram Police Station

...Complainant

AND A1 Batchu Saireddy @Appalareddy, S/o Syamala Rao, A/32 yrs, C/Reddy, D.No.2-94, Kothapeta, Bommuru Village. A2 Batchu Syamala Rao, S/o (late) Appala Swamy, A/50 yrs, C/Reddy, D.No.2-94, Kothapeta, Bommuru Village. A3 Batchu Kondamma W/o Syamalarao, A/45 yrs, C/Reddy, D.No.2-94, Kothapeta Bommuru Village. A4 Batchu Dhanakalakshmi, D/o Syamalarao, A/23 yrs, C/Reddy, D.NO.2-94, Kothapeta, Bommuru Village. … Accused

This case has come before me for final hearing on 14.08.2018 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, counsel for prosecution and of sri S.Kumar Advocate for A1 to A4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has made the following

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dowlasiwaram Police Station filed charge sheet against the A1 to A4 for the offences under sec.498-A , IPC and section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act in Cr.No.159/2015 of Dowlaiswaram Police

Station.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows :

He submit that L.Ws 2 and 3 performed the mariage of L.W.1 with A1 on 22-05-2015 in the presence of both sides of elders as per the Hindu customs and rites. At the time of marriage, L.W.2 and 3 gave cash of

Rs.1,80,000 towards dowry and Rs.15,000/- towards Adapachu

Lanchanams to the accused(A1) and other alleged accused, subsequently,

L.W.1 lead her marital life at her matrimonial home, Kothapeta, Bommuru 3 village where and other alleged accused looked after L.W.1 well for some days. Later A1 subjected L.W.1 for cruelty by harassing both physically and mentally with a demand for additional dowryand even though L.W.1 expressed the inability of LWs 2 and 3 but A1 did not pacify. L.W.1 bare the entire harassment with a fond of hope that A1 would change his attitude but there is no change in the attitude of A1 besides altercation his demand for additional dowry with the assistance of alleged accused A2 and A3. In the mean while L.W.1 got pregnancy and gave birth to a male child, then

A1 came to see the child demanded to bring additional dowry and went away. The elders tried to settle the issue but A1 did not heed the words of the elders and the elders advicsed L.W.1 to approach the police. Then,

Lws 1 to 3 turned up to Dowlaiswaram Police Station and L.W.1 has presented a written report against A1 and other alleged accused.

3.Basing on the report of L.W.1, L.W.8 registered the above report as a case in Cr.No.159/2015 U/sec. 498-A,r/w 34IPC and section 3 and 4 of

D.P.Act of Dowlaiswaram PS, Rajamahendrvaram Urban on 25-11-2015 at 11-00 a.m., and took up investigation in this case.

4.During the course of investigation L.W.8 examined as 7 witnesses and recorded their statements in her part-II C.D., and visited the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch of the same.

5. On 30-11-2015 L.W.8 served a notice against A1 batchu Saireddy@

Appalareddy U/sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. about regisration of case against the him and to appear before the SHO, Dowlasiwaram PS on 02-12-2015 at 10-00

AM for the conducting enquiry into the facts ofthe case and to co-operate with the investigating agency and the same was duly acknowledged by the accused on the same day i,e. On 30-11-2015 but filed to to do so.

6.subsequently A1 turned up to the police Station along with sufficient sureties and produced before L.W.8 on 04-12-2015, later L.W.8 verified the records the sureties and he was released on bail.

7.Later L.W.8 handed over the CD file to L.W.9 for further investigation

L.W.9 obtained the CD file from L.W.8 verified the investigation so far made done by L.W.8 and found the investigation of L.W.8 on correct lines.

8.As per the version of the complainant A1 harassed the complainant both physically and mentally forthe sake of additional dowry with instigation of other accused A2 to A4. All the independent witneses supported the 4 version of L.W.1 and the allegation levelled against all the accused were established.

