Sri. M. Radha Krishna Chahavan

IN THE COURT OF THE II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL

COURT: HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 9th day of July, 2019.

PRESENT: Sri.M.Radha Krishna Chahavan

II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

O.S.No.1467/2012

Between:

Rakesh Jain .. Plaintiff

A n d

1.Dr.Reddys Laboratories Ltd.,

2.Sh Sandeep Bhatia( Suit against D2 is not pressed)

.. Defendants

This suit came on 21.06.2019 before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri.R.Vinod Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri M.Srinivas Iyanger, Advocate for the Defendants and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for recovery of money of Rs.1,58,755/- together with future interest @24% p.a and costs.

2..The facts of the case are that the plaintiff is employee in the defendant company situated at New Delhi. He was appointed on 20.06.1999 and is last drawn salary was Rs.20,025/- p.m.

excluding other perks. The defendant which is the company incorporated under Indian Companies Act having its branch office at New Delhi. The defendant No.2 was shown as necessary party and however the suit against defendant No.2 was not pressed by the plaintiff by endorsing on the plaint on 26.04.2013.

IISCJ

OS No.1467 of 2012 2 of 10

The contentions of the plaintiff is that though he worked in the defendant company, he was not paid salary for the months of

July 2003 to October 2003. However, the plaintiff continued to work till January 2004 and thereby submitted his resignation on 12.01.2004. The plaintiff requested to settle all the final credits and thereby tendered his resignation on the reason that he got opportunity in new organization. His claim is that he was not paid with the salary for the months in which he worked with the company i.e., from November 2003 to December 2004, medical,

LTA and leave encasement and other settlements which were calculated to Rs.1,13,397/- and thereby interest @24% p.m. from the date of his resignation till the date of submission of the suit totaling Rs.1,58,755/- to be claim.

The suit was initially filed at New Delhi and it was transferred to this court on the point of jurisdiction as there was a mention in the appoint letter itself that all the disputes would be subjected to Hyderabad city jurisdiction only.

3..On receipt of summons defendant appeared and written statement was filed, denying the contentions of plaintiff and put- forth the defence specifically that the plaintiff himself has to pay

Rs.10,240/- as they have paid the four months salary wrongly i.e., for the months of July, August, September and October,2013 along with imprest amount of Rs.10,000/-. The contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff did not work in the company as per

IISCJ

OS No.1467 of 2012 3 of 10

their guidelines from July 2003 to October 2003 as such the plaintiff has to pay the amount back as the company had credited the salary for the said months.

4.. On perusal of the pleadings, the following issues are framed for determination of this case:

1. Whether this court has jurisdiction to try the case against the defendant?

2. Whether the suit is maintainable?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claimed amount against the defendants as prayed in view of the defence of the defendant No.1.

4. To what relief?

5..On behalf of the plaintiff, PW1 is examined and Exs.A1 to

A5 are marked. On behalf of the defendant, DW1 is examined no documents are marked.

6..Heard the arguments from both sides. Written arguments were filed by defendant company.

7.. Issue No.1 :

The contention of the defendant was never about the jurisdiction and neither of the parties have led any specific evidence on this issue however on perusal of Ex.A1 which is the appointment letter issued by defendant to plaintiff, clearly mentioned at clause-12 as “any dispute arisen out of and /or related to your employment with the company shall be subject to

IISCJ

OS No.1467 of 2012 4 of 10

Hyderabad city jurisdiction only”. Initially the suit was submitted to the court at New Delhi which was transferred to this court.

There is a specific mention about the jurisdiction of a court as such the jurisdiction is vested in the Hyderabad city only and as branch office of the defendant is within the jurisdiction of this court, this court has jurisdiction to try this suit. In this regard the case of Brahmaputra Velley Fertilizer Corporation vs. Fenner India

Limited1, to be seen where the Hon’ble High Court Madras has held that the specific clause about the jurisdiction for any dispute will confer the jurisdiction to that particular area. Hence, it can be concluded that this court has got jurisdiction to try this case.

8..Issue No.2:

In this regard as plaintiff was appointed by the defendant company and there is a claim for money on the pretext that he was not paid the amount, and when this court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit, this suit is maintainable. However, there is no pleading from either parties about limitation aspect and even on perusal of plaint it is noticed that this suit was filed within the limitation at New Delhi on the first instance, as such this suit is maintainable. Accordingly this issue is answered.

9..Issue No.3:

This is crux of the suit which has to be decided. As issue

Nos.1 and 2 are answered positively that this court can entertain the present suit, now the onus is on the plaintiff to prove this case that he is entitled for suit claim. In this regard the plaintiff 1Application No.3735,3738/2013 in CS NO.557/2013

IISCJ

OS No.1467 of 2012 5 of 10

himself, examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A17. On perusal of Ex.A1/appointment letter, Exs.A2, A3 are which are letters issued by the defendant to the plaintiff in the light of

Exs.A4 to A8 which are the salary slips of plaintiff for the months of June to October,2003, it can be said that the plaintiff was an employee of defendant company. However, there is no dispute from the defendant in this regard. As per Ex.A9, the plaintiff tendered his resignation on 12.01.2014 and thereafter the company had issued letter on 08.04.2004 by accepting the resignation of plaintiff. Ex.A11 is the form-16 plaintiff issued by defendant company and Ex.A12 is the letter sent by the defendant informing the settlement of account. As amounts were not settled as prayed by the plaintiff, he issued legal notice dt. 25.01.2005 vide Ex.A13 to the defendant. Again Ex.A14 was issued by the plaintiff to defendant as corrigendum, Ex.A15 is the postal receipt. Ex.A16 is the certificate of posting and Ex.A17 is the courier receipts.

10.. PW1 had initially submitted through his legal notice that he is due of salary from July, 2003 to January 2004 and again corrigendum was issued by him stating that he was paid from

July,2003 to September,2003 and thereby demanded to pay arrears from October 2003 to 12.01.2004. In the chief examination he stated that his claim is for the salary from November,2003 to 12.01.2004 and thereby restricted claim to Rs.1,13,397/-. In this regard the prime contention of defendant is that the plaintiff did

IISCJ

OS No.1467 of 2012 6 of 10

not speak specifically as to which period he was paid and which period he is not paid as there are few discrepancies among his own version at various stages.

11.. The defendant further contended that they have paid salary for the months of July 2003 to October 2003 during which period the plaintiff did not even work. The prime contention of defendant is that the plaintiff stopped working from July 2003 itself as such they are not liable to pay any money. There is no specific proof filed by the defendant in this regard except averments. Exs,A4 to A8 are the salary slips for the months of

July 2003 to October 2003 which shows that the amount was credited to the account of plaintiff.

12.. The contention raised by the defendant is not supported by any cogent evidence to show that the plaintiff did not work during the said period. The defendant had relied on a point that Ex.A5 to A8 does not show the amount for field expenses as such they have averred that the plaintiff did not work at all as the main job of the plaintiff is to work on field. On perusal of Ex.A1 it can be noted that the plaintiff was appointed as Scientific Business

Manager and he is entitled for field work allowances, but there is no specific mention any where in the documents that he shall work only on field. Merely because of field attendance was not shown in the salary slip, it cannot be concluded that the plaintiff did not work in the company at all. However, the field work

IISCJ

OS No.1467 of 2012 7 of 10

allowances would be credited in the present monthly for the expenses incurred by employee in the past month as shown in

Exs.A4 to A8 that means pay slip of July 2003 would reflect the filed expenses meted by plaintiff for the month of June,2003. If at all this version has to be accepted, it has to be concluded that the plaintiff did not work from June 2003 on-wards which is not the case of the defendant. Ex.A9 is the resignation letter of plaintiff which clearly shows that the plaintiff has tendered that resignation w.e.f 12.01.2004 and Ex.A10 which is acceptance letter from defendant company, also clearly shows that the resignation was accepted on the same date i.e. on 12.01.2004. There is no mention in the acceptance letter which is almost four months later to Ex.A9 that the plaintiff did not work from June 2003, but again

Ex.A12 is issued by the defendant company showing that the salary was paid excess for July 2003 to October 2003 and thereby adjusted the settlement and also claimed Rs.10,240/- from the plaintiff.

There is no reply notice from the defendant company claiming the amount from the plaintiff and infact there is no counter claim in the entire suit. There is no instance whether the defendant have led evidence to disprove that the plaintiff worked from July 2003 to October 2003 except a mere pleadings. No attendance records are filed by the defendant to establish its version that the plaintiff did not work in the specific period per contra the plaintiff has filed the salary certificate from June 2003 to October 2003

IISCJ

OS No.1467 of 2012 8 of 10

showing that he worked till the date on which he tendered his resignation on 12.01.2004 and as there is no specific evidence to disprove the same, the same can be believed.

13. The custodian of the attendance records is the defendant company which failed to produce the same in court to establish that the plaintiff did not attend in the specified period until 12.01.2014 the date on which the plaintiff submitted his resignation. The acceptance of resignation was also done after three to four months from the date of tendering the resignation and inspite of having ample time they did not specifically mention that the plaintiff has not worked from July 2003 to the date on which he tendered resignation. It is not the case that the defendant company had initiated some action against the plaintiff for not attending the work continuously and per contra they also credited the salary which goes to show that the plaintiff had attended the company during the entire period till the date on which he tendered resignation as such the defendant company is liable to pay the entire amount which the plaintiff is entitled .

Accordingly this issue is discussed and answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

14.. Issue No.4:

The plaintiff has succeeded in his case to say that he was not paid the salary by the defendant and even not settled the final settlement which he is entitled. The salary certificate clearly shows that he was paid till October 2003 as such the plaintiff

IISCJ

OS No.1467 of 2012 9 of 10

would be due of his salary for the months November and

December 2003 along with salary for the month of January i.e., till 12.01.2004 (proportionate salary). The plaintiff is also entitled for final settlement as per the company norms which is also admitted by the defendant company in Ex.A12 which is to a tune of Rs.74,044/-. Accordingly the defendant company shall pay amount of Rs.48,060/- totaling Rs.1,23,104/- to be the principal amount and interest @12% p.a. from 13.01.2004 till date of suit and 6% p.a. on the principal amount as future interest till date of realization.

12.. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,47,746/- together with future interest @ 6% p.a. over the principal amount of Rs.1,23,104/- from the date of suit i.e. 04.04.2012 till date of realization.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by

her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 9th day of June, 2019.

II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: Witnesses examined:

PW1: Sri. Sh.Rakesh Jain DW1: Sri.G.Gopala Krishna

Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Appointment letter dt 20.06.1999 Ex.A2: Letter dt 16.07.2002

IISCJ

OS No.1467 of 2012 10 of 10

Ex.A3: Letter dt 16.07.2002 Ex.A4 to Ex.A8 : Salary/pay slip for the months from June 2003 to October 2003 Ex.A9: Notice of intention to resign dt 12.01.2004 Ex.A10: Letter dt 08.04.2004 issued by defendant Ex.A11: TDS certificate, Form No 16 Ex.A12:Letter dt 08.06.2014 sent by the defendant Ex.A13: Office copy of legal notice dt 25.01.2005 Ex.A14: Corrigendum Ex.A15: Postal receipts Ex.A16: Certificate of posting Ex.A17: Courier receipts

Documents marked for defendant: Nil

II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT:HYDERABAD.

IISCJ

OS No.1467 of 2012 11 of 10

IISCJ

IN THE COURT OF XV ADDL.JUDGE-CUM-XIX ADDL.CHIEF

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT SECUNDERABAD.

WEDNESDAY, THE 17 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019

Present : Sri M.Radha Krishna Chahavan XV Addl.Judge-cum-XIX A.C.M.M., Secunderabad.

C.C.NO.435 OF 2017

Between:

Satyam Talari, S/o.Late T.Venkaiah, Age: 47 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.Flat No.23B First floor 6th Block, Janapriya Heavens, Lalapet, Secunderabad. … Complainant..

And

D.Vara Laxmi, W/o.Late Srinivas, Age: 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-10-125/84, Allam Thota Bavi, Mayuri Marg, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

… Accused..

This case came before me for final hearing on 10.04.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Thota Venkatesh, counsel for the Complainant and Sri J.Rakesh, counsel for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E NT

1.This is a case of offence punishable under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein the facts of the case as per complaint are that the complainant and the accused are acquainted with each other since long time. Out of that acquaintance the accused approached the complainant in the fourth week of November, 2016 and requested him to provide a hand loan of Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees Four

Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) and the complainant paid the same to the accused on 03.12.2016. The accused executed a document on Rs.100/-

Indian Non-Judicial Stamp paper mentioning about taking of hand loan.

When the complainant requested to repay the amount the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.000083 dated 20.03.2017 in favour of 2 C.C.435 of 2017 complainant towards part payment. Inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant the accused not paid the amount and on 11.04.2017 on the instructions of the accused the complainant presented the cheque but the same was dishonored on 12.04.2017 as "Funds

Insufficient". The said fact was intimated to the accused but the accused did not responded to it.

On 20.04.2017 the complainant issued a legal notice through his counsel which was received by the accused. Inspite of receiving the legal notice the accused did not reply nor repaid the amount hence, the complainant filed the case on 10.05.2017.

2.The Court took the cognizance of offence of Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused and issued summons to the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies were served and she was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C by explaining the allegations contained in the complaint, to which she denied and claimed to be tried.

3.In support of his case, the complainant himself examined as Pw.1 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. Pw-2 is also examined.

4. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. She denied the incriminating evidence against her in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

5.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts for the offence under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act ?

XIXACMM

3 C.C.435 of 2017

6.Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

7.POINT: The case of the complainant is that the accused inspite of taking the amount as hand loan, did not return it in time and issued a cheque which was dishonored. The complainant alleged that the accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act. He claims that his case is within the ambit of section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He himself examined has

Pw-1 in this case and got marked Ex.P1 to P6. He has categorically stated that he gave entire amount to the accused in cash. Ex.P6 which is a letter signed by the accused clearly shows that she has taken

Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) cash on 03.12.2016 which she agreed to repay to the complainant on 25.12.2016. Pw-2 is an independent witness in this case has stated that he was witness to the said transactions of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four

Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) and he has also signed on Ex.P6 as witness.

8. Both Pw1 and 2 have specifically stated that the accused issued cheque vide Ex.P1 as part payment of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) out of Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty thousand). In the cross-examination, Pw-1 has spoken that he gave whole cash of

Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to the accused in the denomination of Rs.100/- notes. He also stated that he got acquaintance to the accused through Pw-2. He admitted that the accused had deposited Rs.25,000/- on one date and Rs.30,000/- on another date into his account. The accused took a plea that the accused borrowed Rs.80,000/- from the complainant in the month of January, 2016 and then the complainant obtained her signature on blank stamp

XIXACMM

4 C.C.435 of 2017 paper and also obtained two blank cheques which was of course denied by Pw-1. No documentary proof is available in this aspect.

9.In the cross-examination the accused also denied receiving of

Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) from the complainant and also put a suggestion that the complainant had no capacity to lend Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand only).

Pw-1 specifically stated that the contents of Ex.P6 were written by accused herein. Pw-2 was cross-examined by the counsel for accused in which Pw-2 admitted that the accused was introduced to complainant by him. A specific question was put by the accused to Pw-2 that whether he was aware that Government banned Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- notes under demonetization for which he stated that he was not aware.

10.The accused filed Memorandum of written arguments U/Sec.314 of

Cr.P.C in which the accused admitted that the complainant gave

Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to her and she received it but however she denied the denomination of only Rs.100/- notes but stated that the complainant gave the said cash in Rs.500/- and

Rs.1000/-. The prime contention of accused is that though she has taken the amount of Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) she returned all the Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- notes to the complainant as they have ceased to have legal tender value and kept Rs.60,000/- only with her. Her further contention is that the agreement between accused and complainant as per Ex.P6 is void in terms of Section 23 of Indian

Contract Act as the object of the agreement is having no legal sanctity in view of demonetization.

XIXACMM

5 C.C.435 of 2017

11.In view of Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act the presumption is in favour of complainant and even in the present case as accused has also agreed that she has taken the hand loan of

Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) from the complainant, the onus is on the accused to prove that she had repaid the entire amount to the complainant. The contention of the accused is that she had repaid the amount of Rs.3,90,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs

Ninety Thousand Only) to the complainant as the said notes had no legal tender value as per the demonetization Act but the said currency notes ie., Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- have legal tender value if they are deposited in banks till 31.12.2016. There is absolutely no evidence from the accused except a vague statement that she has given back the entire amount to the complainant but whereas Ex.P6,Ex.P1 clearly shows that the accused had taken the amount and executed the cheque in favour of complainant.

12.Merely because the transaction took place in demonetization period the accused can not take the advantage of calling the transaction to be void as the said currency notes were still accepted by the banks in the said period. On careful perusal of evidence and documents available on record it can be noticed that such plea of demonetization was taken at the fag end of the case of accused but not from the beginning. No question of about demonetization was put to complainant. Another contention of the accused is that the complainant has no capacity to lent as such huge amount for which the learned counsel for complainant submitted a Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for the state of Andhra Pradesh in the case of M.Vidyavathi Vs Chandraiah@Chandra

XIXACMM

6 C.C.435 of 2017

Babu and another1 wherein it was held that it is not essential ingredient of Negotiable Instruments Act to prove the capacity of complainant to lend money. The Following Judgments are relied by the accused which are not found to be relevant to the facts present case an under:

1)LAWS(SC)2011 1159-Union of India Vs Col LSN 2)SLP(Crl) No.6197 of 2014 - K.Subramani Vs K.Damodara Naidu, before the Hon'ble Supreme Cout.

3)LAWS(SC) 1987 4 48 - Union of India Vs Nihar Kanta Sen 4)(2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 441, Rangappa Vs Sri Mohan

13. Exs.P1 & P6 clearly establishes that the accused has taken the amount of Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) and issued Ex.P1/cheque as part payment as such the accused has to rebut the presumption available in favour of complainant but the accused has failed to do the same hence, it can be stated that the complainant has proved his case. All the events in the present case are in tune with

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as such the accused is found guilty of the said offence and hence, she is liable to be convicted

U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

IN THE RESULT, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act and she is convicted under

Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2019.

XV Addl. Judge–Cum-XIX ACMM., Secunderabad.

12010(1) ALT (Crl) 347(A.P)

XIXACMM

7 C.C.435 of 2017

14.When the accused is heard on the question of sentence, she reported that is a lady and has three children who are dependent on her and she also stated that she has health issues as such she requested to take lenient view in imposing the sentence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, wherein the accused had taken amount from the complainant and did not repay the same, as such the intention is very clear on the part of the accused that she did not want to repay the amount. In these circumstances, the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act can not be applied in the present case. However the plea of the accused is found to be genuine and as it is not heinous offence in the eye of law, as such some leniency would be probable.

In these circumstances the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of

Rs.2,20,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Thousand only) out of which the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.2,10,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs

Ten Thousand only) which includes the principle amount of

Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh only) and compensationwhich is awarded to the complainant under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The balance amount shall be deposited to the government treasury.

When the accused is questioned about the means to engage counsel in preferring appeal by appraising her right to prefer appeal, she reported that she has sufficient means to engage counsel for preferring appeal.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of April, 2019.

XV Addl. Judge–Cum-XIX ACMM., Secunderabad.

XIXACMM

8 C.C.435 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

PW.1: Satyam Talari/Complainant. NIL PW.2:Pratap Jerra

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

Ex.P1: Original Cheque bearing No.000083 Ex.P2: Cheque Return Memo dt: 12.04.2017 Ex.P3: Office copy of Legal Notice dt: 20.04.2017 Ex.P4: Postal Receipt Ex.P5: Postal Acknowledgment Ex.P6: Agreement

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL- -NIL-

XV Addl. Judge–Cum-XIX ACMM., Secunderabad.

XIXACMM

IN THE COURT OF XV ADDL.JUDGE-CUM-XIX ADDL.CHIEF

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT SECUNDERABAD.

FRIDAY, THE 12 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019

Present : Sri M.Radha Krishna Chahavan XV Addl.Judge-cum-XIX A.C.M.M., Secunderabad.

C.C.NO.709 OF 2018

Between:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Karkhana PS, Secunderabad. … Complainant..

And

A1.Pabba Ramachandram@Ramu S/o.Pentaiah, Age: 37 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.3-3-310, 1st Floor, Rangrez Bazar, Behind St.Anthonys High School, Subash Road, Sec'bad.

A2.Pabba Siddeshwar S/o.Pentaiah, Age: 42 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.Plot No.63, Ravi Oc-operative Society, Ganesh Nagar Colony, West Maredpally, Sec'bad.

… Accused..

This case came before me for final hearing on 15.03.2019 in the presence of Sri.K.Naresh, Learned Sr.APPfor Prosecution and Sri.D.Raji Reddy and SKM Quadri, Counsel for the accused A1 and A2 and after having stood over for consideration till today, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E NT

1.This is a case of offences punishable U/Secs.509,506 IPC wherein the brief facts of the case are that: on 30.11.2015 Pw-1 lodged a report at P.S Karkhana stating that her Brother-in-law i.e, Accused No.1 tortured her mentally by creating bad rumors against her character and also abusing her in filthy language by making phone calls in mid night. She mentioned in her report that on 24.11.2015 at mid night she received a phone call on her phone from phone number of accused

No.1 (9849459592) which she did not lift and due to those

XIX ACMM

2 C.C.709 of 2018 harassments she also tried to commit suicide in February,2011 as the accused was harassing her from long time. She even mentioned in her report that a case was registered at Mahankali Police Station on the above issue which was settled amicably in compromise.

Basing on the said report Pw-5 registered a case in Crime No.219 of 2015 for the offences punishable U/Secs.509, 506 IPC. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of

Pws.1 to 4, Lw.4(Smt.Pabba Subadra) and Lw.6 (B.Rajesh). After completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet.

2.This Court took the cognizance of the offences punishable under

Sections 509,506 IPC and issued summons on accused No.1 & 2. On appearance of the accused No.1 & 2, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 & 2 were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. they denied the offence. Then charge

U/Secs.509,506 IPC framed, read over by explaining the allegations contained in the charge, the accused No.1 & 2 denied their involvement and claimed to be tried.

3.In support of its case, prosecution had examined Pw's 1 to 5 and got marked Ex.s P1 and P2. The evidence of Lw4/Smt.Pabba Subadra was given-up by the prosecution by way of filing a report stating that her whereabouts are not known. The evidence of Lw-6(B.Rajesh Gupta) was closed.

XIX ACMM

3 C.C.709 of 2018

4. After completion of prosecution evidence the accused No.1 & 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminating evidence found against them for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

5.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused No.1 & 2 for the charged offences U/secs.509,506 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

6.Heard both sides.

7.POINT: The case of the prosecution is that both the accused herein have harassed Pw-1 and also spread bad rumors about her character. In this regard prosecution has lead the evidence of Pws.1 to

5. Pw-1 being the victim has spoken that accused No.1 with the help of accused No.2 have spread rumors that she is moving with somebody.

She also stated that accused No.1 & 2 have abused her along with her husband and threatened her over phone that accused No.1 would defame her in the society and relatives till she dies. This particular statement was marked as improvement by defence, as said statement is missing in both Ex.P1/report and her statement before police. She admitted in the cross-examination that the report was drafted by the

Sub-Inspector of Police who went to her house. She stated that she has handed over the call data to the police but no call records are filed in the

Court.

XIX ACMM

4 C.C.709 of 2018

8.During cross-examination of Pw-1 lot of omissions were marked by the defense which are in the nature of improvements. She also admitted that Accused No.2 got married in the year 1999 and he is living away from them by doing his own business, she stated that Accused No.1 and her husband have purchased a house in Bowenpally and the said house was taken by Accused No.1. Pw-2 who is husband of Pw-1 also stated in the similar lines and specifically spoken that on 05.02.2011 the Accused have abused Pw-1 in his absence due to which Pw-1 consumed poison and was rescued by neighbours. Though he stated that the hospital staff of sigma hospital where she was treated in the year 2011, gave complaint to the police, no documentary evidence filed to that effect.

Even omission marked by the defence to this effect and even his evidence is full of omissions and contradictions.

9.During the cross-examination of Pw-2 by the learned counsel for

Accused No.2, has specifically spoken that he not remember whether he called Accused No.2 to any functions in his house and he did not even remember whether Accused No.2 came to his house after he was separated from their family. These particular statements of Pw-2 clearly shows that he do not want to disclose the facts, as such credibility on this witness is in doubt.

10. Pw-3 is the father of Pw-2 and both the accused herein. He says that

Accused No.1 and Pw-2 jointly constructed a house in Karkhana while they were living together but as disputes arose Accused No.1 came to

Pws.1 house and abused her. He admitted in the cross-examination that

XIX ACMM

5 C.C.709 of 2018 he is not speaking to Accused No.2 from the last 20 years. Lot of omissions were marked even in the cross-examination of Pw-3.

11.Pws.1 and 2 says that Pw-3 stays in their house by paying rent who is none other than the father of Pw-2. Pw-4 is an independent witness in this case, he says that about 3 years back Accused No.1 called him twice and informed him bad about Pw-1 and also made comments on the character of Pw-1. In the cross-examination he denied that he is a business partner with Pw2 and stated categorically that he is not involved in any property settlements of Accused and Pw-2. He admitted that he never have casual talks with Accused No.1 and even that he has not spoken about phone number of Accused No.1 to police.

12.Pw-5 who is investigating officer in this case has nevertheless deposed the chronological order of events occurred in the course of investigation. All the improvements and omissions were confronted to

Pw-5 by the defence which he admitted to be omissions and improvements.

13.Sifting the entire evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution it can be noticed that there are many improvements in the statements of Pw-1 and 2 wherein both of them have tried to exaggerate their case. In the entire case no specific word is spoken by any of the witnesses that accused herein have spoken against the Pw-1 to defame her. Pw-1 to

Pw3 are the family members wherein Pw-3 is the father of Pw-1 and accused herein. Though general presumption is that the parents would not speak false against their children but here in this case it is evident

XIX ACMM

6 C.C.709 of 2018 that there are no cordial relations between Pw-3 and other two children ie., accused herein hence, his evidence can not be relied upon.

14.Pws1 & 2 also spoken in concurrence with each other but there are deviations in their version and even there are improvements in their statements, as such their evidence also not completely believable. Then comes the evidence of Pw-4 who is cited to be an independent witness but he did not bring on record as to why would accused call him and speak something defaming Pw-1 to him. Pw-4 has even denied that he is partner of Pw-1. Except saying that he knows Pw-1, Pw-2 and accused herein there is no specific reasons for his involvement in this case.

However he also admitted that he has not spoken about phone numbers from which he received phone calls and what specific words were uttered by accused herein. There are few names appearing in

Ex.P1/report who are not cited as witnessed in this case which is fatal to the case of prosecution.

15. Admittedly the alleged incident had happened on 24.11.2015 even as per Ex.P1 and the evidence available, but the report was lodged on 30.11.2015. The delay of such six days was not explained in the entire case. There is no specific allegations against the Accused No.2 in the entire case except saying that Accused No.1 had done the act of defaming with the help of Accused No.2 but there is no specific proof to this effect and the credibility of all the witnesses is also in doubt as the witnesses have tried to exaggerate their version which are marked as improvements in their cross-examination respectively. There is no specific piece of evidence as against the accused persons herein and

XIX ACMM

7 C.C.709 of 2018 there are few lacune as such the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused as contemplated under criminal Jurisprudence. In these circumstances the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable Under Sections. 506, 509 IPC,

IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 506, 509 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 & 2 shall be in force for a period of six months from today.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12th day of April, 2019.

XV Addl. Judge–Cum-XIX ACMM., Secunderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

PW.1: Smt.Rupa Lakshmi/Complainant -NIL- PW.2: Sri.P.Laxman(Eye witness) PW3: Sri.P.Pentaiah(Eye witness) PW4:Sri.A.Srinivas(Eye witness) PW5:Sri.P.Bhadraiah(Sub-Inspector of Police/I.O)

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

Ex.P1: Report dt: 30.11.2015 lodged by Pw-1-NIL- Ex.P2: FIR dt: 30.11.2016

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL- -NIL-

XV Addl. Judge–Cum-XIX ACMM., Secunderabad.

XIX ACMM

8 C.C.709 of 2018

XIX ACMM

1

IN THE COURT OF XV ADDL.JUDGE-CUM-XIX ADDL.CHIEF

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT SECUNDERABAD.

FRIDAY, THE 12 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019

Present : Sri M.Radha Krishna Chahavan XV Addl.Judge-cum-XIX A.C.M.M., Secunderabad.

C.C.NO.676 OF 2018

Between:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Karkhana PS, Secunderabad. … Complainant..

And

G.Arun Kumar, S/o.Venkatesh Raju, Age: 45 yrs Occ: Business, R/o.Plot No.19, Road No.4, TMC Mahendra Hills, East Maredupally, Hyderabad.

… Accused..

This case came before me for final hearing on 15.03.2019 in the presence of Sri.K.Naresh, Learned Sr.APPfor Prosecution and Sri.Narsimulu, Counsel for the accused and after having stood over for consideration till today, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E NT

1.This is a case of offence punishable U/Sec.338 IPC wherein the brief facts of the case are that: on 21.04.2016 at about 4.20 p.m Pw1 and Pw2 who are Wife and Husband were going on a two wheeler bearing No.AP13AF3982 and while they reached Ratnadeep Super

Market situated near Karkhana, one car bearing No.AP10BE2512 has come in speed and hit the vehicle due to which both Pw-1 and Pw-2 fell down and sustained injuries. On the same day, Pw-1 lodged report at 9.30 p.m at Karkhana Police Station.

Basing on the said report Pw-4 registered case in Crime No.60 of 2016 by issuing FIR. During the course of investigation Pw-4 examined and recorded the statements of Pws 1 and 2. As Pw-1 and 2 took

XIX ACMM

2 C.C.676 of 2018 treatment at Navajeevan Hospital, he collected medical certificates from

Pw-3 who treated Pws-1 and 2 and on completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet.

2.This Court took the cognizance of the offence punishable under

Section 338 IPC and issued summons on accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/s.207

Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C. by explaining the allegations contained in the charge sheet, the accused denied his involvement, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.In support of its case, prosecution had examined Pw's 1 to 4 and got marked Ex.s P1 to P4.

4. After completion of prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminating evidence found against him for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

5.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the charged offence U/s.338 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

6.Heard both sides.

7.POINT: The case of the prosecution is that there happened an accident on 21.04.2016 in which PW-1 and 2 sustained injuries. In this regard the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 has to be considered in which it was

XIX ACMM

3 C.C.676 of 2018 categorically stated that both PWs.1 and 2 have received injuries. Pw-1 and 2 stated about their injuries and has corroboration. Pw-3 was examined who is Doctor who treated both Pws.1 and 2. Ex.P2 and P3 are the medical certificates issued by Pw-3. The injuries sustained by Pw1 are simple in nature. The injuries of Pw-2 are grievous in nature considering the evidence of Pws 1, 2 & 3 coupled with the evidence of

Pw-4 it can be held that both Pws.1 & 2 have sustained injuries in a road accident.

8.Now the crucial point would be how the accident occurred and whether the accused is responsible for the said accident. In this regard

Pw-1 stated that his vehicle was hit by a car bearing No.AP10BE2512. He has not mentioned the name of the driver in Ex.P1/report.

9.The learned counsel for accused put a question to Pw-1 in the cross-examination that whether he mentioned the physical features of driver of the said vehicle in his report to which Pw-1 answered as "No".

Pw-2 had spoken only to the effect that they met with an accident but however she has not either stated about the number of crime vehicle or identified the accused to be the driver. Pw-3 is a doctor who can say about the injuries only.

10.Pw-4 is the investigating officer whose evidence was based on the chronological events occurred in the investigation process however he spoke against the accused that the accused himself surrendered before him and confessed his guilt which was of course denied by the accused

XIX ACMM

4 C.C.676 of 2018 in the cross-examination. Except such confessional part, Pw-4 has not spoken anything in particular against the accused.

11.Leaving the evidence of these three witnesses, there remains the evidence of Pw1 who is one of the victims in this case. Pw-1 categorically stated that the accused herein was the driver of the crime vehicle on the day of accident and also caused the accident with his rash/negligent. He even identified the accused in court. Admittedly there is no Test

Identification Parade proceedings in this case and there is a lapse of almost two years after which the accused was identified by the Pw-1.

12.The learned counsel for accused had argued that none of the crime vehicles are sent for inspection by the Motor Vehicle Inspector to ascertain whether there are any defects in the vehicles. In this regard he relied on a Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of A.P at

Hyderabad in the case of K.Dhananjaya Rao Vs.State of Andhra Pradesh1 wherein it was held that non prosecution of vehicles in Court is fatal to the case of prosecution.

13.He however, admitted in the cross-examination that he has not mentioned physical features of the driver in his report and it is not his version that he had the opportunity of looking at the accused for considerable time to keep him in his memory. The prosecution has also failed to produce any document to say that car bearing No.AP10BE2512 is of the accused or he was driving the said vehicle on the day of accident. There are few doubts and lacunae in the case of prosecution, 12004(2) ALD (Crl.) 88 (AP)

XIX ACMM

5 C.C.676 of 2018 as such the benefit of doubt must enlarged to the accused as contemplated under criminal Jurisprudence. Hence, the accused is entitle for acquittal.

IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under

Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12th day of April, 2019.

XV Addl. Judge–Cum-XIX ACMM., Secunderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

PW.1: Sri.Gopal Yadav/Complainant -NIL- PW.2: Smt.Survana/Victim PW3: Sri.Dr.Anup Mehta(LW1 & 2) PW4:P.Bhadraiah (Sub-Inspector of Police/IO)

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

Ex.P1:Report dt: 21.04.2016 lodged by Pw-1-NIL- Ex.P2:Medical Certificate (Pw1) Ex.P3:Medical Certificate (Pw2) Ex.P4:FIR dt: 21.04.2016

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL- -NIL-

XV Addl. Judge–Cum-XIX ACMM., Secunderabad.

XIX ACMM

6 C.C.676 of 2018

XIX ACMM

IN THE COURT OF THE II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL

COURT: HYDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JULY,2019.

PRESENT: SRI M RADHA KRISHNA CHAHAVAN,

II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

OS No.592 of 2019

Between:

1.Kolli Narsamamba

2.Usha Sunkara

3.Mogilisetty Tulaja

4.Dr Kolli Swathy .. Plaintiffs

A n d

1. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Hyderabad

2. All concerns ..Defendants

This suit came on 28.06.2019 before me for final disposal in the presence of Smt G Suvarna Kumari, Advocate for plaintiffs and the defendant set exparte and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed to declare the plaintiff Nos 1 to 4 as legal heirs and successors of Late Kolli Janaki Ramaiah, S/o Late

Kolli Satyanarayana and consequently declare the plaintiffs as the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property situated S R

Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad and costs.

2.. The brief averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiffs are that plaintiff No. 1 is wife of one Late Kolli Janaki Ramaiah and plaintiff Nos 2 to 4 are their children. The plaintiffs are the owners of Flat No.B-406, Sri Sai Datta Apartments, MCH No.7-1-

IISCJ

OS No.592/2019 2 of 5

621, situated in 4th floor having 590 Sq feet at Ameerpet,

Hyderabad. Sri.Kolli Janaki Ramaiah died on 21.07.2017 leaving behind plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 as his legal heirs and successors of all his properties. The plaintiffs approached the Municipal Authorities on 10.10.2018 for mutation of suit schedule property, but the authorities refused to mutate for want of legal heir certificate.

The suit schedule property is situated at Ameerpet, Hyderabad and within the jurisdiction of this court.

3..The notices to the defendant were served wherein the defendant No 1 is the MRO and the defendant No 2 is all concerned. The notice of defendant No 1 though served, none appeared on his behalf as such the defendant was set exparte.

A notice to general public was published in Nava Telangana,

Telugu daily and nobody has turned up to contest the case as such all the defendants were set exparte in that regard.

4..The plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A10 are marked.

5..Heard the arguments from the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6..Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiffs can be declared as legal heirs of late Sri.Kolli Janaki Ramaiah and consequentially to be entitled to the plaint schedule property as prayed?

IISCJ

OS No.592/2019 3 of 5

7..Point:

The PW1 reiterated the contents of plaint in her evidence and stated categorically that she along with three other plaintiffs who are her children, are the legal heirs of late Sri.Kolli Janaki

Ramaiah. Ex.A1 was marked through her which is the certified copy of sale deed No.2261/02, dt.11.11.2002 . Ex. A2 is death certificate of Sri.Kolli Janaki Ramaiah, Ex.A3 is Office copy of letter given to MRO which shows that the plaintiffs had approached the MRO. Ex.A4 is original postal receipt. Exs.A5 is

Original GPA issued by the plaintiff Nos 2 to 4, Ex.A6 is valuation certificate dt.10.10.2018 and Exs.A7 is Aadhar card of plaintiff. Ex.A8 is PAN card of plaintiff No.2, Ex.A9 is notarized pass port of plaintiff No.3 and Ex.A10 is notarized birth certificate of plaintiff No.4. Exs.A7 to A10 shows that plaintiffs are legal heirs of the deceased Sri. Kolli Janaki Ramaiah.

8..Considering the pleadings, evidence of PW1 clubbed with the documents available on record it can be seen that the plaintiff

Nos. 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of late Kolli Janaki Ramaiah. As far as Ex.A1 is concerned, Late Kolli Janaki Ramaiah had purchased Flat No.B-406, Sri Sai Datta Apartments, MCH No.7-1- 621, situated in 4th floor having 590 Sq feet at Ameerpet,

Hyderabad., suit schedule property which is still standing in his name. In these circumstances as there is no rebuttal in any form, hence the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as legal heirs of

IISCJ

OS No.592/2019 4 of 5

Late Sri. Kolli Janaki Ramaiah and also to be declared as the owners of suit schedule property.

9..In the result, the suit is decreed without costs by declaring the plaintiffs to be the legal heirs of Sri.Kolli Janaki Ramaian and thereby are entitled for the suit schedule property i.e. house situated at Flat No.B-406, Sri Sai Datta Apartments, MCH No.7-1- 621, situated in 4th floor having 590 Sq feet at Ameerpet,

Hyderabad.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by

her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 8th day of July, 2019.

II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: Witnesses examined:

PW1: K Narasamamba For defendants: None.

Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff:

Ex.A1:Certified copy of sale deed vide doc No 2261/02 dt.11.11.2002 Ex.A2:Original Death certificate of Sri late K Janaki ramaian Ex.A3:Office copy of letter given to MRO Ex.A4:Original postal receipt. Ex.A5 :Original GPA issued by the plaintiff Nos 2 to 4, Ex.A6:Valuation certificate dt.10.10.2018 Ex.A7:Aadhar card of plaintiff No 1

IISCJ

OS No.592/2019 5 of 5

Ex.A8:PAN card of plaintiff No.2, Ex.A9:Notarized pass port of plaintiff No.3 Ex.A10:notarized birth certificate of plaintiff No.4.

Documents marked for defendants: Nil.

II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

IISCJ