Kum.Kypa Ramya Sai

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : DHARMAVARAM

PRESENT : KUM K.RAMYA SAI,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DHARMAVARAM

Friday, the 14 th day of July, 2023

Original Suit No.148/2019

Between :

D.Eswar Reddy, S/o D.Narayana Reddy, Aged about 56 yrs, Hindu, Agriculturist, Malakapuramu village of H/o Gotluru, Dharmavaram Mandal. …Plaintif

And

1.M.Chinna Balappa @ Pakkirapa. S/o Mondi Chinna Pakkirappa, Aged about 56 yrs, 2.M.Narasimhulu, S/o Mondi Chinna Balappa, Aged about 35 yrs, Both are ersidents of Malakapuramu village of H/o Gotluru village of Dharmavaram Mandal. … Defendants

This suit came up for final hearing before me on 13-07-2023 in the presence of Sri C.Rmakrishna Reddy and Sri J.Gopi Krishna, learned Counsels for the plaintif and of Sri K.Naresh, learned Counsel for the defendant and upon hearing the counsel for the plaintif and defendant and on perusing the material available on record this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The suit is filed for recovery of Rs.2,83,579/- (Rupees Two Lakhs

Eighty Three Thousands five hundred and Seventy Nine only) being principal and interest due under ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked suit promissory notes dated 21.04.2016 executed by the defendants for Rs.85,000/-(Rupees Eighty Five thousand only) upon ’A’ marked promissory note and Rs.80,000/- (Rupees

Eighty Thousand only) upon ‘B’ marked promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a with future interest and with costs from the defendant.

2.Brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

On 21.04.2016 the defendants jointly borrowed a sum of

Rs.85,000/-(Rupees Eighty Five thousand only) and Rs.80,000/-(Rupees

Eighty thousand only) under ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked suit promissory notes agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum on demand from the plaintif and executed the suit promissory notes. The plaintif further 2 submitted that inspite of repeated oral demands the defendants have not paid any amount either towards principal or interest due under the above said two promissory notes. Hence the plaintif is constrained to file this suit.

3. The defendants made their appearance through their counsel and written statement is filed by Defendant No.1 and adoption memo is field by Defendant NO.2 adopting the written statement of Defendant No.1. The defendants denied the material allegations made against them by the plaintif and further stated that plaintif is doing money lending business in

Malkapuramu village and collecting high interest from the borrowers. They further submitted that they borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- and

Rs.85,000/- from the plaintif and paid interest upto date at the rate of

Rs.4/-. The defendants further submitted that they have given 30 bags of paddy crop to the plaintif as one time settlement for the above said debts and that the plaintif also agreed and settled the matter before elders. They further submitted that after the settlement the plaintif stated that suit pronotes were misplaced in his house and failed to return the pronotes to the defendants on their request. They further submitted that plaintif filed this suit only for wrongful gain and that the defendants never borrowed any amount subsequently from the plaintif and never signed and never executed any promissory notes in favour of the plaintif. And Hence prays to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing upon the above pleadings the then Presiding Officer framed the following issues for Trial:

1. Whether the ‘A’ marked and ‘B’ marked suit promissory

notes are true, valid and binding on the defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim?

3. To what relief?

5.During the course of Trial, the plaintif got examined himself as

PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and he further examined PW2. On the other hand, inspite of several opportunities the defendants failed to adduce 3 evidence on their behalf and counsel for the defendant reported no evidence. Hence defendants side evidence was closed.

6. Heard the learned counsels and perused the material available on record.

In order to answer the issues framed, the reasoning for said issue as follows:-

7.Issue No.1 :

a) In order to prove that the defendants borrowed amount from him, plaintif got examined himself as P.W.1 by filing his chief affidavit which is nothing but replica of the plaint. P.W.1 in his chief examination reiterated the contents of the plaint and further deposed that on 21.04.2016 the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.85,000/-and Rs.80,000/- respectively from him agreeing to repay the same with interest and executed the ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked suit promissory notes in his favour and same is marked as Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2. P.W.1 further stated that inspite of repeated oral demands the defendants have failed to repay the suit debt.

b) P.W.1 in his cross examination stated that himself and defendants are residents of same village. He further stated that since 2019 he is not talking with the defendants due to financial disputes. He denied the suggestion that mediation was held in the presence of village elders for the settlement of suit amount. He further denied the suggestion that defendants gave 30 bags of paddy to him as a part of settlement. He further denied the suggestion that he have promise the defendants to return the original promissory notes and there after he did not return Ex.A1 and A2 to the defendants and filed false case against them. He further denied the other general suggestions put by the counsel for the defendants.

c) PW2–D.Siva Reddy(Scribe of Ex.A1 and A2) supported the version of PW1 in all aspects in his examination in chief stating that 4 defendants jointly borrowed Rs.85,000/- and Rs.80,000/- from plaintif on 21- 04-2016 and executed Ex.A1 and A2 in favour of the plaintif in his presence.

And further stated that Ex.A1 and A2 were scribed by him and that one person by name Somasekhar Reddy and Venkata Reddy were stood as attestors in Ex.A1 and A2.

d)PW2 in his cross examination stated that he has got acquaintance with the plaintif since 50 yrs. He further stated that the plaintif lent money to the defendants and defendants executed two promissory notes on 21.4.2016 for Rs.85,000/- and Rs.80,000/- at about 9.30 am. He denied the suggestion that the defendants have given 30 bags of paddy as one time settlement. He further denied the suggestion that plaintif filed false case against the defendants due to misunderstandings arose between them.

e) On the other hand the defense of the defendants is that plaintif is doing money lending business and collecting high interest from the borrowers and the defendants stated that they borrowed an amount of

Rs.80,000/- and Rs.85,000/- from the plaintif and paid interest at the rate of

Rs.4/-. They further contended that they have given 30 bags of paddy crop to the plaintif as one time settlement for the above said debts. The further contention of defendants is that the matter was settled before the elders and plaintif also agreed to return the pronotes but the plaintif failed to returned the pronotes by saying that they were misplaced. Further contention of defendants is that plaintif filed this false suit only for wrongful gain and the defendants never borrowed any amount from the plaintif and never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintif, subsequently after the above said transaction. They further contended that they are not liable to pay any suit debt. However, inspite of several opportunities the defendants did not turn up before this court and did not choose to adduce evidence on 5 their side to prove that they have repaid entire amount to the plaintif and that they have given 30 bags of paddy to the plaintif towards one time settlement. The defendants further failed to examine any person on their behalf to prove that the matter was settled before the elders and hence defendants side evidence was closed.

8.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence available on record it is established that the defendants borrowed amount from plaintif under

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes and accordingly executed the same, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. on demand to the plaintif. Ex.A1 promissory note clearly discloses that the defendants jointly borrowed amount of Rs.85,000/- and Ex.A2 clearly discloses that the defendants jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from the plaintif.

9. Though the defendants raised the contention that they repaid entire amount which was borrowed from the plaintif, they failed to come forward to adduce any evidence either oral or documentary evidence on their side with regard to their contentions. Moreover Ex.A1 and A2 discloses that defendants Jointly borrowed suit amounts under Ex.A1 and A2 from the plaintif.