9. Subsequently L.W.9 transferred to Traffic PS Rajamahendravaram and

L.W.10 took up the investigation in this case on 28-04-2017 continued further investigation.

10.L.W.10 proposals were sent to the Superintent of police

Rajamahendravaram Urban seeking permission for the arrest of A2 to A4 who are the parents in law and younger sister in law of the complainant.

11.But the Superintent of Police Urban Police District

Rajamahendravaram gave a memo Vide C.No.564/Supdt./RMVM (U)2017,

dt 16-11-2017 the A2 to A4 with instructions to submit with specific

evidence against the accused with names in part-2 statments.

12.Subsequently L.W.10 was transferred to West Godavari District then

L.W.11 continued further investigation on 18-03-2018.

13.On 02-06-2018 L.W.11 carried out the instructions which was issued in C.No.564/Supdt. /RMVM (U)2017, dt:16-11-2017 by the superintent

Rajamahendravaram and on 02-06-2018 proposals were submitted to the

Superintdent of Police, Rajamahendravaram Urban seeking permission for the arrest of A2 to A4 who are the parents in-law and younger sister in law of the complainant.

14. L.W.11 after obtaining the permission from Superintent to of Police,

Urban Police District Rajamahendravaam vide C.No.643/DCRB-S1/2018,

dt:14-07-2018 the A2 to A4 for arrest of the accused.

15.Subsequently 41-A Cr.P.C. notices were served against the A2 to A4 on 21-07-2018.

16.On a careful perusal of charge sheet and other relevant material placed on record, cognizance of offence punishable under section 498-

Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of DP Act was taken against A1 to

A4. The A1 to A4 are attended before the court, furnished copies to them under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

17.The A1 to A4 are examined under section 239Criminal Procedure

Code and charges framed under section 498-A, IPC ,and section 3 and 4 of DP Act, read upon to them which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.

18.The prosecution commenced trial by examining P.W.1 and by marking documents as Exs.P1 and P2 Since the P.W.1 turned hostile not 5 supported the case of prosecution, the police failed to produce the evidence of remaining witnesses. Hence the evidence of prosecution was closed since no purpose will be served even if other witnesses are examined. Since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused the examination U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

The point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could bring the guilty of the accused for the charges U/sec. 498-A, IPC and section and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

Point No.1

19.According to the case of prosecution the A1 to A4 are harassed the

P.W.1 to bring the additional dowry. The P.W.1 is wife of accused and L.W.3 is the mother of P.W.1. As per the case of prosecution the L.W.2 and L.W.3 performed the marriage of P.W.1 with A1 by giving an amount of

Rs.1,80,000 towards and Rs. 15,000/- Adapadachu Lanchanms and during matrimonial home the accused harassed the P.W.1 for additional dowry for the P.W.1, and P.W.1 not supported the case of prosecution during their evidence. Except stating the relation among P.W.1 and accused the P.W.1 not deposed any incriminating evidence against the A1 person. The further evidence of P.W.1 disclosed that she do not know contents of complainant and no quarrel took place for dowry. The PW.1 clearly stated that she is leading marital life with the accused and she is not interesting to prosecute the matter against accused.

The mother of P.W. 1 is examined as and her evidence is also on the lines of P.W.1.

20.There is no incriminating material from the evidence of P.W 1. When the material witness P.W.1 turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, and the police failed to produce the evidence of further witnesses and as such the evidence of further witnesses is closed because no purpose will be served since the P.W1 turned hostile. Hence the examination U/sec 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with because there is no incriminating evidence against the accused

21. Under the aforesaid reasons this court is of opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case for the offences U/sec. 498-A, IPC and 6

Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and hence the Point of Whether the prosecution could bring the guilty of the accused for the charges U/sec.

