Smt.Kavitha Karnati

O.S.No.771 of 2021

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(EXCISE) VII ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-VII

ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD: L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. KAVITHA KARNATI,

FAC VII ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

VII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B. NAGAR

DATED: ON THIS THE 5 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

Original Suit No. 771 of 2021

BETWEEN:

1.Gurram Rani W/o.Late Gurram Venkateshwarlu @ Gurram Venkanna, Aged: 53 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o.5-215/A, Shabunagar, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District, Telangana PIN – 508 207

2.Gurram Venu Gopal S/o.Gurram Venkateshwalru @ Gurram Venkanna, Aged 38 years, Occ: Private Service, Permanent Resident of H.No.7-767, Bangarigadda, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District, And presently residing at R/o.Plot No.202, H.No.11-14-15/12,13, SLN, Arcade, Road No.5, Haripuri Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 035.

3.Gurram Purna Chandra S/o.Gurram Venkateshwarlu @ Gurram Venkanna, Aged: 36 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o.Plot No.272, Road No.5, Ramakrishnapuram, Kothapet, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 035. Presently residing in New Zealand.

4.Gurram Sampath S/o.Gurram Venkateswarlu @ Gurram Venkanna Aged: 34 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o.H.No.10-16/6, Saradhi Studio, near Rajiv Chowk, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District, Telangana Presently residing in USA

Both (3) and (4) Plaintiffs are represented by their Elder brother and Plaintiff No.2 Mr.Gurram Venu Gopal Vide GPA.…Plaintiffs

AND

1.The Manager Bhavana Rishi Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Branch: 308-121/1, Nehru Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad – 500 013.

2.To whomsoever concern…Defendants

O.S.No.771 of 2021

2

Claim:This suit is filed for Declaration declaring the Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased Mr.Gurram Venkateshwarlu @ Gurram Venkanna S/o.Late G.Krishnnandam and a consequential direction to the Defendant No.1 to execute a deed cancelling the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed or in favour of Plaintiffs lying with Defendant No.1 bank to the Plaintiff No.2.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s.A.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for Plaintiffs and Sri.K.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 is set exparte upon hearing the counsel for Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Plaintiffs filed plaint under Section 26 read with Order VII,

Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure for declaration to declare the Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased Mr.Gurram Venkateshwarlu @ Gurram Venkanna

S/o.Late G.krishnnandam and a consequential direction to Defendant No.1 to execute a deed cancelling the Memorandum of Deposit of title Deed bearing document No.5237 of 2016 dated 01.10.2016 or in favour of Plaintiffs and accordingly to release the sale deed bearing document No.4662 of 2012

dated 01.10.2012 pertaining to the suit schedule property lying with the

Defendant No.1 bank to Plaintiff No.2 and to grant any other appropriate reliefs in the interest of justice.

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

2.1The Plaintiffs submitted that, the 1st Plaintiff is the wife and

Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are sons of Sri Gurram Venkateshwarlu @ Gurram

Venkanna S/o.Late G.Krishnaandham. Said Gurram Venkateshwarlu @

Gurram Venkanna, during his life time has purchased a Flat bearing No.202, on 2nd floor in SLN Arcade, assessed with Municipal House No.11-14-15/12, 13/202, with a built up area of 1035 Square Feet including common area together with car parking and undivided share of land admeasuring 37

Square Yards or 30.93 Square Meters out of total land extent admeasuring 750 Square Yards or 627.07 Square Meters of Plot Nos.12 and 13 each admeasuring 375 in Survey No.9/1/B, situated at Haripuri Colony,

O.S.No.771 of 2021

3

Saroornagar Village and Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under GHMC,

L.B.Nagar Circle and registration Sub-District, Saroornagar vide Sale document No.4662 of 2012 dated 24.08.2012 (hereinafter called as “suit schedule property”) from Bhamidipati Viswanadh for valuable consideration and from the date of purchase Mr.Gurram Venkateshwarlu become absolute owner and peaceful possessor.

2.2The Plaintiffs further submitted that, Gurram Venkateshwarlu @

Gurram Venkanna S/o.Late G.Krishnaandham died on 06.07.2020 intestate leaving behind the Plaintiffs and succeed his interest and properties as his only legal heirs and successors and thus, the suit schedule property devolved upon them to become the absolute owners and further they are also in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, apart from them, there are no other legal heirs so as to succeed over the movable and immovable properties of Late Gurram Venkateshwarlu and the Plaintiffs are only legal heirs and successors.

2.3The Plaintiffs further submitted that, in the year 2016 Gurram

Venkateshwarlu @ Gurram Venkanna for his family and financial necessities obtained a term loan from 1st Defendant bank i.e. Bhavan Rishi Co-operative

Urban Bank Ltd., Ramanthapur Branch of Rs.6,00,000/- in Account

No.1003050000012, and the Plaintiff No.2 Gurram Venugopal stood as

Guarantor. Further to secure the said term loan payment under an equitable mortgage the 1st Defendant bank and deceased Gurram Venkateshwarlu entered registered Memorandum of Deposit of title deeds dated 01.10.2016 bearing document No.5237 of 2016 before Sub-Registrar Office, Saroornagar and in pursuant to which deceased Gurram Venkateshwarlu, deposited the title deed of suit schedule property having document No.4662 of 2012, dated 24.08.2012.

O.S.No.771 of 2021

4

2.4The Plaintiffs further submitted that, after the death of Gurram

Venkateshwarlu @ Gurram Venkanna S/o.Late G.Krishnanandam his elder son who is Plaintiff No.2, being the Guarantor of the above mentioned term loan paid all the outstanding dues and cleared the loan and Defendant No.1 bank in this regard also issued “No Due Certificate” on 11.02.2021 and since the husband of 1st Plaintiff and father of Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 died, the

Defendant No.1 bank did not come forward to execute Cancellation of

Memorandum of Title Deed though 2nd Plaintiff is the Guarantor and who paid all the outstanding dues. Therefore, 2nd Plaintiff requested the bank vide letter dated 17.02.201 to come forward and execute deed, cancelling the

Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed document No.5237 of 2016 dated 01.10.2016, in his favour i.e. Plaintiff No.2 and consequently to release the sale deed of the above said flat, bearing document No.4662 of 2012 dated 24.08.2012.

2.5The Plaintiffs further submitted that, the 1st Defendant Bank, vide its letter dated 18.02.2021 addressed to 2nd Plaintiff, advised to obtain decree of declaration of legal heirs of his father Gurram Venkateshwarlu from appropriate court of law to enable the 1st Defendant bank to execute cancellation of memorandum of deposit of title deeds document Nos.5737 of 2016 dated 01.10.2016 and to release the sale deed document No.4662 of 2012 dated 24.08.2012 to 2nd Plaintiff.

2.6The Plaintiffs further submitted that, the Plaintiff No.2 approached concerned revenue authorities i.e. Tahsildar Saroornagar for issuance of legal heir certificate but the said authorities have orally informed that they have no power to issue any legal heir certificate and directed the

Plaintiffs to approach the competent civil court for obtaining the same.

O.S.No.771 of 2021

5

2.7The Plaintiffs further submitted that, except the Plaintiffs i.e. Wife and (3) three sons of deceased Gurram Venkateshwarlu S/o.Late

G.Krishnaandham and that late Mr.Gurram Venkateshwarlu S/o.Late

G.Krishnaandham is a Hindu by religion and he had neither executed any

WILL nor there had been any previous grant of letters of Administration to the Estate of the Deceased and as such, there is no impediment existing under any Act which precluded the Plaintiffs applying for legal heirs declaration.

2.8The Plaintiffs further submitted that, to enable the Plaintiffs to get the deed of cancelling the registered memorandum of deposit of title deed bearing document No.5237 of 2016, dated 01.10.2016 before Sub-

Registrar, Saroornagar or concerned authority, by the 1st Defendant and also in pursuant to which to get the deposited title deed of suit schedule property bearing document No.4662 of 2012 dated 24.08.2012 released from 1st

Defendant bank, the Plaintiffs 1 to 4 have approached this court by filing the present suit seeking for a declaration that they are the legal heirs of Gurram

Venkateshwarlu S/o.Late G.Krishnaandham and thereby a consequential direction to the 1st Defendant bank to execute a registered deed, canceling the Memorandum of Deposit of title deed bearing document No.5237 of 2016

dated 01.10.2016 before the concerned Sub-Registrar Office or such deed in

favour of Plaintiff No.2 and in furtherance to it to release the sale deed of the suit schedule property bearing document No.4662 of 2012 dated 24.08.2012 otherwise the Plaintiffs would suffer hardship.

2.9The Plaintiffs further submitted that, the Plaintiff No.3 is residing in New Zealand while in India he executed a General Power of Attorney on 25.02.2021 in favour of Plaintiff No.2 and similarly Plaintiff No.4 while in

India he executed a General Power of Attorney on 20.03.2021, which are

O.S.No.771 of 2021

6

notarized in USA in favour of the Plaintiff No.2 to prosecute the above suit, the Plaintiffs 3 and 4 are the brothers of Plaintiff No.2. Hence, the suit.

3.After numbering of the suit, the same is made over to this court, summons were issued to Defendant No.1 and a publication to Defendant

No.2.

3.1After receiving the summons from this court, K.Narayana Rao filed Vakalath on behalf of the Defendant No.1 and filed written statement, wherein it is submitted that Gurram Venkateshwarlu (borrower) availed term loan facility for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from 1st Defendant bank for his personal needs vide loan account No.1003050000012. The Plaintiff No.2 i.e.

Gurram Venugopal stood as Guarantor for the said loan, further at the time of availing loan Gurram Venkateshwarlu deposited the original title deed

No.4662 of 2012 and original link registered sale deeds in favour of 1st

Defendant bank towards security of loan vide document No.5737 of 2016

dated 01.10.2016 at Sub-Registrar, Saroornagar, Hyderabad.

3.2The Defendant No.1 further submitted that, later Gurram

Venkateshwarlu was expired on 06.07.2020, later the Plaintiffs 1 and 2 have paid the entire outstanding loan amount on 23.12.2020 to the Defendant

No.1 bank and on the same the Defendant authorities have handedover the original registered sale deed bearing document No.4062 of 2012, original link registered sale deed bearing document No.2369 of 2010 and registered

MDTD No.5737 of 2016 to the Plaintiffs 1 and 2. The Defendant No.1 issued a letter dated 11.02.2021 stating that there are no dues to the said loan account.

3.3The Defendant No.1 further submitted that, the Defendant No.1 bank also issued another letter dated 18.02.2021 informing the Plaintiffs to

O.S.No.771 of 2021

7

obtain the legal heir certificate from the competent authority for release of title deeds in the name of the legal heirs of later Gurram Venkateshwarlu so as to enable the Defendant No.1 bank to execute a registered release of

MDTD in favour of the Plaintiffs. The Defendant No.1 further submitted that, the Defendant No.1 bank has no objection for declaring the Plaintiffs 1 to 4 as the legal heirs of late Gurram Venkateshwarlu, therefore, prayed the court to pass a judgment and decree in favour of Plaintiffs 1 to 4.

