Sri M S Karimulla

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: SRI M.S. KARIMULLA,

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Friday, the 21st day of April, 2023.

C.C.No. 48 of 2008

Between

State rep. by the Sub Inspector of police, I Town (L&O) Police Station, Rajamahendravaram. …Complainant.

And

1.Tadi Sudhakara Reddy, s/o late Krishna Reddy, 34 years, Veerulamma Temple street, opp Church, Anaparthi. …. A3

2.Tadi Saibaba Reddy @ Sai, s/o late Krishna Reddy, 32 years, Veerulamma Temple street, Opp Church, Anaparthi. …..A4

3.Gannavarapu Devaki Nandanarao @ Devaki, s/o Visweswararao 40 years, 10-96, Konthamuru, Rajhmundry Rural. …..A8

4.Mallani Chakravarthula Krishnamacharyulu, s/o Rangacharyulu 35 years, Manager, Bank of India, Seethampeta Branch, Rajamahendravaram 4-335/1, Teachers Colony, Bommuru. …..A9

5.Siruvuri Lakshmana rao, s/o Narayanarao, 45 years, Mallayyapeta, 1st street, Rajahmundry. …..A11

6.Dodda Venkata Swamy Naidu, s/o Venkata Rathnam, 47 years, Asst. Operator, APP Mills, H.NO.68, APP Mills Quarter, Rajahmundry. …..A13

7.Chitturi Lakshmi, w/o Sreenu, 22years, Seshagiri Raopet, police station street, Anaparthi. …..A17

8.Angara Lakshmi Rajeswari Mehar Vani, w/o Veera Venkata Nagendra Vara Prasadarao, 43 years, Virathanagar, Gopalanapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. …..A18

9.Thamalampudi Satyanarayana Reddi, s/o Ramareddy, 40 years, Markandeyapuram, near Railway Station, Anaparthi.(Abated) …. A1

10.Madireddi Lakshmi Narayana @ Chinna, s/o Veerabbai, 39 years, near Ramalayam, Rajendranagar, Rajamahendravaram. (Abated) …..A6

11.Nemani Kumar, s/o Venkataratnam, 39 years, Mala, D.No.1-79, Kolamuru. (Abated) …..A10

12.Bugga Venkateswararao, s/o Veeranna, 45 years, 18-5-18/9, Aryapuram, Lingampeta, II Street, Rajahmundry. (Abated) …..A12

13.Karri Satyanarayana Reddy, s/o Ramareddy, 45 years, Anaparthi (ABSCONDED) … A2

14.Balantrapu Venkata Ravindra @ Karnam, s/o Sri Ramamurthy, 45 years, Mandapeta, near Kranthi Children Hospital, D.No.4-5-40, now at Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.(ABSCONDED) ….A7

15.Bondavilli Dileep Kumar @ Dileep, s/o Somasundaram, 34 years, SC, Gandhinagar, D.No.2-77, Anaparthi.….A5

16.Kairam Satyanarayana, s/o Sreerama Chandra Murthy, 46 years, Pulp Mill Fitter, APP Mills, D.No.47-1-12/2, Danavaipeta, Rajamahendravaram. ...A14

17.Bagadi Rama Prasadarao, s/o China Babu, 33 years, Durganagar, 1st street, Mallayyapeta Trainee, Time Office, APP Mills, Rajahmundry. ….A15 2

18.Nurukurthi Gabriel, s/o Peda Kondayya, 42 years, 72-10-15, Lalacheruvu, Subbaraopeta, Rajamahendravaram. ….A16

19.Kovvuri Mahalakshmi, w/o late Satyanarayana, 65 years, Velampet, Rayavaram ….A19 (Case against A5, A14 to A16 & A19 is separated and renumbered as C.C.No.5816/2022)

This case is coming on for arguments before me on 18.04.2023 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K. Bharani Kumar, Advocate for A8 and of Sri B. Srinivasarao/Sri A. Subrahmanyam, Advocates for A9 and of Sri A. Yedukon- dalu, Advocate for A11 & A13 and of Sri SVR Reddy, Advocate for A3, A4 & A18 and of Sri N. Lakshmana Rao, Advocate for A17 and after perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case arises out of Crime Nos.422/2005 and 436/2005 of I Town (L&O) Police

Station, Rajamahendravaram registered against the A1 to A19 for the offences U/Secs.419, 465, 468, 420, 120-B r/w 34 I.P.C. on the basis of reports of defacto-complainant P.W.1-

Sannapu Lakshmi Kantham in Cr.No.422/2005 and defacto-complainant/P.W.2-M.V.V.N.

Satyavathi in Cr.No.436/2005.

2.The Case of the Prosecution is as follows:

That A3-Thadi Sudhakar Reddy along with A1-Thamalampudi Satyanarayana Reddy,

A2-Karri Satyanarayana Reddy, his younger brother i.e., A4-Tadi Saibaba Reddy, A5-

Khandavilli Dileep Kumar @ Dileep and A6-Madireddi Lakshmi Narayana @ Chinna entered into criminal conspiracy to sell away the lands of defacto-complainant viz., P.W.1-S.

Laxmikantham in Cr.No.422/2005 and P.W.3 in Cr.No.436/2005 of M.V.V.N. Satyavathi (L.W.14) by impersonating the victims in the above both crimes by arranging fake persons i.e., A18-A. Laxmi Rajeswari and one Varalaxmi by giving Rs.10,000/- to them and all the accused also conspired together basing on false sale deeds executed by the fake persons in favour of other accused i.e., A10, A12, A13, A14 and A15 and others (fake purchasers) in this case and got bank loans by managing the Branch Manager of Bank of India i.e., A9-

Chakravarthula Krishnamacharyulu by giving Rs.30,000/- to him for each loan and after giving amounts to the fake persons i.e., A18 and others who impersonated the victims in the above both crimes and also after giving amounts to the Branch Manager i.e., A9 for providing loans basing on the fake sale deeds and also by giving amounts to the fake purchasers i.e., A10, A12, A13, A14, A15 and others at Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per head at 7% out of total loan amount and the surplus loan amount is being distributed among themselves i.e., A1, A2, A3 and A4 to A7. A17 forged the signature of P.W.1. Thus, all the 3 accused have committed the offence of Criminal conspiracy, cheating by impersonation, forgery and forgery for the purpose of cheating and cheating.

a)Basing on the reports of P.W.1 and P.W.3, L.W.25-S.I. of Police of I Town L&O P.S.,

Rajamahendravaram registered them as a cases in Cr.No.422/2005 U/Sec.419, 465, 420 and 120-B r/w 34 IPC and Sec.82 of Registration Act-1908 and in Cr.No.436/2005 U/Secs. 419, 465, 420, 120(B) r/w 34 I.P.C. respectively and took up investigation.

b)On 05.09.2005 L.W.25 arrested A1, A8, A9, A12, A13, A15 and A16, on 13.09.2005 the A14, on 04.10.2005 the A4, on 09.10.2005 the A17, on 08.02.2006 the A10, on 18.02.2006 the A6, on 30.03.2006 the A11, on 15.04.2007 the A5, on 21.08.2007 the A19, on 23.08.2007 the A18 on their surrender and took their specimen handwritings and signatures and thumb marks in the presence of mediators viz., L.W.19-Nudagala

Sreenivasarao and L.W.20-Bhavaraju Subbarao. On 09.05.2006 A2 and A3 were obtained bail from the Hon’ble High Court with a direction to appear before the S.H.O.; and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3.Upon perusal of the record, Cognizance was taken for the offences U/Secs.419, 465, 468, 420, 140-B r/w 34 I.P.C.

4.After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under

Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., accused were examined under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. and they denied the offences. Charges U/Secs.419, 465, 468, 420, 120-B r/w 34 I.P.C against the accused were framed and read over and explained to them in telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and also got marked Exs.P1 to P.5.

6.As there was no incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused as envisaged under

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel

for accused. Perused the material available on record.

4

8.Now the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences U/Secs.419, 465, 468, 420, 120-B r/w 34 I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

POINT:

9.During the course of trial, one of the victims in Cr.No.422/2005 i.e., the P.W.1-S.

Lakshmi kantham who is defacto-complainant deposed that she purchased a house at

Adarshanagar and she mortgaged the same for Rs.1,50,000/- and she gave Photostat copies of her house document to one Devaki requesting him to sell her house but there after he did not appear before her. Later the bank officials put auction of her house as she failed to pay loan and gave her Rs.2,00,000/-. The bank officials informed her some third parties obtained loan basing on her documents but she did not know who availed the loan etc., particulars. Except that she did not know any thing about the facts of the case. The signature on the report Ex.P1 is that of her but she stated she did not know its contents and police never examined her. Thus, the P.W.1 did not speak anything against accused.

a)The P.W.2-S.S. Raju who is husband of P.W.1 also deposed that they purchased a house at Adarshnagar and mortgaged the same for Rs.1,50,000/- in a bank and they gave

Photostat copies of house document to one Devaki requesting him to sell their house but there after he did not appear before them. Later, the bank officials put auction of their house as they failed to pay loan and gave them Rs.2,00,000/-. The bank officials informed them some third parties obtained loan basing on their documents but he did not know who availed the loan etc., particulars. Except that he did not know any thing about the facts of the case and police never examined him. Thus, the husband of P.W.1 victim also did not depose anything against accused.

b)The P.W.3-M.V.V.N. Satyavathi who is victim in another Cr.No.436/2005 also deposed that her father during his life time purchased 230 Sq. yards of site and she constructed a house in 1997 by leaving some space behind the said house and her father died in 2002 and she gave Photostat copies of their house documents to one Gabriel to sell the same but the said Gabriel (A16) did not return their documents. Her mother informed that bank officials came to their house and measured the same; and the police enquired with her whether she sold their house or whether she obtained any loan for which she stated she neither sold nor obtained loan from any one and at request she went to police station and she came to 5 know some third parties sold away their house by forging her signatures and obtained loan but she did not know who did so; and at present she is residing in the above house and at present there are no loans on her house. Except that she did not know any thing about the facts of the case and she admitted her signature on the report Ex.P4 but she stated she did not know its contents and police never examined her. Thus, another victim i.e., P.W.3 also did not depose anything against accused.

As, the P.W.1 to P.W.3 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and the learned

APP could not elicit anything from their cross examination except by marking their 161

Cr.P.C. statements as Ex.P2, P3 and P5 respectively.