498-A, Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act? is decided in favour of accused and against the prosecution

22.In the result, the A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence under section 498-A,Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure

Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Cr.P.C,

Typed to dictation to the stenographer-III corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court this the 14th day of August- 2018. #

VIIA.J.F.C.Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

Appendix of Evidence. Witnesses Examined Prosecution:Defence P.W.1:Batchu Devi -Nil-

Exhibits marked Prosecution:Defence: -NIL

Ex:P1: Signature Report Ex:P2: Relevant Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement

VIIA.J.F.C.Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

7 8

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

PRESENT : Sri K.SYAM BABU

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram

Friday, the 20th day of April,2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.263/2017

Between:

Bank of Baroda, a Body Corporate Constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) act, 1970, having branches all over India including the branch at Ajantha Buildings, Fort gate, Rajahmundry, rep.by by its

Principal officer cum Chief Manager of Rajahmundry Branch and its authorised agent

Killamsetti Venkata Ravi Prasad.

..Plaintiff.

And

Seelamanthula Kasi ..Defendant

This suit coming on 02.02.2018 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Sambasiva Rao , Advocate for plaintiff. The defendant remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs.1,19,828/- with subsequent interest; and for costs.

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

The Municipal corporation sent a letter dated 5.11.2005 bearing No.24187/97-C2 proposing the name of the defendant for sanction of loan under “SJSRY” sponsored by the Government of India. The Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry , sent the proceedings dated 5.11.2005 to the plaintiff regarding the loan proposal of the defendant. The plaintiff after considering the request made by at the Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry sent in principle acceptance to the Munuicipal Corporation, Rajahmundry and subsequently the defendant submitted the application dated 16.3.2006 for sanctioning a loan under SJSRY scheme. The defendant also submitted the particulars required by the plaintiff. As stated supra, the defendant is sponsored by the Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry. The plaintiff agreed to sanction a term loan to a tune of Rs.50,000/- and gave sanction advise memo dated 8.4.2006 stating the terms and conditions for sanctioning the loan and the defendant got signed and received the said memo. As per the terms and conditions, the defendant has to repay the amount borrowed in 60 equated monthly instalments of Rs.833/- each with interest at 8.5% per annum. Thereafter the 2 plaintiff bank disbursed the loan amount through the loan account No.06790600000040 of the defendant. The defendant has always been irregular in payment of monthly instalments. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant failed to repay the debt. Consequently the account has been classified as “NPA” The plaintiff submits that the defendant is liable to pay the unapplied interest, costs and expenses also. The defendant executed the letters of acknowledgment and requesting time for payment . But the defendant failed to pay the amount. On that the plaintiff bank got issued regd. Notice dt.15.02.2017 to the defendant calling upon to repay the entire amount, but the defendant got the notice return. Hence the suit.

4. Held sufficient service, the defendant failed to put any appearance before the court. Therefore, defendant remained exparte.

5. In the course of exparte evidence, P.W.1 is examined and Exs.A.1 to A.21 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff bank.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the evidence, both oral and documentary on record.

7. Now the point for consideration is whether plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery

Of amount as prayed for?

POINT:-

As per the testimony of P.W.1. (I.Srihari) he is the Officer credit of plaintiff’s Bank, he deposed evidence reiterating the contents of the plaint averments. Since the defendant is set exparte the evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged. The un- challenged testimony of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.21 reveal that the defendant submitted an application to the plaintiff bank on 16.3.2006 for a loan of Rs.50,000/- accordingly the plaintiff bank disbursed the loan amount through the loan account No.06790600000040 of the defendant under “SJSRY” scheme to the defendant and the defendant agreed to repay the same with interest at 8.5% per annum.The defendant availed the said loan, but did not adhere to the terms of repayment and committed default in discharging the loan amount and on several demands made by the plaintiff bank, the defendant submitted revival letters dated 27.12.2007, 20.3.2009,24.6.2011 and 22.6.2014 admitting his liability but failed to discharge the loan amount. The plaintiff bank issued a registered legal notice dated 15.02.2017 demanding to repay the debt due but the same was returned . The loan amount became N.P.A. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,19,828/-covered under the loan transaction. The evidence of P.W.1 supported by documentary evidence established the case of the plaintiff.

3

8.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that there is no reason to disbelieve the un-challenged testimony of P.W.1. The defendant is liable to pay the due amount. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for the decree as prayed for.

9.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff’s bank and the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff’s bank an amount of Rs. 1,19,828/- (Rupees one lakh nineteen thousand eight hundred and twenty eight only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till its realization on Rs. 1,19,828/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 20th day of April,2018.

Sd/-K.Syambabu

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants

PW.1 I.Srihari Nil :DOCUMENTS MARKED:

Ex.A.1 Letter sent by the Municipal corporation, Rajahmundry to the plaintiff along with the application of the defendant dated 5.11.2005.

Ex.A.2 application forwarded by the Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry to the plaintiff dated 5.11.2005.

Ex.A.3 application for personal loan given by the defendant dated 16.3.2006.

Ex.A.4 Particulars to be supplied by the applicant for advances submitted which contain his signatures dated 8.4.2006.

Ex.A.5 Sanction advise memo given by the plaintiff to the defendant which contain his signatures dt.8.4.2006

Ex.A.6 Demand promissory note for Rs.50,000/- payable with interest at 8.5% p.a. compounded monthly rests dt. 8.4.2016.

Ex.A.7 Letter of instalment with acceleration clause executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff dt.8.4.2006.

Ex.A.8 Instalment of Hypothecation of stock in trade executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff dated 8.4.2006

Ex.A.9 Draft undertaking executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff dated 8.4.2006.

Ex.A.10 Letter of authority to make payment s directly to the dealers dated 8.4.2006.

4

Ex.A.11 Quotation issued by AVK Dyeing works to the defendant dt. 13.3.2006

Ex.A.12 Copy of the letter issued by the plaintiff to AVK Dyeing works, Tenali dt. 8.4.2006.

Ex.A.13 Receipt issued by the AVK Dyeing works, Tenali dt. 8.4.2006

Ex.A.14 Credit bill issued by AVK Dyeing works, Tenali in faovuar of defendant Dt.29.4.2006.

Ex.A.15 Letter of acknowledgement debt given by the defendant dated 27.12.2007.

Ex.A.16 Letter of acknowledgement debt given by the defendant dated 20.3.2009

Ex.A.17 Letter of acknowledgement debt given by the defendant dated 24.6.2011.

Ex.A.18 Letter of acknowledgement debt given by the defendant dated 22.6.2014.

Ex.A.19 Office copy of registered notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant along with postal receipt dated 15.2.2017.

Ex.A.20 Returned registered notice and

Ex.A.21 Certified statement of account along with NPA certificate of the defendant loan account.

For defendant:Nil

Sd/-K.Syambabu

Prl.Jr.Civil Judge,

Rajamahendravaram 5 6 7 4

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

PRESENT : Sri K.SYAM BABU

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram

Friday, the 20th day of April,2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.263/2017

Between:

Bank of Baroda, a Body Corporate Constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) act, 1970, having branches all over India including the branch at Ajantha Buildings, Fort gate, Rajahmundry, rep.by by its

Principal officer cum Chief Manager of Rajahmundry Branch and its authorised agent

Killamsetti Venkata Ravi Prasad.

..Plaintiff.

And

Seelamanthula Kasi ..Defendant

This suit coming on 02.02.2018 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Sambasiva Rao , Advocate for plaintiff. The defendant remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs.1,19,828/- with subsequent interest; and for costs.