3.4None appeared on behalf of Defendant No.2 and it was set exparte.

4.After analyzing the averments of the Plaintiffs and written statement filed by the Defendant No.1, there are no grounds to frame issues, as such no issues have been framed.

5.Heard both parties and perused the material on record.

6.The learned counsel for the Plaintiffs filed a petition under Order

XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure praying this court to pass judgment on admission of the Defendant No.1 made in the Written Statement by giving notice to the counsel for the Defendant No.1, who endorsed on the petition as No Objection.

7.A perusal of averments of Plaint and Written Statement, after considering the arguments submitted by both the counsels, more particularly the admission made by the Defendant No.1 that he has no objection if the suit may be decreed as prayed by the Plaintiffs, this court is of the considered opinion that as there are no material issues for adjudication in between the parties to the suit, this court is inclined to decree the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs. Hence, the suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs.

O.S.No.771 of 2021

8

8.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs, as prayed for.

Typed directly on my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5th day of October, 2021.

VII ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CYBERABAD :L.B.NAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT

- NONE -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT

- NIL -

VII ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CYBERABAD :L.B.NAGAR

O.S.No.1238 of 2021

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPL MOBILE COURT: CUM: VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

VI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD:

L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. KAVITHA KARNATI,

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT

L.B.NAGAR

DATED: ON THIS THE 23 rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

Original Suit No. 1238 of 2021

BETWEEN:

1)Mohammed Masood Ali Son of Late Mohammed Mahmood Ali, Aged about 47 years, Occupation: Private Service, Resident of 22-4-598/1, Alijah Kotla, Hyderabad Represented by his GPA holder Mohammed Maqsood Ali son of Late Mohammed Mahmood Ali, Aged about 43 years, Occupation: Business, Resident of 22-4-598, Alijah Kotla, Hyderabad.

2)Mohammed Maqsood Ali son of Late Mohammed Mahmood Ali, Aged about 43 years, Occupation: Business, Resident of 22-4-598/1, Alijah Kotla, Hyderabad.

3)Fareeda Begum daughter of Late Mohammed Mahmood Ali and wife of Khaja Arifuddin, aged about 41 years, Occupation: Household, resident of 22-4-598, Alijah Kotla, Hyderabad.…Plaintiffs

AND

1)Vallabhaneni Ravi Kiran son of Vallabhaneni Siva Rama Prasad, Aged about 36 years, Occupation: Private Service, Resident of H.No.1-5-1116, Maruthi Nagar, Opp: Jain Mandir, Kothapet, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District.

2)The Sub-Registrar Office, Champapet, R.R.District.…Defendants

Claim:This suit is filed for Declaration to Declare that the registered Sale Deed bearing document No.7020 of 2019, Book-I, CS No.7231/2019

dated 20.04.2019 as illegal, null and void and does not have any legal effect

on the Plaintiffs and against the settled principles of law, to grant perpetual

O.S.No.1238 of 2021

2

injunction restraining the Defendant his men, agents, representatives, or any other person or persons claiming through him from encumbering or alienating the suit property by changing the nature, to direct the Defendant No.2 to record the cancellation of the registered sale deed bearing document No.7020 of 2019, Book I, CS No.7231 of 2019 dated 20.04.2019 in the Register.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.T.Ali Mirza, learned counsel for Plaintiffs and of Mohd.Abdul Quader, learned counsel for the Defendant No.1 and upon hearing the counsel for Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Plaintiff filed plaint under Section 26, Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to Declare that the registered

Sale Deed bearing document No.7020 of 2019, Book-I, CS No.7231/2019

dated 20.04.2019 as illegal, null and void and does not have any legal effect

on the Plaintiffs and against the settled principles of law, to grant perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant his men, agents, representatives, or any other person or persons claiming through him from encumbering or alienating the suit property by changing the nature, to direct the Defendant

No.2 to record the cancellation of the registered sale deed bearing document

No.7020 of 2019, Book I, CS No.7231 of 2019 dated 20.04.2019 in the

Register and to grant any other appropriate reliefs in the interest of justice.

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

2.1The Plaintiffs submitted that, their mother namely Zubega

Begum wife of late Mohammed Mahmood Ali had purchased the property i.e.

the open land bearing Plot No.753, 754 and 755 in the sub divisions comprising S.No.530, 533, 524, 525, 531, 532, 540, 541, 547, 537, 538, 529 and 539 admeasuring 933 Square Yards or 780.10 Square Meters, situated at Nadergul Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District having purchased the above said plots by paying the valid sale consideration by virtue of a registered instrument being registered sale deed as document

No.7337 of 1983 dated 09.11.1983.

O.S.No.1238 of 2021

3

2.2The Plaintiffs further submitted that, since the date of purchase of the above said property she has been the absolute owner and possessor and enjoying the same as absolute owner of the above said property to the knowledge of all within vicinity. The above said property is more fully described in the schedule below and for the sake of brevity herein after referred to as “Suit Schedule Property”. That the government of Andhra

Pradesh proposed to acquire the suit property for Hardware Park, the mother of the Plaintiffs had given application for granting the compensation to the

District Collector, R.R.District, Andhra Pradesh on 12.05.2005.

2.3The Plaintiffs further submitted that, the original owner i.e.

mother of the Plaintiffs had passed away on 06.04.2008 leaving behind the

Plaintiff No.1 and 2 as her sons and Plaintiff No.3 as her daughter who are her legal heirs and representatives to succeed and inherit the suit property.

The father of the Plaintiffs has already passed away who was a government servant and a legal heir certificate was issued in favour of the Plaintiffs and their mother on 03.07.2003 on the demise of father of the Plaintiffs and the

Plaintiffs are only the surviving legal heirs of Zubeda Begum to succeed and inherit the suit property and apart from the Plaintiffs there are no other person as legal heir of Zubeda Begum.

2.4The Plaintiffs further submitted that, said Zubeda Begum was a literate lady who used to sign in Urdu which is evident from the ration card issued by the Civil Supplies Department and the mother of the Plaintiffs was a pensioner, withdrawing the pension also by signing in Urdu. After the demise of Zubeda Begum the Plaintiffs have become owners of the suit property by way of inheritance, and the Defendant No.1 has created as a registered sale deed bearing document No.7020 of 2019 dated 20.04.2019 impersonating Zubeda Begum (mother of the Plaintiffs) in favour of the

O.S.No.1238 of 2021

4

Defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule property when the mother of the Plaintiffs already passed away on 06.04.2008. The Defendant no.1 without any right, interest or title has created a registered sale deed bearing document No.7020 of 2019, Book I, CS No.7231 of 2019 dated 20.04.2019 at Sub-Registrar Office, Champapet which is illegal, null and void without any valid title.

2.4The Plaintiffs further submitted that, the Defendant No.1 is now claiming title under a fictitious fabricated document by ignoring the original title documents ownership and possession of the Plaintiffs which they are aware of the same, as such the Plaintiffs are seeking declaration to declare the said registered instrument as null and void not binding on them, the

Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property. The Plaintiffs further submitted that, when they came to know about creation of the above said fake document, they had lodged complaints against the Defendant No.1 but the police did not take the said complaint saying that the matter is civil in nature.

2.5The Plaintiffs further submitted that, the Defendant No.1 is attempting to approach the prospective purchasers to cause loss to the

Plaintiffs and multiply the LIS, prayed this court to direct the concerned Sub-

Registrar of Assurance, Champapet to record the cancellation of entry of the registered sale deed bearing document No.7020 of 2019, dated 20.04.2019 at Sub-Registrar Office, Champapet, if such direction is not the Defendant

No.1 may at any time use the said instrument dated 20.04.2019 to cause loss to the Plaintiffs.

2.6The Plaintiffs further submitted that, the Defendant No.1 is taking advantage of the above said fictitious document, styling himself as the absolute owner of the suit property by ignoring all the relevant records

O.S.No.1238 of 2021

5

possessed by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1 is threatening the

Plaintiffs with dire consequences if they approach him or claim the suit property and Defendant No.1 is also trying to extort money from the

Plaintiffs on 22.07.2021, as such the Plaintiffs filed the present suit for declarations, directions and injunction, otherwise grave and irreparable loss and hardship will be caused to the Plaintiffs which cannot be compensated.

Hence, the suit.

3.After receiving the summons from this court, Mohd.Abdul Quader filed Vakalath on behalf of the Defendant No.1 and the counsel for the

Plaintiffs filed Memorandum of Compromise, in which the Plaintiffs and

Defendant No.1 have compromised the above suit with the investigation of well wishers and elders of both sides on the following manner:

“1. The Defendant No.1 do hereby do not have objection and agreed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass judgment and decree in favour of the Plaintiffs by granting declaration of title and perpetual injunction in favour of Plaintiffs and by declaring the sale deed bearing document No.7020 of 2019, dated 20.04.2019 registered at SRO, Champapet, R.R.District as null and void.

2. The Plaintiffs do hereby agree to withdraw the complaint, dated 26.08.2021 which is lodged at police station, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, against the Defendant No.1 after the suit is decreed.

3. The Defendant No.1 shall not interfere with the peaceful possession of Plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. The Defendant No.1 and Plaintiffs shall abide by the terms and conditions of the memo of compromise and there shall be no order for costs”.

4.After analyzing the averments of the Plaintiffs and Memorandum of Compromise filed by the Defendant No.1, there are no grounds to frame issues, as such no issues have been framed.

5.Heard both parties and perused the material on record.

O.S.No.1238 of 2021

6

6.The learned counsel for the Plaintiffs filed a petition under Order 23 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure praying this court to record the compromise between the petitioners/Plaintiffs and respondent/Defendant

No.1 by giving notice to the counsel for the Defendant No.1, who endorsed as no objection and on the admission of the Defendant No.1 made in the

Memorandum of Compromise filed in the court and the said petition was allowed.

7.A perusal of averments of Plaint and record, after considering the arguments submitted by both the parties, more particularly the admission made by the Defendant No.1 that he has no objection if the suit may be decreed as prayed by the Plaintiffs, this court is of the considered opinion that as there are no material issues for adjudication in between the parties to the suit, this court is inclined to decree the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs.

Hence, the suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs, as prayed for.

Typed directly on my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of September, 2021.

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CYBERABAD :L.B.NAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT

- NONE -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT

- NIL -

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CYBERABAD :L.B.NAGAR

O.S.No.210 of 2020

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPL MOBILE COURT: CUM: VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CUM VI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD:

L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. KAVITHA KARNATI,

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B. NAGAR

DATED: ON THIS THE 22 nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

Original Suit No. 210 of 2020

BETWEEN:

Ch.Venkateshwara Reddy S/o.Chandra Reddy, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Legal Practitioner, R/o.Flat No.506 Raja Surendra Heavens, Agamaiah Nagar, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.…Plaintiff

AND

1.Smt.G.Saritha W/o.Late G.Uma Maheshwar Reddy, Aged about: Major, Occ: Software Employee,

2.Master G.Venkat Pranav Reddy, S/o.Late G.Uma Maheshwar Reddy, Aged about: Minor, Occ: Student,

3.Master G.Yashwanth Reddy, S/o.Late G.Uma Maheshwar Reddy, Aged about: Minor, Occ: Student,

All are residents of Flat No.412, Gowthami Iconia, Near Ramki Towers, Gachibowli, Hyderabad – 500 081.

Defendants 2 and 3 being minors represented By their mother and natural guardian Smt.G.Saritha (Defendant No.1)…Defendants

Claim:This suit is filed for Recovery of Money.

This suit coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Srinivas Cheruku, Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants are set exparte, upon hearing the counsel for Plaintiff, perusal of the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

This is a suit filed under Section 26 read with Order VII Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure by the Plaintiff for recovery of amount of

O.S.No.210 of 2020

2

Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization and to grant any other appropriate reliefs in the interest of justice.

2.The plaint pleadings in brief are as follows:

2.1The Plaintiff submitted that, the Defendant No.1 is the wife of late G.Uma Maheshwar Reddy and Defendants 2 and 3 are their sons. The said G.Uma Maheshwar Reddy being acquainted with the plaintiff approached the plaintiff in the month of February, 2017 and expressed his family and urgent necessities requested the plaintiff to advance an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as hand loan, as per his request the plaintiff arranged an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 26.02.2017 in the presence of V.Rajender

Reddy and R.Giridhar Reddy at the earlier residence of plaintiff bearing

H.No.11-14-84, Plot No.64/A, Janapriya Gardens, Road No.7, Haripriya

Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad – 500 035 as hand loan. The husband of the Defendant No.1 and father of the Defendants 2 and 3 promised the plaintiff that the same would be paid back in a couple of months.

2.2The plaintiff submitted that, after completion of two months the plaintiff requested and demanded him to repay the said amount. Then the said G.Uma Maheshwar Reddy issued a cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- bearing

No.869947 dated 26.09.2017 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Sanjeeva

Reddy Nagar Branch, Hyderabad in discharge of his existing legally enforceable liability. The said Uma Maheshwar Reddy requested the plaintiff not to be presented the said cheque as he did not mobilize the funds to

honour the cheque. As instructed by said G.Uma Maheshwar Reddy did not

presented the said cheque. But unfortunately, the said G.Uma Maheshwar

Reddy died on 07.11.2017, after his death the plaintiff approached the defendants and demanded to repay the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, they

O.S.No.210 of 2020

3 requested the plaintiff to wait for some time and protracting the repayment of the money on one pretext or the other.

2.3The plaintiff further submitted that, he got issued legal notice

dated 23.01.2020 to the Defendants by registered post with

acknowledgment due calling upon them to repay the said amount. The said legal notice was received by all the defendants on 25.01.2020 but the defendants neither complied the demand of the plaintiff nor paid any amount to the plaintiff and the defendants are succeeded the estate of the said

G.Uma Maheshwar Reddy and they are under obligation to discharge the liabilities of said G.Uma Maheshwar Reddy. Therefore, the defendants are liable to be sued and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the above said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Defendants. As such, the plaintiff approached this court to recover the suit amount. Hence, the suit.

3.After numbering of the suit, the same is made over to this court, summons were issued to Defendants. Even though summons served on the

Defendants, they failed to appear before this court, hence, the Defendants set exparte.

4.On behalf of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff himself got examined as

PW1 and got exhibited Exs.A1 to A11.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration is “whether this suit is entitled to be decreed as prayed for”?

7.P O I N T:

7.1PW1 in his evidence has reiterated the plaint averments and got exhibited Exs.A1 to A11. Ex.A1 is the Original Cheque bearing No.869947,

dated 26.09.2017 for Rs.2,00,000/-. Ex.A2 is the copy of legal notice dated

O.S.No.210 of 2020

4 23.01.2020. Ex.A3 is the original postal receipt dated 23.01.2020 addressed to Defendant No.1. Ex.A4 is the original postal receipt dated 23.01.2020 addressed to Defendant No.2. Ex.A5 is the original postal receipt dated 23.01.2020 addressed to Defendant No.3. Ex.A6 is the original Postal Acknowledgment of Defendant No.1 dated 25.01.2020.

Ex.A7 is the original Postal Acknowledgment of Defendant No.2 dated 25.01.2020. Ex.A8 is the original Postal Acknowledgment of Defendant

No.3 dated 25.01.2020. Ex.A9 is the online copy of postal track consignment report of Defendant No.1. Ex.A10 is the online copy of postal track consignment report of Defendant No.2. Ex.A11 is the online copy of postal track consignment report of Defendant No.3.

7.2The learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that, the defendants remained exparte, not filed written statement. The husband of defendant No.1 and father of Defendants 2 and 3 namely G.Uma Maheshwar

Reddy obtained hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 26.02.2017 in the presence of witnesses and after completion of two months, he has issued a cheque bearing No.869947 dated 26.09.2017 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Branch, Hyderabad in favour of the plaintiff and unfortunately said G.Uma Maheshwar Reddy died on 07.11.2017 leaving behind him, his wife and children, who are defendants 1 to 3 herein as his surviving legal heirs, inspite of the repeated requests, the defendants avoided to pay the said loan amount to the plaintiff. As the defendants have not come forward, not filed written statement and not contested the suit, the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed.

7.3In view of the contention, it would be appropriate to refer a judgment of Apex Court, reported in AIR 2008 sc 911 Vol.I, in between

O.S.No.210 of 2020

5

Bhogi Dhola Tea and Trading Company Ltd., and another VS. Hiralal Samani, wherein it was observed by their lordships as follows:

“Even though written statement is not filed

when the defendants set exparte, decree not

to be passed unless averments made in the

plaint are established.”

Therefore, in view of the said judgment, simply because the defendants were set exparte, not filed any written statement, is not a ground for the plaintiff to have a decree from the court. The plaintiff shall prove his case.

7.4This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of the debt said to have been borrowed by Sri.G.Uma Maheshwar

Reddy, who is none other than the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants 2 and 3 respectively. Since said G.Uma Maheshwar Reddy expired, the plaintiff made the wife of G.Uma Maheshwar Reddy as defendant No.1 and his children as defendants 2 and 3. Ex.P1 original cheque bearing No.869947 dated 26.09.2017 is said to have been executed by said G.Uma Maheshwar Reddy for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-

Therefore, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the deceased G.Uma

Maheshwar Reddy has left any property to an extent of Rs.2,00,000/- with defendants 1 to 3. When we see the entire pleadings, except Ex.A1 cheque said to have been executed by late G.Uma Maheshwar Reddy, the plaintiff did not file any document in support thereof that the defendants 1 to 3 are the LRs of the deceased G.Uma Maheshwar Reddy and they have acquired any property of the deceased G.Uma Maheshwar Reddy. Therefore, the prayer itself is very ambiguous. In the absence of any such specific details, it is not possible to pass any decree against defendants 1 to 3. Therefore,

O.S.No.210 of 2020

6 this court is of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled for any of the relief prayed for in the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

8.IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed, no costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of September, 2021.

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CYBERABAD :L.B.NAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW1 :Ch.Venkateshwara Reddy- None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original Cheque bearing No.869947, dated 26.09.2017 for Rs.2,00,000/-

Ex.A2: Copy of legal notice dated 23.01.2020

Ex.A3: Original postal receipt dated 23.01.2020 addressed to Defendant No.1

Ex.A4: Original postal receipt dated 23.01.2020 addressed to Defendant No.2

Ex.A5: Original postal receipt dated 23.01.2020 addressed to Defendant No.3

Ex.A6: Original Postal Acknowledgment of Defendant No.1 dated 25.01.2020

Ex.A7: Original Postal Acknowledgment of Defendant No.2 dated 25.01.2020

Ex.A8: Original Postal Acknowledgment of Defendant No.3 dated 25.01.2020

Ex.A9: Online copy of postal track consignment report of Defendant No.1

Ex.A10 : Online copy of postal track consignment report of Defendant No.2

Ex.A11 : Online copy of postal track consignment report of Defendant No.3

For the Defendants: - NIL –

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CYBERABAD :L.B.NAGAR

C.C.No.993 of 2019

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (EXCISE)

VII ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-VII ADDITIONAL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD: L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. KAVITHA KARNATI,

FAC VII ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

VII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B. NAGAR

DATED: ON THIS THE 23 rd DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

C.C.No. 993 OF 2019

Between:

The State of Telangana Through Excise Station, Shamshabad Station.…Complainant

AND

Pariyar Manohar lal S/o.Anand Ram, R/o.H.No.3-52, Bariragiguda, Hydershakote Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.…Accused

This Calendar Case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of M/s.T.Pulla Reddy, Counsel for the Accused and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T :: ::

The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Shamshabad filed charge sheet in Crime No.322 of 2018 for the offence under Section 34(a) of

Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 against the accused.

2.The brief allegations in the Charge Sheet are as follows:

2.1On 10.11.2018 at 06.30 PM, on reliable information about illegal possession and sales of Indian Made Liquor at Kirana Shop bearing H.No.3- 52, Bairagiguda, Hydershakote, Gandipet Mandal, R.R.District,

LW3/Sri.N.Saidulu, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Shamshabad

Excise Station alongwith staff proceeded to the scene of offence after securing two panch witnesses i.e. LW1/K.Narsimha Reddy and

Lw2/A.Srinivas. LW3 recorded the search memo, one person present in the

C.C.No.993 of 2019

2

house, he revealed his particulars as Pariyar Manohar Lal S/o.Anand Ram, during the search, they found two white bags filled with IML bottles opened the bags, on counting they found (144) bottles of Hy-Lyf Whisky each 180 ml and another white bag found (65) bottles of Mc.Dowell No.1 Luxury

Whisky 180 ml, (25) bottles of Manjeera Blue Whisky each 180 ml and 52 bottles of Gold Drop Whisky each 90 ml without any valid license or permit he sales of IML, then the officer drawn two set of samples, seized the contraband and arrested the accused under cover of panchanama in the presence of LWs 1 and 2.

3.The seized samples and Accused brought to Excise Station and

LW3/N.Saidulu, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector has registered a case in Crime No.322 of 2018 under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and produced the accused before the court alongwith the case papers seeking his judicial custody.

3.1During the course of investigation, one sample out of seized samples was sent to the Government Chemical Examiner, Regional

Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Hyderabad through court for Analysis and second sample was deposited before this court vide CPR No.936 of 2018

dated 05.12.2018 and the remaining seized property was deposited before

the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Ranga Reddy District for confiscation. The Government Chemical Examiner after analyzing the sample, issued CE Report No.7966 of 2018/5 dated 14.12.2018 opining that “the sample contains alcohol, they are Indian Liquor”. After completion of investigation, LW3/N.Saidulu, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,

Shamshaband Excise Station has filed Charge Sheet against the Accused under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

C.C.No.993 of 2019

3

4.This court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under

Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 against the Accused.

5.On appearance of Accused before the court, after compliance of

Section 207 Cr.P.C, he was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable Under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, the charges were framed for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of

Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, trial proceeded.

6.So as to bring home the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 and 2 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P4. PW1/A.Srinivas is the Panch Witness, PW2/N.Saidulu, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,

Shamshabad Excise Station is the Investigation officer who conducted panchanama, issued Crime Occurrence Report, conducted investigation in this case and filed charge sheet.

6.1None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the Accused.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence the incriminating circumstances appearing against the Accused brought to his knowledge under Section 313 of Cr.P.C examination for which he denied, however reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the points arise for my determination is:-

1) Whether the Prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 beyond reasonable doubt?

2) To What relief?

C.C.No.993 of 2019

4

10.P O I N T:

10.1The allegations made against the Accused is that, the Accused was found in illegal possession and sales of IML without any valid licence or permit for the sale purpose, as such the Accused is liable to be punishable under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

10.2To prove the same, the Prosecution examined PWs 1 and 2.

PW2 is Sri.N.Saidulu, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Shamshabad

Excise Station who conducted panchanama, apprehended the Accused, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet after receipt of Analyst

Report.

10.3The evidence of Prosecution Witnesses would go to show that they apprehended the accused while the accused was in possession of Indian

Made Liquor.

10.4PW2 in his evidence has stated that, on 10.11.2018 at 06.30 PM, on credible information about the illegal sale of Indian Made Liquor at Kirana

Shop, Bairaguda, Hydershakote, he alongwith PW1/Y.Srikanth and

LW1/K.Narsimha Reddy proceeded to the scene and found one person in the shop selling liquor to the needy customers without any valid license and permission. In the presence of above panchas, Pw2 conducted seizure panchanama and seized 144 bottles of Hy-Lyf Whisky each 180 ml and another white bag found (65) bottles of Mc.Dowell No.1 Luxury Whisky 180 ml, (28) bottles of Manjeera Blue Whisky each 180 ml and 52 bottles of Gold

Drop Whisky each 90 ml and drawn two samples from contraband, he alongwith accused, seized contraband came to the police station. Ex.P2 is the seizure panchanama. Basing on Ex.P1, Pw2 registered a case in Crime

Occurrence Report No.322 of 2018 under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh

C.C.No.993 of 2019

5

Excise Act. Ex.P3 is the Crime Occurrence Report. PW1 further stated that, he sent one sample to the Chemical analysis and other sample before the court and remaining property before the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, on the same day he arrested the accused and produced before the court for judicial remand and after completion of investigation and after collecting CE report, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Ex.P4 is the CE report.

10.5PW1 is A.Srinivas Panch Witness for Confession and Seizure panchanama turned hostile to the case of the Prosecution stating that he do not know the Accused. He further stated that at about three years back, police obtained his signatures on some white papers. Ex.P1 is the signatures of PW1 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama. The learned

APPO cross examined the witness with the permission of the court but nothing was elicited.

10.6The learned counsel for the Accused cross examined PW2, nothing specific was elicited in the cross examination done by the learned counsel for Accused.

10.8From the above discussion, the entire evidence available before this court shows that, except the police officials, prosecution failed to cite any independent witnesses in the Charge Sheet and even the panch witness turned hostile. The prosecution failed to examine another mediator in whose presence the Accused confessed the offence and in whose presence the police seized the ID liquor bottles, except extra judicial confession of the accused there is no evidence against the Accused and confession of Accused in the custody of Police cannot be proved as true and correct. Hence, this court is of no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

C.C.No.993 of 2019

6

11)POINT NO.2:

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly, they are acquitted for the said offences under Section 248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal period.

The property which was deposited under CPR No.936 of 2018 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 23rd day of August, 2021.

JFCM EXCISE COURT-CUM-VII ADDL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD L.B.NAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1 :A.Srinivas (Panch Witness) PW2 :N.Saidulu (IO (IO, conducted panchanama, issued COR and laid Charge Sheet)

FOR DEFENCE:- None –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Signature of PW1 on Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama

Ex.P2:Confession-cum-Seizure panchanama

Ex.P3:Crime Occurrence Report

Ex.P4:CE Report

FOR DEFENCE:- NIL-

Material Objects Marked:

- NIL -

JFCM EXCISE COURT-CUM-VII ADDL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD L.B.NAGAR

C.C.No.2215 of 2018

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (EXCISE)

VII ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-VII ADDITIONAL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD: L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. KAVITHA KARNATI,

FAC VII ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

VII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B. NAGAR

DATED: ON THIS THE 23 rd DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

C.C.No. 2215 OF 2018

Between:

The State of Telangana Through Excise Station, Rajendranagar Station.…Complainant

AND

Santosh Singh S/o.Ramachander Singh, Aged: years, R/o.Puppalguda.…Accused

This Calendar Case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of P.Srinath, Counsel for the Accused and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T :: ::

The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Rajendranagar filed charge sheet in Crime No.292/2015-16 for the offence under Section 8(e) of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997 against the accused.

2.The brief allegations in the Charge Sheet are as follows:

2.1On 28.05.2015 on reliable information about illegal sales of illicitly distilled liquor in front of the house of Santhosh Singh, Puppalguda,

LW3/P.R.K.S.Raju, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Rajendranagar

Excise station alongwith staff went to the above place and secured two panch witnesses LW1/T.Sai Kumar and LW2/G.Mahesh Goud. At about 03.00 PM they found the accused No.1 and 2 are sitting at the place and on seeing the officers, they ran away. There they found three plastic bags and on search of the bag found illicitly distilled liquor sachets and on counting

C.C.No.2215 of 2018

2

the sachets, they are 500 sachets in each bag, total 1500 illicitly distilled liquor sachets, each about 100 ml.

2.2Upon which LW3 drawn two samples, each three sachets, seized the samples and remaining contraband under the cover of panchanama in the presence of LW1 and LW2, samples and seized property were brought to the Station and registered a case in Crime No.292/2015-16 under Section 7A read with Section 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

2.3During the course of investigation, LW3 sent one sample is sent for chemical examination through Excise Station, Rajendranagar, second sample is deposited before the court and the remaining seized property was deposited before the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Ranga Reddy District for confiscation. The Government Chemical Examiner after analyzing the sample, issued CE Report No.3474/2015/27, dated 18.06.2015 opining that “the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health”. On 09.06.2015 the accused No.1 was arrested and produced him before the court, several efforts were made to apprehend the accused No.2 but in vain. After completion of investigation,

LW3/P.R.K.S.Raju, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Rajendranagar

Excise Station has filed Charge Sheet against the Accused under Section 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997.

3.This court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under

Section 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997 against the Accused.

4.On appearance of Accused before the court, after compliance of

Section 207 Cr.P.C, he was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition

Amendment Act, 1997, the charges were framed for the offence punishable under Section under Section 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment

C.C.No.2215 of 2018

3

Act, 1997, read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, trial proceeded.

5.So as to bring home the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P3. PW1/P.R.K.S.Raju,

Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Rajendranagar Excise Station is the

Investigation officer who conducted panchanama, issued Crime Occurrence

Report, conducted investigation in this case who filed charge sheet. The learned APPO given up the evidence of LWs 1 and 2 as instructed by the IO and reported that whereabouts of LWs 1 and 2 are not known.

5.1.None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the Accused.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence the incriminating circumstances appearing against the Accused brought to his knowledge under Section 313 of Cr.P.C examination for which they denied, however reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the points arise for my determination is:-

1) Whether the Prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offence under Section 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997 beyond reasonable doubt?

2) To What relief?

9.P O I N T:

9.1The allegations made against the Accused is that, the Accused was found in possession of 1500 illicitly distilled liquor sachets in front of the house at Puppalguda for sale purpose after imposition of prohibition on

C.C.No.2215 of 2018

4

liquor possession or sale, as such the Accused is liable to be punishment under Section 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997.

9.2To prove the same, the Prosecution examined PW1. PW1 is

P.R.K.S. Raju, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Rajendranagar Excise

Station who conducted panchanama, apprehended the Accused and filed charge sheet.

9.3The evidence of Prosecution would go to show that they have apprehended the accused while the accused was in possession of 1500 illicitly distilled liquor sachets.

9.4PW1 in her evidence has stated that, on 28.05.2015 at 03.00 PM on credible information about the illegal sale of illicitly distilled liquor at

Puppalguda Village, R.R.District, then he alongwith his staff, two panchas

LW1/P.Sai Kumar and LW2/G.Mahesh Goud proceeded to the scene situated at the house of accused, on seeing them, both accused ran away, then he verified and found three bags containing 1500 Illicitly Distilled Liquor

Sachets, in the presence of above panchas, he conducted seizure panchanama and drawn two samples from each contraband and brought the seized contraband to the police Station. Ex.P1 is the seizure panchanama.

Basing on Ex.P1, PW1 registered a case in COR No.292/2015-16 and issued

COR under Ex.P2 and sent one sample to the Chemical Analysis and other sample before the court and remaining property before the Deputy

Commissioner of Excise. While the efforts were in progress, the accused

No.1 surrendered before the court, after completion of investigation and after collecting CE report under Ex.P3, PW1 filed the charge sheet.

9.5The learned APPO given up the evidence of LWs 1 and 2 who are the panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama on the instructions of the investigating officer as whereabouts are not known.

C.C.No.2215 of 2018

5

9.6The learned counsel for the Accused cross examined PW1, nothing specific was elicited in the cross examination done by the learned counsel for Accused.

9.7From the above discussion, the entire evidence available before this court shows that, except the police officials, prosecution failed to examine the panch witnesses and failed to cite any independent witnesses in the Charge Sheet. The prosecution failed to examine another mediator in whose presence the Accused confessed the offence and in whose presence the police seized the ID liquor bottles, except extra judicial confession of the accused there is no evidence against the Accused and confession of Accused in the custody of Police cannot be proved as true and correct. Hence, this court is of no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

10.POINT NO.2:

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment

Act, 1997 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said offences under

Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal period.

The property which was deposited under CPR No.106 of 2017 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 23rd day of August, 2021.

JFCM EXCISE COURT-CUM-VII ADDL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD L.B.NAGAR

C.C.No.2215 of 2018

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1 :P.R.K.S.Raju (IO who laid Charge Sheet)

FOR DEFENCE:- None –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Confession-cum-Seizure panchanama

Ex.P2:Crime Occurrence Report

Ex.P3:CE Report

FOR DEFENCE:- NIL-

Material Objects Marked:

- NIL -

JFCM EXCISE COURT-CUM-VII ADDL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD L.B.NAGAR