11. As the defacto-complainants and victims i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.3 and husband of P.W.1 i.e., P.W.2 in this case completely turned hostile to their case and they did not support the case of the prosecution, hence, the learned APP had given up the evidence of remaining witnesses including the Investigation Officer i.e., L.W.3-Sannapu Shalemu Raju, L.W.4-Sheik

Khajha Abdul Samad, L.W.5-Dowleswarapu Veerabhadra Sarma, L.W.6-Dowleswalrapu

Nagamani, L.W.7-Athili Bheemasankararao, L.W.8-Athili Bhavani, L.W.9-Chaganti

Bhaskararao, L.W.10-Telidevara Srinivas, L.W.11-Somina Bhaskararao, L.W.12-Ryali Murali

Krishna, L.W.13-Gampala Janakiram, L.W.15-Mahasivabattu Nagamani, L.W.16-Valla

Satyarao, L.W.17-Thakkilla Satyanarayana, L.W.18-Panuganti Panchamukharao, L.W.19-

Nudagala Srinuvas, L.W.20-Bavaraju Subbarao, L.W.21-Thumma Gunta Kodandaram, L.W.22-

Y. Malleswararao, L.W.23-V. Muralidhar, L.W.24-B. Prakash Rao, L.W.25-Ambica Prasad and

L.W.26-Gows Baig opining that even if they are examined no useful purpose would be served to the case of the prosecution. There is no evidence on record to prove the guilt of

A3, A4, A8, A9, A11, A13, A17 and A18 for the offences with which they were charged.

12.In the light of above discussion, there is no iota of evidence from prosecution witness as defined U/Secs.419, 465, 468, 420, 120-B r/w 34 I.P.C., to say that the prosecution established their case for the charges leveled against A3, A4, A8, A9, A11, A13,

A17 and A18. Hence, A3, A4, A8, A9, A11, A13, A17 and A18 are found not guilty for charges U/Secs.419, 465, 468, 420, 140-B r/w 34 I.P.C.

6

13.In the result, A3, A4, A8, A9, A11, A13, A17 and A18 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.419, 465, 468, 420, 120-B r/w 34 I.P.C. and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offences.

The bail bonds of A3, A4, A8, A9, A11, A13, A17 and A18 and their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Gr.III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court, on this the 21st day of April, 2023.

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravara.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W.1 : S. Lakshmi Kantham

P.W.2 : S.S. Raju

P.W.3 : M.V.V.N. Satyavathi

For Defence: ..NONE..

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Signature of P.W.1-S. Lakshmi Kantham on the report. Ex.P2 : U/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1-S. Lakshmi Kantham Ex.P3 : U/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2-S.S. Raju Ex.P4 : Signature of P.W.3-MVVN Satyavathi on the report Ex.P5 : U/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3-MVVN Satyavathi For Defence: ..Nil..

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- ..Nil..

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

7

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE::RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: SRI M.S. KARIMULLA,

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Friday, the 21st day of April, 2023.

C.C.No. 48 of 2008

DATE OF :-

Offence: 02.09.2005

Complaint: 02.09.2005

Apprehension of accused: A3-09.05.2006, A4-04.10.2005, A8 & A13-05.09.2005, A9-05-09-2005, A11-30.03.2006, A17-09.10.2005 A18-23.08.2007

Released on bail: A3-09.05.2006, A4-24.12.2005, A8 & A13- 05.09.2005, A9-22-10-2005, A11-10.04.2006, A17-25.03.2006 A18-23.08.2007

Commencement of trial: 01.03.2023

Close of Trial : 18.04.2023

Sentence or order: 21.04.2023

Explanation for delay: Due to non production of witnesses and due to Covid-19 pandemic

Name of the Complainant:

State rep. by the Sub Inspector of police, I Town (L&O) Police Station, Rajamahendravaram. Name of the accused :

1.Tadi Sudhakara Reddy, s/o late Krishna Reddy, 34 years, Veerulamma Temple street, opp Church, Anaparthi. …. A3

2.Tadi Saibaba Reddy @ Sai, s/o late Krishna Reddy, 32 years, Veerulamma Temple street, Opp Church, Anaparthi. …..A4

3.Gannavarapu Devaki Nandanarao @ Devaki, s/o Visweswararao 40 years, 10-96, Konthamuru, Rajhmundry Rural. …..A8

4.Mallani Chakravarthula Krishnamacharyulu, s/o Rangacharyulu 35 years, Manager, Bank of India, Seethampeta Branch, Rajamahendravaram 4-335/1, Teachers Colony, Bommuru. …..A9

5.Siruvuri Lakshmana rao, s/o Narayanarao, 45 years, Mallayyapeta, 1st street, Rajahmundry. …..A11

6.Dodda Venkata Swamy Naidu, s/o Venkata Rathnam, 47 years, Asst. Operator, APP Mills, H.NO.68, APP Mills Quarter, Rajahmundry. …..A13

7.Chitturi Lakshmi, w/o Sreenu, 22years, Seshagiri Raopet, police station street, Anaparthi. …..A17

8.Angara Lakshmi Rajeswari Mehar Vani, w/o Veera Venkata Nagendra Vara Prasadarao, 43 years, Virathanagar, Gopalanapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. …..A18

9.Thamalampudi Satyanarayana Reddi, s/o Ramareddy, 40 years, Markandeyapuram, near Railway Station, Anaparthi.(Abated) …. A1

10.Madireddi Lakshmi Narayana @ Chinna, s/o Veerabbai, 39 years, near Ramalayam, Rajendranagar, Rajamahendravaram. (Abated) …..A6 8

11.Nemani Kumar, s/o Venkataratnam, 39 years, Mala, D.No.1-79, Kolamuru. (Abated) …..A10

12.Bugga Venkateswararao, s/o Veeranna, 45 years, 18-5-18/9, Aryapuram, Lingampeta, II Street, Rajahmundry. (Abated) …..A12

13.Karri Satyanarayana Reddy, s/o Ramareddy, 45 years, Anaparthi (ABSCONDED) … A2

14.Balantrapu Venkata Ravindra @ Karnam, s/o Sri Ramamurthy, 45 years, Mandapeta, near Kranthi Children Hospital, D.No.4-5-40, now at Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.(ABSCONDED) ….A7

15.Bondavilli Dileep Kumar @ Dileep, s/o Somasundaram, 34 years, SC, Gandhinagar, D.No.2-77, Anaparthi.….A5

16.Kairam Satyanarayana, s/o Sreerama Chandra Murthy, 46 years, Pulp Mill Fitter, APP Mills, D.No.47-1-12/2, Danavaipeta, Rajamahendravaram. ...A14

17.Bagadi Rama Prasadarao, s/o China Babu, 33 years, Durganagar, 1st street, Mallayyapeta Trainee, Time Office, APP Mills, Rajahmundry. ….A15

18.Nurukurthi Gabriel, s/o Peda Kondayya, 42 years, 72-10-15, Lalacheruvu, Subbaraopeta, Rajamahendravaram. ….A16

19.Kovvuri Mahalakshmi, w/o late Satyanarayana, 65 years, Velampet, Rayavaram ….A19 (Case against A5, A14 to A16 & A19 is separated and renumbered as C.C.No.5816/2022)

Offence: U/Secs.419, 465, 468, 420, 140-B r/w 34 I.P.C Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order :

In the result, A3, A4, A8, A9, A11, A13, A17 and A18 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.419, 465, 468, 420, 120-B r/w 34 I.P.C. and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offences.

The bail bonds of A3, A4, A8, A9, A11, A13, A17 and A18 and their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE::RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: SRI M.S. KARIMULLA,

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, 

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

FAC­IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Friday, the 3rd day of December, 2021.

C.C.No. 1088 of 2019

Between

State rep. by the Office In-charge of Women Police Station, Rajamahendravaram. …Complainant.

And

A.1.Peruri Srinu @ Srinubabu, s/o late Harinadh, 33 years, Thimmapuram of Marriveedu, Yeleswaram Mandal. A2.Peruri Chakramma, w/o late Harinadh, 60 years,

Thimmapuram of Marriveedu, Yeleswaram (M). ..Accused.

This case is coming on for summons to L.Ws.1 to 3 before me on 02.12.2021 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of A1 and A2 appeared in person and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case arises out of Crime No. 131/2018, the officer of In-charge of

Women Police Station, Rajamahendravaram registered against A1 and A2 for the offences under Sections 498-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act-1961 on the basis of report of defacto- complainant/L.W.1-Peruri Yasodha Naga Durga.

2.The Case of the Prosecution is as follows:

On 07.12.2014, the marriage of L.W.1-Peruri Yasodha Naga Durga was performed with A1 and at the time of marriage, on demand of A1 and his family members, her parents gave an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards dowry, Rs.20,000/- towards Adapaduchulanchanams and ½ sovereign of gold ring; and after marriage,

L.W.1-Peruri Yasodha Naga Durga joined with A1 to led marital life at Marriveedu 2 village and lead happy marital life for some period; and thereafter A1 used to harass her as she brought insufficient dowry and demanded her to bring additional dowry and also demanded her parents to register 40 sq. yards in favour of L.W.1-

Peruri Yasodha Naga Durga. A1 used to abuse and beat her. A1 and A2 harassed her as she did not bring solid gold chain to A1. After giving birth to a male child by

L.W.1-Peruri Yasodha Naga Durga, at the time of performing Shanthi poojalu, A1 and A2 harassed her; and finally due to unbearable harassment made by A1 and A2 as there is no other go she lodged a report to the police.

a)Basing on the report of L.W.1-Peruri Yasodha Naga Durga, Police registered a case in Cr.No.131/2018 U/Sec.498-A r/w 34 IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of

DowryProhibition Act, 1961 and investigated the matter.

b)During the course of investigation, L.W.16-WASI-1318 visited scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence, examined as many as 15 witnesses and recorded their statements.

c)On 05.10.2018 L.W.16-WASI-1318 served notice U/Sec.41(a) Cr.P.C., to A1 and after obtaining permission from Superintendent of Police, Rajamahendravaram vide

C.No.192/DCRB-SI/2019, dt.22.03.2019, she added the name of A2 in the charge sheet; and later on 28.03.2019 she served Sec.41(a) Cr.P.C. notice to A2 and after completion of investigation, she filed charge sheet.

3.Upon perusal of the record, Cognizance was taken for the offences under

Section 498-A read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4.After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., A1 and A2 were examined under Section 239 of the

Cr.P.C. and they denied the offences. Charges under Section 498-A read with 34 of

IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against A1 and A2 were framed and read over and explained to them in telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

5.During the trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to

P.W.3 also got marked Exs.P1 to P.4. Ex.P1 is the signature of P.W.1-Peruri Yesoda

Naga Durga on the report, dated 04.10.2018, Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of

P.W.1-P. Yesoda Naga Durga, Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2-Uppalapu

Siva Lakshmi and Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3-Pendyala Srinu have been marked.

6.As there was no incriminating circumstances appearing against A1 and A2 in the evidence of the prosecution witness, the examination of A1 and A2 as envisaged under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for A1 and A2. Perused the material available on record.

8.Now the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 and A2 for the

offences under Section 498-A read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

POINT:

9.To prove the case of the prosecution under Section 498-A of IPC, they shall establish that A1 and A2 committed cruelty against the victim which is such a nature to drive her to commit suicide or cause injury to her heath or limb as envisaged under explanation to 498-A read with 34 of IPC, with their common intention.

To prove the case of the prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, they shall establish that A1 and A2 took dowry at the time of marriage and after marriage, they demanded additional dowry as envisaged under explanation to

Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

10.To prove the case of the prosecution, they have examined L.W.1-Peruri

Yasodha Naga Durga as PW.1, who is victim in this case deposed about her marriage with A1 and their relationship. P.W.1 deposed that after marriage, some trivial disputes arose between her and A1 and she informed the same to her mother who 4 placed the matter before elders for settlement but in vain on that she went to police station and the police obtained her signature under Ex.P1 on one written paper but she did not know its contents and police never examined her. There is no whisper in her evidence about harassment made by A1 and A2 against her. P.W.2-

Uppalapu Siva Lakshmi, who is the mother of P.W.1 deposed in the same lines as that of the P.W.1. P.W.3-Pendyala Srinu, who is uncle of P.W.1 also deposed in the same lines as that of P.W.1. In their cross examination nothing was elicited except marking of Exs.P1 to P4. As, the P.W.1, who is victim and defacto complainant in this case, mother of P.W.1 i.e., P.W.2 and uncle of P.W.1 i.e., P.W.3 completely turned hostile to their case and they did not support the case of the prosecution, hence, the learned APP given up the evidence of remaining witnesses including the

Investigation Officer i.e., LWs.4 to 17 viz., Pendyala Nagaraju, Pendyala

Ravanamma, Pendyala Radha, Thammu Trimurthulu, Enapagurthi Eswararao,

Pasupuleti Achiyyamma, Valupu suryavathi, Nagam Subdra, Olipalli Srikanth, Peruri

Venkatlakshmi, Pichuka Venkateswaralu, Peruri Sathibabu, K. Jayalakshmi and T.

Premakumari respectively in view of compromise between them opining that even if they are examined no useful purpose would be served to the case of the prosecution. There is no evidence on record to prove the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offences with which they were charged.

11.In the light of above discussion, there is no iota of evidence from prosecution witness about harassment and cruelty and threatening with dire consequences as defined in the explanation to Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code to say that the prosecution established their case for the charges leveled against A1 and A2 and also failed to establish taking of dowry and demanding of dowry from the mother of P.W.1. There is no evidence of harassment made by A1 and A2. Hence, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for charge under Section 498-A read with 34 of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

5

12.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offences.

Typed to my dictation by the Gr.III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court, on this the 3rd day of December, 2021.

Sd/- M.S. KARIMULLA

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravara. FAC-IV AJMFC., Rajamahendravaram.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W.1: Peruri Yesoda Naga Durga

P.W.2: Uppalapu Siva Lakshmi

P.W.3: Pendyala Srinu

For Defence: ..Nil..

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1-P. Yesoda Naga Durga on report, dt:04.10.2018

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1-P. Yesoda Naga Durga, dt:04.10.2018

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2-Uppalapu Siva Lakshmi, dt:04.10.2018

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3-Pendyala Srinu, dt:04.10.2018

For Defence: ..Nil..

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- ..Nil..

Sd/- M.S. KARIMULLA

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram. FAC-IV AJMFC., Rajamahendravaram.

6

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE::RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: SRI M.S. KARIMULLA,

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, 

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

FAC­IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No. 1088 of 2019

DATE OF :-

Offence: Prior to 04.10.2018

Complaint: 04.10.2018

Apprehension of accused: Sec.41 Cr.P.C. notices served

Released on bail: ----

Commencement of trial: 02.12.2021

Close of Trial : 02.12.2021

Sentence or order: 03.12.2021

Explanation for delay: ----

Name of the Complainant:

State rep. by the Office In-charge of Women Police Station, Rajamahendravaram.

Name of the accused :

A.1.Peruri Srinu @ Srinubabu, s/o late Harinadh, 33 years, Thimmapuram of Marriveedu, Yeleswaram Mandal. A2.Peruri Chakramma, w/o late Harinadh, 60 years, Thimmapuram of Marriveedu, Yeleswaram (M).

Offence: U/Sec.498-A r/w 34 of I.P.C. and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order :

In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offences.

Sd/- M.S. KARIMULLA

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram. FAC- IV AJMFC., Rajamahendravaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE::RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: SRI M.S. KARIMULLA,

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, 

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

FAC­I ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. Thursday, the 25thday of November, 2021.

C.C.No. 3277 of 2019

Between State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Prakash Nagar Police Station, Rajamahendravaram. …Complainant.

And

Adapa JyothiNaga Durga Sai @ Naga Durga Sai, s/o Venkateswararao, 19 years,D.No.1-170/1, Panchayat street, Koti village, Korukonda Mandal.

(Rider of Pulsar motorcycle bearing No. AP07 EB 7485)..Accused.

This case is coming on for trial before me on 22.11.2021 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M. Sai Kumar, Advocate for accused and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Crime No.300/2019, the Inspector of Police, Prakash Nagar

Police Station, Rajamahendravaram registered a case against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the basis of report of L.W.1-Illa

Koteswara Rao.

2.The Case of the Prosecution is as follows:

On 03.10.2019 evening, after college hours the deceased/Illa Harish went towards Lalacheruvu along with his friend/accused/Adapa Naga Durga Sai on a

Pulsar motorcycle bearing No. AP07 EB 7485 of the accused as a pillion rider and while they reached Gail Office at AVA Road, accused drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed with a view to overtake the car bearing

No. AP31 DT 9446 and hit the car forcibly and thereupon hit the divider erected in the midst of the road; due to which the pillion rider/deceased-Illa Harish flew into the air and fell down on the cement divider; due to which he sustained bleeding head injury and died instantaneously. The accused also sustained minor injuries over his person. On receipt of information, L.W.1-Illa Koteswararao along with his relatives rushed there and found the deceased sustained severe bleeding crack injury on the right side of head and laid dead and later he informed the same to

Prakash Nagar P.S.

2

a)Basing on the report of L.W.1-Illa Koteswara Rao, L.W.13-P. Srinivas,

Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.300 of 2019 under Section 304-A of IPC and investigated the matter. During investigation, on 03.10.2019 L.W.13-Inspector of Police visited scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence in the presence of mediators, examined eyewitnesses as L.Ws.1 to 3 viz., Illa Koteswararao,

Devarapalli SaiRam Reddy and Kotha Rajarao, shifted the corpse to Government Hospital,

Rajamahendravaram and shifted the crime vehicle to Prakash Nagar P.S. for inspection. On 04.10.2019 L.W.13-Inspector of Police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presenece of panchayatdars and blood relatives, recorded their statements as L.Ws.4 to 7 and sent the dead body for P.M. Examination. On 09.10.2019, the accused surrendered before the Hon’ble Court by filing bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.6336/2019 and the same is allowed and accused was enlarged on bail. On 15.10.2019, L.W.13-Inspector of

Police obtained MVI report from L.W.11-Mr. V. Srinivas, MVI, Rajamahendravaram in which he opined that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle.

On 18.10.2019, L.W.14-Dr. D. Ramesh, CAS, District Hospital, Rajamahendravaram who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued P.M. Report and he opined that the cause of the death was due to “Intra Cranial Hemorrhage due to head injury in road traffic accident”. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3.Upon perusal of the record, Cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

4.After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under

Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the accused is examined as per Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., and the substance of accusation for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC., was read over and explained to the accused in telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and

P.W.2 and also got marked Exs.P1 to P3.

6.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the accused in person. Perused the material available on record.

7.Now the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC., beyond all reasonable doubt ?” 3

POINT:

8.To prove the case of the prosecution, they have examined P.W.1-Illa Koteswara Rao who is father of deceased deposed that the deceased-Illa Harish is his younger son. P.W.1 deposed that on 03.10.2019 at about 04.45 p.m., while the deceased-Illa Harish was returning from college on a motor bike as a pillion rider and some unknown person was driving the same and hit to the road divider at AVA road, immediately, he rushed to

Government Hospital, Rajamahendravaram wherein he found his younger son as dead and the police obtained his signature on a written paper and he did not know the contents of it.

P.W.2-Kotha Raja Rao who is direct eye witness deposed that he did not know the accused and so also the deceased and he did not know anything about this case and he did not witness any thing and police did not examine him.

The P.W.1 and P.W.2 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and the learned

APP could not elicit anything from their cross examination except marking of signature of

P.W.1 on the report and 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.W.s.1 and 2 as Exs.P1 to P3 respectively.

9.As the P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the learned APP has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses including the investigation officer i.e.,

L.Ws.2 and 4 to 13 viz., Devarapalli Sai Ram Reddy, Illa Lakshmi, Illa Satya Rama Prasad, Illa

Bulli Kota, Vasamsetti Kota Nageswararao, Duvvapu Rama Swamy, Saladi Puneeth Kumar,

Koppula Hanuman Prasad, Mr. v. Srinivas, Dr. D. Ramesh and Mr. P. Srinivas opining that even if they are examined in this case no useful purpose would be served to the case of the prosecution.

As there was no incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused as envisaged under

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was dispensed with. There is no evidence on record to prove the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

10.In the light of above discussion, there is no iota of evidence from prosecution witnesses that accused drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner; due to which accused sustained grievous head injury and died, as defined in under Section 304-A of IPC.

to say that the prosecution established their case for the said offence against him. Hence, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

4

11.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. and he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offence.

The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Gr.III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court, on this the 25th day of November, 2021.

//True Copy//

Sd/- M.S. KARIMULLA

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

(FAC) I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, (FAC) I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W.1: Illa Koteswara Rao

P.W.2: Kotha Raja Rao

For Defence: ..Nil..

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1 on the report, dt:03.10.2019

Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1-Illa Koteswara Rao, dt:03.10.2019

Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2-Kotha Raja Rao, dt: 03.10.2019

For Defence: ..Nil..

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- ..Nil..

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

5

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE::RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: SRI M.S. KARIMULLA,

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, 

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No. 3277 of 2019

DATE OF :-

Offence: 03.10.2019

Complaint: 03.10.2019

Apprehension of accused: 09.10.2019

Released on bail: 09.10.2019

Commencement of trial: 22.11.2021

Close of Trial : 22.11.2021

Sentence or order: 25.11.2021

Explanation for delay: ----

Name of the Complainant:

State rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Prakash Nagar Police Station, Rajamahendravaram.

Name of the accused :

Adapa JyothiNaga Durga Sai @ Naga Durga Sai, s/o Venkateswararao, 19 years,D.No.1-170/1, Panchayat street, Koti village, Korukonda Mandal. (Rider of Pulsar motorcycle bearing No. AP07 EB 7485)

Offences: U/Sec. 304-A of IPC. Finding: Found not guilty.

6

Sentence or Order :

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. and he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offence.

The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

//True Copy//

Sd/- M.S. KARIMULLA

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

(FAC) I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, (FAC) I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE::RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: SRI M.S. KARIMULLA,

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Thursday, the 20th day of April, 2023

PRC.No. 24/2020

(Crime No.213/2019 of I Town L & O P.S Rajamahendravaram Urban)

BETWEEN: The State: Inspector of Police, I Town L & O P.S., Rajamahendravaram.….Complainant

And

Amballa Venkata Ramana @ Ramana, s/o Venkata Rao, 40 years, T. Kapu, D.No.43-15-15, Rajadibba, Kothapeta, Rajamahendravaram. ….Accused

This case is coming on this day before me for hearing and committal, in the presence of the learned A.P.P for complainant and Sri C.P.R. Reddy & Associates, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

COMMITTAL ORDER

1.The Inspector of Police, I Town L & O P.S, Rajahmahendravaram, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.376 of IPC alleging as follows:

2.The defactoo-complainant/L.W.1-Namala Jagadeeswari is a victim and resident of D.No.43-15-7, Kothapeta, Rajamahendravaram and the accused is her brother-in-law by courtesy and is residing opposite to the house of victim. While so, in the absence of her mother in the month of

October, 2018 the accused visited the house of complainant and expressed his love but she rejected his proposal as the accused was already married.

a)On 12.11.2018 early hours in the absence of family members of complainant, the accused by taking advantage of her loneliness entered into her house and assaulted her sexually while she was sleeping on a 2 cot in the bedroom at upstairs even though the complainant protested but the accused did not heed her words. The accused assured her that he is loving her and he would marry her also soon and as there was no other go she remained silent. Later, the accused again visited her house and enjoyed her sexually twice in the absence of her family members and then the victim requested the accused to marry her but the accused postponed the matter on some pretext or the other and finally rejected to marry the complainant, hence, the complainant came to police station and gave report.

b)Basing on the report of victim/complainant/L.W.1-Namala

Jagadeeswari, L.W.11-M. Ayyappa Reddy, S.I. of Police, I Town L&O P.S.,

Rajamahendravaram registered it as a case in Cr.No.213/2019 U/Sec.376

IPC and investigated the matter and later L.W.12-S.V.V.S. Murthy,

Inspector of Police, I Town L&O P.S., Rajamahendravaram took up investigation.

c)During the course of investigation, the L.W.12-Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statement of victim/complainant by WHC- 1657, visited scene of offence, observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, photographed the same, seized the bed sheet from the scene of offence and also prepared rough sketch. The L.W.12-

Inspector of Police also examined and recordedthe statements of L.W.2-

Namala Nagamani, L.W.3-Namala Madhu, L.W.4-Sepeni Devi and L.W.5-

Vaddipalli Janaki, sent the victim to Medical Officer, District Hospital,

Rajamahendravaram for clinical examination and the medical officer collected samples from her and later, the L.W.12-Inspector of Police sent the preserved samples and seized bed sheet to RFSL, Vijayawada for chemical analysis.

d)On 21.05.2019 the L.W.12-Inspector of Police arrested the accused, recorded his confession statement in the presence of mediators, seized 3 the photographs of victim from his possession under the cover of mediators report and the accused was produced before this court for judicial custody and later after obtaining permission from Hon’ble Court he sent the accused for potency test and L.W.9-Dr. B. Ramesh,

Department of urology, RMC, GGH, Kakinada conducted potency test on 11.06.2019 and later, the L.W.13-P.V. Trinadh, Inspector of Police, I Town

L&O P.S., Rajamahendravaram took up further investigation in this case.

e)The Scientific Officer at RFSL sent his report and in which he opined that Items 1 to 8 are examined blood and semen are not detected on 1 to 8 items. Spermatozoa are not detected on 5 and 6 items. Foreign hair is not detected on Item No.3 and also foreign material is not detected on Item No.4.

f)The L.W.9-Dr. B. Ramesh, Department of Urology, RMC, GGH,

Kakinada who conducted potency test to accused issued Potencey

Evaluation Report, dt.11.06.2019 in which it was opined that “the accused is not suffering from any significant medical illness to make him unfit for performing a sexual act”

g)The L.W.8-Dr. K.L. Vasundhara, CAS, District Hospital,

Rajamahendravaram who examined the victim opined that “the victim is accustomed to sexual intercourse” and after completion of investigation, the L.W.13-Inspector of Police filed charge sheet.

3.Perused the record which shows a prima facie case is made out against the accused for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. Since the offence under Section 376 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble

Sessions Court, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram, this case is

committed to the Hon’ble Sessions Court, East Godavari,

Rajamahendravaram, as per the provisions of Section 209(a) of Cr.P.C.

4

4.The accused was released on bail by the orders of the Hon’ble VIII

Addl. District and Sessions Judge Cum Spl. Judge for Trial of Offences

Against Women, Rajamahendravaram vide Crl.M.P.No.924/2019, dated 23.07.2019 and he shall be continued on the same bail during and until conclusion of the case and is directed to appear before Hon’ble Sessions

Court, after receipt of summons under Section 209(b) of Cr.P.C.

5.Office is directed to submit all material papers and objects to the

Hon’ble Court of Sessions, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram as per

Section 209(c) of Cr.P.C.

6.Office is directed to notify to the Public Prosecutor about the committal of the case to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions as per the

Provisions of Section 209(d) of Cr.P.C.

7.When the accused is questioned about the means to engage an advocate, he stated that he has means to engage an advocate to defend him during the trial at the Honourable Court of Sessions,

Rajamahendravaram. Accused is directed to appear before the Hon’ble

Court of Sessions, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram after receipt of summons.

Pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 20th day of April,

2023.

Sd/- M.S. KARIMULLA,

II ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-NIL-

Sd/- M.S. KARIMULLA,

II A.J.F.C.M.

// True Copy //

II Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

PRESENT: SRI M.S. KARIMULLA, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram (FAC) Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram

Tuesday, the 18th day of April, 2023

O.S.No. 1140/2022

Between:

M/s. Canara Bank, Main-II (Syndicate Bank before amalgamation), D.No.36-7-14, 2nd floor, Ponduri Square, Pondurivari street, Innispeta, Rajamahendravaram rep by it’s Manager and GPA Holder viz., Styendra Jani, s/o Ramarao, Hindu, 33 years, Rajamahendravaram. …Plaintiff

And

Notla Raju, s/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, 38 years, D.No.36-41-7, Bodiredlavari Veedhi, Innispeta, Rajamahendravaram, E.G.Dt.…Defendant

This suit having come on 12.04.2023 for plaintiff’s exparte evidence

before me in the presence of Sri D.V. Krishna Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff

and the defendant called absent and set exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff/bank against the defendant for recovery of suit amount of Rs.1,10,948/- together with subsequent interest at 10.45% per annum from the date of suit to till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

On 14.09.2020, the defendant approached the plaintiff/bank to avail loan for his business purpose and submitted an application form for loans to

Micro Small and Medium Enterprises and after due verification the plaintiff bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.89,000/- to the defendant on 29.09.2020 and the defendant executed an Agreement of Hypothecation, dt.29.09.2020 by agreeing to repay the same with interest @9.05% p.a., being 1.80% over and above and the present rate of interest is 10.45% and the defendant created 2 charge against the hypothecation i.e., stock-in-trade i.e., auto sear covers and auto covers materials lying in his godown and shop premises, D.No.36- 41-7, Innispeta, Rajamahendravaram and he agreed to repay the same with interest as agreed in 83 equated monthly installments of Rs.1,447/- per month each commencing from 31.10.2020 and ending with 31.08.2027. As per the certified copy of statement of account an amount of Rs.1,10,0948/- is due as on 12.09.2022 to the plaintiff bank. Later, the defendant committed default in payment of installments as he did not conduct the business properly and had not maintained any stock in trade in his business. Even after repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank the defendant did not pay the installments. Hence, the suit.

3. Despite service of summons, the defendant was called absent and he was set exparte on 19.01.2023.

4.The Manager of plaintiff/bank filed his chief examination affidavit and the Manager of plaintiff bank was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff/bank and perused the material documents on record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff/bank is entitled for recovery of amount as prayed for?

7.POINT:-

In order to establish the facts mentioned in the plaint, the Manager of plaintiff/bank himself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1-Loan

Application, dt.14.09.2020, Ex.A2-Sanction letter, dt.29.09.2020, Ex.A3-

Hypothecation Loan Agreement, dt.29.09.2020 and Ex.A4-Statement of account of defendant, dt.12.09.2022and his evidence clearly supporting the 3 averments of the plaint that the defendant approached the plaintiff/bank to avail loan for his business purpose and submitted an application form for loans to Micro Small and Medium Enterprises and after due verification the plaintiff bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.89,000/- to the defendant on 29.09.2020 and the defendant executed an Agreement of Hypothecation, dt.29.09.2020 by agreeing to repay the same with interest @9.05% p.a., being 1.80% over and above and the present rate of interest is 10.45% and the defendant created charge against the hypothecation i.e., stock-in-trade i.e., auto sear covers and auto covers materials lying in his godown and shop premises, D.No.36-41-7, Innispeta, Rajamahendravaram and he agreed to repay the same with interest as agreed in 83 equated monthly installments of Rs.1,447/- per month each commencing from 31.10.2020 and ending with 31.08.2027. As per the certified copy of statement of account an amount of

Rs.1,10,0948/- is due as on 12.09.2022 to the plaintiff bank. Later, the defendant committed default in payment of installments as he did not conduct the business properly and had not maintained any stock in trade in his business. Even after repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank the defendant did not pay the installments.

8.Even though, the defendant was remained exparte the plaintiff/bank is not entitled for a decree automatically and the plaintiff/bank must establish his case and the Bank manager of plaintiff/bank in this case established by way of his oral evidence and also by way of documentary evidence i.e,

Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 and the same became unchallenged. Even though summons served against the defendant, he did not appear before this court to contest the matter and he was remained exparte. Hence, the plaintiff/bank is entitled for a decree in the above suit. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff/bank and against the defendant.

4

9. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff/bank and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.1,10,948/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 10.45% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum i.e., from the date of decree to till the date of realization on the amount of Rs.1,10,948/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand nine hundred and forty eight only).

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

pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 18th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- M.S.Karimulla

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

FAC-PJCJ-CUM-JFCM-RJY

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff :

P.W.1: Styendra Jani

For Defendant: -None-

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1-Loan Application, dt.14.09.2020,

Ex.A2-Sanction letter, dt.29.09.2020,

Ex.A3-Hypothecation Loan Agreement, dt.29.09.2020 and

Ex.A4-Statement of account of defendant, dt.12.09.2022

For Defendant: Nil

Sd/- M.S.Karimulla

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

FAC-PJCJ-CUM-JFCM-RJY