Sri M.Pavan Kumar

1 O.S.No.140/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : PULIVENDULA.

Present: Sri M. PAVAN KUMAR, 

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PULIVENDULA.

Thursday, this the 18 th day of August, 2022

O.S.No.140 of 2017

Between:

Muchumarri Suryanarayana Reddy, S/o Pedda Chenna Reddy, aged about 68 years, Hindu, Kapu, Agriculture, residing at D.No.4­10­15, Prasanthi Nagar, Pulivendula town and mandal, Kadapa District. … Plaintiff

And

Thota Pulla Reddy, S/o Yerra Venkata Reddy, aged about 50 years, Hindu, kapu, agriculture, residing at Thatireddypalli village, Lingala mandal, Kadapa District. … Defendant

This suit coming on today for final hearing before me in the presence of

Sri S.Karunakar Reddy and Sri D.Rama Mohan, Advocates for plaintiff and Sri.

M.Gajendranatha Reddy, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:­

JUDGMENT

1.This suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of sum of

Rs.33,950/­ due under a promissory note with future interest and costs.

2.The brief averments in the plaint are:­

The defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.25,000/­ from the plaintiff on 26.07.2014 for his necessities and on the same day, the defendant has executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

2 O.S.No.140/2017

Inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the amount due under the promissory note. The defendant is an agriculturist, hence the plaintiff is claiming interest at 12% p.a. in the suit. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit against the defendant for recovery of the amount due under the promissory note. Hence the suit.

3. The defendant filed a written statement and submits that they are money dealings in between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant paid the entire debt amount with interest to the plaintiff. Recently some disputes arose in between the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant further submits that on 26.07.2014 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/­ from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and the plaintiff demanded several times and failed to pay the same are absolutely false and denied the defendant. The defendant further submits that did he not borrow any amount of Rs.25,000/­ from the plaintiff and the suit promissory note is fabricated one. The earlier promissory notes not returned to the defendant by the plaintiff even after paid the money. Due to faith the defendant not insisted the plaintiff about the said promissory note. Thus, the plaintiff fabricated the suit promissory note with the help of his henchman and friends to have wrongful gain. The defendant further submits that the signatures on the suit promissory note does not belongs to the defendant and date columns also they are forged one. The defendant is put to strict proof of the same. The defendant further submits that the plaintiff filed the present suit to harass the defendant to have wrongful gain. The defendant further submits that the defendant filed the insolvency petition before the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge 3 O.S.No.140/2017

Court, Dharmavaram, Anathapuram District. Hence, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the pleadings of the parties, this court settled the following issues for trial.

1. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for ?

3. To what relief ?

5.During the course of the trial, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and

Ex.A1 was exhibited. On behalf of the plaintiff, the attester to the suit promissory note is examined as PW2. The defendant counsel reported no evidence on behalf of the defendant, hence the defendant side evidence closed as per the docket order dated 25.04.2022.

6.Heard.

7.EVIDENCE :

The plaintiff examined as PW1 and his evidence in chief is in tune with his plaint. Through him Ex.A1 is exhibited. In his cross examination, he deposed that he have acquaintance with the defendant as he is also belongs to his village.

He admitted that there are money transactions in between himself and the defendant and he also doing money lending business. The defendant is depending on cultivation. On 26.07.2014 he gave an amount of Rs.25,000/­ to the defendant. He clarified that he have not issued any legal notice to the 4 O.S.No.140/2017 defendant before filing the present suit. He clarified that the amount was given to the defendant in the presence of one Ram Mohan Reddy. He denied the suggestion that the defendant had paid the entire amount due under Ex.A1 but he did not return the promissory note. He admitted that the defendant filed an

I.P. petition before the Dharmavaram court. He denied the suggestion that he deposing false.

8.The PW2 is the attestor to the suit promissory note vide Ex.A1. In his cross examination, he deposed that he came to depose on behalf of the P.W.1 as the

P.W.1 lend an amount of Rs.25,000/­ to the defendant under execution of promissory note by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 26.07.2014 for which he stood as attestor. He denied the suggestion that he did not witness the alleged transaction in between the P.W.1 and the defendant. He further denied the suggestion that he deposing false.

9. In re: Issue No 1. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

The plaintiff who examined as a PW1 categorically deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.25,000/­ for his necessities on 26.07.2014 after executing the Ex.A1 in his favour. The testimony of the PW2 goes to show that he acted as attestor to the document vide Ex.A1 and that corroborated the version of the PW1 by stating that in his presence, the defendant had executed the Ex.A1 in favour of the PW1. Though the PW.1 and P.W.2 were cross­ 5 O.S.No.140/2017 examined by the learned counsel for the defendant, the evidence in chief of the

PW1 and P.W.2 were not shaken. Thus on perusal of the testimonies of the PW1 and PW2 and that on perusing the Ex.A1 document, it is clear that the defendant had executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of

Rs.25,000/­ dt.26.07.2014. On the other hand, the defendant reported no evidence on his behalf during the course of trial. Thus the evidence of the P.W.1 coupled with P.W.2 is not shattered and that as there is no defence evidence, the contention of the defendant pleaded by him in his written statement has no legs to stand before the court. 

Thus in view of the discussion made supra, the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff holding that the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the part of the defendant.

10. In re: Issue No 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount, as prayed for ?

In view of the discussion made under issue No.1, the present issue is also answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 

11. In re: Issue No 3. To what relief ?

In view of the findings under Issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for the decree as prayed for.

12.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.33,950/­ (Rupees thirty three thousand nine hundred and fifty only) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant together with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a.

6 O.S.No.140/2017 from the date of suit till the date of decree and with a future interest @ 6% p.a.

from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of

Rs.25,000/­.

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

pronounced by me in open court on this the 18 th day of August, 2022.

Sd/­ M.Pavan Kumar,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PULIVENDULA.

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

For plaintiff P.W.1: M.Surya Narayana Reddy. 

P.W.2 : B.Rama Mohan Reddy. 

For defendant:

None

Documents marked

For plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 : Suit promissory note dated 26.07.2014 for an amount of Rs.25,000/­. 

For defendant: – NIL –

Sd/­ M.Pavan Kumar,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PULIVENDULA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIA L MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

PULIVENDULA

Present : Sri Shaik Baba Fakroddin,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu.

I/C Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula

Thursday, the 19 th day of August, 2021

Crl.M.P. No.506 of 2021 in Cr.No.213 of 2021 of SEB Station, Pulivendula

Between:-

Kanapaneni Vijaya Bhaskar, S/o Late Venkata Ramaiah, aged about 55 years, caste by Yadava, D.No.1-4-118, S.S.R. street, Pulivendula mandal, YSR Kadapa District. …. Petitioner / accused

Vs.

State S.H.O., SEB, Station Pulivendula.

... Respondent / complainant

This petition coming on 18.08.2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. A.Narasimha Reddy and Sri A.Prathap Reddy, Advocates

for the Petitioner / accused and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri

Sreekanth for the Respondent / complainant, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for determination till this day, this

Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This is a bail application filed U/s.437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner / accused to enlarge him on bail.

2.The brief facts in the petition are that, the petitioner is an accused for the offence U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020. The petitioner/accused is remanded to judicial custody for the alleged offence on 11.08.2021 and the petitioner / accused is lodged at Sub Jail, Pulivendula. The prosecution case is that on 1.08.2021 at about 10.00 am during the raids conducted on credible information by the respondent SEB Police, Yerraballi village cross situated on the road from Pulivendula to Mudigubba, one person holding one white plastic bag and found 24 liquor tetra packets of Haywards punch fine 2 whisky, then arrested the accused and seized the property undercover of the

Special Report drafted on the spot is utterly false and concocted story. Further stated, that the petitioner / accused is innocent of the offence and falsely implicated in this case by the respondent for statistical purpose. All the witnesses are officials and material object also sent to the court along with accused, the question does not arise tampering or threatening the witnesses. In this case investigation is almost all completed except for filing of charge sheet.

The allegation can be easily made any innocent citizen on basis of special report.

The alleged seizer and arrest was not in the presence of independent witnesses even though available place of mediators. The alleged place of offence is a busy area. The police officers not followed Criminal Procedure Code during the alleged arrest and recovery of the property, infringement of mandatory provisions in the law. The petitioner/accused is sole breadwinner of his poor family, if he is not enlarging on bail, his entire poor family consisting sick wife who will face many grievances and hardship. The petitioner/accused is having dwelling house in his village and he will not evade due process of law. The petitioner/accused is ready to furnish satisfactory security for his due appearance. Hence, the petition.

3. Notice to the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given. He endorsed on it, that he oppose for granting bail as investigation is pending.

4. No counter filed on behalf of the respondent.

5. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner by way of Video

Conference. No representation for respondent.

6. Perused the material on record.

7. Now the point for determination is: Whether the petitioner / accused is entitle to enlarge on bail as prayed for?

3

8. Point:- The brief facts in the prosecution case are, that on 11.08.2021 at about 10.00 am near Yerraballi village cross situated on the road from Pulivendula to Mudigubba, the petitioner / accused is arrested while he was in possession of 24 liquor Tetra packets of Haywards punch fine whisky kept in a plastic bag with an intention to sell the same for higher price and to get unlawful gain.

9.The same reveals that the investigation is still pending. Gravity of the offence in terms of quantity of contraband seized in the case is huge.

10. Considering the above observations, the petition is dismissed.

11. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19th day of August, 2021.

Sd/- S.Baba Fakroddin,

Judicial magistrate of I class,

Jammalamadugu. I/C Judicial magistrate of I class, Pulivendula

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

- Nil -

Sd/- S.Baba Fakroddin,

J.F.C.M., JMD.

I/C J.F.C.M., PLVD.

Copy to:

1. Counsel for accused.

2. Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Superintendent, Sub Jail, Pulivendula (one copy is to be provided to the accused through the Sub Jail, Superintendent).

4. The order copy is uploaded to the District Court Web site.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIA L MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

PULIVENDULA

Present : Sri Shaik Baba Fakroddin,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu.

I/C Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula

Thursday, the 19 th day of August, 2021

Crl.M.P. No.508 of 2021 in Cr.No.212 of 2021 of SEB Station, Pulivendula

Between:- Kayapati Ramanjaneyulu, S/o K.Naganna, aged about 44 years, caste by Yadava, D.No.8-54-a, Nallapureddypalle village, Pulivendula Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

…. Petitioner/accused

Vs.

State S.H.O. of SEB Station, Pulivendula.

... Respondent / complainant

This petition coming on 18.08.2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. A.Narasimha Reddy and Sri A.Prathap Reddy, Advocates for the Petitioner / accused and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri Sreekanth for the Respondent / complainant, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This is a bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner / accused

U/s.437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after Cr.P.C.) to enlarge him on bail.

2. The brief facts in the petition are that, the petitioner is an accused for the alleged offence is punishable U/s.7-B r/w 8-B of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and he is remanded to judicial custody on 11.08.2021 now the petitioner is lodged in Sub jail, Pulivendula. The prosecution is that, on 11.08.2021 at about 08.30 am during the raid conducted on credible information by the respondent SEB Police,

Motnuthalapalli cross in Nallapureddypalli village situated on the road fromn

Pulivendula to Mudigubba, one person holding one white plastic bag and found 10 liters of ID liquor, then arrested the accused and seized the property undercover of the Special Report drafted on the spot is utterly false and concocted story. Further stated that, the petitioner/accused is innocent 2 of the offence and falsely implicated in this case by the respondent for statistical purpose. All the witnesses are officials and material object also sent to the court along with the accused, the question does not arise tampering or threatening the witnesses. In this case investigation is almost all completed except for filling of charge sheet. The allegation can be easily made any innocent citizen on basis of special report. The alleged seizer and arrest was not in the presence of independent witnesses even though available place of mediators. The alleged place of offence is a busy area.

The police officers not followed Criminal Procedure Code during the alleged arrest and recovery of the property, infringement of mandatory provisions in the law. The petitioner/accused is sole breadwinner of his poor family, if he is not enlarging on bail, his entire poor family consisting sick wife who will face many grievances and hardship. The petitioner/accused is having dwelling house in his village and he will not evade due process of law. The petitioner/accused is ready to furnish satisfactory security for his due appearance. Hence, the petition.

3. Notice to the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given. No counter filed on behalf of the respondent.

4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. No representation for respondent even on notice.

5. The contentions of the petitioner/accused is as averred in the petition. The learned A.P.P. opposed the bail application on the ground that the investigation is pending, R.F.S.L. report has to secured. Perused the material on record.

6. Now the point for determination is: Whether the petitioner / accused is entitle to enlarge on bail as prayed for?

7. Point:- The material on record shows that all the witnesses are official and hence there is no chance for the petitioner to tamper or 3 influence them. The entire crime property was already seized by the respondent. This shows that the substantial portion of investigation is completed. Further the alarming rate covid-19 also considered hereby.

8. Hence, considering the same the petition is allowed.

9. In the result, the petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail on furnishing a self bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for the like-sum each.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19th day of August, 2021.

Sd/- S.Baba Fakroddin,

Judicial magistrate of I class,

Jammalamadugu.

I/C Judicial magistrate of I class,

Pulivendula.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

- Nil -

Sd/- S.Baba Fakroddin,

J.F.C.M., JMD.

I/C J.F.C.M., P.L.V.D.

Copy to:

1. Counsel for accused.

2. Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Superintendent, Sub Jail, Pulivendula (one copy is to be provided to the accused through the Sub Jail, Superintendent).

4. The order copy is uploaded to the District Court Web site.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 

I CLASS: PULIVENDULA

PRESENT:­ Sri.M. PAVAN KUMAR,

 Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Pulivendula

Thursday, the 12th day of August, 2021

 Crl.M.P.No.502/2021 

in 

Cr.No.06/2019 

U/s.379 IPC of Simhadripuram P.S

Between:

Kall Ranganna, S/o Roganna, aged about 40 years, R/o D.No.7/8, Joolakalava village, Singannamala Mandal, Ananthapur District. Petitioner/Accused ..

Vs

State: Station House Officer, Simhadripuram P.S

Respondent/Complainant...

This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

State/Complainant and Sri V.Thulasiram, Advocate for the accused and having stood for consideration, this Court made the following: 

O R D E R

1. This is a petition filed U/sec.437 Cr.P.C seeking bail to the petitioner/accused for the alleged offence U/s.379 IPC

before the Simhadripuam P.S in Cr.No.06/2019.

2

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Simhadripuram Police registered a case against the petitioner/ accused for the alleged offence U/sec.379 IPC before the

Simhadripuram Police station. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner/accused was subjected to Judicial custody on execution of P.T warrant and that he was in judicial custody since 02.08.2021. The further contention is that the petitioner/accused was falsely implicated in this case and further submitted that he is sole bread winner of his family as such if he is not released on bail, his family would suffer with starvation. Hence the petitioner prays to enlarge him on bail.

Hence the petition. 

3.Notice given to the Assistant Public Prosecutor. No counter was filed by the learned A.P.P but he opposed the petition stating that investigation is pending. 

4. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor through Bluejeans on 12.08.2021.

5.Point for determination:

whether there are sufficient grounds to enlarge petitioner/accused on bail or otherwise. 

3

6.POINT :

Perused the record. The record goes to show that accused was alleged for committing an offence U/sec.379 IPC. The record goes to show that the alleged the material witnesses have been examined. The accused was subject to judicial custody on execution of P.T warrant by the police. The accused undertakes that he will not evade the due process of law and that for his due appearance in future that is during the course of trial, he is ready to furnish sufficient securities as directed by this Hon’ble

Court. As alleged offence against the accused is not punishable with death or life imprisonment and that as the petitioner submitted that he is having permanent and fixed abode so also undertakes that he will not evade the due process of law, keeping in view of the personal liberty of the accused and that as a alleged offences are not punishable with death or life imprisonment, this court is inclined to allow the petition in the interest of justice.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused is directed to furnish a bond of Rs.10,000/­ 4 with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of this court.

Typed my dictation by the Stenographer Grade­III corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12th day of August, 2021

Digitally signed

PAVAN

by PAVAN KUMAR

KUMAR

MUTHEVI

MUTHEVI

Date: 2021.08.12

13:14:51 +0530

JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE 

PULIVENDULA.

Appendix of Evidence

Petitioner Respondent ­ NIL ­ ­ NIL ­

Copies (through E­mail) to:

1. The Learned Counsel for Petitioner.

2. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 

3. The Superintendent Sub­Jail, Jammalamadugu.

4. The Accused through the Superintendent Sub­Jail, Jammalamadugu. 

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 

I CLASS: PULIVENDULA

PRESENT:­ Sri.M. PAVAN KUMAR,

 Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Pulivendula

Thursday, the 12th day of August, 2021

 Crl.M.P.No.501/2021 

in 

Cr.No.12/2020 

U/s.379 IPC of Simhadripuram P.S

Between:

Kall Ranganna, S/o Roganna, aged about 40 years, R/o D.No.7/8, Joolakalava village, Singannamala Mandal, Ananthapur District. Petitioner/Accused ..

Vs

State: Station House Officer, Simhadripuram P.S

Respondent/Complainant...

This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

State/Complainant and Sri V.Thulasiram, Advocate for the accused and having stood for consideration, this Court made the following: 

O R D E R

1. This is a petition filed U/sec.437 Cr.P.C seeking bail to the petitioner/accused for the alleged offence U/s.379 IPC

before the Simhadripuam P.S in Cr.No.12/2020.

2

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Simhadripuram Police registered a case against the petitioner/ accused for the alleged offence U/sec.379 IPC before the

Simhadripuram Police station. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner/accused was subjected to Judicial custody on execution of P.T warrant and that he was in judicial custody since 02.08.2021. The further contention is that the petitioner/accused was falsely implicated in this case and further submitted that he is sole bread winner of his family as such if he is not released on bail, his family would suffer with starvation. Hence the petitioner prays to enlarge him on bail.

Hence the petition. 

3.Notice given to the Assistant Public Prosecutor. No counter was filed by the learned A.P.P but he opposed the petition stating that investigation is pending. 

4. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor through Bluejeans on 12.08.2021.

5.Point for determination:

whether there are sufficient grounds to enlarge petitioner/accused on bail or otherwise. 

3

6.POINT :

Perused the record. The record goes to show that accused was alleged for committing an offence U/sec.379 IPC. The record goes to show that the alleged the material witnesses have been examined. The accused was subject to judicial custody on execution of P.T warrant by the police. The accused undertakes that he will not evade the due process of law and that for his due appearance in future that is during the course of trial, he is ready to furnish sufficient securities as directed by this Hon’ble

Court. As alleged offence against the accused is not punishable with death or life imprisonment and that as the petitioner submitted that he is having permanent and fixed abode so also undertakes that he will not evade the due process of law, keeping in view of the personal liberty of the accused and that as a alleged offences are not punishable with death or life imprisonment, this court is inclined to allow the petition in the interest of justice.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused is directed to furnish a bond of Rs.10,000/­ 4 with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of this court.

Typed my dictation by the Stenographer Grade­III corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12th day of August, 2021

Digitally signed

PAVAN

by PAVAN KUMAR

KUMAR

MUTHEVI

MUTHEVI

Date: 2021.08.12

13:15:40 +0530

JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE 

PULIVENDULA.

Appendix of Evidence

Petitioner Respondent ­ NIL ­ ­ NIL ­

Copies (through E­mail) to:

1. The Learned Counsel for Petitioner.

2. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 

3. The Superintendent Sub­Jail, Jammalamadugu,.

4. The Accused through the Superintendent Sub­Jail Jammalamudugu.