Sri K.v Rama Krishnaiah

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

TENALI.

Present :: Sri K.V.Rama Krishnaiah.

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali.

Friday, the 23rd day of February, 2018.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.26/2017

Between : Sri Venu Gopala Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Vemuru Village and Mandal, represented by its Executive Officer – Gettam Syam Sundar Babu, S/o.Bhikshalu, aged about 52 years, Tenali, Guntur District. ….Plaintiff

And

Meka Nageswara Rao, S/o.Anjaiah, Hindu, aged about 58 years, Cultivation, Vemuru Village and Mandal, Guntur District. ….Defendant

This suit is coming before me for disposal on this day in the presence of Sri D.Siva Koteswara Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri P.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having heard on 07-02-2018 and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of maktha amount.

02.The averments in the plaint are that the plaintiff, who is landlord of an extent of Ac.5.19 cents in D.Nos.286/1 and 287 of Vemuru Village and Mandal, conducted public auction of lease hold rights on 30-06-2014 for three years i.e., 2014-2017. The defendant became highest bidder in the said auction and the auction was knocked out at Rs.1,36,200/- per year payable in advance every year on or before 1st July of the year as per the auction conditions, if the defendant failed to pay maktha in time, he is liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum.

03.It is further case of plaintiff that the defendant failed to pay maktha of Rs.1,36,200/- for the years 2015-16 and inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to pay the balance of maktha so far and subsequently, the plaintiff got issued a registered notice on 29-09-2016 to the defendant, requesting him to pay the amount and in the said notice, the year was wrongly mentioned as 2014-15 instead of 2015-16 and the defendant gave reply notice on 01-11-2016 and subsequently, a fresh notice is issued on 01-11-2016 and the same was received by the defendant, but failed to pay the arrears of maktha. Hence, the suit.

04.Upon service of summons, the defendant filed written statement, denying the allegations made in the plaint, stating that he paid maktha amount of Rs.1,36,200/- on 30-06-2014 and got a proper receipt issued by Endowment Authority to that amount and therefore, for the year 2 2014-15, the defendant is not in due of any amount and need not pay any interest. It is further averred that he filed a petition on 29-06-2016 before M.R.O of Vemuru, appealing that the Government has dugged seven ponds in the Endowment land cultivated by him and due to which, the cultivation has reduced to Ac.1.40 cents only and thereby, this defendant has got loss of inconvenience in cultivation and incurred heavy losses and he requested to reduce the lease amount; but on 08-07-2016, this defendant received a letter from the plaintiff's office to pay the total lease amount even for Ac.1.40 cents.

05.It is further averred that the plaintiff, without any prior notice to this defendant, demanded the lease for the year 2016-17 and not even returned the advance amount of Rs.5,000/- kept with the plaintiff and that there is no specific mention of interest condition @ 12% per annum in the auction notification issued by the plaintiff at the time of lease auction conducted on 30-04-2014 by the plaintiff and therefore, the interest from 01-06-2016 till 30-12-2016 @ 12% per annum claimed by the plaintiff is not agreed by this defendant and not according to law and hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

06.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim maktha as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to interest as pleaded by the defendant?

3. If so, to what relief?

07.In support of its case, the Executive Officer of plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A10 are marked on its behalf. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant, apart from examining himself as D.W.1, also examined another witness as D.W.2 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2.

08.Heard counsel for the plaintiff and counsel for defendant.

09.ISSUE NOS.1 AND 2 :- The Executive Officer of plaintiff temple is examined as P.W.1, by filing his chief-examination, reiterating the averments in plaint. Exs.A1 to A10 are marked through P.W.1. Ex.A1 is Registered Legal Notice, dated 29-09-2016, Ex.A2 is Acknowledgment, dated 30-09-2016, Ex.A3 is Reply Notice issued on behalf of the defendant, dated 22-10-2016, Ex.A4 is Reply Notice issued on behalf of the plaintiff, dated 01-1-2016, Ex.A5 is Acknowledgment, dated 02-11-2016, Ex.A6 is Registered Notice on behalf of plaintiff to defendant's advocate, dated 01-11-2016, Ex.A7 is Demand collection balance register for the years 2013-14 to 2016-17, Ex.A8 is Relevant entry in Ex.A3 – Register, Ex.A9 is Bidder list, dated 30-06-2014 and Ex.A10 is Auction Conditions. A perusal of documents filed by the plaintiff reveals that according to Ex.A7, the defendant is in due of the agreed maktha to be paid to plaintiff. A perusal of documents filed by the plaintiff also reveals that the defendant is a tenant; obtained the schedule property on maktha, agreeing to pay required maktha, but failed to pay maktha for the period of 2015-2016. The record also reveals that earlier the defendant paid maktha.

