Smt M.Anuradha

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: ONGOLE

PRESENT : SMT. M.ANURADHA,

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE.

Thursday, the 16th day of August, 2018.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.144/2017

BETWEEN :

Union Bank of India, Body Corporate,

Constituted under banking companies (Acquisition and transfer of understandings) Act, 1970 and having its head office at 239, Vidhana Bhavan Marg,

Nariman point,Munbai and Branch office amount other places at Ravinuthala Branch,

Prakasam District,AP and is being represented by its Senior Manager. … PLAINTIFF

A N D

1. Bysani Satyanarayana, s/o Anjaneyulu, aged about 45 years, r/o Pamidipadu village,

Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Ravi Rangaiah Cold Storage Private Limited,

Naguluppalapadu, Represented by its Director,

R. Haribabu, s/o Rangaiah, aged about 56 years,

Naguluppalapadu village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. G.Venubabu, s/o Ramarao, Managing Director,

Ravi Rangaiah Cold Storage Private Limited,

Naguluppalapadu village and Mandal, Prakasam District. … DEFENDANTS

This suit coming on 10-08-2018 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Pitchaiah, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri P.

Haribabu, Advocate for 1st defendant, defendants 2 and 3 having remained exparte, and upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court delivered the following ; 2 // J U D G M E N T //

01.The suit filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of Rs.2,84,991/- being the principal and interest due on loan agreement and demand promissory note dt. 24.3.2011 and for costs.

02.The brief facts of the plaint are as follows : It is averred in the plaint that on 24.03.2011 1st defendant availed loan of Rs.9,94,000/- by pledging goods kept in the cold storage of 2nd defendant vide goods No.41 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 9.50% per annum to the plaintiff bank. It is averred that the 2nd defendant stood as guarantor to the 1st defendant, with joint and several liability and executed deed of liability in favour of the plaintiff bank. The 1st defendant executed a debt acknowledgment for

Rs.1,80,034/- on 23.3.2014. It is averred that the plaintiff bank demanded the defendants to discharge the debt, but the defendants postponed the same for which the plaintiff bank got issued legal notice on 03.09.2016 demanding to discharge the entire amount with interest, but the defendants failed to discharge the said loan. Hence the plaintiff bank filed this suit against defendnts 1 and 2 and also against the 3rd defendant, who is

Managing Director of 2nd defendant company and he is a proforma party.

03.The defendants 2 and 3 remained exparte. The 1st defendant filed written statement by denying the pleadings in the plaint. The 1st defendant in his written statement stated that he obtained loan from the plaintiff bank as introduced by the 2nd defendant, who is the owner of cold storage. The 1st defendant also admits the tripatate agreement in between the plaintiff and the defendants. Further stated that the 1st defendant stored 3 the agricultural produce with the 2nd defendant to the knowledge of the plaintiff bank and it is incumbent duty of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant, that the stored stock to be safe guarded. It is avereed that the plaintiff suppressed the facts about the existence of the stock in the custody of the 2nd defendant or not. It is further stated that the plaintiff bank filed criminal case against the 2nd defendant alleging that the 2nd defendant lifted the stock without the knowledge of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and thereby committed fraud. The 1st defendant denied the renewal of the loan in the year 2014 and denied the signatures in the loan confirmation letter. The 1st defendant disputes the jurisdiction of this court, that the entire loan transaction occurred at Ravinuthala village, Korisapadu Mandal, which is not in the jurisdiction of this court. The 1st defendant also disputes the loan documents as they are unstamped documents and they are fabricated brought into existence for the purpose of filing this suit. The 1st defendant also averred that the debit balance confirmation is not obtained from him on 23.3.2014 and it is fabricated and forged document. Thus the 1st defendant prays to dismiss the suit.

04.Basing on the pleadings of both sides, the following issues have been settled for trial :

1. Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for suit claim as prayed for ?

2. To what relief ?

05.During the course of trial, the Manager of the plaintiff bank is examined as PW1 by filing his chief affidavit and exhibited Ex.A1 to A11.

4

06.After closure of the plaintiff evidence the 1st defendant was examined as DW.1 and no documents are marked. Defendants 2 and 3 having remained exparte.

07.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the 1st defendant. The learned counsel for the 1st defendant also filed written arguments.

08. Issue No. 1 :

There is no dispute to the fact that the plaintiff bank sanctioned loan of Rs. 9,94,000/- to the 1st defendant on 24.3.2011. The evidence of PW.1 is that in view of the recommendations made by 2nd defendant the plaintiff bank sanctioned the above said loan to the 1st defendant. There is also no dispute to the fact that the 1st defenant pledged total 1020 bags of bengalgram which was stored in the cold storage of 2nd defendant on 23.3.2011 under goods receipt No.41. Thus as per the recommendations of the 2nd defendant the plaintiff bank sanctioned the above said loan to the 1st defendant and the same is also admitted by the 1st defendant in his written statement. There is also no dispute to the fact the 2nd defendant lifted the above said 1020 bags of bengalgram which was stored in the 2nd defendant cold storage without the knowledge of the plaintiff bank. As per the contention of PW.1, the 2nd defendant in collusion with 1st defendant illegally delivered and transferred the said stock by violating the terms and conditions of the loan documents without discharging the loan.

However in the cross examination PW.1 clearly admits that as per the tripartite agreement an agency by name NCML was appointed to safe guard 5 the stock pledged in the cold storage on behalf of the plaintiff bank. PW.1 also admits that they lodged a report for unauthorised lifting of stock in the 2nd defendant cold storage. Admittedly the 1st defendant is not arrayed as one of the accused in the said criminal case.

09.Thus if really the 2nd defednant in collusion with the 1st defendant lifted the stock to deprive the plaintiff bank to recover the loan, the plaintiff bank might have impoleaded the 1st defendant as one of the accused in the criminal case lodged against 2nd defendant. Even otherwise admittedly there is security agency appointed by the plaintiff bank to safeguard the stock pledged with the 2nd defendant cold storage. In such a case the plaintiff's contention that without the consent and without knowledge of the said security. The 1st defendant in collusion with the 2nd defendant lifted the stock is not believable.

The evidence of 1st defendant/DW.1 is that the 2nd defendant is liable to pay the loan amount of the plaintiff bank since the stock of 1020 bags stored him in the cold storage of 2nd defendant was not either delivered to plaintiff bank or to the 1st defendant.

10.DW.1 further testified that the entire loan transaction took place at Ravinuthala village, which is within the jurisdiction of Addanki, but not within the jurisdiction of this court. However admittedly the 2nd defendant cold storage is situated at Naguluppalapadu village, which is within the jurisdiction of this court. Thus this court is having jurisdiction.

11.The plaintiff bank filed total 11 documents to support their case which were marked as Exs.A1 to Ex.A11. Ex.A1 is the goods storage bond receipt No.41 dt.23.3.2011. There is no dispute about Ex.A1. Ex.A1 discloses that DW.1 stored total 1020 bags of JJ-11 value on the

Rs.16,57,500/-. Ex.A2 is the pledge agreement dt. 24.3.2011 executed by 6 the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank. The letter of undertaking dt.

24.3.2011 is marked as Ex.A3 issued by the 2nd defendant. As per the contention of Pw.1 the 2nd defendant gave the said letter of undertaking to the plaintiff bank agreeing not to deliver or to transfer the goods pledged to the bank without written consent of the plaintiff bank and further undertake to indemnify the bank against any loss to the bank. Thus Ex.A3 is the crucial document for which the 2nd defendant is answerable for lifting of the stock without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff bank and the 2nd defendant is liable to indemnify the bank for the loss caused for such missing. As per the evidence of PW.1 the 1st defendant also executed a demand promissory note for an amount of Rs.9,94,000/- together with interest as per the changing bank rate or such other rates as may be prescribed by the bank from time to time with a minuimum of 9-50% PER ANNUM with half yearly rates on 24.3.2011. To prove the same PW.1 filed Ex.A4/ demand promissory note dt. 24.3.2011. However no separate consideration was passed under Ex.A4. As per the evidence of PW.1 the 2nd defendant stood as guarantor to the 1st defendant with joint and several liability and executed a deed of guarantee in favour of the plaintiff bank on 24.3.2011. To prove the same Pw.1 filed Ex.A5/ deed of guarantee executed by the 2nd defendant. As per the evidence of PW.1 the defendants entered into tripartate agreement with the plaintiff bank on 24.3.2011. Ex.A11 is the tripartate agreement dt.

24.3.2011. Ex.A11 is marked subject to objection raised by the learned counsel for 1st defendant with regard to the stamp duty. The learned counsel for the 1st defendant argued that Ex.A11 is not admissible for want of stamp duty. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that since the said agreement relates to agricultural produce stamp duty is not required. As Ex.A3 is a collateral document the objection raised by the learned counsel for the 1st defendant is hereby ruled out.

7

12.As per the evidence of Pw.1 the 1st defendant failed to dischrge the debt for which his account was clasified as NPA account on 31.03.2013 and on 23.03.2014 the 1st defendant executed debit balance confirmation by acknowledging the outstanding debt of Rs.1,80,034/- interest debited up to 23.03.2014. To prove the same the plaintiff filed Ex.A6/Debit balance confirmation letter dt.23.3.2014. Though DW.1 disputes his signature and date of execution of Ex,.A6, no such evidence let on record to disprove Ex.A6.

13.Further PW.1 testified that they got issued legal notice to the defendants demanding them to discharge the entire debt with interest. In proof of the same the plaintiff bank filed Ex.A7/office copy of legal notice dt.

03.09.2016 and the postal receipts under Ex.A8 and Ex.9. The legal notice send by the plaintiff bank to the defendants are not in dispute. Further PW.1 testified that 1st defendant he is liable to pay the outstanding balance of Rs.

2,84,991/- as on 25.2.2017 to the plaintiff bank and to pay the subsequent interest and for such other costs and 2nd defendant is also jointly and severally liable for the above said dues. PW.1 testified that they are not claiming any reliefs against 3rd defendant as he being the Managing Director of 2nd defendant, is added as proforma party to the suit proceedings. To prove outstanding dues, the plaintiff bank filed Ex.A10/Extract copy of statement of account of the 1st defendant. The oral testimony of Pw.1 and the documents marked through PW.1, who is the Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank clearly disclode that the 2nd defendant recommended the 1st defendant to provide loan to him basing on the stock stored by the 1st defendant in the 2nd defendant cold storage. The evidence of DW.1 is that the 2nd defendant lifted stock without his knowledge and without knowledge of the plaintiff bank illegally and thus the 2nd defendant committed fraud and it is the duty of the plaintiff bank to claim dues against the 2nd defendant only. On perusal of 8 recitals of Ex.A3, the 2nd defendant gave undertaken to the plaintiff bank which reads as follows :

We undertake and agree not to deliver ortransfer or part “ with any of the goods held under trust for the 'Bank' to any of the specified borrowers of the Bank or to their representatives or agents at any time except with the written consent and authorisation of the officials of the Bank for release of the specified goods. We accept, acknowedge and recognise first charge of the Bank over the goods.

We undertake to agree to comprehensively insure the cold “ storage plant including the stocks stored/deposited with us against any loss caused/ to be caused due to theft, burglary, fire riot etc., as psecified in the agreement between the bank and the coldstorage unit. “

Thus as per Ex.A3 the 2nd defendant has to indemnify the loss and the 2nd defendant is answerable for missing of the stock stored by the 1st defendant in their cold storage. Therefore the plaintiff bank is having right to recover the loan amount from the 2nd defendant by taking necessary steps, but not against defendants 1 and 3. Accordingly this issue is answered.

14.Issue No.2 :

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.2,84,991/-(Rupees two lakhs eighty four thousand nine hundred and ninety one only) against the 2nd defendant with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on suit amount of Rs.2,84,991/-.

9

The suit against defendants 1 and 3 is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer of this court, transcribed

by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 16th day of August, 2018.

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

// Appendix of evidence //

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendants :

PW1 : Jinka Balaji. DW.1 : Bysani Satyanarayana.

Documents marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 : goods Receipt No.41 dt.23.03.2011.

Ex.A2 : Pledge agreement dt. 24.03.2011.

Ex.A3 : Letter of undertaking dt. 24.3.2011.

Ex.A4 : Demand promissory note dt.24.3.2011.

Ex.A5 : Deed of guarantee dt. 24.3.2011.

Ex.A6 : Debit balance confirmationletter dt. 23.3.2014.

Ex.A7 : Office copy of legalnotice with postal acknoweldgment dt. 03.09.2016.

Ex.A8 : Postal receipt of 1st defendant.

Ex.A9 : Postal receipt of 2nd defendant.

Ex.A10 : Extract copy of statement of Account of 1st defendant.

Ex.A11 : tripartite agreement dt. 24.3.2011.

For Defendants : NIL.

III A.J.C.J., Ongole

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: ONGOLEI

,PRESENT : SMT. M.ANURADHA

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE.

Thursday, the 16th day of August, 2018.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.144/2017

BETWEEN :

Union Bank of India, Body Corporate,

Constituted under banking companies (Acquisition and transfer of understandings) Act, 1970 and having its head office at 239, Vidhana Bhavan Marg,

Nariman point,Munbai and Branch office amount other places at Ravinuthala Branch,

Prakasam District,AP and is being represented by its Senior Manager. … PLAINTIFF

A N D

1. Bysani Satyanarayana, s/o Anjaneyulu, aged about 45 years, r/o Pamidipadu village,

Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Ravi Rangaiah Cold Storage Private Limited,

Naguluppalapadu, Represented by its Director,

R. Haribabu, s/o Rangaiah, aged about 56 years,

Naguluppalapadu village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. G.Venubabu, s/o Ramarao, Managing Director,

Ravi Rangaiah Cold Storage Private Limited,

Naguluppalapadu village and Mandal, Prakasam District. … DEFENDANTS

The suit filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of Rs.2,84,991/- being the

principal and interest due on loan agreement and demand promissory note dt.

24.3.2011 and for costs.

Cause of Action :The cause of action for the suit arose on 24.03.2011, when the plaintiff bank sanctioned Rs.9,94,000/- to the 1st defendant and when the D 1 availed the loan amount by executing demand promissory note to the said amount on the same day, and when D2 executed letter of undertaking, guarantee agreement on the sameday and when D1 and

D2 entered into tripartite agreement with the plaintiff's bankon thesame day for due discharge of the said loan with joint and several liabilities, and when D1 executed acknowledgment of debton 23.3.2014 for the outstanding debt and when the defendants failed to discharge the loan amount and where D2 cold storage situated within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court.

VALUATION : For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued at Rs.2,84,991/-, on which a court fee of Rs.5,326/- is paid

U/Sec. 20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

Plaint presented on : 15-03-2017 and filed on : 30-03-2017.

This suit coming on 10-08-2018 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Pitchaiah, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri P. Haribabu,

Advocate for 1st defendant, defendants 2 and 3 having remained exparte, and upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court doth order and decree ; i.that the 2 nd defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,84,991/-

with subsequent interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date

of suit i.e. 15.03.2017 till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate

of 6 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization on

the suit amount of Rs.2,84,991/-;

ii. that the suit against defendants 1 and 3 be and the same are hereby

dismissed ; and

iii. that the 2 nd defendant do also pay to the plaintiff bank a sum of

Rs.15,283/- and 1 st defendant do bear his own costs of Rs.10,202/-

towards costs of the suit .

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 16th day of

August, 2018.

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

TABLE OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR 1st DEFENDANT

Stamp on vakalath...................Rs. 2-00 2-00

Stamp on plaint........................ 5,326-00 ----

Stamp on process.................... 55-00 ---

Advocate fee............................ 9,900-0010,100-00

Type charges............................. ---- 100-00

-----------------------------------

TOTAL..... Rs.15,283-0010,202-00

----------------------------------

III A.J.C.J., Ongole

Note: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are marked

have to be taken back by the parties concerned with in the stipulated time with

an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS, ONGOLE.

Present: Smt.M.Anuradha III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole

Thursday, this the 16th day of August, 2018

Calendar Case No. 132/2017 Between: STATE: Sub-Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluq Police Station. … Complainant

And

Pallepati Mastan S/o Peddabbaie, aged 26years, Caste by Rajaka R/o Gopalngar, 4th lane, Ongole

Driver of AP 27TY 5903 Auto ...Accused

This Criminal case is coming on 13-8-2018 for hearing before me in the presence of Asst., Public Prosecutor for State/Complainant and of Sri N.Srinivasa Rao Advocate for accused and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

// Judgment //

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluq Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.763/2016 for the offence punishable under sections 304-A of IPC

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

On 21-11-2016 at about 9-00 A.M one R.Venkata Rao (herein after referred as the deceased) boarded an auto bearing No.AP 27TY 5903 (herein after referred as the crime vehicle ) for hire. The accused is the driver of the said crime vehicle, the deceased and the accused left Ongole at about 9-00 A.M in the above said crime vehicle and went to Vaviletipadu village and the deceased purchased vegetables and loaded in the crime vehicle; the accused allowed the deceased to sat beside him during their return journey to the said village to Ongole. When the crime vehicle reached

Cheruvukommupalem village cross road on NH-5, at about 3-00 P.M the accused being the driver of the crime vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed 2

As a result the deceased who was sleeping besides the accused in the said crime vehicle fell down from the auto and sustained bleeding head injuries. Later the deceased was shifted to Sangamitra Hospital, Ongole and from there he was shifted to Narayana

Medical college for treatment. On receipt of hospital intimation L.w12- recorded the statement of L.W1-P.Sandeep and registered it case in Cr.No.763/2016 for the offence

U/sec.337 of IPC on 23-11-2016. L.w12-Shaik Jilani Basha visited the scene of offence and examined the available witness and drafted scene observation report and the rough sketch of the scene of offence, and later L.W13-B.Venkateswarlu took up investigation in this case and received death intimation from Narayana medical college, Nellore on 23-11-2016 and altered the section of law from 337 of IPC to 304-A of IPC. L.W13-

B.Venkateswarlu held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the above said hospital and examined the witnesses. L.W11-B.Gopinaik inspected the crime vehicle and issued report. On 10-12-2016 L.W13-B.Venkateswarlu served 41-A Cr.P.C notices against the accused. After completion of investigation L.W14-P.Suresh filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec.304-A of IPC.

3.This court took cognizance of offences u/sec.304-A of IPC against the accused. After appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4. Accused was examined u/sec.251 of Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation for the offence U/sec.304-A of IPC against accused was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined 3 altogether four witnesses i.e., Pw.1 to P.W7 and got marked Ex.P.1 and Ex.P12.

6.After completion of the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined

U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., for the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses against him, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences U/sec.304-A of IPC the accused beyond reasonable doubt ?”

9. To bring a case of homicide under Section, 304-A I.P.C, the prosecution must prove the following conditions , namely,

1. There must be death of the person in question;

2. the accused must have caused such death; and

3. that such act of the accused was rash or negligent and that it did not amount to culpable homicide.

10.P.W1 is son of the deceased. P.W2 is the wife of the deceased. The evidence of P.W1 and P.W2 is that on 21-11-2016 at about 9-00 A.M the deceased and the accused went to Ongole for purchasing vegetables in the auto of the accused. P.W1 and P.W2 testified that on the same day at about 4-00 P.M the accused made phone call from the mobile of the deceased and informed that about the accident caused to the deceased.

P.W1 and P.W2 testified that they rushed to the Sangamitra Hospital, Ongole and found the deceased in an unconscious stage and from there the deceased was shifted to

Narayana Hospital, Nellore for better treatment. P.W1 and P..W2 further testified that two days later the accident the deceased died due to injuries received in this accident.

4

11.Ex.P1 is the statement of P.W1 dt. 21-11-2016 which initiated FIR under

Ex.P7 in Cr.No. 763/2016 for the offence U/sec. 337 of IPC. As per the evidence of

P.W7 investigating officer it was on 23-11-2016, they received death intimation of the deceased and altered the section of law from 337 of IPC to 304-A of IPC and issued

Ex.P8/alteration memo. On that information of the deceased death intimation is marked as Ex.P9. P.W1 and P.W2 are not the eyewitness to this accident. P.W1 and P.W2 are only hear say witnesses. Their evidence about the manner of the accident being hear say is not admissible. Even the evidence of P.W1 and P.W2 that the accused made a phone call from the mobile number of the deceased soon after the accident to the sister of P.W1 by name Pravallika is also not proved. The investigating officer not examined the daughter of the deceased by name Pravallika and not seized the call data. The evidence of P.W3 is that in his presence police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and observed the scene of offence by examining P.W3. The prosecution at best proved the presence of P.W3 during the inquest held over the dead body of the deceased and observation the scene of offence. The prosecution at best proved that in the presence of P.W3 the investigating officer held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and they have prepared Ex.P2/inquest report . The prosecution further proved from the evidence of P.W3 that the investigating officer visited the scene of offence and observed the same and prepared Ex.P3/Scene observation report. The evidence of P.W3 and Ex.P3 disclose that the scene of offence is bye pass road near Cheruvukommupalem, fly over. The apparent cause of death of deceased as deposed by P.W3 is due to injuries received in road traffic accident. Admittedly, in Ex.P2 it is mentioned that the deceased was sleeping in the auto by the time of the accident. It is also an admitted fact that there are speed breakers near the scene of offence. If it is so the contention of the prosecution 5 that the crime vehicle proceeded in a speed manner near the scene of offence is not believable.

12.The prosecution further examined P.W4 to P.W6 alleged eyewitness in this case. P.W4 to P.W6 totally denied the prosecution case and pleaded ignorance about the facts of this case as such P.W4 to P.W6 were declared as hostile during their cross examination by the learned APP. P.W4 to P.W6 denied their previous 161 Cr.P.C statement which were marked as Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 respectively.

13.P.W7 is one the investigating officer in this case. P.W7 deposed about the lines of investigation that they held inquest over the dead body of the deceased at

Medical College, Nellore and he received Ex.P10/postmortem report of the deceased.

Ex.P11/rough sketch of the scene of offence. The evidence of P.W7 is that the crime vehicle is seized from the scene of offence. However, the scene observation report under Ex.P3 and the rough sketch under Ex.P11 not disclosed about the presence of crime vehicle at the scene of offence and its seizure from the scene of offence. Even

P.W3 one of the mediator to the scene observation report, not deposed about the presence and the alleged seizure of crime vehicle from the scene of offence. Thus the evidence of P.W7 about the seizure of the crime vehicle from the scene of offence is in inconsistent with Ex.P3 and Ex.P11 and not corroborated by the mediator/P.W3. Thus the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of the crime vehicle from the scene of offence.

14. Further the evidence of P.W7 is that on his requisition Motor vehicle inspector inspected the crime vehicle and issued Ex.P12/MVI Report does not carry any weightage to the prosecution case. Even as per the prosecution case, the deceased 6 himself fell down from the crime vehicle while he was sleeping sitting besides the driver. Admittedly, P.W7 not saw the crime vehicle and as such he failed describe the said vehicle. Whether it is good transport or passenger transport vehicle. As per the prosecution case and as per the contents of Ex.P1, the accused himself shifted the deceased to Sangamitra Hospital in the crime vehicle soon after the accident. However, the hospital intimation enclosed to Ex.P1/statement disclose that the deceased was brought by P.W1 to the said hospital. On perusal of the contents of Ex.P1 it appears that the register number of the crime vehicle was added as superscript with separate pen and there is over writing against the said vehicle number. Admittedly the investigating officer not seized any documents of the crime vehicle to prove the nexus between the said vehicle and the accused. Even the investigating officer not chosen to examine the one M. Malyadri, the owner of the said crime vehicle. Thus except the self serving statement of investigating officer none of the prosecution independent witnesses supported the prosecution case to prove the alleged offence against the accused. Thus the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.In result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec304-A of IPC. Accordingly accused is acquitted u/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this

Judgment as per Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C. No property order is passed since no property is produced in this case.

Dictated to the personal Assistant corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court,

this the 16 th day of August, 2018.

Sd/-M.Anuradha

III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole 7 // APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // Witnesses Examined

For ProsecutionFor Defence PW.1: R.SandeepNone Pw.2: R.AnuradhaNone P.W3: B.Chiranjeevi P.W4: G.Brahmaiah P.W5: G.Govindamma P.W6: Shaik Allabakashu P.W7: V.Venkateswarlu

Documents Marked

For Prosecution Ex.P1: Statement of P.W1 Ex.P2: inuqest Ex.P3: Scene observation Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W4 Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P..W5 Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W6 Ex.P7: FIR Ex.P8: Alteration memo Ex.P9: Death intimation Ex.P10: Post mortem report Ex.P11: Rough sketch Ex.P12: MVI report

For Defence : - NIL - Material objects marked -NIL

Sd/-M.A.R

III-AJMFC

ONGOLE

Copy Submitted to The Hon'ble I Addl. District Judge, Ongole for favour of information. Copy to The Superintendent of Police, Ongole for information.

// True copy //

III-Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I-Class Ongole 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN CC.NO.132/2017 THE FILE OF III-ADDL. JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ONGOLE.

1. Date of offence:23-11-2016

2. Date of Complaint/report : 23-11-2016

3. Date of appearance of accused :14-06-2017

4. Date of release of accused on bail :----

5. Date of commencement of trial : 27-07-2018

6. Date of closure of the trial : 13-08-2018

7. Date of judgment : 16-08-2018 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Complainant : State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluq P.S

9. Description of the accused :- Pallepati Mastan S/o Peddabbaie, aged 26years, Caste by Rajaka R/o Gopalngar, 4th lane, Ongole Driver of AP 27TY 5903 Auto Deceased : Rapineedi Vinod Rao, s/o Venkata Rao aged 48 years. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Offence/charge: U/sec.304-A of IPC

11. Plea of accused : Not guilty

12. Finding of the Court : Found Not Guilty

13. Sentence or Order :

In result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec304-A of IPC. Accordingly accused is acquitted u/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment as per Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C. No property order is passed since no property is produced in this case.

14. Explanation for the delay :

The case was taken on file on 19.04.2017 for the offences u/sec.304-A of IPC against the accused. On 14.6.2017 copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required u/sec.207 Cr.P.C and on 06.04.2018 accused was examined u/sec.251 Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation for the offence punishable u/sec.304-A IPC read over and explained the same in Telugu to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Case is adjourned from time to time. During the course of trial i.e.,from 27.7.2018 to 13.8.2018 Pw.1 to PW.7 were examined, and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P12. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined 9 u/sec.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses against him, on the same day heard the arguments of both sides and posted for judgment. 16-8-2018 Judgment pronounced, acquitting the accused, Hence, the delay. III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Ongole.

// True copy //Sd/-M.Anuradha III-Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole

Copy Submitted to The Hon'ble I Addl. District Judge, Ongole for favour of information. Copy to The Superintendent of Police, Ongole for information.

// True copy //

III-Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I-Class FAC::II-Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I-Class Ongole

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: ONGOLE

PRESENT : SMT. M.ANURADHA,

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE.

Monday, the 20th day of August, 2018.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.402/2017

BETWEEN :

Vellampalli Viswanadham, s/o Subbarayudu, aged 70 years, Hindu, business, r/o South Bazar,Ongole, Adhar No. 461814026494. … PLAINTIFF

A N D

Vema Venkata Krishna Rao, s/o late Guravaiah, aged 50 years, Hindu, Money lending business, r/o Mandiram Bazar, Santhanuthalapadu village and Mandal. … DEFENDANT

This suit coming on 16-08-2018 for hearing before me in the presence of

Sri M. Raghava Rao, Sri R. Kalyana Chakravarthi and P.Vasundhara,

Advocates for Plaintif and of Sri K.V. Rao, Advocate for defendant, and upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court delivered the following ;

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

01.The plaintif filed this suit for reovery of amount of Rs.64,818/- from the defendant basing on the promissory note with interest and for costs.

02.The brief facts of the plaint are as follows : The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintif on 24.05.2013 from one Vema Rama

Devi for his business expenses and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the said Rama Devi to repay the same with interest @ 15% p.a. The said promissory note was executed in the presence of attestor at Santhanuthalapadu village. Later the said Rama Devi personally approached the defendant and 2 requested him to repay the said debt . On that on 11.7.2014 the defendant made a partpayment of Rs.75, 000/- under the above saidpromissory note dt.24.5.2013 and endorsed the same on the back side of the promissory note with his own handing. Subsequently the said Rama Devi requested the defendant to repay the remaining balance debt. However the defendant postponed the same from time to time. On that on 25.6.2017 the said Rama Devi received Rs.30,000/- from the plaintif at Ongole and transferred the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintif by order of endorsement on the back of the promissory note. Later the plaintif approached the defendant and informed about the transfer endorsement of the said promissory note in his favour by Rama Devi and requested the defendant to pay the balance. However the defendant postponed to repay the balance debt . On that on 30..6.2017 the plaintif got issued legalnotice to the defendant demanding him to pay the balance amount, but the defendant though received the notice neither gave any reply nor repay the debt, for which the plaintif filed this suit for recovery of balance debt of Rs.64,818/- with interest and for costs.

03.The defendant filed written statement, The brief facts of the written statement are as follows : It is stated that the said Rama Devi is his elder brother's wife, that the plaintif is the father of the said Rama Devi, that the husband of Rama Devi by name Vema Hanumantha Rao and one Vema

Sathyanarayana, Vema Anka Setty and the defendant are brothers. It is stated that on 21.9.2002 they got partitioned their joint family properties, that in the said partition Venkata Padmavathi Oil Mill was allotted to his share and to one Vema

Ankama Setty’s share. It is stated that on 07.07.2014 Vema Rama Devi received a cheque bearing No. 000110 for Rs.51,500/- drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Ongole 3 branch for Prakasam Zilla Oil Millers, Sankshema Sangham, that the defendant is laso having half of the share in that amount i.e of Rs. 25,750/-. It is stated that on 11.7.2014 the defendant made a part payment of Rs.75,000/- to Vema Rama

Devi under pronote dt. 24.5.2013 and endorsed the same on the back of the pronote by him with his own hand. Thereafter on the demand of the the said

Vema Rama Devi,the defendant paid the balance debt one month after the above said part payment. It is stated that the allegations of the plaintif that on 25.6.2017 Vema Rama Devi received Rs.30,000/- from the plaintif at Ongole and transferred the pronote in favour of the plaintf by order of endorsement on the back of pronote with her own hand are all false, because by that time Vema Rama

Devi resided in USA. The defendant further alleges that the transfer endorsement is false and thereby prays to dismiss the suit.

04.Basing on the pleadings of both sides, the following issues have been settled for trial :

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

2. To what relief ?

05.During the course of trial, the plaintif himself examined as Pw.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the defendant chief affidavits of Dws1 and

DW.2 were filed.However, DW.2 failed to appear for cross examination, for which the evidence of DW.2 is eschewed.

06.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintif. the learned counsel for the defendant not advanced their arguements.

4

07. Issue No. 1 :

PW.1 is the plaintif. PW.1 reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief affidavit filed in view of the chief examination. PW.1 testified that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from Vema Rama Devi for his business expenses and executed demand promissory note. To prove that PW1 filed Ex.A1/ the original promissory note dt. 24.5.2013 executed by the defendants in favour of the Vema Rama Devi for Rs.1,00,000/-. PW.1 testified that the defendant made part payment of Rs.75,000/- on 11.7.2014 to the said Rama Devi and endorsed the same on the back side of the Ex.A1. The said part payment endorsement on

Ex.A1 dt. 11.7.2014 is marked as Ex.A2. The evidence of PW.1 is that he paid

Rs.30,000/- to the said Rama Devi at Ongole, that the said Rama Devi transferred Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintif. The said transfer endorsement in favour of the plaintif dt. 25.6.2017 is marked as Ex.A3. The evidence of PW.1 is that subsequent to the said transfer of Ex.A1, he approached the defendant and requested him to repay the balance, but the defendant postponed the same for which he got issued legal notice to the defendant. To support his plea the plaintif filed Ex.A4/ office copy of legal notice and Ex.A5/postal receipt.

8. In the cross examination PW.1 admits that the said Rama Devi is his daughter. Admittedly the defendant is the brother-in-law of the said Rama Devi.

PW.1 admits that the defendant and the husband of Rama Devi by name

Hanumantha Rao and Ankam Setti are own brothers and they got partitioned their family properties on 21.9.2002 under registered partitioned deed. Pw.1 further admits that Venkata Padmavathi Oil Mill was allotted to the defendant and his elder brother Vema Ankamasetti in the said partition. PW.1 admits that on 07.07.2014 5 his daughter Rama Devi received a cheque for Rs.51,500/- bearing No. 000110 drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank,Ongole branch from Prakasam District Oil Millers

Welfare Association. However PW.1 denied the suggestion that the defendant is entitled for half of the said cheque amount i.e., Rs.25,750/-.

9. There is no dispute about the debt borrowed by the defendant from the daughter of the plaintif under Ex.A1. It is also not in dispute that the defendant paid Rs.75,000/- to the said Rama Devi towards part payment of the debt due and endorsed the same as under Ex.A2. The defence pleaded by the defendant is that one month after the part payment under Ex.A2, he paid the entire balance amount with interest @ 15% per annum to the said Rama Devi at Santhanuthalapadu village,though demanded the said Rama Devi not returned the said promissory note on the pretest that it was misplaced.

10.To prove his defence the defendant is examined as Dw.1 by testifying that the said Rama Devi received cheque for Rs.51,500/- out of which he is entitled for half of amount i.e., Rs.25,750/-. Except his self serving statement about his entitlement for half of the cheque amount, the defendant not adduced either oral or documentary evidence. Even otherwise .the defendant took the plea that he paid the remaining balance one month after the date of part payment under Ex.A2.

However the evidence of DW.1 is not supported by any oral or documentary evidence. If really Dw. 1 paid the remaining balance subsequent to 11.7.2014 he might have obtained at least any receiptfor such payment. If really the daughter of the plaintif failed to return the promissory note even after repayment of the entire debt, the defendant might have issued legal notice for return of the said promissory note. Thus except his self serving statement. There is no other evidence on record to believe that the defendant paid the entire amount due under Ex.A1.

Though the defendant took the plea that the daughter of the plaintif has been residing in USA and the transfer endorsement dt.25.6.2017 in favour of the 6 plaintif is forged one, in his cross examination DW.1 admits that though received legal notice under Ex.A4 he did not choose to give any reply. Section 118 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act lays down the conditions in which the

presumptions shall be made. Under Section 118 (g) there is a

presumption in favour of the plaintiff that he is the holder in due

course unless proved contrary. There is no rebuttal evidence placed by the

defendant to disprove the plaintif's case that the plaintf is not the holder in due course of Ex.A1 which is a Negotiable Instrument. Thus in the absence of any such rebuttal evidence, plaintif's case holds good and the defendant is liable to pay the suit claim. Thus the plaintif is entitled to the suit claim. Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.

11.Issue No.2 :

In the result, suit is decreed with costs for Rs.64,818/- (Rupees sixty four thousand eight hundred eighteen only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of decree till realization on the balance due amount of Rs. 64,818/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer of this court, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 20 th day of August,

2018.

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

// Appendix of evidence //

Witnesses examined

For Plaintif : For Defendant : PW1 : Vellampalli Viswanadham DW.1 : Vema Venkata Krishna Rao. DW.2 : Grandhe Kasi Viswanadham (eschewed) 7

Documents marked

For Plaintif :

Ex.A1 : Original Promissorynote dt. 24.05.2013. Ex.A2 : Part payment endorsement dt. 11.7.2014. Ex.A3 : transfer endorsement dt. 25.6.2017. Ex.A4 : Office copy of legal notice dt.30.06.2017. Ex.A5 : Postal receipt.

For Defendant : NIL.

III A.J.C.J., Ongole

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: ONGOLE

PRESENT : SMT. M.ANURADHA,

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE.

Monday, the 20th day of August, 2018.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.402/2017

BETWEEN :

Vellampalli Viswanadham, s/o Subbarayudu, aged 70 years, Hindu, business, r/o South Bazar,Ongole, Adhar No. 461814026494. … PLAINTIFF

A N D

Vema Venkata Krishna Rao, s/o late Guravaiah, aged 50 years, Hindu, Money lending business, r/o Mandiram Bazar, Santhanuthalapadu village and Mandal. … DEFENDANT

The plaintif filed this suit for reovery of amount of Rs.64,818/- from the defendant basing on the promissory note with interest and for costs.

Cause of Action:The cause of action for the suit arose on 24.5.2013 when the defendant borrowed amount from Vema Rama Devi and executed the suit promissory note in favour of plaintif at Santhanuthalapadu and he made part payment on 11.7.2014 and endorsed on the backof the pronote at Santhanuthalapadu and Ramadevi transferred the pronote to plaintif at Ongole on 25.6.2017 and plaintif demanding him by showing the pronote and transferred endorsement and he promised and on 30.6.2017 when the plaintif got issued lawyer notice at Ongole within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.

VALUATION : For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued at Rs.64,818/-, on which a court fee of Rs.2,706/- is paid U/Sec. 20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act. Plaint presented on : 10-07-2017 and filed on : 11-09-2017.

This suit coming on 16-08-2018 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Raghava Rao, Sri R. Kalyana Chakravarthi and P.Vasundhara, Advocates for Plaintif and of Sri K.V. Rao, Advocate for defendant, and upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court doth order and decree;

i. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.64,818/- with

subsequent interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of

suit i.e. 10.07.2017 till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of

6 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization on the

the balance debt amount of Rs.64,818/-; and

ii. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.6,358/- and

defendant do bear his own costs of Rs.3,697/- towards costs of the

suit .

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 20th day of August, 2018.

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

TABLE OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

Stamp on vakalath...................Rs. 2-00 2-00 Stamp on plaint........................ 2,706-00----- Stamp on process.................... 50-00----- Advocate fee............................ 3,500-003,645-00 Type charges............................. 100-00 50-00

----------------------------------

TOTAL..... Rs.6,358-00Rs.3,697-00

III A.J.C.J., Ongole

Note: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are marked have to be taken back by the parties concerned with in the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ONGOLE.

Present : Smt.M.Anuradha III­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I­Class, Ongole FAC::II­Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I­Class, Ongole Tuesday, this the 14th day of August, 2018.

P.R.C.No.18/2016

(In Crime No.86/2015 of Kothapatnam P.S. ) Between: STATE: Inspector of Police, Ongole II­Town Circle …. Complainant 

 And

Thabeti Krupa Rao S/o Koteswara Rao, aged 35 years, SC Mala by caste, Resident of Harijianawada, Ethamukkala village of Kothapatnam mandal … Accused

Deceased:­ Thabeti Subhashini W/o Krupa Rao, aged 33 years, Ethamukkala village of Kothapatnam mandal 

This case coming on this day for committal before me in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri R.Kesava Rao and N.Veeranjaneyulu Advocates for the Accused and upon perusing the available material on record, this Court made the following:

// O R D E R //

1.The Inspector of Police, Ongole I Town P.S filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.86/2015 for the offence punishable under Sec.498­A, 302 of

IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:

At about 14 years back accused married the deceased by name

T.Subhashini. During their wed lock they blessed with a son L.W2­T.Vikaram and a daughter. The accused was addicted to bad vices of alcohol, making debts and used to harass the deceased by suspecting her fidelity. In the year 2013 the accused along with his family went to Hyderabad for mason work under L.W18­

G.Ramanjaneyulu. The accused was indebted total amount of Rs.60,000/­ to

L.W18­G.Ramanjaneyulu. In the month of Aug, 2014 the accused and deceased returned Ethamaukkala village. Again the accused went to Hyderabad alone and returned Ethamukkala without the notice of L.W18­G.Ramanjaneyulu. The deceased was continued to say in the house of her elder sister L.W3­M.Suneetha due to physical harassment by the accused. The accused send their caste elders to get his wife, for martial life, but L.W3­M.Suneetha did not send the deceased due to fear that the accused would kill the deceased by suspecting her fidelity.

L.W18­G.Ramanajeneyulu locked the house of the accused and erected thorny 2 bushes in order to collect debt amount, in the mediation of L.W16­N.Ramaiah,

L.W17­D.Srinu., but the accused paid Rs.20,000/­ to L.W18­G.Ramanjaneyulu.

In the intervention of the elder L.W7­L.Venkaiah the deceased joined the accused to lead marital life but subject to condition not consume alcohol, not to subject the deceased to cruelty and also to repay the remaining debt amount to L.W18­

G.Ramanjaneyulu. But the deceased did not agree for sexual intercourse with the accused which is another factor that the accused bore the grudge on the deceased and further strengthen suspecting her fidelity and the accused decided to kill the deceased and waiting for an opportunity. While so on 24­12­2015 the accused was about to leave for Ongole and his wife told him that she was going to Kothapatnam to purchase for new clothes. On the same day at 9­00 hrs, the accused alighted auto rickshaw near RIMS Hospital, Ongole. At about 9­30 hrs, the accused noticed that his wife along with L.W9­K.Santhi alighted from an auto rickshaw near RIMS Hospital, Ongole and walked towards Ramnagar,

Ongole The accused was waiting for an opportunity to kill the deceased picked up quarrel with the deceased for going to Ongole instead of Kothapatnam as she said to him earlier in the morning. On that the deceased replied that she did not go to Ongole. On that he bore further suspicion on the fidelity over the deceased. The deceased also quarreled with the accused with regard to non purchase of new clothes on the eve of Christmas festival­2015 . On that the accused grew wild and beat the deceased with a pestle on her shoulder. At about 9­30 P.M the accused gave Rs.100/­ to their son bring egg fried rice. On that

L.W2T.Vikram went to bus stand center, and returned half an hour. At that time the deceased was weeping. On that L.W2­T.Vikram asked her for the reason for her weep, on that the deceased told L.W2­T.Vikaram Your father(accused) had attempted to kill her by pressing her throat in the absence of L.W2­T.Vikaram.

At about 2­00 A.M the deceased was sleeping by tilting to her left side, the accused who was determined to murder her deliberately beat the deceased with a pestle on her right side of the head forcibly with a rage. Then the accused closed her nose, mouth with left hand and pressed her throat with his right hand and arrested her breathe. Due to the sound L.W2­T.Vikaram, suddenly woke up and 3 questioned that what was happened to his mother. On that the accused told

L.W2­T.Vikram that the deceased suffering from cold hence she is gasping and instructed L.w2­T.Vikaram to sleep. After some time the accused confirmed the death of the deceased. Then the accused thrown the wooden pestle into the bushes located on the southern side of his village and absconded from the village. L.W2­T.Vikaram woke up at about 6­00 A.M on 25­12­2015 and tried to wake up the deceased but she did not wake up then he went to village center and made a phone call to his father but the accused phone was got switched off. At about 7­15 hrs, L.W8­V.Seshamma who is the street vendor of fish horridly came to the house of L.W3­M.Suneetha and told her that the deceased was not woke of despite of several calls. On that L.W3­M.Suneetha along with some others rushed to the accused house and found the dead body of the deceased with a severe bleeding injury below the right ear. Then they brought the dead body out of the house and laid it in front of the house. Consequently L.W1­J.Lakshmi

Narayanamma presented a report in Kothapatnam P.S regarding the murder of her daughter. Basing on the report of L.W1­J.Lakshmi Narayanamma, L.W24­

B.Phani Bhushan registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 86/2015 for the offence U/sec.302 of IPC and took up investigation in this case. On merits of investigation L.W25­P.Deva Prabhakar added section 498­A of IPC and filed a memo before the Hon’ble court to that effect. After completion of investigation

L.W25­P.Deva prabhakar filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The case was taken on file under Sec.498­A, 302 of IPC. On appearance of accused copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/sec.207

Cr.P.C.

4.Heard the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

5.As the offence u/sec.498­A, 302 of IPC are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Therefore, the case is committed to the Hon'ble District & Sessions

Court, Ongole as required u/s. 209(a) Cr.P.C.

6. The accused was on bail and he is directed to continue so during and until conclusion of the trial as required u/s.209(b) Cr.P.C. 

4

7. Submit the record to the Court of Sessions, Ongole and material objects, if any when called for as required u/s.209(c ) Cr.P.C.

8. Notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Hon'ble

District & Sessions Court, Ongole as required u/s. 209(d) Cr.P.C.

9. On being questioned by this Hon'ble Court, accused stated that they have means to engage a counsel to defend him.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the14th day of August, 2018

Sd/­M.Anuradha III­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC::II­Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I­Class Ongole // APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // ­ N I L ­

Sd/­M.Anuradha III­AJMFC FAC::II­AJMFC Ongole.

// True copy //

III­Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I­Class FAC::II­Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I­Class, Ongole 5

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ONGOLE. Register Extract in P.R.C.No.18/2016

Number of case:P.R.C.No.18/2016 Name of the :State : Inspector of Police, Kothapatnam P.S complainant Nature of Offence:U/sec.498­A, 302 of IPC Name of the accused:Thabeti Krupa Rao, S/o Koteswara Rao, aged 35 years, Sc Mala by caste, resident of Harijanawada Ethamukkala village of Kothapatnam mandal Substance of :Vide separate committal order. complaint Name of the witnesses :NIL of defence Summary of the facts :Vide separate Committal Order. provedor confessed Result of the enquiry:Committed to the Hon’ble District & Sessions, Court, Ongole. Date of offence:25­12­2015 Date of complaint:25­12­2015 Date of appearance of :14­ 08­2018 accused Date of closing enquiry:­ Explanation of Delay:On this case was taken on file and posted to 20­12­2016 and copies of documents are furnished to him and posted for committal. At this stage case is posted for time to time and posted for committal Finally on 14­08­2018 the case is committed to the

sessions court. Hence, the delay.

Sd/­M.Anuradha III­Addl. Judl .Magistrate of I Class, FAC::II­Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I­Class Ongole.

// True copy //

III­Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I­Class FAC::II­Addl.Judl.Magistrte of I­Class, Ongole 6

IN THE COURT OF THE II­A.J.M.F.C. COURT::ONGOLE.

NOTICE OF COMMITMENT BY THE II­ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I­

CLASS, ONGOLE, TO PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

To The Public Prosecutor, Ongole.

The II­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I­Class, Ongole hereby gives a notice that he has committed the P.R.C.No.18/2016 for trial at the next sessions and the II­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I­Class, Ongole hereby instructs the

Public Prosecutor to conduct the Prosecution of the said case.

The charges against the accused are U/sec. 333 of IPC

Dated this the 14th day of August, 2018.

III­ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I­CLASS, FAC::II­Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I­class ONGOLE.

IN THE COURT OF THE II­A.J.M.F.C. COURT::ONGOLE.

NOTICE OF COMMITMENT BY THE II­ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I­

CLASS, ONGOLE, TO PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

To The Public Prosecutor, Ongole.

7 The II­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I­Class, Ongole hereby gives a notice that he has committed the P.R.C.No.18/2016 for trial at the next sessions and the II­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I­Class, Ongole hereby instructs the

Public Prosecutor to conduct the Prosecution of the said case.

The charges against the accused are U/sec. 333 of IPC

Dated this the 14th day of August, 2018.

III­ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I­CLASS, FAC::II­Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I­class ONGOLE.

 Office of the II­A J.F.C.M., Court, Ongole. Dated: ­08­2018

From To Smt.M.Anuradha The Hon’ble Dist. & Sessions Judge, III­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I­Class, Prakasam District FAC::II­Addl Judl.Magistrate of I­Class Ongole Ongole. 

Honoured Madam, 

Sub: Criminal Cases – Entire Record in PRC.No.18/2016 on the file of II­Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I­Class, Ongole – Submitted – Reg. 

* * * * *

I am submitting herewith the entire case record in PRC.No.18/2016 on the file of this Court after duly indexed which was committed on 14­08­2018.

The accused is directed to appear before the Court of District & Sessions Court for trial of offences, Ongole.

The fact of commitment of the case was also notified to the 

Public Prosecutor, Ongole in this Court’s Dis.No. dated.

All copies of documents together with the committal order are also herewith submitting for being supplied to the Public Prosecutor.

The case property, if any, will be submitted after receipt of intimation from the Hon'ble District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

8

Yours faithfully,

III­Addl. Judl Magistrate of I­Class, FAC::II­Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I­Class Ongole.

1

IN THE COURT OF III­ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ONGOLE

Present :­ Smt. M.Anuradha, III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole

Thursday, the 16th day of August, 2018.

CALENDAR CASE NO.172/2017

(CrIme No.621/2016 of Ongole Taluq P.S.)

BETWEEN :

State : The Sub­Inspector of Police,

Ongole Taluq P.S. .... Complainant

AND

Thatiparthi Sreenu, s/o China Kotaiah, aged 38 years, caste by madiga,

r/o Balaram Colony, Ongole. .... Accused

This case is coming on 16­08­2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of In­charge Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant and accused appeared in person, and upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluq P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec. 309 of I.P.C in Crime No.621/2016 of Ongole Taluq

P.S.

2. The prosecution case is that LW.2­ Thatiparthi Mastanamma is the wife of the accused. They are having three children and residing at Ongole. The accused being addicted to alcohol, neglected the family, on that LW.2­ Thatiparthi

Mastanamma and her mother LW.1­ Thatiparthi Prabhavathi chastised the accused,due to which the accused mentally depressed and consumed insecticide poison and was admitted in RIMS Hospital, Ongole on 17.9.2017. On receipt of hospital intimation the SHO, Ongole Taluq PS recorded the statement of the accused. In the said hospital and registered it as a case in Cr.No. 621/2016 u/sec.309 IPC by issuing FIR. During the course of investigation on 25.02.2017 the SHO,

Ongole Taluq police station served 41­A Cr.P.C notice against the accused. After 2 completion of investigation the SHO, Ongole taluq police station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/sec.309 IPC for admitting to commit suicide.

3.This case was taken on cognizance for the offence U/Sec. 309 of I.P.C.

against the accused. On receipt of summons accused appeared before this court and copies of all documents were furnished to him as required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. 

4.Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation for the offence U/Sec.309 of I.P.C. , against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu language. Accused pleaded not guilty to the offence and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of it's case the prosecution PW.1 examined and got marked Ex.P1.

6.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the examination u/sec. 313 is dispensed as there is no incriminating evidence in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against him.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec. 309 of I.P.C., beyond reasonable doubt ?

09.The evidence of PW.1 is that her marriage was performed with the accused in the year 1998 and they were blessed with three children out of the wedlock. PW.1 further testified that about one year back on one day the accused by mistake consumed some liquid kept in the cool drink bottle at their house. PW.1 further testified that the accused never committed suicide and some of the police obtained thumb impression in the said hospital. As PW.1 resiled from her previous 161

Cr.P.C statement she is declared as hostile. In the cross examination by APP, PW.1 3 denied his previous 161 Cr.P.C statement, which is marked as Ex.P1. As PW.1 one of the material witness turned hostile the prosecution case the learned APP has given up the remaining prosecution witness. Thus there is no evidence on record that the accused intentionally consumed insecticide poison to commit suicide contains to commit suicide u/sec. 309 IPC. Thus the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/sec.309 IPC.

10.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 309 of I.P.C. Accordingly, accused is acquitted U/Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. No property order is passed since no property is produced in this case.

Dictated to Stenographer of this court, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 16 th day of August, 2018. 

Sd/­M. Anuradha

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, 

Ongole.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution : For Defence :

PW1 : Thatiparthi Prabhavathi. ­ None ­

Documents Marked

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1.

For Defence : Nil ­

Material Objects Marked

­NIL­

Sd/­M.A.R III A.J.F.C.M., Ongole // True copy //

III­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.

4

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN Calendar Case No.172/2017 ON THE FILE OF III­ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ONGOLE

1. Date of offence:16.09.2016

2. Date of Complaint/report: 17.09.2017

3. Date of apprehension of accused :25.02.2017

4. Date of release of accused on bail: 41­A notice

5. Date of commencement of trial: 16­08­2018

6. Date of closure of the trial: 16­08­2018

7. Date of judgment: 16­08­2018 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

8.Complainant : State : Sub­Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluq P.S. (Crime No.621/2016)

9.Description of the accused :­

Thatiparthi Sreenu, s/o China Kotaiah, aged 38 years, caste by madiga, r/o Balaram Colony, Ongole. 

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

10. Offence/charge: U/Sec.309 of I.P.C.

11. Plea of accused : Not guilty 

12. Finding of Court : Not guilty

13. Sentence or Order :

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 309 of I.P.C. Accordingly, accused is acquitted U/Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. No property order is passed since no property is produced in this case.

14.Explanation for the delay : The case was taken on file on 24.05.2017. At this stage, the case being adjourned from time to time due to summons pending against the accused. On 23.07.2018 after appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished him as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C and 16.08.2018 the accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation against him for the offence U/Sec. 309 of I.P.C., read over and explained to him in Telugu language and that he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In this case, trial was commenced on 16.08­2018 and concluded on 16­08­2018. During the course of trial PW1 was examined and Ex.P1 was marked and prosecution side evidence was closed and the examination u/sec.313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence, heard both sides and on the same day Judgment

pronounced in open court (vide separate judgment). Hence, the delay.

Sd/­M.Anuradha III­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.

Copy Submitted to : The Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole. Copy to : The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole. // True copy //

III­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,  5

Ongole.