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

The Municipal corporation sent a letter dated 5.11.2005 bearing No.24187/97-C2 proposing the name of the defendant for sanction of loan under “SJSRY” sponsored by the Government of India. The Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry , sent the proceedings dated 5.11.2005 to the plaintiff regarding the loan proposal of the defendant. The plaintiff after considering the request made by at the Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry sent in principle acceptance to the Munuicipal Corporation, Rajahmundry and subsequently the defendant submitted the application dated 16.3.2006 for sanctioning a loan under SJSRY scheme. The defendant also submitted the particulars required by the plaintiff. As stated supra, the defendant is sponsored by the Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry. The plaintiff agreed to sanction a term loan to a tune of Rs.50,000/- and gave sanction advise memo dated 8.4.2006 stating the terms and conditions for sanctioning the loan and the defendant got signed and received the said memo. As per the terms and conditions, the defendant has to repay the amount borrowed in 60 equated monthly instalments of Rs.833/- each with interest at 8.5% per annum. Thereafter the 2 plaintiff bank disbursed the loan amount through the loan account No.06790600000040 of the defendant. The defendant has always been irregular in payment of monthly instalments. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant failed to repay the debt. Consequently the account has been classified as “NPA” The plaintiff submits that the defendant is liable to pay the unapplied interest, costs and expenses also. The defendant executed the letters of acknowledgment and requesting time for payment . But the defendant failed to pay the amount. On that the plaintiff bank got issued regd. Notice dt.15.02.2017 to the defendant calling upon to repay the entire amount, but the defendant got the notice return. Hence the suit.

4. Held sufficient service, the defendant failed to put any appearance before the court. Therefore, defendant remained exparte.

5. In the course of exparte evidence, P.W.1 is examined and Exs.A.1 to A.21 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff bank.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the evidence, both oral and documentary on record.

7. Now the point for consideration is whether plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery

Of amount as prayed for?

POINT:-

As per the testimony of P.W.1. (I.Srihari) he is the Officer credit of plaintiff’s Bank, he deposed evidence reiterating the contents of the plaint averments. Since the defendant is set exparte the evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged. The un- challenged testimony of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.21 reveal that the defendant submitted an application to the plaintiff bank on 16.3.2006 for a loan of Rs.50,000/- accordingly the plaintiff bank disbursed the loan amount through the loan account No.06790600000040 of the defendant under “SJSRY” scheme to the defendant and the defendant agreed to repay the same with interest at 8.5% per annum.The defendant availed the said loan, but did not adhere to the terms of repayment and committed default in discharging the loan amount and on several demands made by the plaintiff bank, the defendant submitted revival letters dated 27.12.2007, 20.3.2009,24.6.2011 and 22.6.2014 admitting his liability but failed to discharge the loan amount. The plaintiff bank issued a registered legal notice dated 15.02.2017 demanding to repay the debt due but the same was returned . The loan amount became N.P.A. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,19,828/-covered under the loan transaction. The evidence of P.W.1 supported by documentary evidence established the case of the plaintiff.

3

8.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that there is no reason to disbelieve the un-challenged testimony of P.W.1. The defendant is liable to pay the due amount. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for the decree as prayed for.

9.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff’s bank and the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff’s bank an amount of Rs. 1,19,828/- (Rupees one lakh nineteen thousand eight hundred and twenty eight only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till its realization on Rs. 1,19,828/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 20th day of April,2018.

Sd/-K.Syambabu

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants

PW.1 I.Srihari Nil :DOCUMENTS MARKED:

Ex.A.1 Letter sent by the Municipal corporation, Rajahmundry to the plaintiff along with the application of the defendant dated 5.11.2005.

Ex.A.2 application forwarded by the Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry to the plaintiff dated 5.11.2005.

Ex.A.3 application for personal loan given by the defendant dated 16.3.2006.

Ex.A.4 Particulars to be supplied by the applicant for advances submitted which contain his signatures dated 8.4.2006.

Ex.A.5 Sanction advise memo given by the plaintiff to the defendant which contain his signatures dt.8.4.2006

Ex.A.6 Demand promissory note for Rs.50,000/- payable with interest at 8.5% p.a. compounded monthly rests dt. 8.4.2016.

Ex.A.7 Letter of instalment with acceleration clause executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff dt.8.4.2006.

Ex.A.8 Instalment of Hypothecation of stock in trade executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff dated 8.4.2006

Ex.A.9 Draft undertaking executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff dated 8.4.2006.

Ex.A.10 Letter of authority to make payment s directly to the dealers dated 8.4.2006.

4

Ex.A.11 Quotation issued by AVK Dyeing works to the defendant dt. 13.3.2006

Ex.A.12 Copy of the letter issued by the plaintiff to AVK Dyeing works, Tenali dt. 8.4.2006.

Ex.A.13 Receipt issued by the AVK Dyeing works, Tenali dt. 8.4.2006

Ex.A.14 Credit bill issued by AVK Dyeing works, Tenali in faovuar of defendant Dt.29.4.2006.

Ex.A.15 Letter of acknowledgement debt given by the defendant dated 27.12.2007.

Ex.A.16 Letter of acknowledgement debt given by the defendant dated 20.3.2009

Ex.A.17 Letter of acknowledgement debt given by the defendant dated 24.6.2011.

Ex.A.18 Letter of acknowledgement debt given by the defendant dated 22.6.2014.

Ex.A.19 Office copy of registered notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant along with postal receipt dated 15.2.2017.

Ex.A.20 Returned registered notice and

Ex.A.21 Certified statement of account along with NPA certificate of the defendant loan account.

For defendant:Nil

Sd/-K.Syambabu

Prl.Jr.Civil Judge,

Rajamahendravaram 5 6 7 4

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

PRESENT : Sri K.SYAM BABU

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram

Friday, the 20th day of April,2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.267/2017

Between:

Bank of Baroda, a Body Corporate Constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) act, 1970, having branches all over India including the branch at Ajantha Buildings, Fort gate, Rajahmundry, rep.by by its

Principal officer cum Chief Manager of Rajahmundry Branch and its authorised agent

Killamsetti Venkata Ravi Prasad.

..Plaintiff.

And

1.Smt Manikyam Devi Manikyalu @ Sri Vijaya 2.P.Durga Sankar Rao

..Defendants

This suit coming on 02.02.2018 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Sambasiva Rao , Advocate for plaintiff. The defendant remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs.93,499/- with subsequent interest; and for costs.

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

The Municipal corporation sent a letter dated 19.9.2008 bearing

No.24187/2004-C2 proposing the name of 1st defendant for sanction of loan under Rajiv Yuva SAkti Programme, 2008-09 sponsored by the Chief

Executive Officer, SETRAJ, Kakinada. Chief Executive Officer, SETRAJ,

Kakinada sent the proceedings dated 14.11.2008 to the plaintiff regarding the loan proposal of the defendants. The plaintiff after considering the request made by at the Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry sent in principle acceptance to the Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry sent the letter dated 16.10.2008 and subsequently the 1st defendant submitted the application and the plaintiff informed the 1st defendant that she has to furnish an independent 3rd party guarantor to the satisfaction of plaintiff . The defendant agreed the terms of sanction and offered the 2nd defendant as 2 guarantor for the due payment of the amount. The plaintiff gave sanction advise memo dated 9.2.2009. As stated supra, the 1st defendant is sponsored by the Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry. The plaintiff agreed to sanction a term loan to a tune of Rs.35,000/- As per the terms and conditions, the defendants have to repay the amount borrowed together with interest at 4% below BPLR subject to a minimum of 8.5% per annum in 60 equated monthly instalments of Rs.788-00 each commencing from 9.3.2009.

Thereafter the defendants executed the required documents on 9.2.2009 to the plaintiff. Thereafter the plaintiff bank disbursed the loan amount through the loan account No.06790600001267 of the 1st defendant. The defendants have always been irregular in payment of monthly instalments. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendants failed to repay the debt. Consequently the account has been classified as “NPA” The plaintiff submits that the defendants are liable to pay the unapplied interest, costs and expenses also. The defendant executed the letters of acknowledgment and requesting time for payment . But the defendants failed to pay the amount. On that the plaintiff bank got issued regd. Notice dt.12.02.2017 to the defendants calling upon to repay the entire amount, but the defendants got the notice return. Hence the suit.

4. Held sufficient service, the defendant failed to put any appearance

before the court. Therefore, defendant remained exparte.

5. In the course of exparte evidence, P.W.1 is examined and Exs.A.1 to

A.16 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff bank.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the evidence, both oral and documentary on record.

7. Now the point for consideration is whether plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of amount as prayed for?

POINT:-

As per the testimony of P.W.1. (I.Srihari) he is the Officer credit of plaintiff’s Bank, he deposed evidence reiterating the contents of the plaint averments. Since the defendants set exparte the evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged. The un-challenged testimony of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 to

A.16 reveal that the 1st defendant submitted an application to the plaintiff bank for a loan of Rs.35,000/- accordingly the plaintiff bank disbursed the loan amount through the loan account No.06790600001267 of the defendant 3 underRajiv Yuva Sakti Programme, 2008-09 sponsored by the Chief

Executive Officer, SETRAJ, Kakinada to the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant agreed to repay the same with interest at 4% below BPLR subject to a minimum of 8.5% per annum in 60 equated monthly instalments of

Rs.788-00.The defendants availed the said loan, but did not adhere to the terms of repayment and committed default in discharging the loan amount and on several demands made by the plaintiff bank, the 1st defendant executed the letters of acknowledgement dt. 18.1.2012 and 10.1.2015 admitting her liability and seeking time for payment of the amount, but failed to discharge the loan amount. The plaintiff bank issued a registered legal notice dated 12.2.2017 demanding to repay the debt due but the same was returned. The loan amount became N.P.A. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 93,499/-covered under the loan transaction. The evidence of P.W.1 supported by documentary evidence established the case of the plaintiff.

8.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that there is no reason to disbelieve the un-challenged testimony of P.W.1. The defendant is liable to pay the due amount. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for the decree as prayed for.

9.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff’s bank, the defendants 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff’s bank an amount of Rs. 93,499/- (Rupees ninety three thousand four hundred and ninety nine only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a.

from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till its realization on Rs.93,499/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 20th day of April,2018.

Sd/-K.Syambabu

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants

PW.1 I.Srihari Nil 4 :DOCUMENTS MARKED:

Ex.A.1 Letter sent by the Municipal corporation, Rajahmundry to the plaintiff dated 19.09.2008.

Ex.A.2 Photostat copy of letter dated 16.10.2008.

Ex.A.3 Proceedings of Chief Executive Officer dated 24.11.2008.

Ex.A.4 Application by 1st defendant.

Ex.A.5 Sanction advice memo dt. 9.2.2009.

Ex.A.6 Promissory note dated 9.2.2009.

Ex.A.7 Form of guarantee executed by 2nd defendant dated 9.2.2009.

Ex.A.8 Instalment of Hypothecation of stock in trade executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff dated 9.2.2009.

Ex.A.9 Declaration cum undertaking executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff dated 9.2.2009.

Ex.A.10 Letter of instalment with acceleration clause dated 9.2.2009.

Ex.A.11 Letter of acknowledgement debt given by the 1st defendant dated 18.1.2012.

Ex.A.12 Letter of acknowledgement debt given by the defendant dated 10.1.2015.

Ex.A.13 Office copy of registered notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant along with postal receipt dated 12.2.2017.

Ex.A.14 Returned postal cover of 1st defendant.

Ex.A.15 Returned postal cover of 2nd defendant

Ex.A.16 Attested copy of loan account No.06790600001267 of 1st defendant along with certificate of unapplied interest.

For defendant: Nil

Sd/-K.Syambabu

Prl.Jr.Civil Judge,

Rajamahendravaram 5 6 7 4