3

10.The defendant, in support of his contention seeking reduction amount of maktha by virtue of the digging of water ponds to an extent of Ac.1.40 cents, examined himself as D.W.1 and also examined another witness as D.W.2 and exhibited Exs.B1 and B2. Ex.B1 is the application addressed to the Mandal Revenue Officer, by putting forward his grievance for reduction of maktha and Ex.B2 is letter addressed by the Executive Officer of the plaintiff's temple, denying the responsibility for reduction of the maktha. The case of defendant is that as the Government dug seven water ponds in the plaintiff's land to an extent of Ac.1.40 cents at 27 cents each, he sustained loss to that extent. But the defendant failed to produce any material document to show the extent of damages caused to him during the particular year of maktha due to the digging of water ponds in the lease hold lands and under those circumstances, when there is no dispute with regard to the leasing of plaint schedule property and there is no dispute with regard to the agreed maktha of Rs.1,36,000/- per annum, he is not entitled to any such reduction from the maktha.

11.Regarding the interest clause is concerned, though the defendant contested that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any interest over the maktha, yet, as per the clause 19 of Ex.A10, the conditions of the auction, the plaintiff's temple has got every right to claim interest at 24% per annum on the amount due of maktha. Thus, the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any interest is not acceptable and is negatived. It is further case of defendant that he deposited Rs.5,000/- as auction money at the time of bid and is entitled to refund of the same. The said fact is admitted by P.W.1 in his cross- examination and that the same was not given credit to the defendant from the suit claim. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to get adjusted the deposit amount of Rs.5,000/- from the suit claim. As far as claim of interest claimed by plaintiff is concerned, no specific evidence is adduced to disprove the entitlement of plaintiff in this regard. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 remains unchallenged and proved. There is nothing to suspect the case of plaintiff either on limitation or jurisdiction. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of maktha amount. Thus, these issues are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

12.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.1,45,688/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum, till realization. The plaintiff is directed to deduct a sum of Rs.5,000/- out of the suit claim.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

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

Sd/-

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TENALI.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff :- P.W.1 :- G.Syam Sundara Babu.

4

For Defendant :- D.W.1 :- Meka Nageswara Rao. D.W.2 :- Jalli Devapal.

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff :- Ex.A-1 :- Registered Legal Notice, dated 29-09-2016. Ex.A-2 :- Acknowledgment, dated 30-09-2016. Ex.A-3 :- Reply Notice issued on behalf of the defendant dated 22-10-2016. Ex.A-4 :- Reply Notice issued on behalf of the plaintiff, dated 01-1-2016. Ex.A-5 :- Acknowledgment, dated 02-11-2016. Ex.A-6 :- Registered Notice on behalf of plaintiff to defendant's advocate,

dated 01-11-2016.

Ex.A-7 :- Demand collection balance register for the years 2013-14 to 2016-17. Ex.A-8 :- Relevant entry in Ex.A3 – Register. Ex.A-9 :- Bidder list, dated 30-06-2014. Ex.A-10:- Auction Conditions.

For Defendant :- Ex.B-1 :- Grievance petition submitted to Vemuru Tahsildar by the defendant, dated 29-06-2016. Ex.B-2 :- Reply from E.A.O., Vemuru, dated 08-07-2016.

Sd/-

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TENALI.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

:: TENALI

Present :: Sri K.V.Rama Krishnaiah.

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali.

Tuesday, the 20th day of February, 2018.

O.S No.114/2016

Between : Varikuti Siva Parvathi, W/o.Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Housewife, R/o.Bapatla, Guntur District.