10.The learned counsel for the defendants failed to elicit any evidence in favour of the defendants during the cross examination of P.W.1 and PW2. Moreover, the defendants failed to adduce any evidence in order to rebut the evidence of P.W.1. Simply filing the written statement and cross examining PW1 and PW2 without coming forward, to establish that the Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are not executed by the defendant after receiving the consideration, by producing proper, cogent oral or documentary evidence.

The defendants simply stands away from the doors of the court just by filing the written statement and he did not turned up, to adduce any evidence or entered into witness box to speak about the facts known to him.

6

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441 in between Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao & anr. :Their Lordships held that, “ where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not ofer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Counsel, moreover if a party abstains from entering the witness box, it would give rise to an inference adverse against him. Similarly, the court can drew a presumption under section 114 of Indian Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box. Hence as per the conduct of the defendant who did not turned up, to adduce evidence on his behalf, can be treated as admitting the plaintif's contention”.

12.Under present circumstances and of case in hand and by applying law laid by Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court can take adverse inference against the defendants, who abstains from entering the witness box. Similarly, the court can draw a presumption under Section 114 of the

Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box. Hence, as per the conduct of defendants, who did not turned up to adduce any evidence on their behalf and entered into witness box, can be treated as admitting the plaintif case. Hence, as per the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and available documentary evidence on record and on conjoint reading of the written statement court observed that the defense taken by the defendants against the plaintif is nothing but the allegations against the plaintif without any proof.

13. As the defendants failed to prove their case and as per the evidence of PW1, PW2 and available documentary evidence and as per the 7 cross examination of P.W.1 and PW2 by the learned counsel of the defendants, the plaintif proved the execution of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 by the defendants in favour of the plaintif. Thus, Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are true, valid and binding upon the defendants. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of plaintif and against the defendants.

14. Issue No.2:

Plaintif established his case by examining himself as P.W.1 and examining scribe of ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked promissory notes as PW2.

15. The learned defendants counsel failed to elicit any evidence in favour of defendants in his cross examination. The defendants did not take any steps to establish their defense and failed to produce any evidence i.e., oral or documentary to succeed their case. Hence plaintif has succeeded in proving his case by examining himself as PW1 and examining scribe of suit promissory notes as PW2 to substantiate his contention and by marking

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 Hence plaintif is entitled to the relief as prayed by him accordingly this issue is answered in favour of plaintif and against defendants.

16.Issue No.3:-

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintif and against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 2,83,579/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty

Three Thousands five hundred and Seventy Nine only) with future interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till its realization on the principal sum of Rs.1,65,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Five thousand only) under suit promissory notes.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 14th day of July, 2023.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram.

8

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW.1 : D.Eswar Reddy -None- PW.2 : D.Siva Reddy

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A1 : Original ‘A’ marked Suit Promissory note dt.21.04.2016 Ex.A2 : Original ‘B’ marked Suit Promissory note dt.21.04.2016

Exhibits marked for defendant

-Nil-

A.J.C.J.

9

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : DHARMAVARAM

PRESENT : KUM K.RAMYA SAI,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DHARMAVARAM

Friday, the 14 th day of July, 2023

Original Suit No.148/2019

Between :

D.Eswar Reddy, S/o D.Narayana Reddy, Aged about 56 yrs, Hindu, Agriculturist, Malakapuramu village of H/o Gotluru, Dharmavaram Mandal. …Plaintif

And

1.M.Chinna Balappa @ Pakkirapa. S/o Mondi Chinna Pakkirappa, Aged about 56 yrs, 2.M.Narasimhulu, S/o Mondi Chinna Balappa, Aged about 35 yrs, Both are ersidents of Malakapuramu village of H/o Gotluru village of Dharmavaram Mandal. … Defendants

Suit is filed for recovery of Rs.2,83,579/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty

Three Thousands five hundred and Seventy Nine only) being principal and interest due under ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked suit promissory notes dated 21.04.2016 executed by the defendants for Rs.85,000/-(Rupees Eighty Five thousand only) upon ’A’ marked promissory note and Rs.80,000/- (Rupees

Eighty Thousand only) upon ‘B’ marked promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a with future interest and with costs from the defendant.

Plaint presented on: 20.04.2019

Plaint Numbered on: 23.04.2019

Value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction under ‘A’ marked pronote and ‘B’ marked pronotes of Rs.2,83,579/- and a court fee of

Rs.7,752/- is paid u/s 20 of APCF & SV Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose when the defendants jointly borrowed and jointly executed the ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked suit promissory notes on 21.4.2016 and when oral demands made by the plaintif all arose at

Malakapuramu village of Dharmavarm Mandal, within the jurisdiction of this

Court.

This suit came up for final hearing before me on 13-07-2023 in the presence of Sri C.Ramakrishna Reddy and Sri J.Gopi Krishna, learned Counsels for the plaintif and of Sri K.Naresh, learned Counsel for the defendants, this court doth order and

Decree:- 10

i) that the defendant do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.2,83,579/- with subsequent interest at 12% P.A. on Rs.1,65,000/- from the date of suit i.e., on 20.04.2019 till the date of decree ie. on 14.07.2023 and thereafter at 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realisation;

and

ii) that the defendant do also pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.21,054/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 14th day of July, 2023.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram.

Table of costs for Plaintiff Defendant Stamp on plaintRs. 7752-00 Rs. --- Stamp on vakalatRs. 2-00Rs.2-00 Stamp on processRs. 100-00 Rs. --- Commissioner Fee Rs. --- Rs.-- Pro.wrt.chargesRs. 100-00 Rs. --- Stamp on PetitionRs.--Rs. --- Typing chargesRs. 100-00Rs. --- Publication chargesRs.--Rs. --- Advocate’s fee Rs. 10000-00 Rs. --- Junior AdvocateRs . 3000-00 Rs.---- Fee

TOTAL:- Rs. 21,054 Rs.2-00

(FC memo filed on behalf of plaintif)

A.J.C.J./DMM.

1

APAN0E0015252023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

DHARMAVARAM.

PRESENT:: KUM. K.RAMYA SAI,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

Wednesday, the 23 rd day of April, 2025

C.C.699/2023

Between: State rep. by Inspector of police, Dharmavaram I Town Police Station. … Complainant.

And

Sayad Moula @ Moula, aged 37 years, S/o S. Babjan, R/o Azadh Nagar, Thimmaiah Layout, Chikbalapur District, Karnataka State … Accused

This case came on 22.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri T. Baba Fakruddin, Advocate

for the accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1). The Inspector of police, Dharmavaram I Town P.S has filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.648/2021 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of AP Excise Act (Amendment Act, 2020).

2).The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:-

On 09.11.2021 at about 3.00 pm, at YSR Circle, Dharmavaram town, on receiving credible information by Inspector of police, Dharmavaram Urban PS the complainant/Y.V Chalama Reddy, HC-2301 of Dharmavaram Urban P.S along with his staff reached at above mentioned place at about 4.45 pm, the accused 2 driving towards the place in which they are standing. On seeing the police personnel the accused left the car and escaped from that place, and his staff tried to caught hold of him but in vain. Further HC-2301 inspected the car bearing Regd.,

No.KA03MA8417 and found illicit liquor 1) MASION HOUSE FRENCH BRAND 750 ml. (2) BOTTELS, each bottle MRP rate Rs.913.96/- and 2) OLD ADMIRAL VSOP

BRANDY 01 liter, 07 BOTTELS, each bottle MRP Rate Rs.387.80/- and in and on both of them there are words as FOR SALE IN KARNATAKA ONLY of Kanada and

English language on them. Further HC-23201 seized the above liquor and car bearing No.KA03MA8417 under cover of police proceedings.

Basing on the police proceedings, LW.5-M. Karunakar-SI of police has registered a case in Cr.No.648/2021, U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and

Amendment Act 2020 of Dharmavaram I town P.S.

On 06.04.2022 at about 1.30 AM LW.5/SI of police has received credible information about the absconded accused in this case. Then the SI of police along with staff and mediators LW.1 and LW.2 reached near Sathya Sai Nagar, RTC bus stand Dharmavaram town at about 2.00 pm, there they noticed one person standing at road side. By seeing the police officials, he tried to escape from that place, then the SI of police along with his staff caught hold of him and enquired him and he disclosed his identity particulars and voluntarily confessed about the offence. Then the SI of police confirmed him as accused in Cr.No.648/2021

U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and arrested him, by admonishing him that without having any valid license or permission from the AP Govt., it is an offence to sell possess Karnataka state liquor and it is offence liable to be punishable U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and Amendment Act 2020.

During the course of investigation on 06.04.2022 LW.5-M. Karunakar-SI of police has forwarded the accused for judicial custody. Further LW.5-SI of police sent seized sample to RPEL, Chittoor for chemical analysis. The Chemical examiner analyzed the sample liquor bottle and issued report vide

C.E.No.221/2022 and issued report that sample are Indian made liquor.

3

On the transfer of LW.5, LW.6-Inspector of police has continued further investigation in this case received destruction orders by Superintendent of Police,

Sri Sathya Sai District vide C.No.70/SEB-SSS/2022, Dt.13.07.2022. Hence as per the destruction orders Special Enforcement Beauro (SEB) , the contraband was destroyed on 27.07.2022 under cover of panchanama and after completion of investigation, LW.6 filed charge-sheet.

3) After filing charge sheet and required documents, the cognizance was taken for the offence U/sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act (Amendment Act,2020).

4) On appearance of accused, copies of case records were furnished to him as required U/sec.207 Cr.PC.

5) On 15.02.2024, accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C by explaining the charge leveled against him in the charge sheet, for which, he denied.

Having considered the submissions of both sides and also taking into consideration the material placed before this Court. Charge was framed against accused for the offence punishable U/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act (Amendment Act, 2020). Charge was read over and explained to him in Telugu language. For which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.

6) In order to prove the case, prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7 and MO1 and MO.2. Ex.P1 is signature of PW1 on arrest and confession mahazarnama. Ex.P2 is signature of PW.2 on arrest and confession mahazarnama, Ex.P3 is police proceedings, Ex.P4 is the FIR. Ex.P5 is chemical analysis report, Ex.P6 is destruction proceedings and Ex.P7 is destruction panchanama Dt.13.07.2022. On the other hand, no witnesses were examined and no documents are marked on behalf of accused.

7) After closure of the prosecution side evidence, on 22.04.2025, accused was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which he denied and reported 4 no defense evidence. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked by the defense.

8) Heard arguments of prosecution and defense. Perused the entire record.

9) The contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is that the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.3 to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and the accused was in possession of 1)

MASION HOUSE FRENCH BRAND 750 ml. 2) BOTTELS, each bottle MRP rate

Rs.913.96/- and 2) OLD ADMIRAL VSOP BRANDY 01 liter, 07 BOTTELS, each bottle MRP Rate Rs.387.80/- and that no inconsistent statement were made by

PW1 to PW3 and as such the accused are liable to be convicted for the offence

U/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

10) Per contra, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the accused was falsely implicated in this case only for statistical purposes and nothing else and no independent witnesses were examined to support the case of prosecution and that the entire proceedings were drafted in the Police Station itself and prayed this court to acquit the accused.

11) Now the point arose for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the

offence punishable U/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable

doubt?

12) POINT:-

i) PW.1 and PW.2, who are mediators at the time of arrest of the accused deposed that on one day when they went to Dharmavaram Urban Police Station on their personal work, police obtained their signatures on some written papers and that they don’t know the contents of said papers. The Signature of PW.1 on arrest and confession mahazarnama under Ex.A1 and Ex.P2, the signature of PW.2 on arrest and confession mahazarnama.

5 13). PW3/M. Karunakar, SI of police, deposed that on 09.11.2021 at about 3.00 pm, Sub Inspector of police received police proceedings from one HC-2301.

PW.3 has registered a case in Cr.No.648/2021 U/sec.648/2021 U/Sec.34(a) of AP

Excise Act, Amendment Act 2020 and forwarded the FIR to all concerned officers under Ex.P4. On 23.04.2021 PW.3 sent samples to RFSL, Chittoor for chemical analysis. MO.1 is the sample of Old Admiral VSOP brandy, MO.2 is sample of

Mansion house. On 04.02.2022 PW.3 has received chemical analysis report from

RFSL and opined that the sample is Indian made liquor under Ex.P5, he destroyed the seized property under Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 is the destruction panchanama

Dt.13.07.2022.

14) To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/s.34(a) of A.P Excise Act, the prosecution shall prove that the accused was in possession of Masion House French Brandy 750 ml 02 bottles, 2) Old admiral vsop brandy 01 liter, 07 bottles.

15)Before adverting to the rival contentions made on both sides and also

before delving into the evidence adduced by the prosecution witness, it is

necessary to have a look at section 42 of the AP Excise Act, 1968 which deals with regard to the presumption as to the commission of the offence in certain cases. The said Section reads as follows; “Sec.42 : Presumption as to commission of offence in certain cases:-

In prosecutions U/s.34, [Sec.37 and 37-A], it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the accused person has committed the

offence punishable under that section in respect of –

(a)any intoxicant, or

(b)any still utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever in the

manufacture of any intoxicant other than toddy, or

6

(c)any materials which have undergone any process towards the manufacture of an for the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily”.

The above said section would make it clear that there shall be a presumption stood in favour of the prosecution for the offences U/s.34, 37, 37-A, which mandates that it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that the accused person has committed the offence punishable under that section in respect of any intoxicant, any utensil, implement or apparatus in the manufacture of any intoxicant other than toddy or any materials which have undergone any process to the manufacture of an intoxicant and from which intoxicant has been manufactured when the accused is unable to account satisfactorily. To avail the said presumption, it is initially for the prosecution to establish that the accused was in possession of liquor bottles. To prove the same, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3.

16) On reading of the testimony of PW3, this Court does not find any inconsistent statement made by him with regard to seizure of the property from the possession of accused and the ocular evidence of PW3 is corroborated by the documentary evidence under Exs.P.3 to P.7 and MO.1 and MO.2. As such the prosecution has successfully discharged the initial burden and as such, the prosecution is entitled to the presumption under Section 42 of the A.P. Excise Act.

17) The burden of rebutting the presumption by the accused is not as high as that of the burden of proving the case by the prosecution. If the accused succeeds in placing positive evidence, the presumption will be disappeared and again the prosecution is not entitled to the said presumption and it has to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

18) Before conducting any search as per sub-section (4) of Section Sec.100 of Cr.P.C, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality 7 is available or willing to be a witness to the search to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. The above said section would deal about before making the search under that chapter i.e., Chapter

VII the procedure to be followed by the Investigating Officer. In the case on hand though the prosecution examined PW1, PW2, who are witnesses to the panchanama, they deposed that when on one day, they went to Dharmavaram

Urban Police Station, on their personal work, police obtained their signatures on some written papers and they signed on same without knowing the contents.

Moreover, as per prosecution PW.1 and PW.2 stood as mediators at the time of arrest of accused. However, they did not supported the case of prosecution that they acted as mediators.

19) Now, it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The entire testimony of P.W.3 is silent as to from which shop the accused person purchased the liquor bottles and no investigation was done to that effect to drag the accused into the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

Further, it was the contention of the prosecution that the accused escaped from the scene of offence and when they searched the vehicle they found the material objects. However, no witness were examined to prove the very seizure of the property. The reasonable doubt left by the prosecution in regard to the very seizure of the bottles from the possession of the accused person creates doubt in the mind of the court as to the entire case of the prosecution. In this case, thought PW1,

PW.2 who are independent witness were examined, as they turned hostile to the case of prosecution, their evidence cannot be considered and their evidence cannot be relied on due to the reasons mentioned above.

20) At this juncture it is pertinent to refer a decision made in 1994 (2) ALT

(Crl. P.69 (AP) Botcha Raju VS State Rep. By the Inspector of

Police,Vizianagaram Rural Circle. Where in it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officer without corroboration by disinterested witnesses. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against 8 the accused person for the offence punishable under Section U/sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution.

21) In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/s 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force till six months as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.PC. MO.1 and MO.2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation to Stenographer-Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 23rd day of April, 2025.

Sd/-K. Ramya Sai

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Dharmavaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1 : K. Ramakrishna -None- PW.2 : Balaraju PW.3 : M. Karunakar

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on arrest and confession mahazarnama Ex.P2: Signature of PW2 on arrest and confession mahazarnama Ex.P3: Police proceedings Ex.P4: Original FIR. Ex.P5: Chemical Analysis report Ex.P6: Destruction proceedings Ex.P7: Destruction panchanama Dt.13.07.2022

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MOS MARKED FOR

MO.1: Sample of Old Admiral VSOP Brandy MO.2: Sample of Mansion house.Id/-K.K.R.S J.M.F.C.

// True Copy//

Judl. Magistrate of I Class 9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURUM

Calendar cases tried by the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram.

Date of OffenceReportApprehension ofReleased onCommence-Close of trialSentence Accusedbailment of trial 09.11.202109.11.202106.04.202212.04.202215.07.202415.04.202523.04.2025

Judgment in C.C.No.699/2023 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram.

Complainant :: Dharmavaram Urban Police Station

Cr.No:648/2021

Sl.Name of theAgeFather’s NameCallingReligionResidenceMandal NoAccused

1.Sayad Moula @37S. Babjan-----ChikbalapurKarnataka State Moulayrs

Offence :-For the offence U/sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act (Amendment, 2020)

Finding :-Found not guilty.

Sentence :-In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act (Amendment, 2020) and he is acquitted

U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force till six months as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.PC. MO.1 and

MO.2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Kum K. Ramya Sai

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DHARMAVARAM

Submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram.

// True copy//

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Dharmavaram

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: DHARMAVARM.

PRESENT:: KUM. K.RAMYA SAI,

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

Thursday, the 08 th day of August, 2024

C.C.1074/2022

Between:

State rep. by the Special Enforcement Bureau, Dharmavaram SEB station,

... Complainant.

And

Gujjala Pothulaiah, Aged about 52 yrs, S/o Late Erappa, Siddaiah Gutta, Dharmavaram Town. … Accused

This case came on 07.08.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri T.Pullanna, Advocates for the accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1). The Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector, Dharmavaram filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.58/2021 for the offence punishable U/Sec 34 (a) of AP Excise Act (2nd Amendment Act, 2020).

2).The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:-

On 15.05.2021 at 1.30 PM as per the instructions of Special

Enforcement Bureau Inspector of Dharmavaram LW5 conducted raids along with his staff and mediators and raided at Nagalakatta, near Siddaiahgutta 2 of Dharmavaram and found the accused with a white polythene bag. On approach of the police the above person escaped from the place by leaving white plastic bag. When LW5 searched the white plastic bag he found 38 dips of original choice deluxe whisky tetra packets of 90 ml each of

Karnataka State and LW5 preserved the sample drawn out of seized property to send them for chemical examination. As none came forward to act as mediators. Then he seized property and brought the property to SEB

Dharmavarm and registered a case in Cr.No.58/2021 under section 34(A) of P Excise Act (2nd amendment Act-2020) of SEB Dharmavaram on 15.05.2021 and the submitted copies of FIR to all concerned officers and took up investigation in this case. On 26.05.2021 when LW5 was present in police station he received credible information about the absconding accused in this case, LW5 proceeded with staff and mediators to the accused house for arresting in Cr.No.58/2021 and found he was present near Pothukunta sub way road, Dharmavarm Town, LW5 arrested accused and forwarded him to judicial custody.

Further the sample liquor bottles were sent to the Chemical

Examiner, Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor and he analyzed the same and issued his report that the samples are Indian made liquor. Thereafter upon receiving the property destruction order from

Deputy Commissioner of SEB, Ananthapuramu the seized contrabrand was destroyed on 28.6.2022 in the presence of SEB Superintendent, Special

Enforcement Bureau AP along with mediators and drafted panchanama.

Later LW.6 filed charge sheet.

3

3) After filing charge sheet and required documents, the cognizance was taken for the offence U/s 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act (2nd

Amendment Act,2020).

4) On appearance of accused, copies of case records were furnished to him as required u/s.207 Cr.PC.

5) On 05.05.2022, accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C by explaining the charge leveled against him in the charge sheet, for which, he denied. Having considered the submissions of both sides and also taking into consideration the material placed before this Court. Charge was framed against accused for the offence punishable U/s 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act (2nd

Amendment Act, 2020). Charge was read over and explained to him in Telugu language. For which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.

6) In order to prove the case, prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7 and MO1. Ex.P1 is signature of PW1 on panchanama. Ex.P2 is panchanama. Ex.P3 is the FIR. Ex.P4 is letter of advice. Ex.P5 is analysis report. Ex.P6 is destruction proceedings. Ex.P7 is the destruction panchanama. On the other hand, no witnesses were examined and no documents are marked on behalf of accused.

7) After closure of the prosecution side evidence, on 07.08.2024, accused was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defense evidence. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked by the defense.

4

8) Heard arguments of prosecution and defense. Perused the entire record.

9) The contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is that the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.3 to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and the accused was in possession of liquor bottles and that no inconsistent statement were made by PW1 to PW3 and as such the accused are liable to be convicted for the offence U/s 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act.

10) Per contra, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the accused were falsely implicated in this case only for statistical purposes and nothing else and no independent witnesses were examined to support the case of prosecution and that the entire proceedings were drafted in the Police Station itself and prayed this court to acquit the accused.

11) Now the point arose for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for

the offence punishable U/s 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond all

reasonable doubt?

12) POINT:-

i) P.W.1 who is mediator at the time of arrest of the accused deposed that on one day when he went to SEB DMM PS on his personal work, police obtained his signature on some writtenpapers andthat he don 5 ot know the contents of said papers. The Signature of PW.1 on the panchanama marked as Ex.P1.

13). PW2 and PW3/Ramachandra i.e., SEB EC and Masthan Rao, SI of police deposed that on 15.05.2021 at about 1.30 pm, Sub Inspector of police received credible information with regard to the illegal possession of liquor then immediately he along with staff reached Nagulakatta,

Siddaiahgutta at Dharmavaram, there they noticed accused was holding white plastic cover on his hand but he escaped from that place by leaving the polythene bag, on seeing the police, he escaped from that place, they tried to secure mediators but no one came forward to act as mediators, hence PW3 verified the bag and found 38 dips Original Choice Deluxe whisky of NDPL of 90 ml each, PW3 lifted one sample bottle for sending the same to chemical analysis purpose. PW3 prepared panchanama and brought seized property to the police station. On 26.5.2021 at about 10.30 am at Pothukunta sub way road, Dharmavarm town he arrested the accused and brought him to police station and after observing formalities thereafter he forwarded the accused to judicial custody. PW.3 sent the sample for chemical analysis purpose. After completion of investigation,

LW6 filed charge sheet in this case.

14) To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act, the prosecution shall prove that the accused possessed 38 dips Original Choice Deluxe whisky of NDPL of 90 ml.

6

15) On reading of the testimony of PW2 and PW3, this Court does not find any inconsistent statement made by them with regard to seizure of the property from the possession of accused and the ocular evidence of

PW2 and PW3 is corroborated by the documentary evidence under Exs.P.1 to P.7 and Mos 1 and as such the prosecution has successfully discharged the initial burden.

16)Before adverting to the rival contentions made on both sides and also before delving into the evidence adduced by the prosecution witness, it is necessary to have a look at section 42 of the AP Excise Act, 1968 which deals with regard to the presumption as to the commission of the offence in certain cases. The said Section reads as follows; “Sec.42 : Presumption as to commission of offence in certain cases:-

In prosecutions U/s.34, [Sec.37 and 37-A], it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the accused person has committed the offence punishable under that section in respect of –

(a) any intoxicant, or

(b) any still utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever in the manufacture of any intoxicant other than toddy, or

(c) any materials which have undergone any process towards the manufacture of an for the possession of

which he is unable to account satisfactorily”.

The above said section would make it clear that there shall be a presumption stood in favour of the prosecution for the offences U/s.34, 37, 37-A, which mandates that it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved 7 that the accused person has committed the offence punishable under that section in respect of any intoxicant, any utensil, implement or apparatus in the manufacture of any intoxicant other than toddy or any materials which have undergone any process to the manufacture of an intoxicant and from which intoxicant has been manufactured when the accused is unable to account satisfactorily. To avail the said presumption, it is initially for the prosecution to establish that the accused was in possession of liquor bottles. To prove the same, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3.

17) On reading of the testimony of PW1 to PW.3, this Court does not find any inconsistent statement made by them with regard to seizure of the property from the possession of accused and the ocular evidence of

PW2 and P.W.3 is corroborated by the documentary evidence under Exs.P.1 to P.7 and Mos 1. As such the prosecution has successfully discharged the initial burden and as such, the prosecution is entitled to the presumption under Section 42 of the A.P. Excise Act.

18) The burden of rebutting the presumption by the accused is not as high as that of the burden of proving the case by the prosecution. If the accused succeeds in placing positive evidence, the presumption will be disappeared and again the prosecution is not entitled to the said presumption and it has to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

19) Before conducting any search as per sub-section (4) of Section

Sec.100 of Cr.P.C, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in 8 which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or willing to be a witness to the search to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. The above said section would deal about

before making the search under that chapter i.e., Chapter VII the

procedure to be followed by the Investigating Officer. In the case on hand through the prosecution examined PW1, who witnesses the panchanama, he deposed that when on one day, he went to Dharmavaram SEV, PS, there police obtained his signature on some written papers and he signed on same without knowing the contents.

20) Now, it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The entire testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is silent as to from which shop the accused person purchased the liquor bottles and no investigation was done to that effect to drag the accused into the offence under Section U/s 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act. Further, it was the contention of the prosecution that accused bought liquor bottles for lower prices and selling the same for higher prices. But no person is examined to support the contention of prosecution that Accused is selling the liquor bottles. The reasonable doubt left by the prosecution in regard to the very seizure of the bottles from the possession of the accused persons creates doubt in the mind of the court as to the entire case of the prosecution. In this case, thought PW1 who is independent witness was examined, as he turned hostile to the case of prosecution, his evidence cannot be considered and his evidence cannot be relied on due to the reasons mentioned above.

9

21) At this juncture it is pertinent to refer a decision made in 1994

(2) ALT (Crl. P.69 (AP) Botcha Raju VS State Rep. By the Inspector

of Police,Vizianagaram Rural Circle. Where in it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officer without corroboration by disinterested witnesses. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused person for the offence punishable under Section U/s 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution.

22) In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force till six months as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.PC. Mos. 1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation to Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 08th day of August, 2024.

Sd/- K.Ramya Sai,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Dharmavaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1 : Obulesu-None- PW.2 : Ramachandra PW.3 : Masthan Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1:Signature of PW1 on the destruction panchanama. Ex.P2:Panchanama 10

Ex.P3:Original FIR. Ex.P4:Letter of Advice Ex.P5:Analysis report Ex.P6:Destruction proceedings Ex.P7:Destruction panchanama

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MOS MARKED FOR

Mo1 is sample bottles.

Sd/-K.R.S., Id/- K.R.S.,

A.J.M.F.C.

//True copy//

// ///

//True // True Copy //

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram. copy//

AJMFC/Dharmavaram

11

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURUM

Calendar cases tried by the Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram.

Date ofReportApprehensionReleased onCommence-Close of trialSentence Offenceof Accusedbailment of trial 15.5.2115.05.2126.5.202131.5.202122.6.20237.8.20248.8.2024

Judgment in C.C.No.1074/2022 on the file of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of

First Class, Dharmavaram.

Complainant ::Special Enforcement Bureau of Dharmavarm Station Cr.No: 58/2021 Sl.NoName of theAgeFather’s NameCallingReligionResidenceMandal Accused

1.G.Pothulaiah52Late Erappa---HinduDharmavarDharmavara yrsmm

Offence :-For the offence U/sec 34(A) of AP Excise Act (amendment,2020)

Finding :-Found not guilty.

Sentence :-In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable U/s 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act (2nd amendment,2020) and he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force till six months as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.PC. Mo. 1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- K.Ramya Sai,

ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DHARMAVARAM

Submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuram

Dis No. Dt.

// True Copy //

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram.

//True copy//

12

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : DHARMAVARAM

PRESENT : KUM K.RAMYA SAI,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DHARMAVARAM

Friday, the 14 th day of July, 2023

Original Suit No.144/2019

Between : Arveti Prasad, S/o late Chinna Narayanappa, Aged about 60 yrs, Business, Hindu, D.No.13/576, R.S.Road, Dharmavaram Town and Mandal. …. Plaintif

And

Charugundla Narendra, S/o late Krishna Murthi, Aged about 35 yrs, Hindu, Business, D.No.5/434, Sanjai Nagar, Dharmavaram Town and mandal.

… Defendant

This suit came up for final hearing before me on 13-07-2023 in the presence of Sri G.C.Nallappa and Sri M.Ramanjineyulu, learned Counsels for the plaintif and of Sri S.Noorulla and Sri M.Dasthagiri, learned Counsels for the defendant and upon hearing the counsel for the plaintif and defendant and on perusing the material available on record this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The suit is filed for recovery of Rs.5,40,900/- (Rupees Five Lakhs

Forty thousand and Nine Hundred only) being principal and interest due under ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked suit promissory notes dated 11.04.2016 and 03.04.2016 respectively executed by the defendant for Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees

One Lakh and Fifty thousand only) upon ’A’ marked promissory note and

Rs.1,65,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Sixty Five thousand only) upon ‘B’ marked promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a with future interest and with costs from the defendant.

2.Brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

On 11.04.2016 and 03.04.2016 the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh and Fifty thousand only) and Rs.1,65,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Sixty Five thousand only) under ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked suit promissory notes agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum on demand from the plaintif and executed the suit promissory notes.

2

The plaintif further submitted that inspite of repeated oral demands and inspite of issuing legal notice by the plaintif the defendant has not paid any amount either towards principal or interest due under the above said two promissory notes. Hence the plaintif is constrained to file this suit.

3. The defendant made his appearance through his counsel and filed written statement denying the material allegations made against the defendant by the plaintif and further stated that plaintif is doing raw silk material business and defendant was doing business in silk sarees by having own hand looms and defendant used to purchase raw silk material for his hand looms from the plaintif on credit basis and as there arose some ill feelings in business between plaintif and defendant, the plaintif forged and fabricated the suit promissory notes colluding with attestors and therefore he submitted that he has not at all received any cash consideration under the suit promissory notes nor executed suit promissory notes in favour of plaintif. Hence prays this court to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing upon the above pleadings the then Presiding Officer framed the following issues for Trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory notes ‘A’ and ‘B’ are true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim?

3. To what relief?

5.During the course of Trial, the plaintif got examined himself as

PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. On the other hand, inspite of several opportunities the defendant failed to adduce evidence on his behalf. Hence defendant side evidence was closed.

6. Heard the learned counsels and perused the material available on record.

In order to answer the issues framed, the reasoning for said issue as follows:- 3

7.Issue No.1 :

a) In order to prove that the defendant borrowed amount from him, plaintif got examined himself as P.W.1 by filing his chief affidavit which is nothing but replica of the plaint. P.W.1 in his chief examination reiterated the contents of the plaint and further deposed that on 11.04.2016 and 03.04.2016 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-and Rs.1,65,000/- respectively from him agreeing to repay the same with interest and executed the ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked suit promissory notes in his favour and same is marked as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. P.W.1 further stated that inspite of repeated oral demands and inspite of issuing legal notice on 13-12-2018 the defendant has failed to repay the suit debt and that defendant have managed the postal authorities and endorsed that “continuously seven days absent”. He further submitted that M.Venkata Chalapathi and B.Venkata Rama Raju are the attestors of suit promissory notes and defendant himself is scribe of suit promissory notes.

b) P.W.1 in his cross examination stated that he got acquaintance with the defendant through defendant’s father and he stated that he is doing agricultural and also sell sarees on commission basis. He denied that he have been doing raw silk material business since his ancestors. He denied the suggest that he have obtained Ex.A1 and A2 as security for supplying of raw silk material on credit basis. He further stated that at the request of defendant’s father he lent suit amount to the defendant. He denied the suggestion that the defendant is not liable to pay amount under Ex.A1 and

A2 and that two attestors and scribe of Ex.A1 and A2 are the men of plaintif.

c) On the other hand the defense of the defendant is that defendant is doing silk saree business and plaintif is doing raw silk material business and that the defendant used to purchase raw silk material from the plaintif for his hand looms on credit basis and further contented that as 4 there arose ill feelings between plaintif and defendant with regard to the business deals the plaintif forged and fabricated the suit promissory notes by colluding with the attestors. He further contended that he is not liable to pay any suit debt. However, inspite of several opportunities the defendant did not turn up before this court and did not choose to adduce evidence on his side and hence defendant side evidence was closed.

8.On perusing of oral and documentary evidence available on record it is established that the defendant borrowed amount from plaintif under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory note and accordingly executed the same, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. on demand to the plaintif. Ex.A1 promissory note clearly discloses that the defendant borrowed amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and Ex.A2 clearly discloses that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- from the plaintif. Further on bare perusal of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 it is observed that defendant himself scribed

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.

9. The learned counsel for the defendant failed to elicit any evidence in favour of the defendant during the cross examination of P.W.1.

Moreover, the defendant failed to adduce any evidence in order to rebut the evidence of P.W.1. Simply filing the written statement and cross examining

PW1 without coming forward, to establish that the Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are not executed by the defendant after receiving the consideration, by producing proper, cogent oral or documentary evidence. The defendant simply stands away from the doors of the court just by filing the written statement and he did not turned up, to adduce any evidence or entered into witness box to speak about the facts known to him.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441 in between Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao & anr. :Their Lordships held that, 5 “ where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not ofer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Counsel, moreover if a party abstains from entering the witness box, it would give rise to an inference adverse against him. Similarly, the court can drew a presumption under section 114 of Indian Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box. Hence as per the conduct of the defendant who did not turned up, to adduce evidence on his behalf, can be treated as admitting the plaintif's contention”.

11.Under present circumstances and of case in hand and by applying law laid by Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court can take adverse inference against the defendant, who abstains from entering the witness box.

Similarly, the court can draw a presumption under Section 114 of the

Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box. Hence, as per the conduct of defendant, who did not turned up to adduce any evidence on his behalf and entered into witness box, can be treated as admitting the plaintif case. Hence, as per the evidence of PW1 and available documentary evidence on record and on conjoint reading of the written statement court observed that the defense taken by the defendant against the plaintif is nothing but the allegations against the plaintif without any proof.

12. As the defendant failed to prove his case and as per the evidence of PW1 and available documentary evidence and as per the cross examination of P.W.1 by the learned counsel of the defendant, the plaintif proved the execution of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 by the defendant in favour of the plaintif. Thus, Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are true, valid and binding upon the 6 defendant. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of plaintif and against the defendant.

13. Issue No.2:

Plaintif established his case by examining himself as P.W.1 and by marking Ex.A1 and A2.

14.The defendant only made allegations relating to non execution of

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and passing of consideration under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. The learned defendant counsel failed to elicit any evidence in favour of defendant in his cross examination. The defendant did not take any steps to establish his defense and failed to produce any evidence i.e., oral or documentary to succeed his case. Hence plaintif has succeeded in proving his case by examining himself as PW1 and by marking Ex.A1 and Ex.A2

Hence plaintif is entitled to the relief as prayed by him accordingly this issue is answered in favour of plaintif and against defendant.

15.Issue No.3:-

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.5,40,900/- (Rupees Five Lakh Forty

Thousand and Nine hundred only) with future interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till its realization on the principal sum of Rs.3,15,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs and

Fifteen thousand only) under two promissory notes.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 14th day of July, 2023.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW.1 : Araveti Prasad -None-

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

7

Ex.A1 : Original ‘A’ marked Suit Promissory note dt.11.04.2016. Ex.A2 : Original ‘B’ marked Suit promissory note dt.03.04.2016

Exhibits marked for defendant

-Nil-

A.J.C.J.

8

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : DHARMAVARAM

PRESENT : KUM K.RAMYA SAI,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DHARMAVARAM

Friday, the 14 th day of July, 2023

Original Suit No.144/2019

Between : Arveti Prasad, S/o late Chinna Narayanappa, Aged about 60 yrs, Business, Hindu, D.No.13/576, R.S.Road, Dharmavaram Town and Mandal. …. Plaintif

And

Charugundla Narendra, S/o late Krishna Murthi, Aged about 35 yrs, Hindu, Business, D.No.5/434, Sanjai Nagar, Dharmavaram Town and mandal.

… Defendant

Suit is filed for recovery of Rs.5,40,900/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty thousand and Nine Hundred only) being principal and interest due under ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked suit promissory notes dated 11.04.2016 and 03.04.2016 respectively executed by the defendant for Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh and Fifty thousand only) upon ’A’ marked promissory note and Rs.1,65,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Sixty Five thousand only) upon ‘B’ marked promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a with future interest and with costs from the defendant.

Plaint presented on: 03.04.2019

Plaint Numbered on: 22.04.2019

Value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.5,40,900/- and a court fee of Rs.10,352/- is paid u/s 20 of APCF & SV Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 11.04.2016, the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in cash from the plaintif and the defendant agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. on the same day the defendant have executed a ‘A’ marked suit promissory note in favorof the plaintif, the defendant again borrowed a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- in cash from the plaintif on 05.4.2016 and the defendant agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. on the same day the defendant have executed a ‘B’ marked suit promissory note, when the plaintif several demands to the defendant, the defendant did not paid any thing either the principle or interest due under the said promissory notes when the plaintif have got issued a legal notice to the defendant through his counsel on 13.12.2018, the defendant have managed the postal authorities and endorsed that 9 continues absent 7 days, all are arose at Dharmavaram town of

Ananthapuramu District, within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit came up for final hearing before me on 13-07-2023 in the presence of Sri G.C.Nallappa and Sri M.Ramanjineyulu, learned Counsels for the plaintif and of Sri S.Noorulla and Sri M.Dasthagiri, learned Counsels for the defendant, this court doth order and Decree:-

i) that the defendant do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.5,40,900/- with subsequent interest at 12% P.A. on Rs.3,15,000/- from the date of suit i.e., on 03.04.2019 till the date of decree ie. on 14.07.2023 and thereafter at 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realisation;

and

ii) that the defendant do also pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.28,319/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 14th day of July, 2023.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram. Table of costs for Plaintiff Defendant

Stamp on plaintRs. 10352-00 Rs. ---

Stamp on vakalatRs. 2-00Rs.2-00

Stamp on processRs. 65-00 Rs. ---

Commissioner Fee Rs. --- Rs.--

Pro.wrt.chargesRs. –- Rs. ---

Stamp on PetitionRs.--Rs. ---

Typing chargesRs.---Rs. ---

Publication chargesRs.--Rs. ---

Advocate’s fee Rs. 17,900-00 Rs. ---

Junior AdvocateRs. ---Rs.---- Fee

TOTAL:- Rs.28,319-00 Rs.2-00

(FC memo filed on behalf of plaintif)

A.J.C.J./DMM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

DHARMAVARM

PRESENT:: MISS. K.RAMYA SAI,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, DHARMAVARAM

FAC-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DHARMAVARAM

Friday, the 13 th day of December, 2024

Calendar Case No.47 of 2024

Between:

State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharmavaram Rural Police Station.… Complainant.

And

Kadavakallu Mohan, Aged about 33 yrs, S/o Late Kadavakallu Kondappa, D.No.3-66, Kukkalapalle village of Ananthapuramu Rural Mandal. … Accused.

This case have been coming on 11.12.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri A.Krishna Mohan, Sri K.Bhaskar and Sri Bille Ravi, Learned counsel for Accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharmavaram Rural police station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.

304( A) of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.11/2023 of Dharmavaram Rural police station.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:

Deceased Chitra Sivaiah is resident of Ravulacheruvu village of

Dharmavaram mandal. Deceased Chitra Sivaiah has two daughters from his first wife namely Lakshmi and Rupashree and a son from his second wife namely Jayawardhan. LW2-Revathi is second wife of deceased Chitra Sivaiah and his first wife is died about 6 years back. LW2 and deceased Chitra Sivaiah living in Guntakallu and he is working as a labourer in a rice mill. Deceased first wife’s children are staying with them in Ravulacheruvu village at his parents house. On 01.02.2023 the deceased Sivaiah informed LW3-Peddakka that he was leaving to Guntakallu on his motor cycle bearing No.AP39-CP-3371 to see his daughters, at about 4.30 pm near Jagananna Smart City on the left 2 side of the road, infront of the deceased bike the accused coming from

Dharmavaram direction drove his bike bearing No.AP39-GQ-9197 at high speed and recklessly and hit the deceased bike, as a result the deceased fell on the road and sustained severe bleeding injury on the back side of the head and died on the spot. LW6-B.Ramanjineyulu informed the same to LW1 through phone. On 01.02.2023 LW1 came to police station and informed about the accident.

On the complaint of the LW 1. L.W-14/P.Venkatesulu(HC) registered a case in Cr.No.11/2023 U/sec.304(A) of IPC on 01.02.2023 at 6.30 PM of

Dharmavaram Rural P.S. During the course of the investigation, L.W-14 held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of LW1 to 5 and LW9 to 11 namely D.Somakeshar Reddy, D.Kesava Naik and D.Lingamayya and

LW14 examined LW1 to 5 namely C.Obulesu, C.Revathi, C.Peddakka,

C.Ramanjineyulu and C.Lakshmanna and recorded their statements and forwarded the dead body of deceased along with PM requisition to LW12 for conducting autopsy over the dead body of deceased. LW14 visited scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and incriminating materials are not found at the scene of offence.

On 03.2.2023 LW14 secured eye witnesses LW6 to 8 namely

B.Ramanjineyulu, P.Musalappa and S.Kullayappa and examined them and recorded their detail statements. LW14 seized the crime vehicle i.e. Hero

Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP39-GQ-9197 under a cover of police

proceedings and forwarded requisition to the LW13 to inspecting the crime vehicle and for necessary certificate.

LW14 received PM examination from LW12-Dr.Neeraja, CAS, Area

Hospital, Dharmavaram who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and opined that the deceased might have died due to grievous head injury secondary to RTA, leading to hemorrhage shock. LW14 received MVI report from LW13 DSM Vara Prasad, Motor Vehicle Inspector, RTO Office,Kadiri examined the crime vehicle bearing NO.AP39-GQ-9197 and issued Accident

Inspection Report and opined that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. On 20.02.2023 LW14 served notice U/S 3 41(A) Cr.P.C., against the accused and instructed him to appear before concerned court after receipt summons. LW15-M.Pradeep Kumar verified the investigation of LW14 and found correct and LW15 filed charge sheet against the accused.

Thus accused have committed an offence and rendered himself liable to be punished under sections 304 (A) of IPC. Hence, the charge.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused U/secs.304-A of IPC.

4.On appearance of accused before this Court, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 CrPC.

5.Accused was examined under Section 251 CrPC. Accusation made against the accused for the offence U/secs.304-A of IPC, read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. Learned APP given up evidence of

LW4, LW5, LW9, LW11 to 13, LW15. Prosecution evidence was closed.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/s 313 CrPC explaining the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

8.Heard on both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is : Whether the prosecution

proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/sec.304(A) of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

10.POINT:

To prove its case, though the prosecution have cited (15) witness and out of them PW1 to PW8 were examined and got marked exhibit P1 to P12.

The case of prosecution is that on 01.02.2023 at about 4.30pm near Jagananna Smart City on the left side of the road in front of the deceased

Chitra Sivaiah bike, the accused coming from Dharmavaram direction drove 4 his bike at high speed with rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased bike, as a result the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries on his back side of head and died on the spot. And that accused has committed an offence punishable under section 304(A) of IPC.

11.PW.1 Chitra Obulesu defacto complainant,PW.2 Chitra Revathi,

PW3-Chitra Peddakka, PW4 B. Ramanjineyulu, PW5-P.Musalappa and PW6-

Sake Kullayappa, who are relatives and who are eye witness to the said accident categorically deposed in one word that they do not know the accused and do not know on whose negligence the accident was occurred. As the said witnesses turned hostile they denied the suggestion that one year back on one day they received phone call that Deceased Sivaiah met with an accident and died on the spot. At this stage as PW1 to PW6 turned hostile learned APP sought permission to cross examined them and same was accorded by the court.

12.PW1 to PW6 in their cross examination denied the suggestion that they know how the deceased died and that they are deposing false as they compromised with the accused. Exhibit P1 to exhibit P6 are 161 statements of

PW1 to PW6 respectively. They all turned hostile and they did not supported the case of prosecution.

13.PW-7/ Keshava Naik who is the inquest witness to the dead body of the deceased deposed that about one year back on one day himself, LW9 &

LW11 went to the Government Hospital, Dharmavaram. There, Dharmvaram

Rural police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Chitra

Sivaiah and prepared Inquest report. He identified his signature on the inquest report dt:02.02.2023. Ex.P7 is the signature of PW7 in the inquest report dt:02.02.2023. He further stated that he do not know the manner in which accident tookplace and except that he do not know anything about the present case.

14.PW8 Head Constable deposed that PW1 came to police station gave a written complaint, basing on Ex.P1 he registered a case in 5

Cr.No.11/2023 for the offence U/S.304(A) of IPC and issued FIR i.e. Ex.P8. He further deposed that he rushed to scene of offence and visited the scene of offence and found the deceased dead body and held inquest over the dead body of deceased and Ex.P9 is inquest report, he arrested the accused and after obtaining sufficient sureties he released accused on station bail.

Subsequently, he handover the dead body to PHC, DMM filed charge sheet against the accused.

15.PW 8 in his cross examination deposed that accident tookplace on 01.2.2023 at 4.30 pm at Jaganna Smart City situated at Gollapalli to Maruru road. He further deposed that PW1 was not present at the scene of offence on the date of accdient. He further denied the suggestion that he did not examine any witnesses and not recorded their statements and he has done table investigation from the police station. He denied the suggestion that false case was registered against the accused for claim of insurance.

16. As could be seen from the evidence the fact of occurrence of accident is undisputed but the question is on whose act and on whose negligence the said accident is occurred. The very question of accused being the responsible is doubtful as PW1 to PW6 who are material witnesses and eye witnesses did not identified the accused and turned hostile to prosecution case.

17.Further there is no evidence on record to prove that accused is responsible for the said accident and the mere allegation of the prosecution that due to rash and negligent act of the accused the accident occurred does not establish the guilt of the accused.

18.No evidence is adduced before this court to prove that the accused is responsible for the accident and that the same was occurred due to rash or negligent act of accused. As the witnesses who are alleged eye witnesses to the said accident resiled from their earlier statement by saying that they do not know anything about the said accident, this court feels it unsafe to convict the accused based on the sole testimony of the PW8 who is investigating officer. Except PW8 all other witnesses i.e.PW1 who lodged report before 6 police and PW4 to PW6 who are alleged eye witnesses to the said accident completely turned hostile.

19.Taking the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, the above evidence casts heavy doubt on prosecution version and does not inspire any confidence of this court. Solely relying on the interested testimony of PW8 it is not safe to give conviction. Since there is no iota of evidence against the accused, this court is of view that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as such he is entitled for acquittal on benefit of doubt.

20.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304(A) of IPC and consequently, he is acquitted under section 255(1)Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. for preferring appeal to the higher court.

Typed to my dictation to my Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 13th day of December, 2024.

Sd/- K.Ramya Sai,

FAC-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Dharmavaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1 : Chitra Obulesu -None- PW.2 : Chitra Revathi PW.3 : Chitra Peddakka PW.4 : B.Ramanjineyulu PW.5 : P.Musalappa PW.6 : Sake Kullayappa PW.7 : D.Kesava Naik PW.8 : P.Venkatesulu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 : Sec.161(3) CrPC statement of PW1

Ex.P2 : Sec.161(3) CrPC statement of PW2

Ex.P3 : Sec.161(3) CrPC statement of PW3

Ex.P4 : Sec.161(3) CrPC statement of PW4 7

Ex.P5 : Sec.161(3) CrPC statement of PW5

Ex.P6 : Sec.161(3) CrPC statement of PW6

Ex.P7 : Signature of PW7 on inquest report.

Ex.P8 : First Information Report

Ex.P9 : Inquest Report

Ex.P10:Rough Sketch

Ex.P11:Post Mortem Report

Ex.P12:Scanned copy of Accident Inspector Report

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

M.Os. MARKED

-NIL- ID/-K.R.S.,

FAC-A.J.M.F.C.

// True Copy //

FAC-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram Dharmavaram //Dh 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU

Calendar cases tried by the Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram.

Date of

OffenceReportApprehensionReleased onCommence-Close of trialSentence of Accusedbailment of trial 01.02.2302.02.23-----28.11.2411.12.202413.12.2024

Judgment in C.C.No.47/2024 on the file of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram.

Complainant :: Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharmavaram Rural Police Station.

Cr.No:11/2023

Sl. Name of the AgeFather’s NameCallingResidenceMandal No.Accused 1K.Mohan33 Late ----D.No.3-66, KukkalapalleAnanthapura yrsK.Kondappavillage of mu Ananthapuramu Rural mandal

Offence :- U/secs. 304(A) of Indian Penal Code

Finding :- Accused found not guilty.

Sentence :- In the result, accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable U/section.304-A of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted U/s 255(1) CrPC for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. for their appearance before the Honorable Appellate Court as and when directed.

Sd/- K.Ramya Sai,

FAC-ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DHARMAVARAM.

Submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu

Dis No. Dt.

// True Copy //

FAC-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram //