Sri M.Murali Gangadhara Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

PIDUGURALLA

PRESENT: Sri. M.M URALI G ANGADHARA R AO ,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Piduguralla

Thursday, this the 17th day of April, 2025.

C.C.No.472 of 2022

Between:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S (Cr.No.123/2020) . . Complainant.

And

1. Bathula Prakasarao, S/o Kondalarao, 24 years, R/o Pinnelli village, Machavaram mandal.

2. Shaik Nagul Meera, S/o Bashamiya, 51 years, R/o Janpahad village, Suryapet District, Telangana.

. . Accused.

This case is coming before me on 16.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.Koteswara Rao and Sri K.Jala Rao, learned Advocates for the Accused no.1 and 2, and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.123/2020 for the offence punishable

U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

The brief facts of the prosecution is that:

2.On 14.08.2020 at about 06.00 AM, while L.W.6-M.Lakshmi

Narayana Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S was conducting patrolling along with his staff I.e L.W.1-B.Satyamraju,

HC.3573, L.W.2-B.Gopi Krishna, HC.3554 and L.W.3-Ch.Dasu, PC.4474 reached the scene of offence I.e newly constructing poultry farm in between Pinnelli village to Thummalacheruvu village, Machavaram mandal and found accused no.1 coming on an auto bearing no.AP07Y 2 9235 along with liquor bottles. On that L.W.6-M.Lakshmi Narayana

Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S apprehended the accused no.1 with the help of other staff and made enquiry as to his nature of escaping by seeing the police officials and asked about his identity particulars on that, he revealed his identity particulars and also confessed about his possession of liquor bottles in the above said auto without having any valid license or permit. On enquiry regarding source of supply accused no.1 stated that he purchased the liquor bottles from accused no.2. As none came forward to act as mediators, L.W.6-

M.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S himself verified the said auto and found 06 full bottles of Mansion

House, 92 quarter bottles of Mansion House and 68 quarter

bottles of Old Admiral Brandy. On further enquiry, the accused no.1 herein failed to show his accountability as to his possession of contraband, on that L.W.6-M.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, Sub Inspector of

Police, Machavaram P.S, seized above said liquor bottles from the possession of the said person who is the accused no.1 herein and drawn one sample each from the seized contraband for the sake of chemical analysis, at last L.W.6-M.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, Sub Inspector of

Police, Machavaram P.S, after giving reasons made arrest of the accused no.1 and prepared a police proceedings as to confession, seizure and arrest of accused no.1. After returning to the Police Station, Machavaram

P.S, L.W.6 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.123/2020 for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968, and submitted original FIR to the Hon'ble court and copies to all concerned and later he arrested the accused no.1 and produced him before this court for judicial remand. During the course of investigation L.W.6 visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene and thereafter he sent the sample bottles to the Chemical Examiner Guntur, through letter of advice for analysis and received the Chemical Examiner issued report 3 vide R.C.No.1738/2020, dated 22.09.2020 with Sl.Nos.53481 to 53483 opining that the samples are Indian Liquor. Thereafter L.W.7-S.Kotaiah,

SI of Police, Machavaram P.S assumed charge and on 24.05.2022 arrested accused no.2 in the presence of mediators L.Ws.4 and 5/Thammmisetty Gopi and Sayyad Sharif under the cover of mediator report and produced him before this court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation L.W.7 filed charge sheet before this court.

3.Cognizance of the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 was taken against the Accused.

4. On appearance of the accused before this Court, Copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. and charge for the offence U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, has been framed read over and explained to them in Telugu. The Accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined L.W.4 as

P.W.1, L.W.5 as P.W.2, L.W.2 as P.W.3 and L.W.6 as P.W.4 and Exs.P1 to

P7 and M.Os.1 to 3 sample bottles got marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material placed against the accused, for which the accused denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

4

9.Now the Point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.Point :-In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.P.1 to P.7 and M.Os.1 to 3 sample bottles got marked.

11.The case of the prosecution is that on 14.08.2020 at about 06.00

AM, while P.W.4-M.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police,

Machavaram P.S was conducting patrolling along with his staff I.e L.W.1-

B.Satyamraju, HC.3573, P.W.3-B.Gopi Krishna, HC.3554 and L.W.3-

Ch.Dasu, PC.4474 reached the scene of offence I.e newly constructing poultry farm in between Pinnelli village to Thummalacheruvu village,

Machavaram mandal and found accused no.1 coming on an auto bearing no.AP07Y 9235 along with liquor bottles, on that P.W.4 apprehended the accused no.1 apprehended the accused no.1 and verified the said auto, found the contraband of 06 full bottles of Mansion House, 92

quarter bottles of Mansion House and 68 quarter bottles of Old

Admiral Brandy from the possession of accused no.1 and on enquiry,

P.W.4-M.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, Machavaram

P.S found that the accused no.1 was selling the contraband which was supplied by accused no.2 by without having license for the possession of the said contraband, on that P.W.4-M.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, Sub

Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S seized the said contraband and auto from the possession of accused no.1 with company seals as no mediators were available, for which, P.W.4-M.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy,

Sub Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S himself prepared police proceedings as to seizure of contraband and confession made by the accused no.1 as well as apprehension of accused no.1. Basing on the

Police proceedings/Ex.P3, P.W.4 registered a crime and followed the 5 procedure as per Criminal Procedure Code during the course of his investigation.

12. Whereas coming to the evidence of prosecution witnesses no.1 and 2, they are the independent witnesses who turned hostile to the case of prosecution and Exs.P1 and P2 are their signatures on Ex.P6. Coming to the evidence of P.W.3, he is the police personnel who accompanied P.W.4 at the time of raid and finally coming to the evidence of P.W.4, he is the investigating officer who prepared Ex.P.3/Police proceedings, registered the crime as Ex.P.4/FIR, prepared Ex.P.5/rough sketch and arrested the accused in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 under the cover of

Ex.P.6/mediator report dt.24.05.2022 and received Ex.P.7/Analysis report and thereafter L.W.7 assumed charge and he filed the charge sheet. P.Ws.3 and 4 deposed their evidence into the procedural aspect only and no incriminating evidence is leveled against the accused in their evidence.

13. Since the independent witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile in this case for the case of the prosecution and remaining are the police officials, therefore their evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. P.W.3 in his cross-examination has admitted that he along with L.Ws.1,3 accompanied L.W.5 to the scene of offence in their jeep but he do not remember the registration number of said vehicle, he cannot say the boundaries of scene of offence, he do not remember how many vehicles were checked at the scene of offence on the date of offence, they did not try to secure mediators while they were starting to the scene of offence, he cannot say the batch number or serial numbers or color of seized contraband and he do not remember whether date was mentioned on Ex.P3 police proceedings.

6

P.W.4 in his cross-examination has admitted that he had prior information regarding the offence but he did not secure any mediators to the scene of offence or from the scene of offence, he did not issue any notice or summons to revenue officials of that village for acting as mediators, he did not enquire where accused purchased the seized contraband, he cannot say the batch numbers or serial numbers of seized contraband, in his entire investigation A.1 did not reveal the name of A.2, they did not go to Janpahad village, Suryapet District,

Telangana to enquire about the accused no.2, he did not enquire where accused purchased the seized contraband, he do not know about the particulars of the accused no.2 and no incriminating material was leveled in his evidence against the accused.

14.In the present case, the entire case of the prosecution is based on the alleged seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of the accused.

Therefore, it is to be noticed whether the investigating agency has followed the procedure relating to search and seizure, section 100

Cr.P.C. deals with the search and seizure. According to section 100 (4) of

Cr.P.C., at the time of search and seizure, it is the obligation on the part of officer, who conducted search and seizure to secure the local inhabitants to prove the seizure and when the officials failed to prove the presence the independent witnesses, the search and seizure is not free from doubtful and accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

15.Further our Hon'ble High Court in a case of Y. Srinivasulu

Reddy Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) L.S. 242 held that:

“If no one was willing to act as punch witness, a written order should be passed for the purpose of conducting search and seizure and in the said case the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated” 7

16. In Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 AP wherein it is held that :

“The panchanama is hit by sec.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act and sec.161 of Cr.P.C and when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the sachets from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion.”

17.Coming to the present case, admittedly P.W.4 did not issue any written notice or summons to any of the villagers or revenue officials with a request to act as mediators. Merely, the villagers refused to act as mediators do not entitle the P.W.4 to proceed with recording of police proceedings. P.W.4 ought to have followed the procedure as contemplated under sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C, and also law laid down by the

Hon'ble High Court in Y.Srinivasulu Reddy case and also Mudavat

Mothia case, which he did not do so. All these lacuna's in the investigation of P.W.4 shows that he has not done proper investigation in seizure of the alleged contraband from the possession of accused.

18.Since P.W.4 did not follow the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High

Court in Srinivasulu Reddy case and in Mudavath Mothia case and also the case of the prosecution is not believable and further P.Ws.3 and 4 are the highly interested witnesses being Police officials, as such their evidence cannot be relied upon without any corroboration from the independent witnesses.

19.In the said circumstances, the entire search and seizure becomes doubtful. It is settled law that when there is a doubt in the prosecution case the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. If it is so, the prosecution has no case at all.Hence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused no.1 was found in possession of 06 full bottles of Mansion House, 92 quarter bottles of 8

Mansion House and 68 quarter bottles of Old Admiral Brandy and accused no.2 supplied the same.

20.In view of the above findings, it is appeared that the evidence of the prosecution is not free from doubtful circumstances;as such the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

21.In the result, accused no.1 and 2 found not guilty for the offence

U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and they are accordingly acquitted

U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The M.Os.1 to 3 sample bottles shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 17th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- M.Murali Gangadhara Rao

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PIDUGURALLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1:T.Gopi.None. P.W.2:Sayyad Sharif. P.W.3:B.Gopi Krishna,HC of Police, Machavaram P.S P.W.4:M.Lakshmi Narayanna Reddy, SI of Police, Machavaram P.S

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1 on Ex.P6. Nil. Ex.P2: Signature of P.W.2 on Ex.P6. Ex.P3: Police proceedings Ex.P4: FIR 9

Ex.P5: Rough sketch. Ex.P6: Analysis report. Ex.P7: Mediator report dt.24.05.2022.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.Os.1 to 3: Sample bottles.

Sd/- M.Murali Gangadhara Rao

JMFC,PDRL.

10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Guntur Calendar of case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court :: Piduguralla

C.C.No.472/2022

Date of: Date of Report of Apprehensioremand/41-Release onCommence-Closure ofSentence or Offencecomplainan n of accusedA Cr.P.Cbailment of trialtrialorder t Notice 14.08.202017.08.2020 14.08.202014.08.202014.08.2020&&01.02.202416.04.202517.04.2025 24.05.202226.05.2022

Explanation for Delay and Remarks :-

The Charge sheet was taken on file of 22.11.2022 and numbered as C.C.No.472 of 2022. On 17.11.2023 copies of case documents were furnished to accused as contemplated U/s 207 of Cr.P.C., Accused no.1 and 2 were examined U/s 239 of Cr.P.C., on 12.01.2024. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on 12.07.2024. P.Ws.3 and 4 were examined on 16.04.2025. On 16.04.2025 complainant side evidence was closed. Accused no.1 and 2 were examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., on 16.04.2025. Arguments of both sides were heard on 16.04.2025and Judgment Pronounced on 17.04.2025. Hence, the delay. Judgment in Calendar Case No.472 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Piduguralla. Between:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S. . . Complainant

And

1. Bathula Prakasarao, S/o Kondalarao, 24 years, R/o Pinnelli village, Machavaram mandal.

2. Shaik Nagul Meera, S/o Bashamiya, 51 years, R/o Janpahad village, Suryapet District, Telangana. . . Accused

Offence: U/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968. Finding: Not guilty. Sd/- M.Murali Gangadhara Rao

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PIDUGURALLA.

Copy submitted to :

1) The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Guntur.

11

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

PIDUGURALLA

PRESENT: Sri. M.M URALI G ANGADHARA R AO ,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Piduguralla

Thursday, this the 17th day of April, 2025.

C.C.No.230 of 2021

Between:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S (Cr.No.104/2020) . . Complainant.

And

Gurram Srinivasa Reddy, S/o Malla Reddy, 45 years, R/o Govindapuram village, Machavaram mandal, now residing at Morjampadu village, Machavaram mandal.

. . Accused.

This case is coming before me on 16.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri D.Chennaiah, learned Advocate for the Accused, and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.104/2020 for the offence punishable

U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

The brief facts of the prosecution is that:

2.On 05.07.2020 at about 04.00 PM, while L.W.7-M.Lakshmi

Narayana Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S was conducting patrolling along with his staff I.e L.W.1-M.Ashok Kumar,

PC.4015, L.W.2- G.Raja Sekhar, PC.4238, L.W.3- Ch.Dasu, PC.4474 and

L.W.4-M.Venkateswara Reddy, HG.916 reached the scene of offence I.e near Pushkara ghat, Krishna river bank, Govindapuram village, 2

Machavaram mandal and found some persons with gunny bag parcels, on seeing the police officials in uniform, they escaped from the scene of offence leaving the above said parcels. At that time L.W.7-M.Lakshmi

Narayana Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S identified one person as Gurram Srinivasa Reddy who is the accused herein. Thereafter

L.W.7-M.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, Machavaram

P.S brought the above said gunny bag parcels which were 08 in number to the station and on verification of the same he found 512 quarter bottles of Mansion House Brandy. On that L.W.7-M.Lakshmi

Narayana Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S, seized above said liquor bottles and drawn one sample from the seized contraband for the sake of chemical analysis. On that L.W.1-M.Ashok Kumar, PC 4015,

Machavaram P.S lodged a report in Machavaram P.S and basing on his report L.W.7 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.104/2020 for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968, and submitted original FIR to the Hon'ble court and copies to all concerned. During the course of investigation L.W.7 visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. During course of further investigation on 07.07.2020 at 07.30 AM, L.W.7 arrested the accused in the presence of L.Ws.5 and 6/Ambati Koteswara Rao @ Kotaiah and Kota

Venkata Narasaiah under the cover of mediator report and produced him

before this court for judicial remand. Thereafter L.W.7 sent the sample

bottles to the Chemical Examiner Guntur, through letter of advice for analysis and received the Chemical Examiner issued report vide

R.C.No.1382/2020, dated 30.07.2020 with Sl.No.50168 opining that the

sample is Indian Liquor. Thereafter L.W.8-M.Raja, SI of Police,

Machavaram P.S assumed charge and he sent proposals for confiscation orders and after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet.

3

3.Cognizance of the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 was taken against the Accused.

4. On appearance of the Accused before this Court, Copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. and charge for the offence U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, has been framed read over and explained to him in Telugu. The Accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined L.W.5 as

P.W.1, L.W.6 as P.W.2, L.W.1 as P.W.3 and L.W.7 as P.W.4 and Exs.P1 to

P7 and M.O.1 sample bottle got marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material placed against the accused, for which the accused denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now the Point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.Point :-In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.P.1 to P.7 and M.O.1 sample bottle got marked.

4

11.The case of the prosecution is that on 05.07.2020 at about 04.00

PM, while P.W.4-M.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police,

Machavaram P.S was conducting patrolling along with his staff I.e P.W.3-

M.Ashok Kumar, PC 4015, L.W.2- G.Raja Sekhar, PC 4238, L.W.3-

Ch.Dasu, PC 4474 and L.W.4-M.Venkateswara Reddy, HG 916 reached the scene of offence I.e near Pushkara ghat, Krishna river bank,

Govindapuram village, Machavaram mandal and found some persons with gunny bag parcels, on seeing the police officials in uniform, they escaped from the scene of offence leaving the above said gunny bag parcels but P.W.1 identified one person as Gurram Srinivasa Reddy who is accused herein at the scene of offence. On that P.W.4-M.Lakshmi

Narayana Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S verified the said gunny bag parcels, found the contraband of 512 quarter bottles of Mansion House Brandy and on that P.W.4-M.Lakshmi Narayana

Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S seized the said contraband with company seals, for which, P.W.1-M.Ashok Kumar, PC of police, Machavaram P.S lodged a report in Machavaram P.S as to seizure of contraband. Basing on the report/Ex.P3, P.W.4 registered a crime and followed the procedure as per Criminal Procedure Code during the course of his investigation.

12. Whereas coming to the evidence of prosecution witnesses no.1 and 2, they are the independent witnesses who turned hostile to the case of prosecution and Exs.P1 and P2 are their signatures on Ex.P6. Coming to the evidence of P.W.3, he is the police personnel who lodged a report/Ex.P3 and finally coming to the evidence of P.W.4, he is the investigating officer who registered the crime as Ex.P.4/FIR, prepared

Ex.P.5/rough sketch and arrested the accused in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 under the cover of Ex.P.6/mediator report dt.07.07.2020 and received Ex.P.7/Analysis report and thereafter L.W.8 assumed charge 5 and he filed the charge sheet. P.Ws.3 and 4 deposed their evidence into the procedural aspect only and no incriminating evidence is leveled against the accused in their evidence.

13. Since the independent witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile in this case for the case of the prosecution and remaining are the police officials, therefore their evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. P.W.3 in his cross-examination has admitted that he along with L.Ws.2 to 4 went to the scene of offence in their motor cycles, he cannot say the exact number of bottles that were present in each bag, except the accused he cannot identify the remaining persons who escaped from the scene of offence and he cannot say the vehicle number through which they transported the above said gunny bags containing liquor bottles.

P.W.4 in his cross-examination has admitted that they did not arrest the accused on the date of offence i.e on 05.07.2020, he did not enquire from where accused purchased the seized contraband from the state of telangana and no incriminating material was leveled in his evidence against the accused.

14.In the present case, the entire case of the prosecution is based on the alleged seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of the accused.

Therefore, it is to be noticed whether the investigating agency has followed the procedure relating to search and seizure, section 100

Cr.P.C. deals with the search and seizure. According to section 100 (4) of

Cr.P.C., at the time of search and seizure, it is the obligation on the part of officer, who conducted search and seizure to secure the local inhabitants to prove the seizure and when the officials failed to prove the presence the independent witnesses, the search and seizure is not free from doubtful and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

6

15.Further our Hon'ble High Court in a case of Y. Srinivasulu

Reddy Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) L.S. 242 held that:

“If no one was willing to act as punch witness, a written order should be passed for the purpose of conducting search and seizure and in the said case the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated”

16. In Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 AP wherein it is held that :

“The panchanama is hit by sec.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act and sec.161 of Cr.P.C and when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the sachets from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion.”

17.Coming to the present case, admittedly P.W.4 did not issue any written notice or summons to any of the villagers or revenue officials with a request to act as mediators. Merely, the villagers refused to act as mediators do not entitle the P.W.4 to proceed with recording of police proceedings. P.W.4 ought to have followed the procedure as contemplated under sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C, and also law laid down by the

Hon'ble High Court in Y.Srinivasulu Reddy case and also Mudavat

Mothia case, which he did not do so. All these lacuna's in the investigation of P.W.4 shows that he has not done proper investigation in seizure of the alleged contraband from the possession of accused.

18.Since P.W.4 did not follow the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High

Court in Srinivasulu Reddy case and in Mudavath Mothia case and also the case of the prosecution is not believable and further P.Ws.3 and 4 are the highly interested witnesses being Police officials, as such their evidence cannot be relied upon without any corroboration from the independent witnesses.

7

19.In the said circumstances, the entire search and seizure becomes doubtful. It is settled law that when there is a doubt in the prosecution case the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. If it is so, the prosecution has no case at all.Hence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was found in possession of 512 quarter bottles of Mansion House Brandy.

20.In view of the above findings, it is appeared that the evidence of the prosecution is not free from doubtful circumstances;as such the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

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

U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and he is accordingly acquitted

U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 17th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- M.Murali Gangadhara Rao

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PIDUGURALLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Ambati Koteswara Rao @ Kotaiah None. P.W.2: Kota Venkata Narasaiah P.W.3: M.Ashok Kumar, PC.4015, Machavaram P.S P.W.4: M.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, SI of Police, Machavaram P.S.

8

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1 on Ex.P6. Nil. Ex.P2: Signature of P.W.2 on Ex.P6. Ex.P3: Report Ex.P4: FIR Ex.P5: Rough sketch. Ex.P6: Mediator report dt.07.07.2020. Ex.P7: Analysis report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Sample bottle.

Sd/- M.Murali Gangadhara Rao

JMFC,PDRL.

9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Guntur Calendar of case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court :: Piduguralla

C.C.No.230/2021

Date of: Date of Report of Apprehensioremand/41-Release onCommence-Closure ofSentence or Offencecomplainan n of accusedA Cr.P.Cbailment of trialtrialorder t Notice 05.07.202005.07.202007.07.202005.07.202010.07.202019.01.202316.04.202517.04.2025

Explanation for Delay and Remarks :-

The Charge sheet was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.230 of 2021. On 15.07.2022 copies of case documents were furnished to accused as contemplated U/s 207 of Cr.P.C., Accused was examined U/s 239 of Cr.P.C., on 09.01.2023. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on 14.12.2023. P.W.3 was examined on 25.07.2024. P.W.4 was examined on 16.04.2025. On 16.04.2025 complainant side evidence was closed. Accused was examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., on 16.04.2025. Arguments of both sides were heard on 16.04.2025and Judgment Pronounced on 17.04.2025. Hence, the delay. Judgment in Calendar Case No.230 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Piduguralla. Between:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S. . . Complainant

And

Gurram Srinivasa Reddy, S/o Malla Reddy, 45 years, R/o Govindapuram village, Machavaram mandal, now residing at Morjampadu village, Machavaram mandal. . . Accused

Offence: U/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968. Finding: Not guilty. Sd/- M.Murali Gangadhara Rao

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PIDUGURALLA.

Copy submitted to :

1) The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Guntur.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PIDUGURALLA.

PRESENT: SRI M.MURALI GANGADHARA RAO,

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), PIDUGURALLA.

Thursday, this the 10th day of April, 2025

O.S.No.198/2024

Between:

Shaik @ Mandula Basheera, W/o Shaik Khadar Basha, House wife, Aged about 35 years, D.No.4-194, Sivalayam Bazaar, Piduguralla town, Palnadu district.

...Plaintiff.

And

Shaik Khadar Basha, S/o Shaik Shami, Aged about 40 years, Lorry Driver, D.No.5-67, Julakallu village, Piduguralla mandal, Palnadu district.

...Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 10.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant is remained exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for dissolution of marriage dated 15.06.2004 between the plaintiff and the defendant by way of decree of divorce and costs thereof.

2. The brief averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiff are that:

As the plaintiff and defendant belongs to Mohammedan Religion, they are governed by Mohammedan Law. The plaintiff’s marriage(Nikah) was solemnized with the defendant on 15.06.2004 at the house of the plaintiff I.e Piduguralla town and mandal, Palnadu district. Immediately after the marriage, the plaintiff joined the defendant to lead marital life and thus the marriage was consummated. During their wedlock they were blessed with two children by names Shaik Yasin and Shaik Anas. Soon after the birth of the 2nd child, the defendant developed odium and aversion towards the plaintiff and started to ill-treat her without any justifiable reason and used to abuse her in unparliamentary language and used to threat plaintiff to get amounts from her parents house and also used to beat her indiscriminately. The defendant agreed to marry the plaintiff only at the pressure of his parents and thus the marriage of the defendant with the plaintiff is against his wish and will. In view of the same, the defendant with a view to leave the plaintiff from the marital company intentionally harassed the plaintiff. At last on 10.10.2016, the defendant raised disputes and abused plaintiff in filthy language and intentionally necked out the plaintiff and her children from his house. As there is no other go, the plaintiff and her minor children reached her parental house and living there since 10.10.2016 with her parents at their mercy and mediations were made by the plaintiff and her parents but invain. The defendant intentionally showed his repulsion towards plaintiff, wantonly deserted her and threatened her with dire consequences and in view of the same the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant deemed to be dead and under the said circumstances as stated supra, it is crystal clear that the defendant wantonly deserted the plaintiff. Thus in view of the adamant behavior of the defendant, the plaintiff suffered physically and mentally and there is no scope of reconciliation between the spouse. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for declaration to dissolve her marriage with the defendant.

3. On receipt of the summons through court, the defendant did not choose to appear before this court and the defendant called absent, no representation as such the defendant remained exparte.

4. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as

PW1 by filing her affidavit in lieu of chief examination and got marked

Exs.A1 to A4.

5. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record

6.Now the point for consideration is:

3 “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of dissolution of

marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant as prayed for?”

7. POINT :

According to plaintiff, her marriage(Nikah) was solemnized with the defendant on 15.06.2004 at her house I.e Piduguralla town and mandal, Palnadu district. Immediately after the marriage, she joined the defendant to lead marital life and thus the marriage was consummated.

During their wedlock they were blessed with two children by names Shaik

Yasin and Shaik Anas. Soon after the birth of the 2nd child, the defendant developed odium and aversion towards her and started to ill-treat her without any justifiable reason and used to abuse her in unparliamentary language and used to threat her to get amounts from her parents house and also used to beat her indiscriminately. The defendant agreed to marry her only at the pressure of his parents and thus the marriage of the defendant with her is against his wish and will. In view of the same, the defendant with a view to leave her from the marital company intentionally harassed her. At last on 10.10.2016, the defendant raised disputes and abused her in filthy language and intentionally necked out her and her children from his house. As there is no other go, she and her minor children reached her parental house and living there since 10.10.2016 with her parents at their mercy and mediations were made by her and her parents but invain. The defendant intentionally showed his repulsion towards her, wantonly deserted her and threatened her with dire consequences and in view of the same the marital relationship between her and the defendant deemed to be dead and under the said circumstances as stated supra, it is crystal clear that the defendant wantonly deserted her. Thus in view of the adamant behavior of the defendant, she suffered physically and mentally and there is no scope of reconciliation between the spouse. In order to establish her claim, plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. In her evidence affidavit in lieu of chief examination, plaintiff as PW1 has reiterated the averments mentioned in the plaint and through her Ex.A.1-Aadhaar Card,

Ex.A2-Wedding card, Ex.A3-Family photo and Ex.A4-Nikahnama

Sl.No.0978 issued by the Government Chief Quazi, Piduguralla dt.15.06.2004. As already noted, on receipt of the summons through court, the defendant did not choose to appear before this court and the defendant called absent, no representation as such the defendant remained exparte, and as such, the evidence of P.W.1 remains unchallenged.

8. On a perusal of the unchallenged evidence of PW1 coupled with

Exs.A1 to A4, this court is of the view that plaintiff has established that the plaintiff and defendant are wife and husband, and there were disputes between them. Since plaintiff has established that the defendant harassed and neglected her, this Court is of the view that plaintiff is entitled to dissolution of the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

9. In the result, the suit is decreed without costs by dissolving the

marriage dated 15.06.2004 between the plaintiff and defendant.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- M.Murali Gangadhara Rao

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Piduguralla.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

P.W.1: Shaik @ Mandula Basheera None

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF

Ex.A.1-Aadhaar Card. Ex.A2-Wedding card. Ex.A3-Family photo.

5

Ex.A4-Nikahnama Sl.No.0978 issued by the Government Chief Quazi, Piduguralla dt.15.06.2004.

DEFENDANT

NIL

Sd/- M.Murali Gangadhara Rao

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Piduguralla.

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PIDUGURALLA.

PRESENT: SRI M.MURALI GANGADHARA RAO,

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), PIDUGURALLA.

Thursday, this the 10th day of April, 2025

O.S.No.198/2024

Between:

Shaik @ Mandula Basheera, W/o Shaik Khadar Basha, House wife, Aged about 35 years, D.No.4-194, Sivalayam Bazaar, Piduguralla town, Palnadu district.

...Plaintiff.

And

Shaik Khadar Basha, S/o Shaik Shami, Aged about 40 years, Lorry Driver, D.No.5-67, Julakallu village, Piduguralla mandal, Palnadu district.

...Defendant.

Suit for declaration of the dissolution of the marriage dated 15.06.2004 between the plaintiff and the defendant as null and void and costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 20-09-2024

Plaint filed on : 10-12-2024

CAUSE OF ACTION:-

When the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant was solemnized on 15-06-2004 at the house of the plaintiff I.e

Piduguralla Town and Mandal under Mohammedan law and immediately the plaintiff joined the defendant and lead marital life and when the defendant harassed the plaintiff mentally and physically for additional dowry and when the defendant rejected the plaintiff on 10-10-2016 for additional dowry and when the plaintiff parents made several mediations for the reunion of the plaintiff with the defendant 7 on which defendant refused to bring back the plaintiff to lead marital life and hence the plaintiff constrained to file this suit for dissolving her marriage with the defendant and the plaintiff is residing at

Piduguralla Town and Mandal which is within the jurisdiction of this

Court.

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM:-

This being a suit for dissolution between the plaintiff and defendant under the provisions of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages

Act, 1939 a fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid u/s.II Art.I(ii) of the

APCF and SV Act.

This suit is coming before me on 10.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant is remained exparte, upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows:

i)that the suit is hereby decreed without costs by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent held on dt.15.06.2004 ii) that the defendant do pay a sum of Rs.12/- to the plaintiff towards institutional costs and defendant do bear his own cost of Rs. Nil (Exparte).

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 10th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- M.Murali Gangadhara Rao

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PIDUGURALLA

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

1.Vakalat2-00 2Plaint Fees Stamp duty10-00 3Petition Stamp--

4.Process & Publication -- charges 5Commissioner Fee--C.M. & F.C. not filed.

6.Advocate Fees -- 7Junior Advocate fee--

8.Type Charges--

9.Writing Charges-- Total = Rs.12-00 C.M. & F.C. not filed.

Sd/- M.Murali Gangadhara Rao

CJ(JD) 9

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PIDUGURALLA.

PRESENT: SRI M.MURALI GANGADHARA RAO,

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), PIDUGURALLA.

Thursday, this the 10th day of April, 2025

O.S.No.153/2024

Between:

Allam Nageswara Rao, S/o Saidulu @ Saidaiah, Age 79 years, Senior Citizen, R/o H.No.1-22, Goli Village, Rentachinthala Mandal, Palnadu District.

.. Plaintiff

A N D

Ganta Thrinadh, S/o Mallikarjuna Rao, Age 35 years, Business, R/o H.No.4-23, Machavaram village and mandal, Presently C/o Mamilla Narendara, S/o Mallikarjuna Rao, Sathuluru Village, Nadendal Mandal, Palnadu

..Defendant

District.

This suit is coming before me on 10.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Kumara Swamy, Advocate for the plaintiff and of

Sri M.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the defendant, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for grant of

Decree over recovery of an amount of Rs.3.48,975/- under two promissory notes with future interest at the rate of 18% p.a and costs thereof.

2. The brief averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiff are that:

The defendant borrowed an amounts of Rs.1,50,000/- and

Rs.1,00,000/- on 30.07.2022 and 03.08.2022 at Machavaram village and mandal from the plaintiff for his family expenses on the even dates the defendant executed two demand promissory notes I.e “ A marked and B marked “ in his hand writing in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% p.a either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Subsequently, the plaintiff made repeated demands personally and through elders to discharge the said promissory notes debt amount, but the defendant did not choose to discharge the said debt due under the suit promissory notes. The plaintiff learnt that defendant is trying to secretize all his properties in favor of his kith and kin with a view to defeat or delay the decree that may be passed in this suit. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the suit for recovery of amount.

3.On receipt of summons through court, the defendant appeared

before this court through his learned counsel but he did not choose to file

his written statement with in the statutory period, no representation, hence the defendant is set exparte.

4. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 by filing his affidavit in lieu of chief examination and got marked Exs.A1 and A2.

5. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit

amount from the defendant as prayed for?”

7. POINT :

According to plaintiff, defendant borrowed an amounts of

Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- on 30.07.2022 and 03.08.2022 at

Machavaram village and mandal from him for his family expenses on the even dates the defendant executed two demand promissory notes

I.e “ A marked and B marked “ in his hand writing in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% p.a either to him or to his order on demand. Subsequently, he made repeated demands personally and through elders to discharge the said promissory notes debt amount, but the defendant did not choose to discharge the said debt due under the suit promissory notes. He learnt that defendant is trying to secretize all his properties in favor of his kith and kin with a view to defeat or delay the decree that may be passed in this suit. In order to establish his claim, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. In his evidence affidavit in lieu of chief examination, plaintiff as PW1 has reiterated the averments mentioned in the plaint and through him Exs.A1 and A2 are marked. Ex.A1 is the

A marked promissory note dt.30.07.2022 executed by defendant in his favor for Rs.1,50,000/- and Ex.A2 is the B marked promissory note dt.03.08.2022 executed by defendant in his favor for

Rs.1,00,000/-. As already noted, on receipt of the summons though the defendant appeared before this court through his learned counsel but he did not choose to file his written statement with in the statutory period, no representation, hence the defendant is set exparte and as such, the evidence of P.W.1 remains unchallenged.

8. On perusal of the unchallenged evidence of P.W.1 coupled with

Exs.A1 and A2, this court is of the view that plaintiff has established that defendant having executed Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes and failed to repay the same inspite of repeated demands.

9.Since the plaintiff has established that the defendant having executed Exs.A1 and A2 failed to repay the remaining debt due under

Exs.A1 and A2 this court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for.

Accordingly the point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

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

the plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.3,48,975/-

with subsequent interest at 12% p.a., from the date of the

suit till the date of the decree and thereafter at the rate of 6%

p.a. till the date of realization on principal amount of

Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-).

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- M.Murali Gangadhara Rao

Civil Judge(JuniorDivision),

Piduguralla.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

P.W.1: Allam Nageswara Rao. None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 is the A marked promissory note dt.30.07.2022 executed by defendant in favor of the plaintiff for Rs.1,50,000/-.

Ex.A2 is the B marked promissory note dt.03.08.2022 executed by defendant in favor of the plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/-.

FOR DEFENDANT

NIL Sd/- M.Murali Gangadhara Rao C.J(J.D), Piduguralla.

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PIDUGURALLA.

PRESENT: SRI M.MURALI GANGADHARA RAO,

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), PIDUGURALLA.

Thursday, this the 10th day of April, 2025

O.S.No.153/2024

Between:

Allam Nageswara Rao, S/o Saidulu @ Saidaiah, Age 79 years, Senior Citizen, R/o H.No.1-22, Goli Village, Rentachinthala Mandal, Palnadu District.

.. Plaintiff

A N D

Ganta Thrinadh, S/o Mallikarjuna Rao, Age 35 years, Business, R/o H.No.4-23, Machavaram village and mandal, Presently C/o Mamilla Narendara, S/o Mallikarjuna Rao, Sathuluru Village, Nadendal Mandal, Palnadu

..Defendant

District.

Suit for recovery of Rs.3,48,975/-being the principal and interest due on two promissory notes dated 30.07.2022 and 03.08.2022 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.2,50,000/- repayable with interest at 18% per annum and for costs. Plaint presented on 14.10.2024. Plaint numbered on 14.10.2024. Cause of Action:- The Cause of action for the suit arose on 30.07.2022 and 03.08.2022when the defendant borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed two suit promissory notes in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum with yearly rests to the plaintiff or to his order; that from time to time, when the plaintiff has been demanding the defendant for repayment of above said debt, at machavaram village and mandal where the suit promissory notes are executed and which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Valuation and Court-Fee:-Value of the suit is Rs.3,48,975/- u/sec.50(1) of APCF and SV Act, on which a Court Fee of Rs.8,352/- is payable u/sec.20(1) and of APCF and SV Act, 1956.

This suit is coming before me on 10.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Kumara Swamy, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri M.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the defendant, and upon perusing the material on record, this Court doth order and decree_ (1)that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff of Rs.3,48,975/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on Rs.2,50,000/- from the date of suit till this day and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization;

and

(2)that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff Rs.8,354/- towards costs of the suit and the defendant do bear his own cost of Rs. Nil. Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 10th day of April, 2025. Sd/- M.Murali Gangadhara Rao

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PIDUGURALLA.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

1.Vakalat2-00 2Plaint Fees Stamp duty8,352-00 3Petition Stamp--

4.Process-- 5Commissioner Fee--C.M. & F.C. not filed.

6.Advocate Fees -- 7Junior Advocate fee--

8.Type Charges--

9.Writing Charges-- Total = Rs.8,354-00 C.M. & F.C. not filed.

Sd/- M.Murali

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

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PIDUGURALLA.

PRESENT: SRI M.MURALI GANGADHARA RAO,

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), PIDUGURALLA.

Wednesday, this the 16th day of April, 2025

O.S.No.144/2024

Between:

Mannuri Kanakarao, S/o Krishna, Age 37 years, R/o H.No.19-868, Srinivasa Colony, Piduguralla.

.. Plaintiff

A N D

Podili China Rattaiah, S/o Peda Kotaiah, Business, Age 66, R/o Dasari Bazar, Chennakeswaswamy vari Manyam, Macherla.

..Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 16.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the plaintiff and of

Sri D.Chennaiah, Advocate for the defendant, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for grant of decree over recovery of an amount of Rs.5,30,656/- under a promissory note with future interest at the rate of 24% p.a and costs thereof.

2. The brief averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiff are that:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,09,000/- on 26.08.2021 from the plaintiff for his family expenses on the even date the defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 30% p.a either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Subsequently, the plaintiff made repeated demands to discharge the said promissory note debt amount, but the defendant while admitting his liability postponing the payment on one pretext or other. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the suit for recovery of amount.

3.On receipt of summons through court, the defendant appeared

before this court through his learned counsel but he did not choose to

file his written statement with in the statutory period, no representation, hence the defendant is set exparte.

4. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 by filing his affidavit in lieu of chief examination and got marked Ex.A1.

5. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit

amount from the defendant as prayed for?”

7. POINT :

According to plaintiff, defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,09,000/- on 26.08.2021 from him for his family expenses on the even date the defendant executed a demand promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 30% p.a either to him or to his order on demand. Subsequently, he made repeated demands to discharge the said promissory note debt amount, but the defendant while admitting his liability postponing the payment on one pretext or other. In order to establish his claim, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1. In his evidence affidavit in lieu of chief examination, plaintiff as PW1 has reiterated the averments mentioned in the plaint and through him Ex.A1 is marked.

Ex.A1 is the promissory note, dated 26.08.2021 executed by the defendant in his favour for an amount of Rs.3,09,000/-. As already noted, on receipt of summons through court, the defendant appeared

before this court through his learned counsel but he did not choose to

file his written statement with in the statutory period, no representation, hence the defendant is set exparte and as such, the evidence of P.W.1 remains unchallenged.

8. On perusal of the unchallenged evidence of P.W.1 coupled with

Ex.A1, this court is of the view that plaintiff has established that defendant having executed Ex.A1 promissory note and failed to repay the same inspite of repeated demands.

9.Since the plaintiff has established that the defendant having executed Ex.A1 failed to repay the remaining debt due under Ex.A1 this court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

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

the plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.5,30,656/-

with subsequent interest at 12% p.a., from the date of the

suit till the date of the decree and thereafter at the rate of 6%

p.a. till the date of realization on principal amount of

Rs.3,09,000/-.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- M.Murali Gangadhara Rao

Civil Judge(JuniorDivision),

Piduguralla.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

P.W.1: Mannuri Kanakarao. None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1: Promissory note, dated 26.08.2021 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.3,09,000/-.

FOR DEFENDANT

NIL Sd/- M.Murali Gangadhara Rao C.J(J.D), Piduguralla.

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PIDUGURALLA.

PRESENT: SRI M.MURALI GANGADHARA RAO,

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), PIDUGURALLA.

Wednesday, this the 16th day of April, 2025

O.S.No.144/2024

Between:

Mannuri Kanakarao, S/o Krishna, Age 37 years, R/o H.No.19-868, Srinivasa Colony, Piduguralla.

.. Plaintiff

A N D

Podili China Rattaiah, S/o Peda Kotaiah, Business, Age 66, R/o Dasari Bazar, Chennakeswaswamy vari Manyam, Macherla.

..Defendant

Suit for recovery of Rs.5,30,656/-being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 26.08.2021 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.3,09,000/- repayable with interest at 24% per annum and for costs. Plaint presented on 23.08.2024. Plaint numbered on 20.09.2024. Cause of Action:- The Cause of action for the suit arose on 26.08.2021 when the defendant borrowed Rs.5,30,656/- from the plaintiff and executed a suit promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum with yearly rests to the plaintiff or to his order; that from time to time, when the plaintiff has been demanding the defendant for repayment of above said debt, at Piduguralla where the suit promissory note is executed and which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Valuation and Court-Fee:-Value of the suit is Rs.5,30,656/- u/sec.50(1) of APCF and SV Act, on which a Court Fee of Rs.7,826/- is payable u/sec.20(1) and of APCF and SV Act, 1956.

This suit is coming before me on 16.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri D.Chennaiah, Advocate for the defendant, and upon perusing the material on record, this Court doth order and decree_ (1)that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff of Rs.5,30,656/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on Rs.3,09,000/- from the date of suit till this day and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization;

and

(2)that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff Rs.16,878/- towards costs of the suit and the defendant do bear his own cost of Rs. Nil. Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 16th day of April, 2025. Sd/- M.Murali Gangadhara Rao

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PIDUGURALLA.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

1.Vakalat2-00 2Plaint Fees Stamp duty7,826-00 3Petition Stamp--

4.Process40-00 5Commissioner Fee--C.M. & F.C. not filed.

6.Advocate Fees 8,810-00 7Junior Advocate fee--

8.Type Charges100-00

9.Writing Charges100-00 Total = Rs.16,878-00

Sd/- M.Murali

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