....Plaintiff

And

1. Thodeti Ramesh Babu, S/o.Daveedu, Hindu, aged about 48 years, Employee in R & B Department, R/o.Bapatla, Guntur District.

2. Gurundupalli Padma, W/o.Johnpaul, Hindu, aged about 38 years, Housewife, R/o.Akbarpet, Bapatla, Guntur District.

...Defendants

This case is coming up before me today for disposal in the presence of Sri J.Aadinarayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and the matter having heard on 19-02-2018 and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The suit is filed for recovery of money based on a promissory note.

02.The averments in the plaint in brief are that the defendants jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 30-03-2014 from the plaintiff for their family expenses and to discharge sundry debts executed a promissory note, by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or her order on demand. Thereafter, the plaintiff demanded amount, defendants, while admitting their liability, postponed the same and subsequently on 26-12-2015, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, demanding to pay debt and having received the same on 06-01-2016, the defendant No.2 gave reply on 08-01-2013 with false allegations. Hence, this suit.

03.In spite of several opportunities given to defendants to proceed with the matter during course of proceedings, they remained exparte and an exparte decree was passed on 23-06-2016. Subsequently, the suit was restored as per the orders passed on I.A.No. 453/2016 under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. and the exparte decree, dated 23-06-2016 was set aside.

04. Upon service of summons, the defendant No.1 filed written statement, which was adopted by defendant No.2, denying the allegations made in the plaint, stating that the defendants jointly discharged the entire amount due on the said promissory note with agreed rate of interest on 23-05-2015 itself and requested the plaintiff 2 to return the promissory note, but the plaintiff told that it was misplaced and subsequently some disputes cropped between them, the plaintiff filed this suit with false allegations and hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

05.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial :-

1. Whether the defendants discharged the suit promissory note debt as pleaded by them?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount?

3. To what relief?

06.In support of her case, the plaintiff, apart from examining herself as P.W.1, also examined P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4.

07.Heard counsel for the plaintiff.

09.ISSUES :- The evidence of the plaintiff as P.W.1 is replica of her plaint averments. Through P.W.1, Exs.A1 to A4 are marked. Ex.A1 is the Promissory note, dated 30-03-2014, Ex.A2 is Office copy of Registered Notice, dated 26-12-2015, Ex.A3 is Postal Acknowledgment of defendant No.2, dated 12-01-2016 and Ex.A4 is Returned notice of defendant.

10.The plaintiff, to substantiate her contention that the defendants jointly borrowed amount, by executing the suit promissory note in her favour, exhibited Ex.A1 promissory note and also as P.W.1 in categorical terms deposed that on 30-03-2014, one K.Padma Bhushanam with his own handwriting executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note and the defendants signed on it and in-spite of her demands, they did not choose to repay or discharge the debt due under Ex.A1. To prove her contentions, the plaintiff has examined P.W.2, who supported the case of plaintiff including receipt of consideration by the defendants in her presence and the entire transaction took place in their presence only. The defendants did not choose to cross-examine P.Ws.1 and 2 to disprove the allegations made against them and remained exparte. The plaintiff, by examining P.Ws.1 and 2 and also by producing Exs.A1 to A4 documents, proved her case beyond preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 remains unchallenged and proved. There is nothing to suspect the case of plaintiff either on limitation or on jurisdiction. Hence, the suit is fit to be decreed. The defendants though pleaded discharge of debt, but failed to establish the alleged fact by any oral or documentary evidence. Thus, these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

11. In the result, suit is decreed with costs for Rs.1,43,333/- (Rupees One lakh forty-three thousand, three hundred and thirty three only) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit, till the date of decree and with future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree, till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20th February 2018. Sd/-

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TENALI.

3

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff :- P.W.1 :- Varikuti Siva Parvathi. P.W.2 :- Asodhi Lakshmi.

For Defendants :- - N O N E -

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff :- Ex.A-1 :- Promissory note, dated 30-03-2014. Ex.A-2 :- Office copy of Registered Notice, dated 26-12-2015. Ex.A-3 :- Postal Acknowledgment of defendant No.2, dated 12-01-2016. Ex.A-4 :- Returned notice of defendant.

