M.jayamma

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHILAKALURIPET.

PRESENT: - Smt., M. Jayamma., Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet. Wednesday, this the 26th day of April, 2017.

C.C.No.501/2015.

BETWEEN: State:Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban PS … Complainant

And

Bale Venkata Rao S/o. Peraiah, 29 yrs, Telaga, Operator cum incharge, Meeseva Centre, Vasavi Nagar, Chilakaluripet. Redla Bazaar, near Sumedha School, Chilakaluripet. Now at D.No.2-449, 3rd lane, Sambasiva Nagar, Chilakaluripet town. … Accused

This case is coming on 19-04-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and Sri M. Upendra Rao and of Sri G. Lenin Babu, Advocates for Accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a case of the offence punishable Under section 409 of Indian

Penal Code. Wherein the brief facts of the case are that the accused is working as Operator cum incharge, Meeseva Centre, Vasavi Nagar,

Chilakaluripet since 02-09-14 and prior to that he worked in Meeseva centre, KB Road, Chilakaluripet, LW.2 / Gajendra Bala Krishna is working as

Support Operator in the said Meeseva centre, Vasavi Nagar. Both operators will collects taxes i.e., Electricity charges, road tax, Municipal

Taxes etc., from the consumers and remits the cash to Axis Bank in the pool account of Joint Collector and Addl. Director, Meeseva, Guntur. The accused collected cash of Rs.7,60,134/- and the accused deposited cash of

Rs.1,20,129/- in Axis Bank on 30-04-15 and there was outstanding balance of Rs.6,40,005/- to be deposited in bank by the accused. The accused committed criminal breach of trust by misusing the public money of

Rs.6,40,005/- by virtue of his post as operator cum in charge, Mee Seva

Centre, Vasavi Nagar, Chilakaluripet.

2

On 02-05-15 at 7.30 p.m PW.1 came to police station and gave a report to PW.7, who in turn registered the same as a case in Cr.No.109/15 for the offence U/sec.409 of IPC of Chilakaluripet Urban PS. Basing on the examination of the witnesses and merits of the investigation, it is clearly disclosed that the accused being agent / incharge of Mee-Seva centre,

Chilakaluripet collected cash of Rs.6,40,005/- from the public and not remitted the same in the bank and committed criminal breach of trust.

Subsequently after arrest of accused, cash of Rs.3,02,000/- was recovered from the possession of accused and altogether the accused committed criminal breach of trust by misappropriating the public money to a tune of

Rs.3,38,0005/-. After completion of entire investigation, PW.7 filed charge sheet against the accused.

2.This court took cognizance for the offence punishable Under

Section 409 of Indian Penal Code against Accused.

3.On appearance of Accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

4.The accused was present. He was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C for the substance of accusation U/Sec.409 of Indian Penal Code, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to Pws.7 in total and Exs.P1 to Exs.P13 and Mo.1 marked. On behalf of the accused, Exs.D1 to D4 marked. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW.7 / Epuri Suresh

Babu. The prosecution side evidence is closed.

6.After closer of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined Under section 313 Cr.P.C, for which, he denied the incriminating evidence against him in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence.

7.Heard both sides.

3 8.Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec.409 of Indian Penal Code and alleged by the prosecution?'

9. POINT:

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, it is for the prosecution to prove that the accused is working as Operator cum incharge, Meeseva Centre, Vasavi Nagar,

Chilakaluripet and committed criminal breach of trust and cash of

Rs.6,40,005/- and thereby the accused committed the offence punishable

U/sec.409 of Indian Penal Code. In order to prove the same, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Pws.1 to Pws.7 coupled with

Exs.P1 to Exs.P13 and MO.1.

10.The defacto complainant is examined as PW.1, who deposed that he is working as Co-Ordinator, Mee-Seva, Guntur. He deposed that the accused is one of the employee in Meeseva, Vasavi

Nagar, Chilakaluripet, accordingly on 02-05-2015 he received an information about the misappropriation of cash at Meeseva, Chilakaluripet with regard to Rs.6,40,005/-. On the direction of the company, he gave report to the police about the misappropriation of property on suspicious.

After investigation, police recovered Rs.3,02,000/- from one Bala Venkata

Rao.

Elicited during the cross examination that they filed the case against the accused on suspicious only. He further admitted that he do not have any personal knowledge with regard to this case. He was not present at the time of incident and he had no specific information with regard to the misappropriation of the property.

4

11.Pws.2 and 4, who are eye witness does not support the case of the prosecution and they completely turned hostile. They deposed that they does not know anything about this case and they never witnessed any incident pertaining to this case. The learned APP sought permission from the court to cross the witnesses, the learned APP was permitted to question the witness in the form of cross examination as required U/s.154 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and U/s.162 Proviso of Cr.P.C. But, nothing was elicited to disprove their version of Pws.2 and 4 during their cross examination by the learned A.P.P.

12.Coming to the evidence of PW.3. He deposed that he is working as Senior Man agar, Axis Bank, Chilaklauripet. He deposed that two Mee-Seva centers are situated at Chilakaluripet and they are operating two accounts at their Axis Bank, accordingly, they are depositing their daily collection into their bank through ISSS D.B. Security, who are name Bandaru Parameswara Rao / LW.5 and other. He came to know that on the next day on 30-04-15 Mee-Seva at Kalamandir center does not remit the cash in their bank at Guntur.

Elicited during the cross examination that two Mee-Seva Centers are situated at Chilakaluripet, one is at Kalamandir and another is at Vasavi

Nagar. He further admitted that he did not state before the police that on 30-04-15 one Bale Venkata Rao / accused deposited cash of Rs.1,20,129/- into their Axix Bank belongs to Mee-Seva, Vasavi Nagar, Chilaklauripet.

Ex.D1 is marked as omission.

13.PW.5 has deposed that previously he worked as Operator at

Mee-Seva, Vasavi Nagar, Chilakaluripet. He further deposed that there are two Mee-Sevas in Chilakaluripet one is at K.B. Road and another one is at

Vasavi Nagar, Chilakaluripet under the control of M/s. C.C.S. Info-tech 5 limited and M/s. Data Management Corporation and the accused worked as operator cum incharge at Mee-Seva, Sankar Vasavi Nagar,

Chilaklauripet. He further deposed that he along with the accused, both collected taxes i.e., Electricity charges, road tax, Municipal tax etc from the costomers and remit the cash to the Axis Bank into the pool account of

Joint Collector and Additional Director of Mee-Seva, Guntur. He further deposed that regularly he collected cash from the consumer on every working day at Mee-Seva and handed over said cash to the accused, who is main operator and incharge on the same day itself.

He further deposed that on 30-04-15 he collected cash of

Rs.1,30,975/- and the accused collected cash of Rs.2,58,187/- ie., total amount is Rs.4,39,447/- and there was top of cash of Rs.58,000/- and altogether total collection amount is Rs.6,97,447/-. Similarly on 01-05-15 he collected cash of Rs.25,448/- from the consumer, whereas the accused collected cash of Rs.2,012/-, total amount Rs.27,442/- and there was top of cash of Rs.45,000/- and also altogether total amount of Rs.75,220/-.

He further deposed that on 30-04-15 the accused deposited cash of

Rs.1,30,000/- and remaining balance amount kept with him. On 02-05-15 at about 8 a.m, he directed PW.2, who is watchmen of Mee-Seva to bring keys from the house of the accused, on that, PW.2 went to the house of accused and found that the house was locked. Subsequently, PW.2 met the house owner of the accused and took Mee-Seva office keys and returned to the office and the same is handed over to him, accordingly, he opened the office, as well as cash chest, subsequently, he found that no cash is available in cash chest. He further deposed that he tried to contact the accused over phone, but, accused switch off his phone. Subsequently, he called PW.1 and informed about non availability of cash in the cash chest and also informing about disappearing of the operator and switch off his cellphone. On that, PW.1 came to Mee-Seva Office and verified the 6 office record and came to know that Rs.6,40,005/- was not remitted by the accused in the bank.

Elicited during the cross examination that he did not has any written appointment order with regard to his designation and he worked as supporting operator Mee-Seva center, Vasavi Nagar, Chilakaluripet. He did not given any identity card to the police. He did not state before the police that on 01-05-15 at about 7 p.m after completion of his work, he along with the accused went to their houses. Ex.D2 is marked as omission. He admitted that he stated before the police on 30-04-15 the accused deposited cash an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- in the Axis Bank.

Ex.D3 is marked as omission. He further admitted that the chest box one is having in their office to keep the cash for safe custody. He had collected the keys of chest box through PW.2 only. At the time when he opened the chest box, except PW.2 no one was present along with him. He did not state before the police, he intimated to PW.1 through phone with regard to missing of the amount in their chest box. Ex.D4 is marked s omission. He further admitted that on 01-05-15 the accused left the office after obtaining permission from PW.1 at about 11 or 11.30 a.m. He further admitted that in every Mee-Seva center, Operator cash book and bankers cash book are the key records reflecting the financial collections. He further admitted that Mee-Seva center of Vasavi Nagar used to maintain attendance register daily. Every Mee-Seva center will maintain daily collection report and forward the said report through computer to the head office everyday. He further admitted that the attendance sheet has got uploaded in every day and it was forwarded to their head office. The daily collection report clinchingly reveals that the amount collected on day to day basis and attendance register will reflect the attendance of the respective operators in Mee-Seva centers.

7

14.PW.6, who is the then VRO at Gangannapalem village has deposed that on 19-05-15 he along with LW.7 / Epuri Suresh Babu and

LW.8 / B. Suresh Babu, CI of Police, Chilakaluripet town PS went to

Polireddypalem bus stop, on seeing the police jeep, one person trying to escape, on that, LW.8 / B. Suresh Babu caught hold of the said person with the assistance of his staff and asked the said person why he is escaping on seeing the police jeep. He further deposed that police person asked the name and identity particulars of the said persons and the said person voluntarily confessed that his name Bale Venkata Rao and he is working as computer operator as incharge at Vasavi Nagar, Chilakaluripet. He further confessed that as he indebted to the people, as such, he took the amount from Mee-Seva which was collected for the amount of Rs.6,40,005/- on 30-04-15 and 01-05-15 and went to Hyderabad and he used the said amount for his expenses and vices, for that he spent money of

Rs.3,38,000/-. He further deposed that the accused shown one bag to them, in that they found some money, then, CI of Police counted the said amount and found as Rs.3,02,000/- in the said bag and in his presence police scribed the confession mediatornama of the accused and seized the said amount from the possession of the accused, arrested the accused and brought him to the police station. Ex.P4 is the confession and seizure mediatornama of the accused.

Elicited during the cross examination admitted that Ex.P4 does not containing at which particular place police drafted Ex.P4 / confessionnama at Polireddypalem bus stop. He further admitted that it is not mentioned in Ex.P4 / confession nama the denominations of the seized amount, so also the respective numbers of the currency notes. He further admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality with floating people and vehicles are moving frequently.

8

15.Now, coming to the evidence of PW.7, who is

Investigating Officer in this case, who stated the chronological order of events occurred during his Investigation Process. In the cross examination of PW.7, he admitted that he did not seize any attendance register from the alleged Mee-Seva center, Vasavi Nagar, Chilakaluripet. Ex.P6 to P12 are attested by the Data Management Corporation proprietor. He can not say whom the said signatures belongs in Exs.P6 to P12. He further admitted that PW.1 does not put any endorsement to show that he received said Exs.P7 to P12 from PW.1. He further admitted that he did not seize any appointment letter and I.D card of PW.5 to show that he is working as supporting operator at Mee-Seva center, Vasavi Nagar,

Chilakaluripet at the time of alleged offence. He further admitted that he did not mention the currency note numbers and also denominations in the mediatornama / Ex.P4. He did not affix any labels with signature of the accused person and also mediators on the seized bag. He further admitted that the said offence was took place on 01-05-15 and he received report on 02-05-15 at about 7.30 p.m. He further admitted that as per endorsement on Ex.P5 / FIR court received the FIR on 03-05-15 at about 11 a.m. He do not know in between 7.30 p.m to on the next day 11.30 a.m who is the custodian of the said FIR. He further admitted that one Govindaraju is drafted the confessionnama of the accused, but, he had not cited the said Govinda Raju as one of the witness pertaining to this case.

16.On careful perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it can be seen that Pw.1, who is the defact complainant has deposed that he gave report to the police about misappropriation of property on suspicious and did not depose anything against the accused, there is no independent witnesses to say that the accused herein had 9 committed criminal breach of trust of cash of Rs.6,40,005/- in Mee-Seva center which is situated at Vasavi Nagar, Chilakaluripet. Simply PW.1 deposed that on 02-05-15 he received information about the misappropriation of cash at Mee-Seva Chilakaluripet with regard to cash of

Rs.6,40,005/-. He further deposed that on the direction of their company, he gave report to the police about misappropriation of property on suspicious. Pws.2 and 4, who are eye witness does not support the case of the prosecution and they completely turned hostile.

PW.5 admitted during the cross examination that he have collected keys of chest box through PW.2. Whereas PW.2 did not support the case of the prosecution. He further admitted that in every Mee-Seva center, operator cash book and bankers cash book are the key records reflecting the financial collections. He further admitted that Mee-Seva center of

Vasavi Nagar used to maintain attendance register daily. But, whereas

Investigating Officer failed to seize the attendance register to prove that accused was attended Mee-Seva at the date of cause of action. He further admitted that in every Mee-Seva center will maintain daily collection report and forward the said report through online to the head office every day. But, operator cash book and bankers cash book and attendance register did not seize by the PW.7, who is Investigating Officer and no explanation advanced by the prosecution, it is one of the fatal of prosecution case. During the cross examination of PW.6, he admitted that it is not mention in Ex.P4 what particular place of point at Polireddypalem

Bus stop, they scribed Ex.P4 / confession nama. He further admitted that the said scene of offence is a busy locality with floating people and moving vehicles frequently.

PW.7 / Investigating Officer has admitted that he did not seize any appointment letter and I.D. card of PW.5 to show that he was worked as supporting operator at Mee-Seva center, Vasavi Nagar, Chilakaluripet at 10 the time of the alleged offence. PW.5 further admitted that police did not affix any labels with his signature and accused signature and also mediators signature on the seized bag. The investigating Officer further admitted that he did not mention the currency note numbers and also denominations in the mediatornama / Ex.P4. The investigating Officer further admitted that Exs.P6 to P12 were not given by PW.1 to him while recording of the statement of PW.1. The Investigating Officer failed to cite the said Govinda Raju as one of the witness pertaining to this case. It is one of the lacuna of the prosecution case. PW.1 gave report against the accused on 02-05-2015 and the offence was occurred on 01-05-2015, there is 24 hours delay. PW.7 / Investigating Officer admitted that they dispatched FIR before this court on 03-05-15 at 11 a.m. But, PW.7 /

Investigating Officer failed to explain the reason for delay in dispatching

FIR from the police station to this court. So, there is delay in giving report / Ex.P1 by PW.1 was not properly explained by the prosecution. The prosecution failed to explain the reason for delay is one of the lacuna. The evidence of PW.5 and 6 are suffers material omissions and contradictions.

17.The learned counsel for the accused relied upon a decision reported in “Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru”, Supreme Court opined, “Confessions are considered highly reliable because no rational person would make admission against his interest, unless prompted by his conscience to tell the truth. “Deliberate and voluntary confession of guilt, if clearly proved are among the most effectual proof in”. (Vide Taylor's

Treatise on the law of Evidence Vol.1). However before acting upon a confession the court must be satisfied that, it was freely and voluntarily made. A confession by hope or promise of advantage, reward or immunity or by force or by fear, induced by violence or threats of violence cann't constitute evidence against the maker and consequences of the confession. If any reasonable doubt is entertained by the court that, these ingredients are not satisfied the court should eschew the confession from the consideration. So also the authority recording the confession, be it a 11

Magistrate or some other statutory functionary at the pre-trial stage, must

address himself to the issuance whether the accused has come forward to make the confessional in an atmosphere free from fear, duress or hope of some advantage or reward induced by the persons in authority.

Recognizing the stark reality of the accused being enveloped in a state of fear and panic, anxiety and deepair while in police custody, the Indian

Evidence Act has excluded the admissibility of a confession made to the police officer”.

18.Basing on the evidence of Pws.5 and Pws.6 who says that the accused have taken alleged amount from the cash chest box, convicting him for the offence of criminal breach of trust from the bank may not even be safe as the prosecution have not proved with emphatic evidence that the accused have taken the properties from the chest box and absolutely there is no material to bring the accused to home of guilt with which he is charged. Accordingly the accused is entitled for an acquittal.

19. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.409 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted for the same U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be remained in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 – cash of

Rs.3,02,000/- already given to PW.1 shall hold good, after expiry of the appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this 26th day of April, 2017.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHILAKALURIPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: PW1:Ongole Jaya Rama Rao PW2:Rasamsetty Rudraiah PW3:Ch. Siva Rama Krishna PW.4 : Bandaru Parameswara Rao PW.5 : Gajendra Bala Krishna PW.6 : K. Naga Srinivasa Rao PW.7 :B. Suresh Babu

For Defence: Nil 12

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1:Report of PW.1. Ex.P2:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.P3:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4. Ex.P4:Mediatornanama. Ex.P5 :FIR. Ex.P6 :Contract reference dt. 01-07-10. Ex.P7: Appointment order copy of accused dt. 20-07-09. Ex.P8 : Resume particulars of the accused. Ex.P9 : Day wise collection summery with day 30-04-15 for an amount of Rs.6,84,742/-. Ex.P10 : Day wise collection summery for the day on 01-05-15 for an amount of Rs.75,392/-. Ex.P11 : Axis bank statement of account No.911020007289173 from 01-04-15 to 01-05-15. Ex.P12 : Transfer of the operation dt. 01-09-15. Ex.P13 : Rough sketch of the scene of offence. For Defence: Ex.D1 – Portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3. Ex.D2 - Portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5. Ex.D3 - Portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5.' Ex.D4 - Portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Mo.1 – Cash of Rs.3,02,000/-.

A.Jr.C.J. CHPET.

13

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: GUNTUR Calendar of cases tried by Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

OffenceFilingArrestedReleaseCommeClosureResult thed onncemenof trial accusedbailt of trial 1234567 01/05/1502/05/1519-05-1502/06/1509/01/1708/02/1726-04-17

Explanation for the delay: On 28-11-2015 case was taken on file. Copies furnished to the accused on 29-01-16. Accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C on 30-11-16. During the course of trial, during the course of trial Pws.1 to 7 in total and Exs.P1 to P13 and MO.1 marked. The accused was examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C on 09-02-17, heard both sides and Judgment

pronounced on 26-04-17. Vide Separate Judgment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN CC.No.501/2015 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHILAKALURIPET.

State:Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban PS … Complainant

And

Bale Venkata Rao S/o. Peraiah, 29 yrs, Telaga, Operator cum incharge, Meeseva Centre, Vasavi Nagar, Chilakaluripet. Redla Bazaar, near Sumedha School, Chilakaluripet. Now at D.No.2-449, 3rd lane, Sambasiva Nagar, Chilakaluripet town. … Accused

Offence: U/Sec.409 of Indian Penal Code

Finding: Not Guilty Sentence or Order: The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.409 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted for the same U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be remained in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 – cash of Rs.3,02,000/- already given to PW.1 shall hold good, after expiry of the appeal time.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHILAKALURIPET.

Copy to: 1.The Hon’ble Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. 2.The Superintendent of Polic1e, Guntur Rural, Guntur.

14

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHILAKALURIPET.

Present: Smt., M. Jayamma,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet Monday, this the 24th day of April, 2017.

C.C.No.13/2017.

BETWEEN: State: Sub Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban PS … Complainant

And

1. Kalli Siva Reddy S/o. Veera Nagireddy, 42 yrs, Reddy, 9th lane, Pandaripuram, Chilakaluripet.

2. Devireddy Chiranjeevi @ Devisetty Chiranjeevi S/o. Siva Nageswara Rao, 30 yrs, Telaga, near Brahmamgari temple, Purushotapatnam, Chilakaluripet.

3. Kunchala Lakshmi Narayana S/o. Brahmaiah, 31 yrs,

Vaddera, Near Sarada High School, Chilakaluripet. .... Accused

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri S. Bhagya Rao, advocate for accused Nos.1 and 3 and of Sri T. Rama Krishna, Advocate for the 2nd accused and upon perusal of the entire material on record, on hearing arguments of both sides and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

It is alleged by PW.2 being the investigation officer in this case, who filed charge sheet that on 15.08.2014 PW.2 / B. Radha Krishna, SI of Police,

Chilakaluripet Urban PS along with PW.1, LW.2 / K. Vinod Kumar, PC.3666,

Lw.3 / P. Uday Kumar PC.3702, LW.4 / G. Nageswara Rao PC.6006 and

LW.5 / G. Srinivasa Rao PC.3596 while moving in town on night rounds, at about 9 p.m when they reached opposite to Murali Krishna Wines, Market

Center, Chilaklauripet found three persons, on sighting the police tried to skulk, on suspicion, PW.2 / B. Radha Krishna caught them. On questioning about their identity, they furnished as A1 to A3. A1 further informed that he and A2 and A3 are friend and in view of independence day on 15-08-14, they planned to sell liquor on higher rates and out of that plan they purchased liquor bottles on 14-08-14, sold six officer's choice quarter liquor bottles at higher rates and still he is having 4 liquor in his trouser pickets. So saying, A1 produced 4 Officer's Choice 180 m.l bottles and also cash of Rs.660/- which is the sale proceeds of 6 quarter bottles. Then,

PW.2 seized the said 4 liquor bottles as well as cash of Rs.660/- from the possession of A1. When questioned A2, he informed that on 14-08-2014, he purchased 8 Manson House quarter bottles and 2 O.T. Quarter bottles 2 and of them, he sold away 6 Mason House liquor bottles and earned

Rs.660/- and out of 2 O.T. Quarter bottles, he sold away 1 ½ liquor and produced 2 Mansion House bottles and 90 m.l. O.T. Liquor bottle which is in loose, then, PW.2 seized the total 3 liquor bottles and cash of Rs.660/- from the possession of A2. When questioned A3, he informed that on 14- 08-2014 he purchased 4 cases of O.T. Quarter bottles and of them, he sold 4 cases of liquor bottles and still was having 4 liquor bottles and produced the said liquor bottles along with cash of Rs.14,770/-. PW.2 questioned A1 to A3 whether they are having any permission or license to possess or sale of liquor bottles, they stated that they do not have any license and then arrested the accused Nos.1 to 3 and said liquor bottles were seized under the cover of police proceedings.

2.Thereafter, PW.2 left the spot along with the accused Nos.1 to 3 and the material objects reached to the Chilakaluripet town police station, Chilakaluripet and registered the special proceedings as a case in

Cr.No.237/14 U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act on 15-08-2014 at 10.45 p.m. Out of the seized sample PW.2 sent MOs to the FSL, Hyderabad for analysis and after analyzing the samples issued report in File No.NAR/2066/14 dt.

17-01-15 that the items 1 to 3 are Indian made foreign liquor. After completion of entire Investigation LW.7 / P. Koteswara Rao, SI of Police,

Chilakaluripet Urban PS filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3.

Hence, the charge.

3.On appearance of accused before this court, copies of case documents were furnished to him in compliance of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

4.This Court examined the accused U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C for the accusation levelled against accused no.1 to 3 in the charge sheet, for which, they denied the same. Upon considering the material placed

before this court by the prosecution and upon hearing the Asst. Public

Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused persons, this court was of the opinion that there is a ground for presuming that the accused have committed the offence U/s.34 (a) of AP Excise Act framed against Accused Nos.1 to 3, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

3 5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, Pws.1 and PWs.2 examined and Exs.P1 to Exs.P4 and Mos.1 to 5 marked. As

PW.1 and 2 are belongs to the same department and their version is also the same, for which, the evidence of LW.2 / K. Vinod Kumar, PC.3666, Lw.3 / P.

Uday Kumar PC.3702, LW.4 / G. Nageswara Rao PC.6006 and LW.5 / G. Srinivasa Rao PC.3596 and LW.7 / P. Koteswara Rao, SI of Police, Chilaklauripet Urban PS were given up by the learned APP.

6.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused

Nos.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, for incriminating evidence appearing against them in the testimony of prosecution witness and they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.On the strength of the above, the point to be determined is whether the prosecution has established its case for the offence U/s.34 (a) of AP Excise Act against Accused beyond reasonable doubt?

8.Heard both the sides.

9. POINT:

10. Before adverting to the rival contentions made on both sides and also before delivering 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 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 4 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 possession of liquor bottles. To prove the same, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 and 2.

11. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, on 15.8.2014 he along with

L.W.2/K.Vinod Kumar, L.W.3/Uday Kumar, L.W.4/B.Nageswaara Rao,

L.W.5/P.Srinvasa Rao who are working as police constables at Urban P.S and L.W.6/B.Radha Krishna, S.I of Police conducted night rounds in the police jeep. He further deposed that they reached to the opposite Murali

Krishna wine shop, Market center, Chilakaulripet, there they found three persons trying to ran away, on seeing the police jeep. On suspicious immediately L.W.6/B.Radha Krishna / S.I of Police caught hold of the said persons with the assistance of the police staff. Then he questioned about the name and identity of the said persons and asked them to furnish address particulars. Accordingly L.W.6 / B.Radha Krishna examined A-1 to

A-3 and they confessed about their names and address particulars and admitted the offence before the L.W.6 / B.Radha krishna / S.I of Police. He further deposed that L.W.6 / B.Radha Krishna drafted the police proceedings at scene of offence. After drafting of the police proceedings

L.W.6 / B.Radha Krishna / S.I of Police seized some of the liquor bottles and

Cash of Rs.16,090/- from the possession of the above accused. He further deposed that L.W.6 /B.Radha Krishna arrested the A-1 to A-3 at scene of offence and brought them to the police station.

Elicited during the cross examination that the scene of offence is busy locality. At the time of drafting of police proceedings 15 to 20 peoples present at the scene of offence, but, the said peoples are escaped from the scene of offence on seeing the police at the scene of offence. He further admitted that they did not serve any summons or notices to the locality peoples to act as mediators in this case. He further admitted that he did not put any signature on the seized liquor bottles and amount.

12.PW.2, Sub Inspector, Chilakaluripet Urban PS has deposed that on 15-08-2014 on receiving the credible information, he along with his police staff who are PW.1, Lws.2 to 5 was conducted patrolling in their police jeep 5 at about 9 p.m. Accordingly, they reached at Market center opposite of

Muralikrishna Wines, Chilakaluripet, they found three persons, on seeing the police trying to escape from that place, on suspicious, he caught hold of the said persons with the help of his police staff. Then, he asked the names and address particulars of the said persons. He further deposed that one person replied that his name is Kalli Siva Reddy. He further informing him that he is working as helper at Murali Krishna Wine shop. He further deposed that Degireddy Chiranjeevi and Kunchala Lakshmi

Narayana, who are friends to him and they have habit of consuming liquor and in view of the independence day, they plan to sell the liquor bottles on higher rates. Accordingly, they purchased the liquor bottles. A1 saying so he produced before him 4 officer choice bottles and cash of Rs.660/- i.e., for six quarter bottles. Then, he seized 4 liquor bottles and cash of

Rs.660/-, out of 2 old Tavern bottles, he sold 1 ½ liquor bottles and he produced 90 ml O.T bottles which is in loose. Then, he seized 3 liquor bottles and cash of Rs.660/-. Further, A3 informed him that he is working as cashier at Vidya Wines situated at Krishna Mahal center, Chilakaluripet.

Accordingly, he purchased 4 cases of O.T. Liquor bottles and out of them, he sold 4 cases of liquor bottles and he is having 4 liquor bottles of O.T.

And he produced the liquor bottles along with cash of Rs.14,770/-. Then, he questioned them whether they have any permit or licence to possess or sell of liquor bottles, then they replied that they does not having any permission or licence.

He further deposed that he intend to draft the confession mediatornama in the presence of the mediators, on that, he sent LW.5 /

P.C.3596 / G. Srinivasa Rao to secure the mediators from the locality. After passing of 15 minutes, he came back and informed him that no one is interested to act as mediator in this case, on that, he drafted police proceedings at the scene of offence. After drafting the police proceedings he arrested the accused and brought them to the police station. He further deposed that before arresting the accused persons, he informed them that selling of the liquor bottles without permission or licence is an offence U/sec.34 (a) of AP Excise Act and explained the grounds of arrest of the accused and seized the liquor bottles and cash from the possession of the accused persons. Then, he lifted one liquor bottles as samples from each variety for the purpose of analysis. Then, he released the accused persons at police station after obtaining the sureties. He further deposed that on the basis of police proceedings, he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.237/14 for the offence U/sec.34-A of AP Excise Act. He further 6 deposed that after completion of investigation, LW.7 / P. Koteswara Rao filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

Elicited during the cross examination that the scene of offence one road is situated and the said road is passing from Addaroad center to

Chilakaluripet. He further admtited that the said road is busy locality and all types of vehicles are moving on the said road frequently. He further admitted that he did not try to secure the witness who are travelling in their vehicles. He did not examine any persons which he mention in his rough sketch as due to August, 15th. He further admitted that the scene of offence is situated at Market center, but, he did not examine any person, who are available at market. He further admitted that he did not produce any summons or notice before the court to show that he issued summons to the particular person, even though, he issued, they did not show any interest to act as mediator in this case. He further admitted that he did not obtain the signatures of police constables on Ex.P1 / police proceedings who are participated in the night rounds. He further admitted that he did not try to secure VRO and VRA of Chilakaluripet for mediators as no one was available. He further admitted that he did not mention the batch numbers and manufacturing dates in Ex.P1 / police proceedings. He did not put the signature on Ex.P2 / FIR at column no.14.

13.The burden of rebutting the presumption by the accused are 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.

14. On perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.2, he admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and residential area. He further admitted that he had not examine any persons which are shown in the rough sketch. He had not issued any notice to any person to act as mediators, but, on his oral request, no one can forward to act as mediators, but, he can not say how many people rejected his request. He did not issue any notice to any person to the said locality. He further admitted that his investigation does not discloses that whether accused persons purchased the liquor bottles or not and from where they 7 purchased the liquor bottles and they purchased the liquor bottles in lower price and same is selling in higher price. He admitted that he does not seized any documents to connect accused and wine shop. PW.2 do not affix any labels on the liquor bottles for the purpose of identification of the liquor bottles and admittedly said liquor bottles are available in the open market also. Ex.P1 special proceedings discloses that since no person was available to act as mediator, he drafted police proceedings.

15.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 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 should be followed by the Investigating Officer, but, investigating officer failed to follow the procedure U/sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C.

No reason has been afforded by the prosecution for not complying the procedure as contemplated U/s.100 (4) of Cr.P.C which creates a doubt in the mind of the court as to the very case of the prosecution.

16.When the law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, the same shall be done in that way only and any deviation to that effect is fatal to the case of the prosecution. If really, nobody is available at the scene of offence, non compliance of the procedure would not create any doubt in the mind of the court as to the case of the prosecution but the scene of offence is a busy locality as per the admission made by Pw.1 and 2 and when such is the scenario, non securing of any persons or not issuing any notice to the persons who are not inclined to act as mediators creates a doubt in the mind of the court as to the very case of the prosecution and the same would be sufficient to rebut the presumption stood in favour of the prosecution and as such the accused has successfully rebutted the presumption stood in favour of the prosecution.

17.Now, it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The entire testimony of P.Ws.1, PW.2 are silent 8 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. No explanation has been offered by the prosecution for non-compliance of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C.

which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Admittedly no identity slips were affixed on the seized property and no explanation has been offered to that effect. 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 with regard to the entire case of the prosecution against the accused. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons for the offence under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act. Hence, the point is answered accordingly.

18. In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C of the offence punishable U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of the appeal time.

MO.1 to 4 are the sample bottles are ordered to be destroyed, after expiry of the appeal time. MO.5 – cash of Rs.16,090/- is ordered to be confiscated to the State, after expiry of the appeal time.

Directly, typed to the dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 24th day of April, 2017.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHILAKALURIPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: PW1:P. Purnachandra Rao PW.2 : B. Radha Krishna For Defence: Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1:Police proceedings. Ex.P2:FIR. Ex.P3 :Rough sketch. Ex.P4 : FSL report

For Defence: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1 – 3 officer choice whisky bottles. MO.2 – 3 O.T. 180 ml liquor bottles. MO.3 – One Manson house 180 ml liquor bottles.

9

MO.4 – One O.T. 180 ml liquor bottles. MO.5 – Cash of Rs.16,090/- under FDR.No.36341160131 dt. 23-12-16 State Bank of India, Chilakaluripet.

A.Jr.C.J. CHPET.

10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: GUNTUR

Calendar of cases tried by Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

ArrestedCommen ReleasedClosure OffenceFilingthecementResult on bailof trial accusedof trial 1234567 15/8/1415/8/1415/8/1415/8/1412/04/1719-4-1724/04/17

Explanation for the delay: On 11-01-2017 case was taken on file. Copies furnished on 30-03-2017. Accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C on 06-04-17. During the course of trial, Pw.1 and 2 examined and marked Exs.P1 to Exs.P4 and MO.1 to 5 marked. On 24-04-17, the accused examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C by explaining incriminating evidence available against them, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf, heard both sides and Judgment pronounced on 24-04-17. Vide Separate Judgment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN CC.No.13/2017 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHILAKALURIPET.

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban PS … Complainant

And

1. Kalli Siva Reddy S/o. Veera Nagireddy, 42 yrs, Reddy, 9th lane, Pandaripuram, Chilakaluripet.

2. Devireddy Chiranjeevi @ Devisetty Chiranjeevi S/o. Siva Nageswara Rao, 30 yrs, Telaga, near Brahmamgari temple, Purushotapatnam, Chilakaluripet.

3. Kunchala Lakshmi Narayana S/o. Brahmaiah, 31 yrs,

Vaddera, Near Sarada High School, Chilakaluripet. .... Accused

Offence: U/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act

Finding: Not Guilty Sentence or Order: Accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C of the offence punishable U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of the appeal time. MO.1 to 4 are the sample bottles are ordered to be destroyed, after expiry of the appeal time. MO.5 – cash of Rs.16,090/- is ordered to be confiscated to the State, after expiry of the appeal time.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHILAKALURIPET.

Copy to: 1.The Hon’ble Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural, Guntur.

11

1

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

Present:- Smt., M. Jayamma., Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet. Friday, the 7th day of April, 2017.

C.C. No.22/ 2016.

BETWEEN:

Tavva Venkata Pulla Rao S/o. Venkateswarlu, Hindu,

R/o. D.NO.4-326, 3rd lane, Pandaripuram,

Chilakaluripet, Guntur District. --- Complainant

And

1. Sri Shanmuka Sita Rama Filling Station, Rep. By proprietor Chirala Srinivasa Reddy.

2. Chirala Srinivasa Reddy S/o. Sita Ramireddy, Proprietor of Sri Shanmuka Sita Rama Filling Station, Petrol bunk, Guntur road, Opp: Proh. & Excise Station, Prathipadu village and Mandal, Guntur District. --- Accused

This case was coming on 23-03-17 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.V. Naga Raju, Advocate for the complainant and

Sri M. Satya Sai Babu, advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is the complaint against the accused for the offence U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2) The brief averments of the case as per the complainant are that, both the complainant and accused are residents of Guntur and are acquainted to each other. The accused no.1 is firm and accused no.2 is running the said firm as a proprietor. Out of acquaintance accused no.2 approached the complainant and borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on 01-11-2014 for his business purpose and also exeucted a promissory note in favour of the complainant to evidence the borrowing transactoin as collateral security under taking to repay the said amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. Inspite of repeated demands made by the complainant, he postponed the payment on one pretext or the other. On presistent demands of the complainant, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.053603 dated 31-07-2015 for Rs.7,00,000/- drawn on State

Bank of India, Prathipadu Branch towards full and final settlement. The complainant presented the said cheque for collection on 31-07-2015 2 through his banker i.e., Bank of India, Chilakaluripet Branch, which is returned unpaid on the ground that with memo dt. 14-08-2015 “Account closed on 26-05-2014” and same is intimated by the complainant banker to complainant on 20-08-2015. Thereafter, he got issued a demand notice U/sec.138 proviso (b) of the Act on 31-08-2015 which was served on the accused on 01-09-2015. But, the accused failed to pay the dishonoured cheuqe amount and after lapse of statutory period, he got issued reply notice on 21-09-2015 with all false allegations. Hence, the complaint.

3) Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of

N.I.Act, 1881 against the accused.

4) After appearance of the accused, copies of documents are furnished to him as required Under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5) Accused was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of the complaint for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of N.I.Act, 1881. He denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) During the course of trial, to substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant examined Pws.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P9 are marked on behalf of the complainant. On behalf of accused, Exs.D1 and

D2 marked.

7) After closer of the complainant side evidence, the accused was examined Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence available against him. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard arguments on behalf of the complainant and the counsel for the accused has submitted Supreme Court of India, decision on behalf of accused.

9. Now the point for determination are:

1. Whether the service of notice U/sec.138 proviso (b) of the Act on the accused is in proper?

2.Whether the complainant court prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of NI Act?

3

10. POINT NO.1:

To substantiate the case of the complainant, he himself has examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. Ex.P1 is the original demand promissory note dt. 01-11-14. Ex.P2 is the cheque bearing

No.053603 dt. 31-07-15. Ex.P3 is the cheque presentation slip

dt. 31-07-15. Ex.P4 is the cheque returned memo dt. 14-08-15 issued by

the State Bank of India, Chilakalurept Branch, Chilakaluripet. Ex.P5 is the cheque return memo dt. 20-08-15 issued by Bank of India. Ex.P6 is the

Office copy of the legal notice dt. 31-08-15. Ex.P7 is the postal receipts are two in number dt. 31-08-15. Ex.P8 is the postal acknowledgement are two in number and Ex.P9 is the reply notice dt. 21-09-15.

The complainant counsel contended that the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from him on 01-11-2014 by executing a promissory note and on 31-07-15 he had issued a cheque for

Rs.7,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of the said amount which was presented in the Bank of India, Chilakaluripetand it was returned on the ground of account closed on 26-05-2014. After that, he had issued a notice on 31-08-15 itself through his counsel which was served on him on 01-09-2015 as per the postal acknowledgement.

As perusal of Ex.P6 / Office copy of legal notice, it appears to have been issued through his counsel on 01-09-2015 and Ex.P8 is the postal acknowledgement cause to show that it was received by the accused by one Ch. Srinivas. Compare to Exs.P6 and P8, there is two type of signatures.

As per Sec.138 (b) of Negotiable Instrument Act, the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque as the case may be makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. After perusal of Ex.P5 is the cheque return memo dt. 20-08-15, it disclosed that some of the corrections made by the branch Manager at the place of date in one instance, the date shows that on 04-08-15 and again corrected as 24-08-15 and again correction made as 20-08-2015.

Thereafter the complainant got legal notice to the accused on 31-08-15.

As per Sec.138 (b) the complainant failed to serve the notice to the 4 accused within 15 days and the complainant failed to examine the person who made the correction in Ex.P5 is the cheque return memo

dt. 20-08-15. The object of notice U/sec.138 proviso (b) of the Act is to

make the drawer to know that a particular cheque issued by him is disclosed and it is an opportunity for him to rectify the mistake and it is also settled law. In this regard that it is sufficient for the complainant to prove that notice U/sec.138 proviso (b) of the Act is dispatched to the accused within fifteen days after cause of action arose. But, after perusal of Ex.P5, it shows that the complainant failed to send the statutory notice to the accused within 15 days after cause of action arose and after issuing

Ex.P5 by the banker. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India, in this case of Md. Thomas V/s. P.S. Jaleel and another, it was held that “Service of notice U/sec.138 proviso (b) of the Act can not be considered without proper compliance of service of notice.

For the above reasons and in the light of the above Judgement of

Hon'ble Supreme Court, I hold that PW.1 did not comply the mandatory

requirement of service and notice U/sec.138 proviso (b) of the Act. As such, point No.1 is answered in favour of the accused and against the complainant.

11. POINT NO.2:

It is the case of the complainant that the accused borrowed

Rs.6,00,000/- from him on 01-1-2014 for his business purpose and executed a promissory note on the same day to repay the amount for an interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and had issued a cheque bearing

No.053603 on 31-07-15 for Rs.7,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of said amount. When the cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned with endorsement that 'account closed on 26-05-14 of accused'.

Therefore, the complainant had issued a notice U/sec.138 proviso (b) of the Act through notice was served on the accused. He did not choose to pay the amount and after lapse of statutory period he got issued reply notice to the complainant on 21-09-15 with false allegations.

12.On the other hand, the accused would contended that there is no such monitory transactions between the complainant and did not execute any such promissory note in his favour and Ex.P2 / cheque is also not issued towards discharge of legally recoverable in favour of the 5 complainant. But, the signature on the cheque is not denied by the accused, as such, presumption U/sec.139 of N.I. Act will come into force.

As per the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of ‘Rangappa Vs. Mohan’, “The scope of presumption U/s.139 of the Act is enhanced, wherein the court shall presume that there existed a legally recoverable debt between the parties and the cheque in question is also presumed to have been issued towards discharge of a legally recoverable debt. Whereas, the presumption is rebuttable one and the accused is at liberty to rebut the presumption and contest the existence of legally recoverable debt either by adducing evidence on his behalf or even by relying on the material and evidence placed by the complainant.

During the cross examination of PW.1, counsel for the accused posed question to complainant / PW.,1 to ascertain the financial capacity of the complainant to lend such amount and whether he was having

Rs.6,00,000/- with him. It is categorical Admission made by him that he is an income tax assessee, but, he did not disclose the above Rs.6,00,000/- of amount in his income tax returns for the relevant year and there is no material to show that he was having Rs.6,00,000/- with him and he further admitted that except running the medical shop, he is not doing any business and he did not furnish any documents to whom and where he borrowed the huge amount and did not even examined any one of them to prove that he have the said amount at the time of alleged transaction.

13.Coming to the evidence of PW.2, he admitted that he know the complainant / PW.1 since 7 to 8 years back and complainant is running medical shop, but, whereas PW.1 is admitted that previously he run the chit business. Presently, he is running medical shop. Admittedly PW.2 don't know the fact that the complainant was run chit business previously and he failed to depose that where the said alleged amount brought by the complainant at the time of alleged transaction. PW.2 admitted that the complainant is his friend and also first attestor is also his friend. On a perusal of Ex.P1 / pronote contained that “Raainchi Ichina instead of Raasi

Ichina”. He further admitted that Rs.6,00,000/- is huge amount and at the time of transaction in between complainant and accused no one is present. Except he and his friend and complainant failed to examine the first attestor.

6

14.In case of K. Subramani V/s. K. Damodar Naidu and also in the case

of Jhon K. Abraham V/s. See Ibraham and others reported in 2014 (2) SCC

page 236. It was held by the Supreme Court of Indiathat in order to draw the presumption U/sec.118 R/w.139 of NI Act, the burden is lies on the complainant to prove that

(a) He had requisite funds for advancing some money / loan in question to the accused

(b) Issuance of the cheque by the accused in support of repayment of money advance was true,

(c) The accused was bound to make payment as had been agreed while issuing cheque in favour of the complainant.

The law is clear in this regard as per the judgement of the Hon'ble

Apex court, it is necessary for the complainant to establish his source of income that he had huge amount with him to lend the amount to the accused as on the date of the alleged transaction. The non discloser of the above amount in the income tax returns of the complainant itself is sufficient to prove that he does not have such amount with him and about his financial capacity to lend Rs.6,00,000/-.

15.More over the complainant has not stated the complaining specific circumstances under which he lend Rs.6 lakhs to the accused that too by raising loan. The evidence of the complainant suffers from inherent probabilities.

16.It is also other defence of the accused in the year of 2012 he issued one pronote along with cheque for the purpose of security as he was one of the successful bidder in chit and said series of cheque were passed in the bank in the year of 2012 and 2013. Further in the year of 2014 the accused got lose in his business, on that, he sold his filling station to others. Accordingly, the said alleged bank account was closed.

Exs.D1 and D2 are two pocket books marked on behalf of the accused.

Except the oral plea of the accused that a blank signed cheque and pronote were executed and issued by him towards security and Exs.D1 and D2 no other evidence is placed by him to that extent either by examining the other successful chit bidder. In the absence of such a cogent material, it can not be said as proof of that fact. Mere putting a suggestion and getting denial of it does not amount to proof of the said fact.

7

17.The counsel for the accused has relied upon a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. In a case of M/s. Avon Organic Ltd V/s.

M/s. Quanior Products Limited and others reported in 2014 (4) (1) ALT

(Crl.) 90 (A.P) wherein it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P that ...

The blank cheque issued by the accused without mentioning the date and amount can not create a cause of action U/sec.138 of NI Act. The complainant admitted that the accused had not filled pronote / Ex.P1 And after perusal of Ex.P2 / cheque is typed one. Further PW.1 / complainant admitted that he do not know that while he presenting the cheque in his bank on 31-07-2015, whether the accused was running Sri Shanmuka

Setharama Filling Station as proprietor.

18.The counsel for the accused has relied on a judgement of

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in John K. Abraham V/s. Simon C.

Abraham and another dated 05-12-2013 (2013 Law suit (SC) 1108). If the cheque was not in handwriting of appellant and he was not sure as to who wrote the cheque. In order to draw the presumption U/sec.118 read along with 139 of the N.I. Act, the burden was heavily upon the complainant to have shown that he had required funds for the support of the said payment advanced was true and that the accused was bound to make the payment as had been agreed while issuing the cheque in favour of the complainant.

19. In another case in case of Lakshmi Nivas Agarwal V/s.

Andhra Semi Conductors Private Ltd., and others reported in 2006 (1)

ALT (Crl.) 423 wherein it was held that ... Provisions of Sec.138 of NI Act does not attract if cheque obtained by the creditor from the debtor as scrutiny without putting date for the same. It is the duty of the complainant to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by adducing sufficient material on his behalf whereas the standard proof required on behalf of the accused is not so high as the standard of proof required on behalf of the complainant. It is sufficient for the accused to adduce evidence to the extent of preponderance of probabilities to discharge his burden, he can adduce evidence on his behalf or he can rely on the evidence of material placed by the complainant.

20.In the present case, a careful analysis of the evidence and material goes to show that the complainant could not discharged his initial burden to prove his financial capacity as required by the ration laid 8 down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that he was having such an amount and his capacity of lending of Rs.6,00,000/- to the accused.

Whereas, on the other hand, the accused is successful in rebutting the presumption to the extent of preponderance of probabilities. So also the complainant failed to establishing that the notice U/sec.138 proviso (b) of the Act is properly served on the accused.

21.For the above reasons, I hold that the complainant could not prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I. Act.

22. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec.138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and he is acquitted U/Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months from today

U/s.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Directly typed to my Dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7th day of April, 2017.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

PW1 : Tavva Venkata Pulla Rao PW.2 : Sure Prasad

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P1 - The original demand promissory note dt. 01-11-14.

Ex.P2 - The cheque bearing No.053603 dt. 31-07-15.

Ex.P3 - The cheque presentation slip dt. 31-07-15.

Ex.P4 - The cheque returned memo dt. 14-08-15 issued by the State Bank of India, Chilakalurept Branch, Chilakaluripet.

Ex.P5 - The cheque return memo dt. 20-08-15 issued by Bank of India.

Ex.P6 - The Office copy of the legal notice dt. 31-08-15.

Ex.P7 - The postal receipts are two in number dt. 31-08-15.

9

Ex.P8 - The postal acknowledgement are two in number

Ex.P9 - The reply notice dt. 21-09-15.

FOR ACCUSED:

Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 are the pocket books two in number.

AJCJ.,

Chilakaluripet.

10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

C.C. No.22/2016.

Date of AppearancCommenc ReleasedClosure of OffenceFilinge of theement ofResult on bailtrial accusedtrial 1234567 31-7-151-10-15---24-8-165-10-1607-04-17

Between: Tavva Venkata Pulla Rao S/o. Venkateswarlu, Hindu,

R/o. D.NO.4-326, 3rd lane, Pandaripuram,

Chilakaluripet, Guntur District. --- Complainant

And

1. Sri Shanmuka Sita Rama Filling Station, Rep. By proprietor Chirala Srinivasa Reddy.

2. Chirala Srinivasa Reddy S/o. Sita Ramireddy, Proprietor of Sri Shanmuka Sita Rama Filling Station, Petrol bunk, Guntur road, Opp: Proh. & Excise Station, Prathipadu village and Mandal, Guntur District. --- Accused

Nature of Offence : Punishable U/s.138 N.I. Act. Plea of the Accused: Not guilty. Finding of the court: Not Guilty.

Sentence or Order:

The accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec.138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and he is acquitted U/Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months from today U/s.437-A of Cr.P.C. Explanation for the delay:

This case was taken on file on 19-11-15. In this case, copies of documents were furnished to the accused and he was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C. on 21-04-2016. On behalf of the complainant, Pws.1 and 2 examined and Exs.P1 to P9 marked. Complainant evidence is closed. The accused examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C and accused reported no defence evidence. On behalf of the accused, Exs.D1 and D2 marked. Heard arguments and Judgment pronounced on 07-04-2017. Hence, the delay.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHILAKALURIPET.

11

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

SATTENAPALLI.

Present: Smt. M. Jayamma,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.

Friday, the 28 th day of December, 2018

 ORIGINAL SUIT No.206/2015

Between: Burusu Govindu S/o. Kotaiah Door No.9­100A, Hindu, aged 45 years, Velpuru village, Atchampet Mandal, Guntur District, Sattenapalli DMC. … Plaintiff.

And

1. Bursu Bikshalu S/o. Kotaiah, aged 55 years, R/o. Vikalangula Colony, Opp. Madhu Kirana Shop, Kondavenktappaiah Colony, Guntur Town and DMC.

2. Gunji Krishna Rao S/o. Akkulu, Hindu, aged 50 years, R/o. B.C. Colony, near Government school, Velpuru village of Atchempet Mandal, Guntur District, Sattenapalli D.M.C.

3. Gunji Peraiah S/o. Late Kotaiah, Hindu, aged 50 R/o. B.C. Colony, near YSR statue, Velpuru village of Atchampet Mandal, Guntur District, Sattenapalli D.M.C. … Defendants.

 This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 24­12­2018 in the presence of the learned Advocate for the plaintiff Sri. Shaik Jani Khaja Vali and learned counsel for defendant no.1 Sri. P. Pamulaiah, and D2 and D3 are set exapate , no representation on either side hence treated as heard and after perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:­

 JUDGMENT

1) This is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of permanent injunction and for costs.

2) Brief averments in the Plaint :­ a) Plaintiff has been resident in the suit schedule property with an extent of Ac.0.04 cent of land since 30 years. Originally there is thatched house in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents out of Ac.0.04 cents and remaining is vacant site in which he is tethering his cattle by erecting cattle shed. In the place of thatched paka, the plaintiff erected asbestos sheet roof shed and has been residing in it and paying house taxes to the government. The plaintiff also obtained ration card and also Aadhar card wherein the plaint schedule house number is being mentioned 9­100A. The defendants having no manner of rights are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and they have proclaiming in the village that they encroach 2 vacant site. On 12.7.2015 defendant No.1 along with their henchmen and with active support of the defendants no.2 and 3 beat plaintiff. Plaintiff filed criminal case against the defendants. It is averred that defendants are threatening the plaintiff to dispossess him and his family members from the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is unable to face the brutal force of the defendants in protecting his possession over the plaint schedule property, he was constrained to file the suit.

3) Summons was served on defendants. D1 entered appearance and resisted the suit claim. Defendants no.2 and 3 remained exparte.

4) Pleadings of defendant No.1 in brief: a) He pleads that plaintiff has no title and right over the suit schedule property. The boundaries noted in the schedule property are false. Plaintiff is a occupier of Ac.0.01 cents . The the boundaries of suit schedule property are wrongly noted. This defendant's property was in Ac.0.04 cents, to an extent of Ac.0.01 within compound walls. The D1, 

Yedukondalu, Govindu and Peda Mysaiah occupied Ac.0.01 cent each and enjoying in the colony. They are all belonged to Veddera community. The plaintiff did not obtain any permission from the Gramapanchyat. There is no record to show that schedule property is belonged to the plaintiff. This defendant has constructed compound wall to his site (Ac.0.01 cent) previously and he constructed thatched house. It was collapsed. The D1 is attending for colony works in various places for his livelihood with his family . In the absence of him, the plaintiff wants to grab his property by suppressing facts and filed this frivolous suit to harass him. The plaintiff under the guise of suit , he attempted to damage to the Prahari of (compound wall) this defendant . Plaintiff wants to grab entire Ac.0.04 cents and hatched a plan and applied illegal method. The plaintiff not added necessary parties to the suit. 

Plaintiff has come to the court with unclean hands . The claim of the plaintiff is very unconscionable , fabulous, excessive, imaginary and any event he is not entitled any relief. Thus, he sought to dismiss the suit with costs.

5) Basing on the rival contentions of the parties, my learned Predecessor settled the following issues for trial. 

ISSUES:

1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

2) Whether defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

3) Whether there is interference or threat of interference by the  3 defendant over the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff relating to the suit schedule property?

4) Whether the plaintiff intends to grab the suit schedule property 

by demolishing the compound wall of the defendant?

5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent 

Injunction as prayed for ?

6) To What relief ?

6) a) Plaintiff to substantiate his case got examined P.W's.1 to 5 and exhibited 

Ex's.A­1 to A­7 viz., Ex.A1 is house tax receipt dt.15.7.2010; Ex.A2 is house tax receipt and demand notice of the year 2011 for Assessment No.914 issued by panchayat secretary, Velpuru Gram panchayat; Ex.A3 is house tax receipt and demand notice for Assessment No.689 issued by panchayat secretary, Velpuru gram panchayat; Ex.A4 is bunch of electricity bills and receipt (18) ; Ex.A5­ Electricity bill dt.20.9.2011 ; Ex.A6­ Electricity bill dt.21.5.2015 ; Ex.A7­ Photographs (4) along with C.D.

b) On behalf of the defendants Dws.1 and D2 filed their chief­examination affidavits but they did not turn up to enter into witness box hence , the evidence of 

D.W1 and DW2 is eschewed. 

7) Heard. Perused the material on record.

8) Now, the points for the determination are:­ 9) ISSUES No.1 and 2:­ a) It is the case of the plaintiff that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.A1 to A7. Per contra it is the case of D1 that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and he constructed compound wall to his site in Ac.0.01 cents . He further contended that plaintiff did not obtain any permission from Grampanchayat. There is no record to show that the suit schedule property is belonged to the plaintiff and thus he sought to dismiss the suit with costs.

b) Plaintiff to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property got examined P.Ws.1 to 5 . PW1 is the plaintiff. P.Ws.2 to 5 are neighbors to the suit schedule property. P.Ws.1 and 3 categorically deposed that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of 

Ex.A1. Though the learned counsel for the defendant tried to elicit that during the cross­examination of PW1 that he is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property but of vain as PW1 denied the said suggestion and other 4 suggestion put by the learned counsel for the defendant that plaintiff did not file any document into court relating to the suit schedule property and filed false suit without any document and documents filed by the plaintiff are not related to the suit schedule property is also denied by PW1 . Thus, nothing material was elicited during the cross­examination of PW1 to prove that Ex.A1 to A7 are not relating to the suit schedule property. PW1 deposed that he purchased the suit schedule property prior to 30 years from 4 persons namely Edukondalu, Bikshalu, China 

Mysaiah and Peda Mysaiah under registered document and he was paying house tax to the schedule property since 30 years. He further deposed that he also obtained ration card and Aadhar card wherein the schedule house is being mentioned 9­100A and the suit schedule property is situated in BC Colony at Velpuru village of 

Atchampet Mandal. He has been residing in Ac.0.04 cents of site situated in B.C. 

Colony. 

P.W3 filed his chief­examination affidavit by stating that plaintiff is true owner of the suit schedule property and plaintiff is residing in Ac.0.04 cents of site situated in B.C. Colony by erecting shed in it and plaintiff has been residing in the shed since 30 years , further he deposed that defendants have no manner of right to try with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. During cross­examination of PW3 nothing material was elicited to disprove possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property . P.W3 also stated that plaintiff purchased property from 5 persons namely D1, himself, B. 

Kondalu, B. Peda Mysaiah, China Mysaiah and they all sold agricultural land to plaintiff in single survey number prior to 20 years. So also they sold Ac.0.50 cents of agricultural land to the plaintiff. He further states that they executed agreement of sale relating to the Ac.0.50 cents of agricultural land in favour of plaintiff.

c) P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 filed their chief­examination affidavits by reiterating the contents of plaint that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since 30 years and defendants are trying to interfere with the possessions and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. During the cross­ examination of PW2, nothing material was elicited to disprove Ex.A1 to A7. Though the learned counsel for the defendant tried to elicit that plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property but of vain as PW2 denied the said suggestion further PW2 has stated that government issued patta to defendants and others prior to 50 years, also persons to whom government issued pattas were residing with their families by constructing houses. He further deposed that plaintiff 5 purchased the suit schedule property prior to 20 years but he do not know the vendor's name of plaintiff. Witness volunteers that it might be plaintiff's father's property. 

P.W4 filed his chief­examinations affidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 

During his cross­examination , nothing material was elicited to disprove Ex.A1 to A7 . Though the learned counsel for the defendant tried to elicit that plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property but of vain as PW4 denied the said suggestion . PW4 has stated that he came to know that the suit filed by plaintiff when galata took place between plaintiff and defendant prior to 2 years.

 PW5 filed his chief­examination by stating that plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. During his cross­examination nothing material was elicited that to disprove the Ex.A1 to A7. Though the learned counsel for the defendant tried to elicit that plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property but of vain as PW5 denied the said suggestion . PW5 has stated that the suit filed by the plaintiff prior to 2 years and he know about the galata and cases filed between plaintiff and D1 prior to 2 years, further he stated that he was present when plaintiff and defendant picked up quarrel. He further stated that D1 filed suit against plaintiff relating to the suit schedule property and there are criminal cases between plaintiff and defendant .

d) Thus, from the evidence of PW1 to PW5 coupled with Ex.A1 to A7 , this court holds that plaintiff has established his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property . Now the burden shift to the defendant to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Though the defendant claimed possession over the suit schedule property, he did not produce any document in his support of his contention. Chief­examination of defendant is filed as 

DW1 but he did not turn up to enter into witness box , hence the evidence of DW1 is eschewed on 20­8­2018. Pleadings of the defendant in the written statement discloses that plaintiff has no ownership or title over the suit schedule property and the boundaries noted in the suit schedule property are false .plaintiff under the guise of schedule property he attempt to damage the compound wall of this defendant. As this defendant constructed compound wall within his site. Whereas the plaintiff is claiming possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. 

Be that as it may except mere pleadings in the written statement defendant did not 6 produce any oral and documentary evidence to substance the pleadings of the defendant. Any amount of pleadings in the absence of evidence , it cannot considered. Hence, the pleadings of the defendant is brushed aside. In view of the above said discussion , this court holds that plaintiff has proved his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. 

Accordingly Issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 

10.ISSUES No. 3 and 4: a) The findings in Issue no.1 and 2 clearly discloses that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property . Relating to the interference or threat of interference caused by the defendants . The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 clearly discloses that defendants are trying to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and thus plaintiff has reported the matter to the police. P.W2, PW4 and PW5 also categorically stated that defendants tried to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. No suggestion was put to 

P.Ws.1 to 5 by the learned counsel for the defendant that defendant did not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property which amounts to indirect admission. Thus, in view of the above said reasons this court holds that plaintiff has established his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and interference or threat of interference caused by the defendant over the suit schedule property which entitled him to equitable relief of Permanent injunction. 

b) Relating plaintiff tried to grab the schedule property by demolishing the compound wall of the defendant , D1 failed to establish his version and he did not produce any oral or documentary evidence to show that plaintiff intends to grab the suit schedule property by demolishing the compound wall of D1. 

c) Accordingly Issues No.3 and 4 are answered in favour of the plaintiff' and against the defendants.

11. ISSUE No.5: In order to grant of permanent injunction , plaintiff has to prove his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property . The evidence of 

P.W1 to 5 coupled with Ex.A1 to A7 clearly discloses that plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. The evidence on record discloses that defendant is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Thus in the absence of any documentary evidence or corroborative oral evidence, this court is not inclined to accept the pleadings of the defendant that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by constructing compound wall .

7

Accordingly issue no.5 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

12. ISSUE No.6: In view of the findings in issues no.1 to 5 , this court holds that, the suit is to be decreed with costs.

12) RESULT: In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in the interests of justice, granting the relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants no.1 to 3 and their supporters from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property by plaintiff' and his family members .

Typed to Dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28th day of December­ 2018.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

 Sattenapalli.

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :­

WITNESSES EXAMINED:­

For Plaintiff :­ For Defendant:­ None P.W.1: Burusu Govindu P.W.2:Burusu Durgaiah P.W.3:Burusu Maseeiah P.W.4:Shaik Dadmiya P.W5:Shaik Manasa

DOCUMENTS MARKED :­

For Plaintiff :­ Ex.A1: House tax receipt dt.15.7.2010;

Ex.A2: House tax receipt and demand notice of the year 2011 for Assessment No.914 issued by panchayat secretary, Velpuru Gram panchayat; 

Ex.A3: House tax receipt and demand notice for Assessment No.689 issued by panchayat secretary, Velpuru gram panchayat

Ex.A4: Bunch of electricity bills and receipt (18) ; 

Ex.A5: Electricity bill dt.20.9.2011 ;

Ex.A6­ Electricity bill dt.21.5.2015 

Ex.A7­ Photographs (4) along with C.D. 

For Defendants:­ NIL

P.J.C.J.,SAP. Sattenapalli.

8

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SATTENAPALLI.

Present: Smt. M. Jayamma,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.

Friday, the 28th day of December, 2018.

 ORIGINAL SUIT No.358/2017

Between: Mujafar Mastan S/o. China Mahaboob , Muslim, aged about 50 years, cultivation, R/o. Turakapalem village, H/o. Mangalagiripadu Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District, Sattenapalli D.M.C.… Plaintiff.

And

1. Palnati Shaik Mahaboob S/o. Late Tajuddin, Muslim , Agriculturalist, aged about 47 years, R/o. Turakapalem village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Palnati Shaik Galib Bi W/o. Late Tajuddin, Muslim, Agriculturist , aged about 60 years, R/o. Turakapalem village, Medkonduru Mandal, Guntur District.

3. Shaik Hussain Bi W/o. Late Abdul Majeed D/o. Late Tajuddin, Muslim, agriculturist, aged about 38 years, R/o. Turakapalem village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District.

4. Palnati Shaik Baji S/o. Late Tajuddin, Muslim, agriculturist, aged about 38 years, R/o. Turakapalem village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District.

5. Shaik Jani Begum W/o. Late Abdul Majeed D/o. Late Tajuddin, Muslim, Agriculturist, R/o. Turakapalem village, Medikonduru mandal, Guntur District.

… Defendants.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 18.12.2018 in the presence of the learned counsel for the plaintiff Sri. G. Ajay Kumar and the learned counsel for defendants Sri. P.V .Narasimha Sastry and having heard and after perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:­

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of recovery of money of 

Rs.2,72,000/­ being principal and interest due on the suit promissory note dt.10.10.2014 jointly executed by Palnati Tajuddin (father of D1, D3 to D5 and husband of D2) and D1 for Rs.2,00,000/­ in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% p.a. and subsequent interest and costs.

2) Pleadings of the Plaintiff in brief is that:­ Plaintiff pleads that, Palnati 

Tajuddin (father of D1, D3 to D5 and husband of D2) and D1 jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ from him on 10.10.2014 for their family expenses. On the same date, the said Palnati Tajuddin and D1 jointly executed Ex.A1­suit promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his endorsee on demand. Subsequently inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators, Palnati Tajuddin and D1 did not choose to repay the debt and postponing the same from time to time. Subsequently Palnati 

Tajuddin was died instate on 22.9.2016 without discharging the debt . All the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the estate of late Palnati Tajuddin after his death and they have been jointly enjoying it. Inspite of repeated demands made by plaintiff personally and registered notice dt.24.9.2016, defendants received the same and D1 got issued reply notice on 28.9.2016 with false allegations. The defendants jointly and severally liable to discharge the debt . Hence the suit for recovery of the debt with interest.

3) Summons was served on defendants. Defendant No.1 filed written statement by opposing suit claim and the same was adopted by D2 to D5.

4) Pleadings of defendants in brief:Defendants plead that, D1 and his father never borrowed either Rs.2,00,000/­ or any other amount from plaintiff either on 10.10.2014 or any other date and never executed any promissory note in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff is no other than the own brother of one Mujafar Mustafa. D1 is having some money transactions with the said Mustafa. In such transactions the said 

Mustafa used to take the signature of the D1 and his father on some blank promissory note. Prior to the date of issuing legal notice by plaintiff there arose disputes between D1 and the said Mustafa and D1 filed suit against Mustafa and another. The said Mustafa in order to take revenge against D1, he colluded with plaintiff and fabricated the promissory note . The plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount and D1 has no necessity to borrow such huge amount. D1 got issued reply notice to the plaintiff and requested plaintiff to send Photostat copy of the promissory note so as to enable the D1 to got issue property reply. The plaintiff without sending the Photostat copy of the promissory note filed the suit with false allegations. The interest claimed in the suit is excessive and arbitrary. Admittedly the father of the D1 and his father are agriculturalist. 

The interest has to be scaled down as per the provisions of Act 4/1938. Thus, they sought to dismiss the suit with costs.

5) Basing on the rival contentions of the parties, the following issues are settled for trial.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the suit promissory note dt.10.10.2014 for Rs.2,00,000/­ is executed by one Palnati Shaik Tajuddin (Father of D1, D3 to D5, husband of D2) and D1 jointly and thus is true , valid and binding on defendants?

2. Whether the suit promissory note is forged one?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit relief? and

4. What relief?

6) a) Plaintiff to substantiate his case, got examined himself as P.W.1, 2nd attestor and scribe of Ex.A1 as P.W2 & PW3, apart from exhibiting Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 namely 

Ex.A1 ­ promissory note dt.10.10.2014 for Rs.2,00,000/­ jointly executed by Palnati 

Tajuddin and D1in favour of plaintiff, Office copy of legal notice dt.24.9.2016 and Reply notice dt.28.9.2016.

b) On behalf of defendants, defendant no.1 got examined himself as D.W.1. No documents were marked on behalf of defendants.

7) Heard. Perused the material on record.

8) Now, the points for the determination are:­

9) ISSUES NO.1 & 2 : a) It is case of the plaintiff that, Palnati Tajuddin (father of 

D1, D3 to D5 and husband of D2) & D1 jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ from him and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour. Inspite of repeated demands , Tajuddin and D1 failed to discharge the suit amount . As the said D1 was died without discharging the suit promissory note amounts, he was constrained to file the suit against the defendants who are the legal heirs of deceased Palnti Tajuddin and D1 is personally liable to pay suit claim because he is joint borrower.

b) To prove the execution of Ex.A1 suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, plaintiff got examined himself as PW1, 2nd attestor and scribe of Ex.A1 as PW2 & PW3. 

PW.1 filed his chief­examination affidavit stating about the fact of borrowing amounts by deceased Tajuddin and D1 jointly from the plaintiff under Ex.A1. He further stated about execution of Ex.A1 suit promissory note in his favour by deceased Tajuddin and D1 jointly. PW­2 stated in his chief­examination affidavit about the fact of borrowing amounts by Tajuddin and D1 from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 and execution of the suit promissory note Ex.A­1 by the deceased Tajuddin and D1 infavour of the plaintiff. He also states that, he attested in Ex.A­1 as second attestor. P.W3 stated in his chief­ examination affidavit that defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff and after receiving the suit promissory note amount, he scribe the Ex.A1­suit promissory note. 

Thus, PW.'s 1 to 3 reiterated the plaint pleadings relating to borrowing of amounts by the deceased Tajuddin and D1 and execution of suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff by deceased Tajuddin and D1 jointly. PW1 deposed in his cross­examination that prior to execution of Ex.A1­suit promissory note, D1 and his father asked him to arrange an amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ for the purpose of contract work of D1 and further deposed that suit promissory note was executed at his house at about 10.00 a.m. and by the time of execution of Ex.A1­pronote , six members were present i.e. plaintiff, Sk. Khajavali, Sk. 

Thajuddin/father of D1, Reyaz, Mahaboob and D1 and he further deposed that the denomination of promissory note is Rs.500/­ notes. P.W.2 filed his chief ­examination affidavit stating that father of D1 and D1 jointly borrowed amount from plaintiff, he and 

P.W3 were present at the time of execution of Ex.A1. During cross­examination he deposed that Ex.A1 was executed in the varanda of plaintiff's house and father of D1 & 

D1 called him to the house of plaintiff and also at the time of execution of Ex.A1 , there were five members present at the house of plaintiff, D1 himself purchased promissory note and stamp, he deposed the denomination of suit amount is Rs.500/­ notes. He further deposed that Palnati Tajuddin put his thumb impression on Ex.A1 firstly, then after D1 put his signature on Ex.A1. P.W3 filed his chief­examination affidavit stating that 

D1 and his father jointly borrowed amount from the plaintiff and he scribe the Ex.A1 at the house of plaintiff . During cross­examination he admitted that himself, D1 and his father together went to the house of plaintiff and by the time they reached the house of plaintiff, 1st attestor was present. Though, P.W's.1 to 3 were subjected to cross examination, nothing material was elicited to disprove Ex.A1 suit promissory note. Thus, even during the cross­examination of P.W's.1 to 3 the fact of borrowing amount by D1 from the plaintiff remained unimpeached. As plaintiff has discharged his initial burden of proving the execution of Ex.A1 suit promissory note in his favour, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove the same.

c) Defendant no.1 got examined himself as D.W.1. He filed his chief­examination affidavit reiterating the contents of written statement stating that, Ex.A1 suit promissory note is forged. D1 and his father never executed suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff. He is having financial transaction with the brother of plaintiff by name Mustafa and he issued empty signed promissory to him and later there arose disputes between him and brother of plaintiff . In order to take vengeance against him, brother of plaintiff fabricated the suit promissory note and filed the suit with the help of plaintiff. Thus, DW1 denies the execution of Ex.A1 suit promissory note by D1 and his father Tajuddin in favour of the plaintiff. 

d) Now, it has been seen whether the testimony of D.W.1 remains intact even after cross­examination. D.W.1 in his cross­examination admits that, there are no disputes with plaintiff, attestors and scribe. He also admits that, 1st attestor and scribe of Ex.A1 relatives of him. Though, he denies that the signature in Ex.A1 suit promissory note does not belong to him and his father , he did not send the promissory note to expert to prove his contention that the signatures on Ex.A1 suit promissory note does not belong to him. This evidence of D.W.1 gives rise to an adverse inference, that the suit promissory note is jointly executed by him and his father Tajuddin infavour of the plaintiff. 

e) The another plea of D1 is that, he is having financial transaction with the brother of plaintiff/Mustafa who obtained empty promissory note from him. Due to disputes between him and brother of plaintiff, the suit promissory was brought into existence with the help of plaintiff. But D1 failed to issue legal notice to the brother of the plaintiff to return the promissory note so also D1 did not file any document to show that he filed case against the brother of the plaintiff for missing of promissory notes which reveals that the plea was invented by him to support his case. Defendants further pleaded that the interest claimed by plaintiff is excessive as they are agricultural coolies. 

Except mere plea, no evidence was produced by the defendants to prove the same that the interest claimed in the suit is excessive and arbitrary. Be that as it is, this is a suit filed basing on promissory notes executed by father of D1 and D1 jointly, hence, D2 to D5 will have no personal obligation to discharge the same. The property which is lying in their hands, if any of deceased Tajuddin will be liable for the suit amount and further D1 is liable to pay suit amount personally. 

f) In view of the aforesaid reasons, this court holds that, Palnati Tajuddin and D1 jointly executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff.

Accordingly, Issues Nos.1 and 2 are determined in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants. 

10) ISSUE No.3: In view of the findings in Issues Nos.1 and 2, this Court holds that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit relief against D1 personally and the estate of deceased Palnati Tajuddin.

Accordingly, Issue No­3 is determined in favour of the plaintiff.

11) ISSUE No.3: In view of findings in Issues No.1 & 2, this Court holds that, the suit is to be decreed with costs 12) RESULT :­ In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in the interests of justice against D1 personally and estate of deceased Palnati Shaik Tajuddin for a sum of 

Rs.2,72,000/­  together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the Suit, till the date of the decree and thereafter at 6% per annum on the 

principal sum of Rs.2,00,000/­ from the date of the decree, till the date of 

realization of the decree. The plaintiff has to recover or realize the above said amounts from D1 personally and the estate of the deceased Palnati Shaik Tajuddin, if any lying in the hands of D2 to D5.

Typed my to Dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and 

pronounced by me the operative portion of the Judgment in the open court, this the 28th 

day of December, 2018.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Sattenapalli.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :­

WITNESSES EXAMINED:­

For Plaintiff :­ P.W.1: Mujafar Mastan P.W.2: Shaik Tajuddin P.W.3:Shaik Riyad Basha

For Defendants:­ DW1: Palnati Shaik Mahaboob

DOCUMENTS MARKED :­ For Plaintiff :­ Ex.A1 – Promissory note for Rs.2,00,000/­ dt.10.10.2014

Ex.A2 ­ Office copy of registered notice dt.24.9.2016

Ex.A3 – Reply notice issued by defendants dt.28.9.2016

For Defendants:­ ­ NIL ­

P.J.C.J., Sattenapalli.