Smt M. Madhavi

APCH0200419320221C.C.No.1963/2022

Dt: 11-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: CHITTOOR

PRESENT: Smt. M. Madhavi, I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. FAC II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.

Monday, the Eleventh (11 th ) day of May, 2026.

C.C.No. 1963 of 2022

Between :

State represented by though its Sub-Inspector of Police, Puthalapattu Police Station.

... Complainant

And:

1. V.Venkatapathi Naidu, age 73 years, S/o Late Nagaiah Naidu, Diguva Chowdepalli Village, h/o Paturu, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor Dist.,

2. V. Sujatha @ V. Suseela, age 57 years, S/o V. Venkatapathi Naidu, Diguva Chowdepalli Village, h/o Paturu, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor Dist.,

3. V.Sreeramulu Naidu, age 72 years, S/o Late Gangaiah Naidu, Diguva Chowdepalli Village, h/o Paturu, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor Dist.,

4. V.Vijaya, age 66 years, W/o V. Sriramulu Naidu, Diguva Chowdepalli Village, h/o Paturu, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor Dist.,

5. V.Subramanyam Naidu, age 67 years, s/o Late V. Gangaiah Naidu, Diguva Chowdepalli Village, h/o Paturu, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor Dist.,

6. V.Parvathi, age 60 years, W/o V. Subramanyam Naidu, Diguva Chowdepalli Village, h/o Paturu, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor Dist.,

7. V.Hemadri Naidu @ Dileep, age 40 years, S/o V. Subramanyam Naidu, Diguva Chowdepalli Village, h/o Paturu, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor Dist.,

8. G.Rama Naidu @ Ramaiah Naidu, age 69 years, S/o Annaiah Naidu, Diguva Chowdepalli Village, h/o Paturu, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor Dist., … Accused

This case is coming on 07-05-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.Uma Devi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri P.Dayasekar, 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 :

APCH0200419320222C.C.No.1963/2022

Dt: 11-05-2026

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

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Puthalapattu Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.204 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Sec.430, 353 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (In short IPC).

02.The case of the prosecution is as follows :

PW.1/P.Gowri is working MPDO in Mandal Development Office,

Puthalapattu Mandal. In Diguva Chowdepalli Village there is a drinking water well situated since 120 years. On 14-06-2022 PW.1 received a petition from villagers of Diguva Chowdepalli Village of Paturu Panchayath in which the villagers complained that a drinking water well with a history of 120 years is situated in the village and that the Accused Nos.1 to 7 closed the well without the knowledge of the villagers. On receipt of petition, PW.1 informed LW.2/P.Vijaya Bhaskar about the issue. PW.1 and LW.2 orally ordered the concerned Panchayath Secretary to go to Diguva Chowdepalli village and conduct enquiry about the water source well and submit a report. Later, PW.2/N.Munirathnam & LW.3/R.L.Hemalatha went to Diguva Chowdepalli village and enquired that there was a drinking water well situated on the Raja bhavi Street in the said village in he name o “Mandala

Bhavi” and the Accused No.1 to 7 had closed the said well. On receipt of report of PW.2 & LW.3 on 21-06-2022, PW.1 & LW.2 visited the Diguva Chowdepalli

Village and while enquiring the villagers at about 12:45 p.m., A8 came there and behave rudely with PW.1 and LW.2 and he obstructed them from discharging of their legitimate duties.

(ii) Basing on the complaint of PW.1/K.Ananda, on 20-08-2022 at 04:00 p.m., PW.6/K.M.Manohar, HC 299, Station House Officer, Puthalapattu Police

Station registered a case in Crime No.204 of 2022 under Sec.430, 353 r/w 34 of

IPC against the Accused and issued FIR to the all concern officers and investigated into. During the course of investigation, on 20-08-2022 PW.6 examined PW.1/P.Gowri, LW.2/Y.Vijaya Bhaskar and recorded their statements

APCH0200419320223C.C.No.1963/2022

Dt: 11-05-2026

under Sec.161(3) of Cr.P.C. On 21-08-2022, PW.6 examined

LW.3/R.L.Hemalatha, PW.2/N.Munirathnam, PW.3/E.Ramachandra Naidu,

PW.4/Addanki Nageswara Rao @ Nagesh, PW.5/Galla Syamala,

LW.8/K.Devarajulu Naidu and recorded their statements under Sec.161(3) of

Cr.P.C. On the same day, LW.11/A.Hari Prasad, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Puthalapattu Police Station visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch of scene of offence. During the course of investigation on 22-08-2022,

LW.10/B.Manohar, the then S.I of Police, Puthalapattu Police Station verified the investigation done by PW.6 and found it on correct lines. During the course of investigation on 12-10-2022, LW.11 served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C., notices to the

Accused Nos.1 to 8. After completion of entire investigation, LW.15 filed charge sheet against the accused.

03.This case was taken on file for the alleged offence under section under

Sec.430 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A7 and Sec.353 of IPC against A8. On appearance of accused before this court, the copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

04.Accused Nos.1 to 8 were examined under Sec.239 r/w 240 of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Sec.430 r/w Sec.34 of I.P.C. against A1 to A7 and

U/Sec.353 of IPC against A8. Charges were framed, read over and explained to the Accused for which they denied the commission of the offence and claimed to be tried.

05.Therefore, the prosecution was directed to adduce the evidence on their behalf to substantiate the guilt of accused for the offence leveled against them, the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7.

06.After completing the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., in respect of the incriminating evidence available in the prosecution witnesses. The substance of the incriminating evidence was read

APCH0200419320224C.C.No.1963/2022

Dt: 11-05-2026

over and explained to the accused, for which the accused pleaded ignorance and reported no defence evidence on their side.

07.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

08.Now the points that arise for consideration are :

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the charges punishable

under Sections.430 r/w Sec.34 of I.P.C. against A1 to A7 beyond all

reasonable doubts?

2. Whether the prosecution has proved the charges punishable

under Sec.353 of I.P.C., against A8 beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT Nos.1 and 2:

09.In order to bring home the guilty of the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7.

10.PW.1, who is de-facto complainant deposed that on 14-06-2022,

LW.5/Ramachandra Naidu filed application to conduct enquiry as some of the villagers closed the well in the village. On that, he gave instructions to the

Tahsildar and also gave instructions to the Panchayath Secretary, VRO and

Sarpanch to file report after conducting enquiry. On 18-06-2022 Panchayath

Secretary, VRO and Sarpanch filed report stating that the said well was closed by the villagers. On 21-06-2022, at about 12:00 noon to 12:45 p.m., he went to

Paturu Village to visit the well. At that time, 10 villagers i.e., Venkatapathi Naidu and his family members obstructed their duties. He Accused No.1 and stated that he could not identify the other accused due to lapse of memory. He deposed that on 17-08-2022, he gave report in the police station and also report of

Panchayath Secretary, VRO and Sarpanch to the police at the time of giving report.

11.PW.2, who is VRO deposed that on 14-06-2022 at the instructions of

Panchayath Secretary, he along with Sarpanch by name Sreelatha went to

Paturu Village to conduct enquiry regarding closing of Well. He does not know

APCH0200419320225C.C.No.1963/2022

Dt: 11-05-2026

who closed the well, but it is fact that the said well was closed. Later, they gave report to PW.1. He deposed that Panchayath Secreatary also visited the said

Well.

12.PW.3 who is eye witness to the incident deposed that on 14-06-2022 he gave complaint to the MRO and MPDO of Puthalapattu Mandal regarding closing of Well and to conduct enquiry as who closed the Well. Panchayath Secretary,

Sarpanch and VRO visited the scene of offence i.e., Well and gave report to the

MPDO. He deposed that one Sreelatha was Sarpanch of the Village. On 21-06- 2022, PW.1 and Tahsildar visited the Well and at that time, the Villagers gathered and an altercation took place. He does not know who caused obstruction to the

PW.1.

13.PW.4 & 5 who are eye witnesses to the incident have deposed in similar lines to that they do not know anything about this case and they did not witness anything in this case.

14.PW.6 who is Investigation Officer has supported the prosecution case.

15.On careful scrutiny of evidence on record it is observed that in order to prove the charges against the accused the prosecution has examined PW.1 to

PW.6. PW.1 is the de-facto complainant and MPDO of Puthalapattu, PW.2 is

VRO, PW.3 and 5 are the eye witnesses, PW.6 is the Investigation Officer. As per the prosecution, the accused closed the water Well and the accused No.8 behaved highhandedly and caused obstruction to the legal duties of PW.1. As per Ex.P1, the offence took place on 20.08.2022 at 12.45 PM. When coming into evidence of PW.1 it is observed that she have oral instructions to the Tahsildar,

Panchayath Secretary, VRO to conduct enquiry regarding of closing of water

Well and instructed them to submit report. The evidence of PW.1 disclosed that they submitted report to her. She deposed that she went to Paturu village at about 12.45 PM and there 10 persons obstructed her duties. When coming into her cross examined, it was elicited that she admitted that the application of

APCH0200419320226C.C.No.1963/2022

Dt: 11-05-2026

villagers does not contain name persons who closed the Water Well so also, date of closing the Well. She deposed that she has not collected any documents to show that whether the said Well is Public Well or Private Well? She deposed that she does not know the civil disputes between the accused and PW.3. she did not identify all the accused in the open court, but she identified only one accused i.e.

A1. She deposed that she could not identify them due to lapse of memory.

16.PW.2 is the VRO of Paturu village. As per the evidence of PW.1, she orally instructed him and others to conduct oral enquiry regarding closing of Well but he deposed that he does not know who closed the well but closing of well is fact and they submitted the same report. PW.3 deposed that on 21.06.2022 PW.1 and

Tahsildar visited the Well and at that time the villagers were gathered and an altercation took place. He deposed that he does not know who caused obstruction to PW.1.

17.It is further observed that PW.4 and 5 who are eye witnesses to the incident have deposed that they do not know anything about this case and no incident was witnessed by them. In the present case, PW.3 is the villager who gave complaint to PW.1 regarding closing of Well. Though he admitted giving complaint to PW.1 and also closing of Well, his evidence does not establish that the accused closed the said Well. He further deposed that at the time of visitation of PW.1 and 2 villagers gather and an altercation took place but he does not know caused obstruction to PW.1. Again the evidence of PW.3 does not established that accused caused obstruction to the legal duties of PW.1.

18.In the present case, none of the material witnesses stated that the accused closed the said Water Well and caused obstruction to PW.1. in the present case

PW.2 to PW.5 has turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The learned APP requested the court to declare them as hostile witnesses and obtained permission to cross examine them. But, nothing was elicited in her cross examination in favor of prosecution. In the present case, there is no iota of

APCH0200419320227C.C.No.1963/2022

Dt: 11-05-2026

evidence on record to prove that the accused closed the Water Well. There is not cogent and reliable evidence on record to prove that Accused No.8 caused obstruction to the legal duties of PW.1. PW.1 has not identified the accused No.8 as he caused obstruction to her legal duties. In the absence of evidence of material witnesses, this court can not rely on the evidence of PW.6 who is investigation officer in this case. In the above circumstances, this court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused No.1 to 8.

19.In view of above discussion, this court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

20.In the result, Accused No.1 to 8 found not guilty for the charges under Sec.

430, 353 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bail bonds of Accused if any shall be in force for six months in terms of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked/unworthy property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. M. Madhavi,

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1 : Gowry-None- PW.2 : N. Munirathnam PW.3 : E. Ramachandra Naidu PW.4 : Nageswar Rao PW.5 : Shyamala

APCH0200419320228C.C.No.1963/2022

Dt: 11-05-2026

PW.6 : K.M. Manohar

Documents marked

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Police Report along with xerox copies of application of L.5 and report of Panchayath Secretary and VRO.

Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.2.

Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.3.

Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.4.

Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.5.

Ex.P6: F.I.R.

Ex.P7: Rough Sketch of the scene of offence.

FOR DEFENCE: -NIL-

Material Objects marked

-NIL-

Sd/- Smt. M. Madhavi,

I AJMFC, CTR

FAC II AJMFC, CTR

//TRUE COPY//

I AJMFC, CTR

FAC II AJMFC, CTR

APCH0200419320229C.C.No.1963/2022

Dt: 11-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: CHITTOOR

CALENDER CASE NO. 1963 of 2022

Date of offence:20-08-2022

Date of complaint:20-08-2022

Date of apprehension of Accused:12-10-2022

Date of taken on file:03-11-2022

Date of commencement of trial:02-03-2026

Date of close of trial:13-04-2026

Date of sentence of order:11-05-2026

Complainant:The Sub-Inspector of Police, Puthalapattu Police Station. (Cr.No.204 of 2022)

Particulars of the Accused:

1. V. Venkatapathi Naidu, age 73 years, S/o Late Nagaiah Naidu, Diguva Chowdepalli Village, h/o Paturu, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor Dist.,

2. V. Sujatha @ V. Suseela, age 57 years, S/o V. Venkatapathi Naidu, Diguva Chowdepalli Village, h/o Paturu, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor Dist.,

3. V. Sreeramulu Naidu, age 72 years, S/o Late Gangaiah Naidu, Diguva Chowdepalli Village, h/o Paturu, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor Dist.,

4. V. Vijaya, age 66 years, W/o V. Sriramulu Naidu, Diguva Chowdepalli Village, h/o Paturu, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor Dist.,

5. V. Subramanyam Naidu, age 67 years, s/o Late V. Gangaiah Naidu, Diguva Chowdepalli Village, h/o Paturu, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor Dist.,

6. V. Parvathi, age 60 years, W/o V. Subramanyam Naidu, Diguva Chowdepalli Village, h/o Paturu, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor Dist.,

7. V. Hemadri Naidu @ Dileep, age 40 years, S/o V. Subramanyam Naidu, Diguva Chowdepalli Village, h/o Paturu, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor Dist.,

8. G. Rama Naidu @ Ramaiah Naidu, age 69 years, S/o Annaiah Naidu, Diguva Chowdepalli Village, h/o Paturu, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor Dist.,

U/Sec.430 r/w Sec.34 of I.P.C. against A1 to A7 and Nature of offence U/Sec.353 of IPC against A8

Plea of the Accused.Pleaded not guilty.

APCH02004193202210C.C.No.1963/2022

Dt: 11-05-2026

Finding of the courtFound not guilty.

Sentence of Order : In the result, Accused No.1 to 8 found not guilty for the charges under Sec. 430, 353 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bail bonds of Accused if any shall be in force for six months in terms of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked/unworthy property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt. M. Madhavi,

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.

//TRUE COPY//

I AJMFC, CTR

FAC II AJMFC, CTR

APCH0200204020251C.C.No.798/2025

Dt: 07-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

:: CHITTOOR

PRESENT: Smt. M. Madhavi, I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. FAC II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.

Thursday, the Seventh (7 th ) day of May, 2026.

C.C.No.798 of 2025

Between :

The State Rep. through its Inspector of Police, Puthalapattu Police Station.

... Complainant

And:

A.Vinod Kumar @ A.Vinod, age 28 years, S/o A. Durvasulu, resident of

Dasarapalli Village & Panchayat, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District.

… Accused

This case is coming on 04-05-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.Uma Devi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and

Smt E.Renuka,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 E M E N T :-

01)The Inspector of Police, Puthalapattu Police Station has filed charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No.48 of 2025 for the offence punishable under

Sec.303(2) or 317 of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhitha (In short BNS).

02)The case of the prosecution is as follows:

On 05-06-2025 in between 07:30 a.m., and 05:00 p.m., at Santhagate of

Puthalapattu Mandal unknown offender have committed theft of Honda Activa

Scooter of PW.1/N.Rathnamaiah bearing Reg.No.AP-03-AZ-4423 worth about

Rs.50,000/-, which was parked at Santhagate.

APCH0200204020252C.C.No.798/2025

Dt: 07-05-2026

Basing on the complaint of PW.1 on 08-06-2025 at 07:00 p.m.,

PW.3/K.Rajendhra, HC-2743, Puthalapattu U/G Police Station registered a case in Crime No.48 of 2025 under Sec.303(2) of BNS. While preparing complaint by the Complainant, the registration number was mentioned as AP-03-AZ-4427 instead of AP-03-AZ-4423 by mistake. During the course of investigation, on 09- 06-2025 PW.4/E.Krishna Mohan, Inspector of Police, Puthalapattu U/G Police

Station verified the investigation done by PW.3 and recorded the statements of

PW.1/N.Rathnamaiah,LW.2/N.Mahesh,LW.3/N.Subramanyam,

LW.4/P.Dhanasekhar under Sec.180(3) of BNSS and drafted rough sketch of scene of offence. During the course of investigation on 10-06-2025 at 09:00 a.m., near Ranganpet Cross road, on Pileru Road side, Puthalapattu Mandal, PW.4 arrested Accused and recorded his confessional statement in the presence of

PW.2/K. Nagendhra Babu & LW.6/P. Madhu, the Accused voluntarily confessed about the commissioner of offence, PW.4 seized White Honda shine i.e., crime vehicle in this crime under cover of Arrest, Confession and Seizure Mahazar, Dt:

10-06-2025 at 09:00 a.m., Later, the Accused lead Police, PW.2, LW.6 to near

Hillock, on back side of Nayara Petrol bunk, situated beside of Service road, which leading towards Chittoor, on Tirupati-Bangalore NH Road, Puthalapattu

Mandal and seized one Honda CB Shine motorcycle in Cr.No.545/2024 under cover of separate mahazar, Dt: 10-06-2025 at 10:00 a.m., and send the Accused for remand. After completion of investigation PW.3 filed charge sheet.

03)This case was taken on file for the alleged offence under Sec.303(2) or 317 of BNS. On appearance of Accused before this court, the copies of documents were furnished to the Accused as contemplated under Sec.230 of BNSS.

04) Accused was examined under Sec.262 of BNSS for the offence punishable under Sec.303(2) or 317 of BNS. Charges were framed, read over and explained to him, for which he denied the commission of the offence and claimed to be tried.

APCH0200204020253C.C.No.798/2025

Dt: 07-05-2026

05) Therefore, the prosecution was directed to adduce the evidence on their behalf to substantiate the guilt of Accused for the offence leveled against the accused, the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and MO.1.

06) After completing the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Sec.351 of BNSS in respect of the incriminating evidence available in the prosecution witnesses. Incriminating evidence was read over and explained to the

Accused, for which he pleaded ignorance and reported no defence evidence on his side.

07)Heard. Perused the record. The learned counsel for the accused filed written arguments that there is no eye witness to the offence and the alleged seizure was not conducted in the presence of local inhabitants and there is no video recording of seizure. PW.1 omitted bike color, engine and chasis number in

Ex.P1 only adding post recovery. PW.2 also unaware of bike number, seizure not vediographed, signed in jeep. In the present case all the witnesses are interested witnesses and the charge sheet was also labeled as habitual. PW.2 stated that

Ex.P2 was typed on a compute in a police jeep at the scene and it is highly improbable that a formal printed document generated at the road side cross road without tampering or pre-drafting. She argued that mere confession made to police while in custody is inadmissible under law and the discovery is tainted by procedural lapse. In order to strengthen his arguments she relied on following judgments:

1. State of Haryana Vs. Bhagirath [1999 (5) SCC 96]

2. Krishnegowda Vs. State of Karnataka (2017)

3. Vijayee Singh Vs. State of UP [1990 (3) SCC 190]

(ii) She argued that it is burden lies on the prosecution to prove the offence against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. But the prosecution has failed

APCH0200204020254C.C.No.798/2025

Dt: 07-05-2026

to prove the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

She prayed the Honourable court to acquit the accused.

08)Now the point that arise for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the charges against the

Accused under Sec.303(2) or 317 of BNS beyond all reasonable

doubts?

POINT:

09)In order to bring home the guilty of the Accused, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and MO.1.

10)PW.1/Defacto complainant deposed that on 05-06-2025 at about 07:00 a.m., he parked his Activa motor bike at Santhagate. The bearing number of his motor bike is AP-03-4423. On the same day at about 07:00 p.m., he returned from Piler and noticed missing of his motor bike. On that after one week, he went to police station and lodged report in the police station.

11)PW.2, VRO, who acted as mediator for arrest of accused deposed that on on 10-06-2025 at about 07:00 a.m., he received phone call from constable of

Puthlapattu Police station to act as mediator. On that, he went to Rangampeta cross. When he reached the said place the police were present along with one person with one bike. The police enquired him in their presence and he stated his name as accused in this case. He deposed that the accused confessed that he already underwent remand in crimes in Tirupathi, Chittoor and also in Excise cases in Pileru. The accused confessed that he has stolen Honda Activa motor bike in Puthalapattu Mandal, Santhagatu on 05-06-2025. He confessed that he brought the bike for selling the same. The police have seized the said motor bike under cover of confession-cum-seizure-cum-arrest mahazarnama. Police arrested him in their presence. He along with LW.6, accused signed in the

Mahazarnama. He deposed that he can identify the accused and he identified the accused when he is standing in the accused dock.

APCH0200204020255C.C.No.798/2025

Dt: 07-05-2026

12)PWs.3 & 4 who are investigation officers have supported the prosecution case.

13)On careful scrutiny of evidence on record, it is observed that in order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to

PW.4. PW.1 is the defacto complainant, PW.2 is the mediator for seizure, PW.3 and 4 are the Investigation Officers. As per the prosecution case, the scene of offence is public place which is situated Santhagate, Puthalapattu Mandal and the time of offence is in between 07:30 a.m., and 05:00 p.m., on 05-06-2025. As per

Ex.P1 the unknown offenders have stolen bike bearing No.AP 03 AZ 4423 which is Honda Activa Scooter.

14)When coming into evidence of prosecution, it is observed that since there are no eye witnesses to the offence, the prosecution has mainly relied on evidence of PW.2 who is the mediator and evidence of PW.4/Investigation Officer who seized the property from the accused. It is observed that as per evidence of

PW.2, that on 10-06-2025 at about 07:00 a.m., Puthalapattu Police called him to act as mediator for arrest of accused, basing on the confession of Accused, the

Puthalapattu police arrested the Accused and seized stolen property.

15)When coming into the evidence of PW.1 it is observed that there is unexplained delay in lodging of FIR. Since, the case was lodged on unknown offenders, there is no possibility of filing false case against the accused by PW.1.

Hence, in this case unexplained delay in lodging of FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case. Since there is no eye witness to the incident, the entire prosecution case lies on the sole testimony of PW.2 who is mediator at the time of recovery of property.

16)When coming into evidence of PW.2, it is observed that he is VRO of

Pothugunuma villlage and he is not local inhabitant of place of seizure. His evidence disclosed that there are number of shops and residential houses at some distance to the place of seizure. He also deposed that there were nearly 10

APCH0200204020256C.C.No.798/2025

Dt: 07-05-2026

to 15 persons were gathered at the time of seizure. But, the investigation officer has not explained any reasons as why he conducted seizure in the absence of local inhabitant and also not explained any reasons as why he could not secure them. The investigation officer shall follow the procedure laid down under

Sec.103(4) of BNSS.During his cross examination he unable to say bearing number of seized vehicle. It is further observed that he does not know the name of police constable typed Ex.P2 mahazar. However, PW.4 deposed that one

Woman Police constable typed Ex.P2 contents on his dictation. If PW.2 was really present at the time of seizure, though he could not have tell name of constable, he would have depose that one woman constable typed Ex.P2. Whereas, PW.2 categorically deposed that he does not know name of police constable who typed

Ex.P2. As per evidence of PW.1 he put 3 signatures on the date of seizure at

Rangampet cross and further deposed that except at Rangampet cross he did not sign in anywhere. But, as per the evidence of PW.4 who is investigation office, after seizing of property they went to gutta which is situated on the back side of

Nayara Petrol bunk near Chittoor-Tirupati Road. The above place is 2nd place of seizure which is continuation of seizure process. Whereas, PW.2 deposed that he put all his 3 signature at Ragampet cross and he further deposed that except at the above said place he has not not put his signature anywhere. The above evidence clearly established that PW.2 has not put his signature at 2nd place of seizure which is continuation of seizure process in this case. The above discrepancy and inconsistency creates serious doubt about presence of PW.2 at the time of seizure. On perusal of seizure mahazar name, at 9.15 AM, this court found signature of PW.2. However, PW.2 deposed that except at Rangampet he has not put his signature anywhere. The above inconsistent evidence creates doubt on veracity and truthfulness in the evidence of PW.2. The FIR was also registered soon before the seizure date and PW.1 also mentioned bearing number his vehicle wrongly. The evidence of PW.2 does not inspire confidence.

There in no other corroborative evidence to believe the evidence of PW.2.

APCH0200204020257C.C.No.798/2025

Dt: 07-05-2026

17)It is always burden lies on the prosecution to prove the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. If there is any doubt on prosecution case, benefit shall always be given to the accused. In the present case, the investigation officer has not join local inhabitant in the process of seizure and not explained any reasons for not doing so. Further, the evidence of PW.2 and PW.4 has material discrepancies and creates doubt on prosecution case and presence of PW.2 at the time of seizure.

18)In view of above discussion, this court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

19)In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.303(2) or 317 of BNS. Hence, he is acquitted under Sec.278(1) of

BNSSfor the said charges. The bail bonds of Accused if any shall be in force for six months in terms of Sec.481 of BNSS. MO.1/Honda Activa, Chasis

No.ME4JC448HC7536395 shall be given to the Registered Owner of the vehicle after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court this the 7 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. M. Madhavi,

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW.1 : N. Rathnamaiah-None- PW.2 : Nagendra Babu PW.3 : K. Rajendra Naidu PW.4 : E. Krishna Mohan

APCH0200204020258C.C.No.798/2025

Dt: 07-05-2026

Documents marked

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Police Report.

Ex.P2: Confession-cum-Seizure-cum-arrest mahazarnama, Dt: 10-06-2025.

Ex.P3: F.I.R.

FOR DEFENCE: -NIL-

Material Objects marked

MO.1 : Honda Activa, Chasis No.ME4JC448HC7536395.

Sd/- Smt. M. Madhavi,

I AJMFC, CTR

FAC II AJMFC, CTR

//TRUE COPY//

I AJMFC, CTR

FAC II AJMFC, CTR

APCH0200204020259C.C.No.798/2025

Dt: 07-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: CHITTOOR

CALENDER CASE NO. 798 of 2025

Date of offence:05-06-2025

Date of complaint:08-06-2025

Date of apprehension of Accused:10-06-2025

Date of taken on file:16-09-2025

Date of commencement of trial:27-10-2025

Date of close of trial:20-04-2026

Date of sentence of order:07-05-2026

Complainant:The Inspector of Police, Puthalapattu Police Station. (Cr.No.48/2025)

Particulars of the Accused:

A. Vinod Kumar @ A. Vinod, age 28 years, S/o A. Durvasulu, resident of Dasarapalli Village & Panchayat, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District.

Nature of offenceUnder Section.303(2) or 317 of BNS.

Plea of the Accused.Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the courtFound not guilty.

Sentence of Order : In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Sec.303(2) or 317 of BNS. Hence, he is acquitted under Sec.278(1) of BNSSfor the said charges. The bail bonds of Accused if any shall be in force for six months in terms of Sec.481 of BNSS. MO.1/Honda Activa, Chasis

No.ME4JC448HC7536395 shall be given to the Registered Owner of the vehicle after appeal time.

Sd/- Smt. M. Madhavi,

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.

APCH02002040202510C.C.No.798/2025

Dt: 07-05-2026

//TRUE COPY//

I AJMFC, CTR

FAC II AJMFC, CTR

APCH0200423920221O.S.No.1191/2022

Dt: 08-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

CHITTOOR

PRESENT: Smt.M.Madhavi I Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chittoor.

Friday, the 8 th (Eighth) day of May, 2026

O.S.No.1191 of 2022

Between:

P.Somasekhar, S/o P.Guruswamy, Hindu, aged about 44 years, Business, residing at Door No.4-10, Lakshmipuram Village, Thenepalli Post, Puthalapattu Mandal and Chittoor District. … Plaintiff And:

K.Sathish, S/o G.Kesavulu, Hindu, aged about 41 years, Business, permanent resident of D.No.26-267/6, Iruvaram Village and Post, Chittoor Mandal and District and presently residing at D.No.3-759, Vellore Road, Greamspet, Chittoor Corporation, Chittor District. … Defendant

This suit came before the court on 06-05-2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri.G.Vasanth Kumar, Advocate for Plaintiff; and of Sri.P.Surya Prakash, Advocate for Defendant; and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following :-

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

01.This suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant praying this Hon'ble

Court to direct the Defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,19,200/- together with future interest at 24% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

02. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:

The Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the Plaintiff on 12- 12-2020 and executed a demand promissory note in favor of the Plaintiff by agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a., In spite of repeated demands made by the Plaintiff, the Defendant failed to repay the debt

APCH0200423920222O.S.No.1191/2022

Dt: 08-05-2026

amount. The Defendant is a businessman and he is not entitled for any debt relief act. Hence, the suit.

03.The Defendant filed his written statement by denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and contended that he had no such need or necessity to borrow such huge amount from the Plaintiff and the alleged Suit Promissory Note is a fabricated one with the active collusion of attestors and scribe of Suit

Promissory Note. The Defendant contended that he is running unauthorized chits in his area and the Defendant joined as one of the subscriber in a chit value of

Rs.1,00,000/- with 20 subscribers with monthly subscription of Rs.5,000/- in the month of February, 2018 and in the 14th chit conducted in the month of April, 2019, the Defendant became a successful bidder and while giving the bid amount by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, the Plaintiff demanded to put signatures of this Defendant in an unfilled printed promissory note towards security for the prompt repayment of future chit installments as the same is procedure in the unregistered chits by assuring that he will return the same immediately after completing the chit and hence believing the words of the Plaintiff, he had given an unfilled printed promissory note with his signatures to the Plaintiff and then only the Plaintiff paid the bid amount to the Defendant. Thereafter, the Defendant had paid the entire chit installments and the chit also completed in the month of

August, 2019. Immediately, after completion of chit, the Defendant personally approached the Plaintiff and requested him to return the unfilled printed promissory note which containing the signatures of the Defendant for which, the

Plaintiff stated that the same is mixed up with some other documents in his residence, promised to return the same as and when traced, as the Plaintiff is known person, believed his words and kept quite. Thereafter, the Plaintiff started another chit value of Rs.5,00,000/- with 25 subscribers with monthly subscription of Rs.20,000/- and contacted the Defendant by requesting him to join in that chit for which the chit subscription is very high and he is not in a position to pay the same and hence refused for it, hence there arose some misunderstandings between the Plaintiff and this Defendant and since October, 2019, there are no

APCH0200423920223O.S.No.1191/2022

Dt: 08-05-2026

talking terms between the Defendant and Plaintiff. Now the Plaintiff brought the present Suit Promissory Note which related to the completed chit transaction.

Hence, he prayed the Honourable court to dismiss the suit.

04.Basing on the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:-

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the Defendants?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

3. To what relief ?

05.During the course of trial, the Plaintiff examined as PW.1 apart from PW.2.

In addition to oral evidence Ex.A1 is marked on behalf of Plaintiff. The chief affidavit of DW.1 was eschewed.

06.Heard. Perused the material on record.

07.Issue No.1 :- To substantiate the suit claim, the Plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1. PW.1 filed his chief affidavit reiterating the contents of plaint.

Ex.A1 is original Suit Promissory Note, Dt:12-12-2020 for Rs.7,00,000/- executed by the Defendant in favour of Plaintiff. During his cross examination, PW.1 deposed that he lent money of Rs.7,00,000/- to the defendant on 12.12.2020 and on the date of execution of Ex.A1 it was first wave of COVID-19. He deposed that he gave money to the defendant in cash mode and he is income tax assessee but, he has not filed income tax returns in this court. He deposed that one Sai

Ganesh and Dhanumjaya are the witnesses to the transaction and thery are the friends of defendant and he got acquaintance with them through the defendant.

He deposed that the defendant put 2 singnatures in Ex.A1 and affixed 2 revenue stamps in Ex.A1 and it was drafted with blue ink pen. He deposed that he gave money to the defendant in his house. The evidence of PW.2 is corroborated the evidence of PW.1. Nothing was elicited in favor of defendant to doubt Ex.A1

APCH0200423920224O.S.No.1191/2022

Dt: 08-05-2026

transaction. Since, the defendant admitted his signature in his written statement, the execution of promissory note stands proved. In view of such admission a presumption arises under Sec.118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that the promissory note is supported by consideration. However, such presumption is rebuttable.

08.On perusal of contents of written statement of defendant it is observed that he did not deny his signature in Ex.A1. It is admitted fact that the signature in

Ex.A1 belongs the defendant. The defendant took defence that the plaintiff is running chit business and obtained empty signed promissory note from him. But, the same was not proved by the defendant. In the present case, though the defendant filed his chief affidavit, he did not come forward to give his evidence.

Hence, this court has eschewed the chief affidavit of DW.1. In the present case, the Defendant did not take any steps to prove his contentions and to disprove the case of Plaintiff by adducing probable evidence. It is further observed that he did not offered himself as witnesses to contest his case and not faced cross examination. Since, the defendant did not come to witness box and not offer to himself as witness, this court is drawing adverse inference in view of judgment of

Honourable Apex court in Vidhyadhar Vs. Mankik Rao [AIR 1999 SC 1441] at

para 16 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

“Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box

and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be

cross- examined by the other side a presumption would arise that

the case set up by him is not correct”.

09.In view of ratio laid down in the above case, this court is drawing an adverse inference against the defendant. On the other hand, the plaintiff has proved his case by adducing oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, issue

No.1 is answered in favor of plaintiff.

10.Issue Nos.2 & 3: In view of findings in issue No.1 this court holds that the

Plaintiff is entitled for the suit relief and the suit is to be decreed with costs.

APCH0200423920225O.S.No.1191/2022

Dt: 08-05-2026

11.RESULT :- In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.10,19,200/- 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 principal sum i.e., Rs.7,00,000/- from the date of the decree, till the date of re- alization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 8 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. M. Madhavi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:-

PW.1 : P. Somasekhar PW.2 : N. Saiganesh

For Defendant:-

DW.1 : K. Sathish (Eschewed)

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1: Original Suit promissory note, Dt: 12-12-2020 for Rs.7,00,000/- executed by the Defendant in favour of Plaintiff.

For Defendant: -NIL-

Sd/- Smt. M. Madhavi,

I ACJ (Jr. Division), CTR

APCH0200291520251O.S.No.977/2025

Dt: 07-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

CHITTOOR.

PRESENT:- Smt. M. Madhavi, I Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division),Chittoor FAC II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chittoor

Thursday, the 7 th (Seventh) day of May, 2026.

Original Suit No. 977 of 2025

Between:

State Bank of India, Bangarupalyam Branch, Rep., by its Branch Manager, P. Surendra Babu, aged 40 years, S/o P. Marappa, Hindu, working as Branch Manager, holding his Office at Bangarupalyam Village, Post and Mandal, Chitoor District. …Plaintiff And:

B.P. Vimalakumari, aged about 44 years, W/o V. Arumanayagam, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at 1-6-120, Karidivaripalli Village and Post, Bangarupalyam Mandal, Chittoor Mandal, Chittoor District. …Defendant

This suit came before this Court on 05-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Subramanyam Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendant is remained ex-parte; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :-

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

01. This suit is filed by the Plaintiff Bank against the Defendant for recovery of money praying this Hon'ble Court to direct the Defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs.66,054/- together with future interest at 7% p.a with half yearly rests from the date of suit till the date of realization to the Plaintiff Bank and for costs of the suit.

02.The averments made in the plaint in brief are :

That on 09-03-2020 the Defendant approached the Plaintiff bank and obtained loan an amount of Rs.40,000/- for the purpose of raising crops and has executed hypothecation agreement for the loan amount and agreed to repay the

APCH0200291520252O.S.No.977/2025

Dt: 07-05-2026

loan amount with interest at 7% p.a., with half yearly rests and also as per bank rules. Thereafter, the Defendant has committed default in payment of loan amount. On 05-01-2023 the Defendant has executed revival letter acknowledging the liability to pay the outstanding loan amount. In spite of repeated demands made by the Plaintiff bank, the Defendant did not choose to repay the loan amount. Hence, the Suit is filed.

03.After receipt of summons Sri M. Papaiah, Advocate filed vakalath for

Defendant. But later, the Defendant failed to file written statement within stipulated time. Hence, this court set her as exparte.

04.On behalf of the Plaintiff, the Branch Manager of Plaintiff Bank is examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3.

05.Heard the Learned counsel for the Plaintiff.

06. Now, the points for the determination are:-

1) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for ?

2) To what relief ?

07.Point No.1 :-

To substantiate the suit claim, the branch manager of Plaintiff bank was examined as PW.1. He filed his chief affidavit by reiterating the averments of the plaint stating that the Defendant has availed loan for an amount of Rs.40,000/- from the Plaintiff bank and executed hypothecation agreement and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 7% p.a., and thereafter has committed default of payment in loan amount. In spite of repeated demands made by the

Plaintiff bank, the Defendant failed to discharge the debt due under hypothecation agreement.

08.Apart from the said oral testimony of PW.1, Exs.A1 to A3 strengthens the case of the Plaintiff Bank. On perusing the documentary evidence adduced by

APCH0200291520253O.S.No.977/2025

Dt: 07-05-2026

the Plaintiff i.e., Exs.A1 to A3 established that the Defendant borrowed sum of

Rs.40,000/- from the Plaintiff bank and executed agreement. In view of above evidence, the Plaintiff has successfully proved the execution of Ex.A1 & A2 by the Defendant. The contentions of the Plaintiff bank remained unchallenged as the Defendant was set ex-parte. By adducing oral and documentary evidence,

Plaintiff proved his case. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the

Plaintiff bank.

In the light of the reasons stated supra, this court holds that the Plaintiff is entitled for the suit relief.

09.POINT No.2: In view of findings in Point No.1, the suit is to be decreed with costs against the Defendant.

10.RESULT :- In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the

Plaintiff bank and against the Defendant and the Defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.66,054/-together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on

principal sum of Rs.40,000/- from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of

realization.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this, the 7 th day of May, 2026.

I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chittoor. FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chittoor.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:- PW.1 : P. Surendra Babu -Exparte-

APCH0200291520254O.S.No.977/2025

Dt: 07-05-2026

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1 :Hypothecation agreement, Dt: 09-03-2020 executed by the Defendant for Rs.40,000/-.

Ex.A2 :Revival Letter, Dt: 05-01-2023 executed by the Defendant.

Ex.A3 :Extract of account.

For Defendant:- -NIL-

I ACJ (Jr. Division), CTR FAC II ACJ (Jr. Division), CTR

Fair Judgment in,

O.S.No.977/2025,

Dt: 07-05-2026.

APCH0200291520255O.S.No.977/2025

Dt: 07-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

CHITTOOR.

PRESENT:- Smt. M. Madhavi, I Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division),Chittoor FAC II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chittoor

Thursday, the 7 th (Seventh) day of May, 2026.

Original Suit No. 977 of 2025

Between:

State Bank of India, Bangarupalyam Branch, Rep., by its Branch Manager, P. Surendra Babu, aged 40 years, S/o P. Marappa, Hindu, working as Branch Manager, holding his Office at Bangarupalyam Village, Post and Mandal, Chitoor District. …Plaintiff And:

B.P. Vimalakumari, aged about 44 years, W/o V. Arumanayagam, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at 1-6-120, Karidivaripalli Village and Post, Bangarupalyam Mandal, Chittoor Mandal, Chittoor District. …Defendant

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff Bank against the Defendant for recovery of money praying this Hon'ble Court to direct the Defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs.66,054/- together with future interest at 7% p.a with half yearly rests from the date of suit till the date of realization to the Plaintiff Bank and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on:04-12-2025

Plaint filed on:08-12-2025

Particulars of valuation

Principal Loan Amount:Rs.40,000/-

Amount due as on 30-09-2025 as per:Rs.66,054/- statement of account

CF paid U/Sec.20 of APCF & SV Act:Rs. 2,786/-

APCH0200291520256O.S.No.977/2025

Dt: 07-05-2026

This suit was coming before me in the presence of Sri.M.Subramanyam

Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendant is remained ex-parte; this court doth order and decree-

1. That the Defendant do pay Plaintiff a sum of Rs.66,054/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal amount of

Rs.40,000/- from the date of suit till the date of realization;

2. That the Defendant do also pay a sum of Rs.2,788/- (Not certified) to the

Plaintiff towards the costs of the Suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7 th day of May, 2026.

I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chittoor. FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chittoor.

Particulars of costs

Description Plaintiff Defendant Stamp on Vakalath2-00---- Stamp on Plaint2,786-00---- Advocate fees-------- Process -------- Typing charges --------

Total : Rs.2,788-00 (Ex-parte)

(Not certified)

I ACJ (Jr. Division), CTR FAC II ACJ (Jr. Division), CTR

APCH0200165220231E.P.No.61/2023

Dt: 08-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

CHITTOOR

PRESENT: Smt.M. Madhavi I Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chittoor.

Friday, the 8 th (Eighth) day of May, 2026.

E.P.No. 61 of 2023

in

O.S.No. 153 of 2016

BETWEEN:

V. Hemavathi, W/o V. Deena Naidu, aged about 45 years, Hindu, House wife and Cultivation, resident of T.G. Valasa, Thalambedu Post, Chittoor Mandal,

Temporarily residing at PWD Canteen, Rationing Compound, R.P. Mark,

Chembur-71 of Maharastra State.

… Decree Holder AND:

1. A. Krishnama Naidu, S/o Kondaiah, Hindu, aged about 83 years, Hindu,

Cultivation, resident of T.G. Valasa, Thalambedu Post, Chittoor Mandal and District.

2. A. Hari Babu Naidu, S/o A. Krishnama Naidu, aged about 53 years, Hindu,

Cultivation, T.G. Valasa, Thalambedu Post, Chittoor Mandal and District.

… Judgment Debtors

This petition was coming on 23-04-2026before this Court for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.P. Kumaraswamy, Advocate for Decree Holdersand of

Sri.C. Hari Krishna, Advocate for the J.Drs and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

-: O R D E R :-

1)This is an Execution Petition filed by the D.Hr under order 21 Rule 32 of

Code of Civil Procedure praying the court to arrest the J.Drs and commit them

APCH0200165220232E.P.No.61/2023

Dt: 08-05-2026

to Civil Prison for violation of injunction orders in O.S.No.153 of 2016 Dt: 08-08- 2016 and further orders.

2)The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

The Petitioner pleaded that the suit in O.S.No.153/2016 filed for permanent injunction against the J.Drs/Defendants. The said suit was decreed by this Hon'ble Court on 08-08-2016 by granting permanent injunction restraining the J.Drs/Defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over petition schedule property. They pleaded that inspite of decree passed in O.S.No.153/2016 in favour of the D.Hr., the J.Drs 1 & 2 are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the D.Hr and causing damages to the Schedule Property. Every time during the harvesting of tamarind usufruct the J.Drs threatening to foist false cases by employing SC labours.

Recently on 08-01-2023 the J.Drs have highhandedly prevented the D.hr from enjoying the Tamarind usufructs. When he reported to the Police, the Police did not take any action. Due to the acts of the J.Drs, the D.Hr is suffering a lot and unable to enjoy the fruits of the decree passed by the Hon'ble Court. Hence the present E.P is filed praying to arrest J.Drs and detain them in Civil Prison.

03.After receipt of notice, Sri C. Harikrishna, Advocate filed vakalat on behalf of J.Drs, but failed to file counter on behalf of J.Drs. Hence, the counter of J.Drs treated as Nil.

04.On behalf of the D.Hr, D.Hr was examined as PW.1 apart from PW.2 and no documents are marked on his behalf. No documentary or oral evidence was adduced on behalf of J.Drs.

05.Heard. Perused the material on record.

06.Now the point for the determination are :-

“Whether this Execution Petition is to be allowed ordering the

arrest of J.Drs and commit them to civil prison as prayed for by

APCH0200165220233E.P.No.61/2023

Dt: 08-05-2026

the D.Hr”?

07.POINT :-

The D.Hr deposed that she obtained decree in O.S.No.321/2013 on 08- 08-2016 against the J.Drs by restraining them from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the D.Hr. Even though after passing of decree, the

J.Drs are causing trouble to the D.Hr from enjoying the Petition Schedule

Property peacefully. While so on 08-01-2023, when the J.Drs highhandedly prevented the D.Hr from enjoying the usufructs of Tamarind. The J.Drs intentionally causing nuisance to the D.Hr for enjoying their possession and enjoyment over the said property.

08.The J.Drs did not file counter, and also not came forward to prove his case, even though sufficient time has been given by this Hon’ble Court. Hence, the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 became unchallenged. The unchallenged testimony of PWs.1 & 2 reveals that, in spite of decree passed in favour of D.Hr, the J.Drs intentionally causing obstruction to the D.Hrs to enjoy the fruits of the decree, Dt:

08-08-2016 in O.S.No.153/2016. Hence, this court holds that this Execution

Petition is to be allowed by ordering arrest of J.Drs.,

Accordingly, point is answered in favour of D.Hr against the J.Drs.

10.RESULT : In the result, the petition is allowed by ordering the arrest of

J.Drs for willful disobedience of permanent injunction, in the interests of justice.

Issue Warrant of Arrest against J.Drs on payment of process.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 8 th day of May, 2026.

I Addl. Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Chittoor.

APCH0200165220234E.P.No.61/2023

Dt: 08-05-2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For D.Hr.: For J.Dr.: PW.1 : V. Hemavathi -NIL- PW.2 : V. Ekhodhar Naidu

Documents Marked

-NIL-

I ACJ (Jr. Division), CTR

Fair Order in

E.P.No.61/2023 in

O.S.No.153/2016

Dt: 08-05-2026.