For Defendants :- - NIL -

Sd/-

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TENALI.

//True Copy//

I A.J.C.J.

4

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

:: TENALI

Present :: Sri K.V.Rama Krishnaiah.

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali.

Tuesday, the 20th day of February, 2018.

O.S No.114/2016

Between : Varikuti Siva Parvathi, W/o.Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Housewife, R/o.Bapatla, Guntur District.

....Plaintiff

And

1. Thodeti Ramesh Babu, S/o.Daveedu, Hindu, aged about 48 years, Employee in R & B Department, R/o.Bapatla, Guntur District.

2. Gurundupalli Padma, W/o.Johnpaul, Hindu, aged about 38 years, Housewife, R/o.Akbarpet, Bapatla, Guntur District.

...Defendants

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money based on a promissory note.

Plaint presented on: 02-03-2016. Plaint filed on: 02-03-2016.

CAUSE OF ACTION :- Cause of action for the suit arose on 30-03-2014, when the defendants jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 30-03-2014 from the plaintiff for their family expenses and to discharge sundry debts executed a promissory note, by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or her order on demand. Thereafter, when the plaintiff demanded amount, defendants, while admitting their liability, postponed the same and subsequently on 26-12-2015, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, demanding to pay debt and having received the same on 06-01-2016, the defendant No.2 gave reply on 08-01-2013 with false allegations and when the suit transaction took place at Tenali, Guntur District within the jurisdiction of this court.

VALUATION :-

Principal amount due under the promissory note,

dated 30-03-2014Rs.1,00,000-00

Interest from 30-03-2014 to 20-01-2016 @ 24% per annumRs. 43,333-00 ----------------- Rs.1,43,333-00 ----------------- On which a Court fee of Rs.3,926/- was paid under Section 20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act. The value for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.1,43,333/-.

5

This case is coming up before me today for disposal in the presence of Sri J.Aadinarayana, Advocate for plaintiff and of the defendants remained exparte and the matter having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court Doth Order and Decree as follows :

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed;

2. That the defendants do pay Rs.1,43,333/- (Rupees One lakh forty-three thousand, three hundred and thirty three only) to the plaintiff with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit i.e., 02-03-2016, till the date of decree i.e., 20-02-2018 and with future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree, till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-; and

3. That the defendant do also pay Rs.3,928/- to the plaintiff towards institution costs of the suit and the defendants do bear their own costs of Rs.NIL. (No Costs Memo and Fee Certificate filed on either side)

Given under my hand and the seal of the court on this the 20th day of February, 2018.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TENALI.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendants

(No C.M. & F.C. filed)

1. Stamps on vakalat: Rs. 2-00

2. Stamp on plaint: Rs.3,926-00--- ------------------------------------- Institution Costs at: Rs.3,928-00 - NIL - --------------------------------------

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TENALI.

1 C.C.403/2018

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR

C.C.No.403/2018

1. DATEOF OFFENCE29­09­2017

2.DATEOF REPORTOR COMPLAINT1­10­2017

3.DATEOF APPREHENSIONOFTHEACCUSED­­

4.DATEOF RELEASEONBAIL­­

5.DATEOF COMMENCEMENTOFTRIAL8­1­2019

6.DATEOFCLOSEOFTHETRIAL8­1­2019

7.DATEOF SENTENCEOF ORDER9­1­2019

8.EXPLANATIONOFDELAYANDREMARKS ­­ ­

REPRESENTEDBY

COMPLAINANTTHE SUB­INSPECTOROF POLICE,

MEDIKONDURU POLICE STATION. 

1.Palaplarthi Nagaraju, S/o. Veeraiah, 32 years, Siripuram village, Medikonduru ACCUSEDMandal. 2.Palaplarthi Adisehu, S/o. Veeraiah, 29 years, Siripuram village, Medikonduru Mandal. 3.Palaplarthi Koteswari,W/o. Nagaraju, 27 years, Siripuram village, Medikonduru Mandal. 4.Palaplarthi Nagendramma, W/o. Veeraiah, 65 years, Siripuram village, Medikonduru Mandal. 5.Meda Bhagyalakshmi, W/o.Gopalarao, 27 years, Siripuram village, Medikonduru Mandal. SECTIONOFU/SECS. 48,354,506,509 R/W.34 OF IPC. LAW

FINDINGOFACCUSEDFOUNDNOTGUILTY.

COURT

IN THE RESULT, ACCUSED A1 TO A5 ARE FOUND NOT GUILTY OF THE OFFENCESPUNISHABLE U/SECS. 448,354,506,509 R/W.34 OF I.P.C. AND SENTENCE / IS ACCORDINGLY ACQUITTED U/SEC 248 (1) OF CR.P.C. THE BAIL BONDS

ORDER

OF THE ACCUSED IF ANY SHALL STANDSCANCELLED AFTER EXPIRY OF

APPEALTIME

II.A DDL .J UNIOR C IVIL J UDGE ,

FAC. V A DDL . J UNIOR C IVIL J UDGE ,

G UNTUR . 

COPY SUBMITTEDTO: THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

GUNTUR.

2 C.C.403/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GUNTUR.

Present: K.V.Rama Krishnaiah, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. FAC.V.Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. Wednessday, the 9h day of January, 2018.

Calendar Case No.403/2018

Between: State: Rep., by Sub­Inspector of Police, Medikonduru PS. (Cr.No.139/2017of Medikonduru PS)

...COMPLAINANT

and

1.Palaplarthi Nagaraju, S/o. Veeraiah, 32 years, Siripuram village, Medikonduru Mandal. 2.Palaplarthi Adisehu, S/o. Veeraiah, 29 years, Siripuram village, Medikonduru Mandal. 3.Palaplarthi Koteswari,W/o. Nagaraju, 27 years, Siripuram village, Medikonduru Mandal. 4.Palaplarthi Nagendramma, W/o. Veeraiah, 65 years, Siripuram village, Medikonduru Mandal. 5.Meda Bhagyalakshmi, W/o.Gopalarao, 27 years, Siripuram village, Medikonduru Mandal.

…ACCUSED.

This case is coming on 9­1­2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for prosecution and

Sri K.Rama Chandra Rao, Counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Inspector of Police, Medikonduru Police Station, has filed charge sheet in Cr.No.139/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 448,354,506,509 of Indian Penal Code against the accused. 

3 C.C.403/2018

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

(i)That the PW.1 Kumbha Bhulakshmi is a resident of Siripuram village of

Medikonduru Mandal. She does coolie works and her husband is a private

Electrician. The accused signs and inviting PW.1 for sexual inter course. In view of family respect she kept clam. On 29­9­2017 midnight PW.1 sleeping alone in her house the accused trespassed into the house and and tried to outrage her modesty and fulfill his sexual lust. Then PW.1 raised alarm the accused fled away from the house of PW.1 and PW.1 informed the same to her husband and her co­daughter­in­law. On 30­9­2017 PW.1 and her husband kept the matter before elders and village elders called A1 to Ekalavya Statue center, Siripuram village and questioned about the crime. At that time A2 to

A5 joined with A1 with a common intention scolded PW.1 and fisted LW.3 her husband and insult her modesty and threatened with dire consequences.

LW.7 came to know about the offence.

(ii)Based on the report of defacto complainant­ Kumbha

Bhu Lakshmi, LW.7­ D.Praveen – Sub­ Inspector of police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.139/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354, 506, 509 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation LW.7 examined Lws.1 to 7 and recorded their statements

U/s.161 Cr.P.C, and inspected the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch and served notices A2 to A5 on 13­10­2017 and arrested the accused on 16­ 12­217 and sent for judicial remand. LW.8 filed Charge sheet. Hence the 4 C.C.403/2018 accused A1 is liable U/s.448, 354 and A2 to A5 are liable for punishment

U/s.506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code. 

2.The offences were taken cognizance on file against A1 to A5 accused persons under Sections U/s.448, 354, 506, 509 of Indian Penal Code.

3.When the accused A1 to A5 appeared before the Court, copies of all the documents on which the prosecution relied were supplied to them under

Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.When examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., the accused denied having committed any offence. When the substance of Charge was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, the accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the Prosecution examined PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2. Ex.P1 is the Signature of PW.1 on report, Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C, statement. Since PW1, the witness cited to prove the alleged occurrence, did not support prosecution, and in view of such hostile nature of

PW1 the learned APP gave up the evidence of remaining witnesses as the examination of remaining witnesses would not improve the case of the prosecution.

6. The examination of the accused U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as there was no incriminating material in the evidence against the accused.

5 C.C.403/2018

7.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record, both, oral and documentary.

8.Now the point for determination is

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for

the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354, 506, 509 of IPC,

beyond all reasonable doubt” ?

9.POINT :

In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined PW1. PW1­Kumbha Bhulakshmi, who is the defacto complainant deposed that LW.2 K. Tejeswari is her Co­Sister­in­law and she known other prosecution witnesses and also A1 to A5 accused persons. PW.1 further stated that she do not know anything about the facts of this case ass to when, where and how the offence occurred. Police obtained my signature on a written paper. But, she does not know its contents. Police did not examiner her. The signature on the report dt.1­10­2017 belongs to her. Ex.p1 is signature, Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C.Statement. prosecution declared her hostile and cross examined her, but nothing incriminating is elicited in her cross­ examination in favour of prosecution. It appears that she does not have any evidence against the accused. Since it is sheer waste to examine other witnesses at the cost of the exchequer, the learned APP gave up the evidence of remaining witnesses.

10.From the above, it is clear that there is no incriminating material against the accused as to scolded, fisted, abused and threatened with dire consequences. Thus the prosecution has utterly failed to prove accusation 6 C.C.403/2018 against the accused and therefore the accused is found not guilty.

Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the accused A1 to A5 and against the prosecution and the accused are entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt.

12. In the result, the accused A1 to A5 are found not guilty of the offences punishable U/secs. 448,354,506,509 r/w.34 of I.P.C. and are accordingly acquitted U/sec 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 9 th day of January, 2019.

Sd/­ K.V.Rama Krishnaiah 

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

Guntur.

FAC. V.Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: ­None ­ P.W.1: Kumbha Bhulakshmi

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: ­Nil­ Ex.P.1: Signature of PW1 on report Ex.P.2 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1.

MATERIAL OBECTS

­Nil­

 Sd/­ K.V.Rama Krishnaiah II AJCJ, Guntur. FAC. V.AJCJ, Guntur. // True Copy//

II AJCJ, Guntur. FAC. V.AJCJ, Guntur.

7 C.C.403/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: TENALI

Present :: Sri K.V.Rama Krishnaiah. I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali.

Friday, the 23rd day of February, 2018.

CALENDAR CASE No.90/2017

Between : K.V.Kameswara Rao. … Complainant

And

G.L.S.R. Prasanna. …. Accused

This case is coming up before me today for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri S.Narayana Rao, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a complaint filed under section 138/142 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

02.Complainant is present. Petition to advance the case from 17.03.2018 to today is filed and is allowed. Case is advanced to today for settlement.

Complainant is present. Accused is present along with petition U/Sec.70(2) Cr.P.C., to recall NBW and is allowed. Petition

U/Sec.257 Cr.P.C., is filed by the complainant and is allowed. Hence, case is dismissed as has been withdrawn. Accused is acquitted of the charge U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of February, 2018.

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tenali.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: TENALI

Present :: Sri K.V.Rama Krishnaiah. I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali.

Friday, the 23rd day of February, 2018.

CALENDAR CASE No.317/2016

Between : State : Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Tenali. … Complainant.

And

Marri Sreenivasa Reddy, S/o.Rajasekhar Reddy, aged 35 years, Reddy, Beside Thotakura Subba Rao High School, Ganganammpet, Tenali. …. Accused

This case is coming up before me today for hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri M.Anand Kumar, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Tenali filed Charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 452, 354 and 506 I.P.C. in Crime No.134/2016.

02.The Station House Officer filed a memo along with attested (Xerox) copy of Postmortem Certificate of sole accused Marri

Srinivasa Reddy. Recording the same, the proceedings against the accused is abated.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of February, 2017.

I Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali.