Sri M.sankar Rao M.a, Ll.m.,

Judge Addl Family Court

Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Atmakur (Taluka) · Nellore · Andhra Pradesh

Sri M.SANKAR RAO M.A, LL.M.,, Judge Addl Family Court, is posted at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Atmakur (Taluka), Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India. 99 court orders on record since 2014. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, CC cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

CC/2/2016 Acquitted

S.I of Police, Chejerla P.S vs Bangi Muni Kumar @ Muni

10 Jun 2016

1 CC No.2/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ATMAKUR,

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

Dated this the 10th day of June, 2016

Present:- Sri. M. SANKAR RAO, M.A.,LL.M.,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur

Calender Case N0: 2 of 2016

State: Inspector of Police, Podalakur Circle …Complainant

Versus

1.Bangi Muni Kumar @ Muni, S/o.Krishnaiah, 27 Years, r/o.Samatha Nagar, 2nd Street, Near Mosque, Bujabuja Nellore, Nellore Rural Mandal, N/o.Mudupula Vemula Village, Peeleru Mandal, Chittor District. 2.Chilakacherla Rajesh Kumar @ Raja, 29 Years, S/o.Veerabramachari, r/o.New colony, Bujabuja Nellore, Nellore Rural Mandal, 3.Syed Raheem, S/o.Gouse Mohiddin, 23 Years, r/o.Vengalarao Nagar, beside big Mosque, Dycuss road, Vengalarao Nagar, Nellore. 4.Lanka Madhu Reddy @ Madhusudhana Reddy, S/o.Veligonda Reddy, 38 Years,Madapalli Village, Chejarla Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 5.Chilakacherla Guru Brahmam, S/o.Govindaiah, 29 Years, r/o.Ramalayam street, Chejarla Village & Mandal, 6.Shaik Khadar Mastan, S/o.Jilani, 29 Years, r/o.Hostel street, Chejarla Village & Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District. ...Accused A1 to A6

This case coming on before this court on 07-06-2016 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for Prosecution and of Sri N.Obulesu, Advocate for accused, and having been heard arguments on both sides and stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Podalakur filed the charge against the accused

A1 to A6 for the offence U/s.457 & 380 IPC in Crime No.45/2012 of Chejarla Police station.

2. The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:

On the intervening night of 01/02-08-2012 night some unknown offenders gained entrance into the house of Lw1/Gaddam Konda Reddy situated at Nadimi street,

Chejarla village by broke opening the latch of the main door, opened the iron chest and committed theft of 1.Gold plain bangles – 8 weight about 6 ½ sovereign 2.Gold black beed three rows chain -1 weigh 1 ½ sovereign 3.Gold ear studs studded with white stones -1 pair weigh 1 sovereign total weighed about 9 sovereign and cash of

Rs.20,000/- total worth of Rs.74,000/- and decamped with booty. Basing on the report of Lw1, Lw12/B.Ramesh Babu, SI of Police Chejarla police station registered a case in 2 CC No.2/2016

Cr.No.45/2012 U/s.457 and 380 IPC on 02-08-2012 of Chejarla police station and forwarded the express FIR to all concerned. Lw13/K.Ravi Kumar, Inspector of Police,

Podalakur received express FIR and took up investigation and examined Lw1/G.Konda

Reddy, Lw2/G.Audi Penchala Narasa Reddy, Lw3/A.Sarala, Lw4/A.Prakash,

Lw5/A.Damodar Reddy, Lw6/T.Bhaskar Reddy and recorded their statements and examined scene of offence in the presence of Lw7/V.Murali Mohan and

Lw8/A.Subrahmanya Reddy and drafted scene of observation report and the same is duly attested by Lw7 and Lw8 and also prepared rough sketch of scene of offence.

During the course of investigation Lw14/K.Srinivasa Rao, Inspector of Police, Podalakur took up further investigation and on credible information on 09-09-2015 Lw14arrested the accused A5 and A6 at Chejarla police station and seized the iron rod which was used by the accused for the commission of offence from the possession of accused A6 in the presence of Lw9/A.Prakash, Lw10/G.Narayana and arrested the accused A1 and

A2 at water tank center, Bujabuja Nellore at 19.00 hours and seized gold black beed chain from the possession of accused A1 in the presence of Lw9 and Lw10 and arrested the accused A3 at Vengalarao Nagar, Nellore and seized gold ear studs from his possession in the presence of Lw9 and Lw10 and during the course of examination accused A1 to A3, A5 & A6 are admitted the offence and to that effect Lw14 prepared confessional cum arrest mahazars and seizure mahazar and the same are duly attested by Lw9 and Lw10 and produced them before the Hon'ble court for remand. On 11-09-2015 Lw14 got conducted identification parade of the seized property in the presence of Lw1 with Lw7/V.Murali Mohan and Lw11/K.Penchalaiah and got prepared identification mahazar duly attested by them and Lw1 identified his property and accused A4 obtained anticipatory bail and surrendered before this Hon'ble court and released on bail and on completion of investigation Lw14/K.Srinivasa Rao, Inspector of

Police, Podalakur filed charge sheet.

3. The case was taken on file U/s.457, 380 or 411 IPC against the accused

A1 to A6.

4. On appearance of accused A1 to A6 the case copies were furnished to them as contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

3 CC No.2/2016

5. The accused A1 to A6 are examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C for the offence U/s.

457, 380 or 411 IPC and charge under said heads are framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution examined Pw1 to Pw12 and marked Ex.P1 to P19 and the learned APP given up remaining witness and prosecution evidence is closed. The accused A1 to A6 are examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material appearing against them and they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Evidence is closed.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now the point for consideration is:-

(i)Whether the accused is in possession of the stolen property and the same were seized by the police in the presence of mediators?

9. The testimony on record is that Pw1 the defacto complainant who deposed that on 02-08-2012 Pw2, Pw5 who are neighbours informed on phone that his house door was broke open situated in Chakaliveedhi of Chejarla Village and immediately he along with Pw7 rushed to the house and found broke open the main door and Iron safe committed theft of one black beed gold chain, one pair of ear studs with white stones and 8 gold bangles total about 9 to 10 sovereigns and also cash of

Rs.20,000/- by the unknown offenders and he went to police station lodged a report.

Ex.P1 is his report. The same is corroborated by the Pw7 that their house main door latch was broke open and in iron almyrah lock was broke open and found theft of golden articles of black beed chain, a pair of gold ear studs, gold bangles and also cash of Rs.20,000/- and lodging or report by the Pw1.

10. Pw12 who deposed that on 02-08-2012 Pw1 came to Chejarla police station and submitted report and Lw12/B.Ramesh bau, SI of Police, Chejarla police station registered the same as a case in Cr.No.45/2012 for the offence U/s.457, 380

IPC and Pw11 deposed that on 02-08-2012 he took up investigation and he examined witnesses and visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch and also made observation report and marked Ex.P4 rough sketch and Ex.P15 observation report.

4 CC No.2/2016

11. Pw12 who further deposed that he took up further investigation secured the mediators Pw4 and Pw6 and examined accused A5 and A6 and recorded their confession statements in the presence of mediators Pw4 and Pw6 and seized iron rod from the possession of accused A6 and prepared seizure mahazarnama, and arrested the accused A1 and A2 at water tank center, Bujabuja Nellore and examined in the presence of Pw4 and Pw6 and accused A1 and A2 admitted the offence and seized one gold black beed chain from the possession of accused A1 under the cover of seizure mahzarnama in the presence of Pw4 and Pw6 and arrested arrested A3 at

Vengalarao Nagar, Nellore and examined in the presence of Pw4 and Pw6 and accused

A3admitted the offence and seized one pair of gold ear studs from his possession in the presence of Pw4 and Pw6 under the cover of confession cum seizure mahazarnama in the presence of Pw4 and Pw6 and they were sent to Hon'ble court for remand and he further deposed that accused A4surrendered before the court and marked Ex.P16 is

FIR, Ex.P17 confession cum seizure mahazarnama dated 09-09-2015, Ex.P17 confession cum seizure mahazarnama dated 09-09-2015, Ex.P18 confession cum seizure mahazarnama dated 09-09-2015 and also marked M.O.1 gold black beed chain,

M.O.2 is gold ear studs and M.O.3 is iron rod.

12. Pw5 also deposed to the extent of broke opening of house door of Pw1 and informing the same to Pw1 and Pw1 came to home and verified the articles. Pw8 also deposed that he came to know theft in the house of Pw1 and he was informed by

Pw1 his house door was broke open and some gold articles and cash was committed theft. Pw4 and Pw6 who are said to be mediators to Ex.P17 to Ex.P19 categorically stated that they do not act as mediators in this case and do not know anything about the facts of this case and admitted their signatures as in Ex.P4 to P11 on the mediatornamas and during their cross examination noting is elicited except suggestion. Pw10 who is said to be scene of observation mediator also turned hostile to the case of prosecution and during his cross examination nothing is elicited.

13. To sum up the above testimonies clearly shows that theft was occurred in the house of Pw1 and gold articles gold black beed chain, ear studs, gold bangles and cash were committed theft in the house and report was given to the Lw12 and 5 CC No.2/2016 crime was registered. But the above testimonies except Pw12 are not to the effect that the property in the case were found in the possession of the accused and they are seized under the cover of Ex.P17 to Ex.P19 in the presence of mediators Pw4 and Pw6 as Pw4 and Pw6 turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Except the testimony of

Pw12 there is no evidence on record that the case property i.e. M.O.1, M.O2, M.O.3 seized from the possession of the accused under Ex.P17 and Ex.P18. Further confession cum seizure Ex.P17 to P19 in the absence of independent witness corroboration testimony hit by Sec.25 and 27 Indian Evidence Act. Though the prosecution established the occurrence of theft in the house of Pw1 and commission of theft of gold articles and cash from the house of Pw1 but the possession of gold articles

M.O.1 and M.O.2 by the accused A1 to A3 is not established hence this point is answered against the prosecution.

(ii)Whether the accused A1 to A6 committed theft in the house of Pw1 and stolen away gold black beed chain, ear studs, gold bangles and cash of Rs.20,000/- and decamped with the booty?

14. The Pw12 who categorically deposed that on 09-09-2015 he secured

Pw4 and Pw6 and on information arrested the accused A5 and A6 and recorded their confession statements and accused A5 and A6 admitted the offence in the presence of

Pw4 and Pw6 and he seized iron rod from the possession of accused A6 and prepared mahazarnama. The above testimony is not supported by Pw4 and Pw6 who turn to the hostile to the case of prosecution. Further as discussed above the seizure and confession by the Pw12 in the absence of testimonies of Pw4 and Pw6 hit by Sec.25 and 27 Indian Evidence Act. Further the testimony of Pw12 is that on the same day he arrested accused A1 and A2 at water tank center, Bujabujanellore and examined them in the presence of mediators Pw4 and Pw6 and admitted the offence and seized gold black beed chain from the possession of accused A1 under the cover of mahazarnama in the presence of mediators Pw4 and Pw6 and the same is also not corroborated by

Pw4 and Pw6 turned hostile and as stated in the absence of independent witness corroboration to the testimony of Pw12 under Ex.P17 and P18 are not admissible evidence as hit by Sec.25 and 27 Indian Evidence Act . Further the testimony of Pw12 6 CC No.2/2016 he arrested the accused A3 at Vengalarao Nagar, Nellore and examined him and A3 admitted the offence and seized one pair of gold ear studs from the possession of A3 in the presence of Pw4 and Pw6. As discussed above Pw4 and Pw6 turned hostile and

Ex.P18 is not admissible evidence in the absence of independent witness corroboration as hit by Sec.25 and 27 Indian Evidence Act. The testimonies of Pw1, Pw5, Pw7, Pw8,

Pw11 are not to the effect that the accused committed theft in the house of Pw1 and they were in possession of M.O.1 to M.O.3 to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The material witness that is mediators Pw4 and Pw6 turned hostile to the case of prosecution as discussed above. In the absence of their testimonies and the testimony of Pw12 alone cannot be relied on to connect the accused alleged offence hence this court holds that the prosecution fail to established the charged offence

U/s.457, 380 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused are entitle to benefit of doubt and acquittal.

15. The further case of the Pw1 is that he identified his gold ornaments in the identification parade conducted by Pw9 in September 2012 and he identified gold black beed chain, one pair of white ear studs. The same is corroborated by Pw9 who deposed that he conducted identification parade with Lw11/Penchalaiah on the instructions of Pw12 on 11-09-2012 and handed over 3 sovereigns of black beed chain, one pair of white ear studs and also handed over similar type of ornaments and he conducted identification parade in Panchayat guest house of Chejarla by securing Pw1 and Pw2 and Pw1 identified his property and he drafted proceedings and and he attested his signature and obtained the signature of Lw11/K.Penchalaiah and handed over the property to police. In this case there is no dispute with regard to ownership of case property hence this court holds that the property belongs to Pw1.

In the result, the accused A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence

U/s.457, 380 or 411 IPC and they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of 6 months period. M.O.1 and M.O.2 shall be return to Pw1 after expiry of appeal period under proper acknowledgement and identification and M.O.3 shall be destroy after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,corrected and pronounced

by me in Open Court, this the 10th day of June, 2016.

Sd/- M.Sankar Rao

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ATMAKUR.

7 CC No.2/2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1: G.Konda Reddy - NONE - PW2: A.Sarala PW3: A.Prakash PW4: A.Prakash PW5:A.Damodar Reddy PW6: G.Narayana PW7:A.Penchalanarasa Reddy PW8:T.Bhaskar Reddy PW9:V.Muralimohan Rao PW10:A.Subrahmanyam PW11:K.Ravikumar PW12:K.Srinivasa Rao, SI of Police

Documents marked For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Report given by Pw1 -NIL- Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw2 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3 Ex.P4: Signature of Pw4 in mediatornama Ex.P5: Signature of Pw4 in seizure mahazarnama Ex.P6: Signature of Pw4 in mediatornama Ex.P7:Signature of Pw4 in seizure mahazarnama Ex.P8:Signature of Pw6 in mediatornama Ex.P9:Signature of Pw6 in seizure mahazarnama Ex.P10:Signature of Pw6 in mediatornama Ex.P11:Signature of Pw6 in seizure mahazarnama Ex.P12:161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw8 Ex.P13:Identification mahazarnama of Pw9 Ex.P14:Rough sketch of Pw11deposed Ex.P15:Scene of observation report of Pw11 Ex.P16:FIR of Pw12 Ex.P17:Mahazarnama of Pw12 Ex.P18:Mahazarnama of Pw12 Ex.P19:Mahazarnama of Pw12

M.O.1 gold black beed chain M.O.2 one pair of ear studs M.O.3 iron rod

Sd/- M.Sankar Rao

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ATMAKUR

CC/14/2015 Acquitted

Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rapur vs Kota Kondla Lakshmaiah

07 Jun 2016

1 CC No.14/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ATMAKUR,

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

Dated this the 7th day of June, 2016

Present:- Sri. M.SANKAR RAO, M.A.,LL.M.,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur

Calender Case Number 14 of 2015

State: Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Rapur …Complainant

Versus

Kotakondla Lakshmaiah, S/o.Venkataiah, 55 Years, r/o.Obulayapalli Village, Chejarla Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District. ....Accused

This case coming on before this Court on 02-06-2016 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for Prosecution and of Sri.S.Chinna Reddy, Advocate for accused, and having been heard arguments on both sides and stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rapur filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.34(a) A.P. Excise Act in P.R.No.46/2014-15 of Prohibition and Excise station, Rapur.

2. The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:

On 19-07-2014 as per the complaint of Director of Prohibition and Excise

Enforcement, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and as per the instructions of Assistant

CommissionerofProhibition&ExciseEnforcementwing,Nellore,

Lw1/T.Ch.Venkateswarlu, Prohibition and Excise Enforcement, SI of Police along with his staff Lw2/P.Ramesh, Lw3/J.Koeswara Rao, Lw4/M.Venkateswarlu left the office in a government hired vehicle bearing No. AP 21 TV 6225 for conducting raids with regard to excise offence. During the course of raids, they reached the scene of offence at about 12.30 pm and found some people gathered therein and one person was sitting in the middle of the people and on seeing the police officials, the people gathered ran away and the person who was sitting in the middle of the group tried to ran away. On suspicion Lw1 with the assistance of his staff Lw2 to Lw4 stopped the said person and found he is in possession of white plastic bag in front of his legs and then Lw1 examined surrounding places and found empty bottles and empty glasses and Lw1 questioned the accused about his presence at that place and about the contents of the bag. In confusing manner, he replied that the bag containing liquor bottles and he 2 CC No.14/2015 is selling the same. Then Lw1 sent Lw3 to secure mediators from Obulayapalli village to check the white plastic bag in the presence of mediators. After some time Lw3 tried and returned and informed that the village officials are not available in the village and no villager come forward to act as mediators. As there are no mediators Lw1 decided to draft special report and checked the plastic bag and found Bagpiper whisky bottles 180 ml – 4, Old tavern whisky bottles 180ml-1 and Kalyani black label strong premium beer-2 each 650 ml and on the bottles the EAL numbers are torn out and on examining the labels on the liquor bottles it is printed as for sale for Andhra Pradesh. The Lw1 also examined the empty bottles lying in the surrounded area and found Bagpiper Elite whisky empty bottles-3 each 180 ml capacity and two plastic empty bottles and smell was coming out from them. Then Lw1 asked his identity particulars and about the liquor bottles and he has not given proper reply about the liquor bottles and he revealed his name as Kotakonda Lakshmaiah, S/o.Venkataiah, resident of Obulayapalli

Village and Lw1 asked about the liquor bottles and accused has not given proper reply and he further told that he selling the liquor bottles for higher rates and Lw1 seized one bottle from each variety for chemical analysis and the remaining liquor bottles and empty bottles were kept in the same plastic bag and sealed it and sample packet and affixed the labels containing the signatures of Lw1 and the accused. Lw1 informed the accused that the possession, transportation and selling of liquor without bills is an offence under Excise Act and seized the property and arrested the accused and all the above facts are reduced into writing as it is as special report at the scene of offence, read over and explained to the accused who admitted to be and correct and the special report was concluded at 2.30 pm and Lw4 scribed the special report. Lw5/D.Subbaiah received the accused and case property along with documents and Lw6/V.Srinivasulu registered the special report as a case in Cr.No.46/2014-15 of Prohibition and Excise station, Rapur U/s.34(a) A.P Excise Act and Lw7/M.Sivakumari received the analysis report and analyst opined that it is an Indian Liquor after receipt of analysis report Lw7 prepared the charge sheet against the accused and filed before the Hon'ble court.

Hence the charge sheet.

3. The case is taken on file for the offence U/s.34(a) A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

3 CC No.14/2015

4. On appearance of the accused copies of case documents was furnished to him as contemplated u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and Charge U/Sec.34(a) A.P. Excise

Act framed read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined Pw1 to Pw6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and marked M.O.1 to M.O.3 are the sample liquor bottles and the learned APP given up the remaining witnesses and their evidence is closed.

The accused examined of U/s.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material appearing against him and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Evidence is closed.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now the point for consideration is:-

i) Whether the prosecution has established the guilt against the accused for the offence U/s.34(a) A.P Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT :

9. Pw1, Pw2, Pw3, Pw5 who deposed that on 19-07-2014 at about 8.00 hours on the instructions of Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Enforcement,

Nellore they left the office in government hired vehicle for conducting raids with regard to excise offences and proceeded towards Adurupalli village and reached scene of offence situated under a tree near Obulayapalli village of Chejarla found some persons gathered there and one person sitting on the ground and on seeing them the persons gathered there went away and the person sitting on the ground having white plastic bag and on seeing the them he tried to escape and he was caught hold and he revealed his name as Kotakondla Lakshamaiah resident of Obulayapalli village and he purchase the liquor from unknown person for reselling the same for higher prices and

Pw1 sent Pw2 for secure mediators near by the village and he return and informed that revenue officials are not present in the village and none of the villagers come forward to act as mediator and he decided to draft special report and opened the white plastic bag and found 180 ml Bagpiper whisky bottles 4 numbers and 1 number

Oldtavern whisky and Kalyani black label strong beer 180 ml bottles 2 numbers and 4 CC No.14/2015 one disposal glass and on the EAL labels were torn out and on examination the bottle for sale in AP and he has taken one Old tavern whisky, one Kalyani black strong beer and one Bagpipe whisky 180 ml bottle for chemical analysis and remaining bottles were tied in the bag and labeled the bag and affixed his signature and also obtained the thumb impression of the accused and arrested the accused after disclosing the grounds that illegal possession or transit of liquor without valid license is an offence and seized the property and brought the accused to the AP Prohibition and Excise sentry, Rapur and handed over the accused along with seized property to Pw4 and Pw3 drafted the special report. Ex.P1 is special report. M.O.1 is 180 ml Bagpiper whisky -1 number, M.O.2 is Old tavern whisky of 180ml -1 number and Kalyani strong beer 650 ml -1 number.

10. Pw4 deposed that on 19-07-2014 at 7.30 pm while he was on duty as station sentry at Rapur Excise station Pw1 came to the police station along with staff, accused and seized property i.e. labeled bag containing liquor bottles along with 3 sample bottles and handed over the accused and case property along with Ex.P1 proceedings to him and he handed over the same to Pw5 and Pw5 sent the accused for judicial remand.

11. Pw6 who deposed that she received further investigation from Pw5 and received chemical analyst report from RFSL, Guntur and the analyst opined that the sample contains Indian made liquor and after completion of investigation she filed charge sheet in this case Ex.P3 is chemical analyst report.

12. In this case Pw1, Pw2, Pw3 and Pw5 are all excise offences though they deposed that Pw2 is sent for securing mediators near by the village and he return and informed that revenue officials are not present in the village and none of the villagers came forward to act as mediator and he decided to draft special report Ex.P1 but the same cannot be accepted as the scene of offence is near Obulayapalli village of Chejarla and it is about 8.00 hours and further it is not a odd time or remote place to draft special report under Ex.P1 it clearly shows that they have not tried to secure independent mediators for arrest of the accused and seized of the case property and 5 CC No.14/2015 they have fail to follow the procedure as contemplated U/s.100(4) Cr.P.C. further in this case the remaining seized property was not produced before this court and also not marked any destruction proceedings if any in the case it also raises as to the alleged seized of the liquor under Ex.P1 proceedings. Further Pw2 admitted no notices were served securing the mediators and a suggestion is put to Pw3 “ it is not true to say that Ex.P1 proceedings were drafted at police station for statistical purpose” and further stated that liquor bottles will be easily available in open market. Further Pw5 during the cross examination categorically stated that on the date they have not conduct any raids on the way and for securing mediators they have not issued any notices and they have not examined any person near the house of accused in the village and also the from which date the accused selling liquor for higher rates and other particulars and admitted the seized liquor bottles will be easily available in the brandy shops in open market. Pw4 and Pw6 who are also police officials but they have not accompanied Pw1 to Pw3 and Pw5 conducting raids and simply deposed with regard to receiving of accused, case property and Ex.P1 proceedings and receiving analysis report and filing charge sheet. As discussed above the police fail to secure the mediators and not tried seriously and proceeded to draft special report Ex.P1 and further alleged seized property was also not produce and destruction proceedings were also not placed before this court hence a doubt raises on the case of prosecution and benefit of doubt is given to the accused.

In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.34(a)

A.P. Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of 6 months period. The

M.O.1 to M.O.3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,corrected and pronounced

by me in Open Court, this the 7th day of June, 2016.

Sd/- M.Sankar Rao

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ATMAKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: For Defence: Pw1:T.Ch.Venkateswarlu -NONE- Pw2:J.Koteswara Rao Pw3:M.Venkateswarlu Pw4:D.Subbaiah, Pw5:V.Srinivasulu 6 CC No.14/2015

Pw6:M.Sivakumari Documents marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P1: Special report of Pw1 -NIL- Ex.P2:FIR of Pw5 Ex.P3:Analysis report of Pw6

M.O.1 and M.O.2 are sample liquor bottle of 180 ml M.O.3 is Kalyani beer bottle 650 ml

Sd/- M.Sankar Rao

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ATMAKUR.

CC/3/2016 Acquitted

S.I of Police, Kaluvoy P.S vs Anem Thirupalaiah

20 Jun 2016

1 CC No.3/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ATMAKUR,

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

Dated this the 20th day of June, 2016

Present:- Sri. M.SANKAR RAO, M.A.,LL.M.,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur

Calender Case No: 3 of 2016

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Kaluvoy PS …Complainant

Versus

Anem Thirupalaiah, 67 Years, S/o.Venkatasubbaiah, Veerubotlapalli Village, Kaluvoy Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District. ....Accused

This case coming on before this Court on 07-06-2016 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for Prosecution and of Sri.S.Chinna Reddy, Advocate for accused, and having been heard arguments on both sides and stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kaluvoy filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.34(a) A.P Excise Act in Crime No.98/2014 of Kaluvoy police station.

2. The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:

On 24-11-2014 at 20.00 hours Lw3/M.Poornachandra Rao, SI of Police,

Kaluvoy present in the police station received credible information about the illegal possession of liquor and selling at high rates to get more profits at Veerubotlapalli village, then Lw3 left police station along with Lw1/N.Sudhakar and Lw2/N.Krishna and proceeded to scene of offence by engaging private vehicle and they found the accused and somebody gathered in front of the house of the accused. On seeing the police party they fled away the accused sitting with 5 liquor Bagpiper quarter bottles, then

Lw3 asked his address about having liquor bottles, then he voluntarily confessed as his name Anem Thirupalaiah S/o.Venkatasubbaiah resident of Veerubotlapalli village of

Kaluvoy Mandal he brought one or two liquor bottles from each liquor shop in Kaluvoy town, the same was sold at high rates to get more profit at his house. In the same way on 24-11-2014 he brought 5 liquor bottles in various shops in Kaluvoy town and the same was selling at his house, in mean time the police party came and caught hold him. Then Lw3 verified the liquor bottles and found 5 numbers of Bagpiper 180 ml 2 CC No.3/2016 liquor bottles without labels on the above mentioned liquor bottles and seized the 5 liquor bottles and arrested the accused on 24-11-2014 under police proceedings. Then

Lw3 left the place along with the arrested person, seized property, returned to police station. Lw3 registered the police proceedings as a case in Cr.No.98/2014 U/s.34(a) A.P

Excise act and submitted FIR to all concerned and Lw3 sent the sample liquor bottles from the each variety to the Director, Forensic science laboratory, Hyderabad for analysis and report. Lw4/K.Nagarjuna, SI of Police, Kaluvoy police station received report/opinion from analyst and analyst opined that the sample containing Indian made foreign liquor and on completion of investigation Lw4 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The case is taken on file for the offence U/s.34(a) A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused copies of case documents was furnished to him as contemplated u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and Charge U/Sec.34(a) A.P. Excise

Act framed read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined Pw1 and Pw2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and marked M.O.1 are the sample bottles and the learned

APP given up the remaining witnesses and their evidence is closed. The accused examined of U/s.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material appearing against him and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Evidence is closed.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now the point for consideration is:-

i) Whether the prosecution has established the guilt against the accused for the offence U/s.34(a) A.P Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT :

9. The case of the prosecution is that on 24-112014 at 20.00 hours while Pw2 was present in the police station received credible information about the illegal 3 CC No.3/2016 possession of liquor and selling at high rates to get more profits at Veerubotlapalli village and Pw2 left the police station along with Pw1 and Lw2/N.Krishna and proceeded to the scene of offence in private vehicle and found the accused and somebody gathered in front of the house of accused and on seeing the police party they fled away and accused sitting with 5 Bagpiper liquor bottles and Pw2 asked his particulars and he voluntarily confessed his name as Anem Thirupalaiah

S/o.Venkatasubbaiah resident of Veerubotlapalli village and he brought one or two liquor bottles from each liquor shop in Kaluvoy and the same was sold at high rates at his house and on 24-11-2014 e brought 5 liquor bottles in various hops in Kaluvoy town and same were selling at his house and caught hold by Pw2 and Pw2 verified the liquor bottles and found 5 Bagpiper 180 ml liquor bottles without labels and seized 5 liquor bottles and arrested the accused under police proceedings and left the place along with arrested accused and seizure property and registered the crime and Pw2 sent the sample liquor bottles from each variety to analysis and Lw4/K.Nagarjuna, SI of

Police, Kaluvoy police station received analysis report and analyst opined that the sample contains Indian made foreign liquor and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case. The prosecution examined Pw1 and Pw2 and marked Ex.P1 to P3 and also marked M.O.1 sample liquor bottles.

10. Pw2 who deposed that on on 24-11-2014 at 20.00 hours he was present in the police station he received credible information about illegal sale of liquor at Veerubotlapalli village and he along with his staff proceeded to the scene of offence village in private vehicle and found some persons gathered near the house of accused and accused sitting in between them and on seeing the police the persons present there went away and accused sitting in the middle tried to escape from that place and he caught hold the accused with the assistance of his staff with card board box with liquor and on enquiry he revealed his name and particulars as Annem Thirupalaiah

S/o.Venkatasubbaiah resident of Veerubotlapalli village and accused used to bring liquor bottles from Kaluvoy village for selling them at higher prices in village and on 24-11-2014 he brought some liquor bottles from Kaluvoy village and same were selling at his house by that time they came and caught hold him and found 5 Bagpiper whisky bottles each 180 ml without any labels and the label were torn off and he 4 CC No.3/2016 seized the liquor bottles and arrested the accused under the cover of police proceedings and brought the accused along with seized liquor bottles to Kaluvoy police station and registered crime and he sent the sample of liquor bottle to FSL for analysis and report and he handed over the investigation to Lw4/K.Nagarjuna, SI of Police,

Kaluvoy police station who received the analysis report from the analyst and analyst opined that the sample bottle contains Indian made foreign liquor, and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case and marked Ex.P1 is police proceedings, Ex.P2 is the FIR, Ex.P3 is the analysis report, M.O.1 is the seized liquor bottles (4 nos.). During his cross examination he categorically stated that he has not tried to secure the mediators.

11. Pw1 who is police personal who accompanied Pw2 corroborated the testimony of Pw2 in all aspects. During the cross examination of Pw1 did not state whether the police proceedings were drafted at the scene of offence or not and he also state that he do not know whether signatures of the accused and police officials were taken on the seized property.

12. To sum up the testimonies on record is that of Pw1 and Pw2 it clear that the scene of offence is in front of the alleged house of the accused in

Veerubotlapalli village. Pw1 categorically state that he has not tried to secure the mediators and alleged time of offence is 8.00 pm and it is not odd time to justify cause for drafting of special report Ex.P1 by the police. It is also clear that they have not tried to secure the mediators or any village revenue official. Pw1 and Pw2 categorically stated that on seeing the public gathered there and went away and they caught hold the accused but they have not made efforts to enquire that the persons who went away from gathering whether the accused was selling the liquor to the public. It is also clear that the police have not secure any respectable inhabitants from the locality.

Admittedly at the time people were there and not followed the procedure as per

Sec.100(4)Cr.P.C. Further it is also not remote place to justify to draft Ex.P1 proceedings. Pw1 who categorically stated that he do not know whether signature of the accused and police personnel were taken on the seized property. On perusal of

Ex.P1 special report it is found that the police have not obtained the signature of the 5 CC No.3/2016 alleged accused hence in view of the above circumstances a doubt arises from the case of the prosecution. Further in the absence of independent witness corroborating to the testimonies of Pw1 and Pw2 this court cannot comes to the conclusion that the prosecution established the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitle to benefit of doubt and acquittal.

In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.34(a)

A.P. Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of 6 months period. The

M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,corrected and pronounced

by me in Open Court, this the 20th day of June, 2016.

Sd/- M.Sankar Rao

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ATMAKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: For Defence: Pw1:N.Sudhakar -NONE- Pw2:M.Poornachandra Rao, SI of Police Documents marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P1: Police proceedings of Pw2 -NIL- Ex.P2:FIR of Pw2 Ex.P3:Analysis report of Pw2 M.O.1 Seized liquor bottles (4 nos)

Sd/- M.Sankar Rao

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ATMAKUR.

OS/139/2015

Syndicate Bank, D.C.Palli rep its Branch Manager vs Borra China Penchalaiah

10 Jun 2016

1 O.S.No.139/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ATMAKUR,SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

Dated this the 10th day of June, 2016

Present: - Sri M. SANKAR RAO, M.A.,LL.M., Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur

Original Suit No.139 of 2015

Syndicate Bank, D.C.Palli Rep. by it’s Branch Manager …Plaintiff

Versus

1.Borra China Penchalaiah, S/o.Chin Penchalaiah, 33 Years, Owner of the passenger Auto vehicle, 2.Cherukuru Venkateswarlu, S/o.Subbaramaiah, 55 Years, Employee, working in Tobacco board, D.C.Palli, Both are permanent residents of Pedakandla Village,

Atmakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...Defendants 1 & 2

This suit coming before this Court for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Ravindranath Babu, Advocate for plaintiff and there is no representation on behalf of Defendants 1 and 2 remained ex-parte upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,59171/- being the principal and interest due under Composite Hypothecation of Agreement executed by the defendant No.1 and guarantee agreement executed by the defendant No.2 on 18-12-2009 for Rs.1,20,000/- in favour of the plaintiff bank undertaking to repay the same with interest at 12.5% per annum and with costs.

2. The averments mentioned in the plaint in brief, are that-

The plaintiff bank submit that defendants 1 and 2 approached the plaintiff bank on 01-12-2009 and submitted an application for granting of loan for a tune of Rs.1,20,000/- to the 1st defendant for purchase of Passenger Auto vehicle and plaintiff bank agreed for the same and granted the said loan amount of Rs.1,20,000/- on 18-12-2009 and 1st defendant executed deed of Composite Hypothecation Agreement in favour of plaintiff bank on 18-12-2009 agreeing to repay eh same with interest at 12.5% per annum with easily monthly installments at the rate of Rs.2,747/- as the first is payable on 31-01-2s010 and last installment is payable on or before 31-12-2015 and the 2nd defendant also executed deed of guarantee agreement on the even day of 18-12-2009 as the guarantor of the said loan amount taken by the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant received the entire loan amount of Rs.1,20,000/- on 18-12-2009 by executing a stamped receipt in favour of plaintiff bank. The applications of the both defendants dated 01-12-2009, Composite

Hypothecation agreement dated 18-12-2009 of the 1st defendant and deed of guarantee of the 2nd defendant dated 18-12-2009 and stamped receipt of the 1st defendant dated 18-12- 2009 are all filed herewith and the same be read as part and parcel of this plaint.

2 O.S.No.139/2015

3. The plaintiff bank further submit that the defendants after availing the loan amount failed to repay the same as agreed upon in spite of repeated oral demands and request made by the plaintiff bank personally through its officers. Instead 1st defendant alone executed acknowledgement of debt on 30-11-2012 keeping the debt alive. As the 2nd defendant is consented that his liability will be closed until the closes of the all he debts of the principle borrower and the same is clearly elicited in his guarantee agreement in page

No.3 clause 7 so no separate acknowledgement of debt has been obtained from the 2nd defendant, because his liability is continued. Then the plaintiff bank got issued lawyer's notice on 21-03-2015 demanding the said loan amount, both defendants received the said lawyer's notice and failed either to give reply or pay the amount. As the computer ledger account maintained by the plaintiff both the defendants are found due a sum of

Rs.1,59,171/- as on 02-11-2015 after deducting payments and adjustments. The said acknowledgement of debt dated 30-11-2012, office copy of lawyer notice dated 21-03- 2015 along with postal acknowledgement of the 1st defendant alone and computer ledger account copy are filed herewith and the same may be read as part and parcel of this plaint.

As there are no ray of hope to recover the amount from the defendants and the suit documents are getting time barred the plaintiff bank is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the suit amount. The provisions of act IV 2938 Act, 45 of 1987 and usurious loans act are not applicable to suit debt since the plaintiff bank is exempted from their purview as it is a nationalized bank more over the defendants are not agriculture list.

Hence the suit.

4. After service of summons to the Defendants 1 and 2 called absent and no representation. They failed to appear before this Court. Hence they were set ex-parte.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

6. Now the point for consideration is :

(i) Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

(ii) To what relief?

7. In order to prove the claim of the plaintiff bank, the present Branch

Manager of plaintiff Bank is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is the

3 O.S.No.139/2015

loan application of defendants, Ex.A2 is the Hypothecation of agreement in favour of the plaintiff bank by 1st defendant dated 18-12-2009, Ex.A3 is the guarantee agreement by 2nd defendant, Ex.A4 is the stamped receipt by 1st defendant, Ex.A5 is the debt acknowledgement by 1st defendant dated 30-11-2012, Ex.A6 is the office copy of lawyer's notice dated 21-03-2015, Ex.A7 is the postal acknowledgement of 1st defendant and Ex.A8 is the ledger copy of account.

8. POINT NO.1:

The Pw1 deposed that he is the manager of plaintiff bank in the suit and they filed suit against the defendants for recovery of suit amount. The plaintiff Pw1 stated that on 01-12-2009 both defendants approached the plaintiff bank and submitted an application under Ex.A1 for granting of loan to a tune of Rs.1,20,000/- for the purchase of passenger auto to the 1st defendant and plaintiff bank agreed for the same and granted the said loan amount of Rs.1,20,000/- on 18-12-2009. for that 1st defendant executed Hypothecation of

Agreement under Ex.A2 in favour of plaintiff bank agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12.5% per annum with monthly installments and the 2nd defendant also executed guarantee agreement under Ex.A3 in favour of plaintiff bank on 18-12-2009 as guarantor of said loan amount taken by the 1st defendant and 1st defendant received entire amount of

Rs.1,20,000/- by executing a stamped receipt under Ex.A4 in favour of plaintiff bank on 18- 12-2009. The plaintiff Pw1 further stated that after availing the said loan amount from the plaintiff bank both the defendants failed to repay the said loan amount as agreed upon. In stead 1st defendant alone executed acknowledgement of debt under Ex.A5 on 30-11-2012 keeping the debt alive. Even after the execution of the acknowledgement of debt also both defendants failed to repay the said loan amount in spite of repeated oral demands and requests made by the plaintiff bank personally through its officer, then the plaintiff bank got issued lawyer's notice under Ex.A6 on 21-03-2015 demanding the said loan amount and both defendants received the said lawyer's notice and failed either to give reply or pay the amount and postal acknowledgement of the 1st defendant alone marked as Ex.A7. The plaintiff Pw1 further stated that as the computer ledger account maintained by the plaintiff bank both the defendants are found due a sum of Rs.1,59,171/- as on 02-11-2015 after deducting payments and adjustments and the said computer ledger account copy of the defendants marked as Ex.A8 as there are no ray of hope to recover the amount from the defendants the plaintiff bank is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the suit amount.

The unrebutted and unchallenged testimony of Pw1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A8 clearly establishes the case of the plaintiff hence this point is answered in favour of plaintiff and

4 O.S.No.139/2015

against the defendants.

9. POINT NO.2:

In view of my finding on point No.1 and this point is also answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants to pay jointly and severally to plaintiff bank for a sum of Rs.1,59,171/- with interest at 11.70% per annum from the date of suit till the date decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Dictated to personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this

the 10th day of June, 2016.

Sd/M.Sankar Rao

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ATMAKUR

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: PW1: V.Suresh babu -NONE - Documents Marked For Plaintiff: Ex.A1:Loan application of defendants Ex.A2:Hypothecation of agreement in favour of plaintiff bank by 1st defendant dated 18-12-2009 Ex.A3:Guarantee agreement by 2nd defendant Ex.A4:Stamped receipt by 1st defendant Ex.A5:Debt acknowledgement by 1st defendant dated 30-11-2012 Ex.A6:Office copy of lawyer's notice dated 21-03-2015 Ex.A7:Postal acknowledgement of 1st defendant Ex.A8:Ledger account copy For Defendants - NIL-

Sd/M.Sankar Rao

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ATMAKUR

OS/22/2016 Compromised

Nune Dhanamma vs Chowturi Ramaiah

20 Jun 2016

1 OS No.22/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ATMAKUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

Dated this the 20th day of June, 2016 Present: - Sri M. SANKAR RAO, M.A.,LL.M., Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur

Original Suit Number 22 of 2016

Nune Dhanamma, W/o.Chenchu Papaiah, 45 Years, r/o.Somasila Village, Ananthasagaram Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District. ...Plaintiff

Versus

Chowturi Ramaiah, S/o.Chenchaiah, 55 Years, working as Man Mazdoor, under office of Deputy Executive Engineer, Sub division II, Somasila project, Somasila, Ananthasagaram Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District. ...Defendant

This suit coming before this court on 20-06-2016 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. S.Mahadeva Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and there is no representation on behalf of defendant remained ex-parte and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,08,800/- being the principal and interest due on the promissory note dated 08-10-2014 executed by the defendant, in favour of plaintiff for Rs.85,000/- repayable with interest at 24% per annum as per the compromise towards the debt due under the earlier pronote dated 05-11-2011 repayable with interest at 24% per annum and for costs.

2. Brief facts of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff submit that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.70,000/- from plaintiff on 05-11-2011 and executed promissory note in her favour promising to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum repayable on demand and he failed to repay the same and on 08-10-2014 there was compromise and as per the same he executed the suit promissory note for Rs.85,000/- promising to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum repayable on demand. In the suit promissory note the scribed mentioned that the said amount was borrowed on the said date. But is is only for the amount compromised he executed the suit promissory note dated 08-10-2014 in favour of plaintiff promising to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum repayable on demand. He promised to repay the same shortly. But he failed to repay the same in spite of oral demands made for the same and also lawyer's notice dated 14-11-2015 which he evaded to receive the same. Hence the suit against him for the recovery of the suit promissory note debt.

3. After service of summons to the defendant called absent and no 2 OS No.22/2016 representation. He failed to appear before this Court. Hence he was set ex-parte.

4. The plaintiff in order to establish his case himself got examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note dated 08-10-2014,

Ex.A2 is the earlier pronote dated 05-11-2011, Ex.A3 is the office copy of lawyer's notice dated 14-11-2015, Ex.A4 is the postal receipts and Ex.A5 is the returned notice.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

6. Now the point for consideration is :

(I) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

(ii) To what relief?

7. POINT No.1:

The plaintiff in order to establish his case himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. In her evidence she categorically stated that the defendant executed the suit promissory note for Rs.85,000/- under Ex.A1 on 08-10-2014 promising to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum repayable on demand and the said Ex.A1 suit promissory note is executed towards compromised amount due to her under the promissory note dated 05-11-2011 under Ex.A2 and the scribe mentioned in the suit promissory that the said amount was borrowed on the above date. But in fact the amount was as per the compromise due to her under the earlier pronote dated 05-11-2011 and the defendant failed to repay the same in spite of repeated oral demands made for the same and also lawyer's notice dated 14-11-2015 under Ex.A3 which was evaded by the defendant. Hence the suit against the defendant for the recovery of the suit promissory note debt.

8. Since the defendant set ex-parte that the evidence of PW1 and the contents of Ex.A1 to A5 became unchallenged and unrebutted. The unchallenged and unrebutted evidence of PW1 established that on 08-10-2014 the defendant executed promissory note for Rs.85,000/- under Ex.A1 repay the same with interest at 24% per annum repayable on demand and the said promissory note Ex.A1 is compromised amount due to plaintiff Pw1 under the promissory note dated 05-11-2011 under Ex.A2 3 OS No.22/2016 but the defendant failed to repay the same in spite of repeated oral demands made for the same and also lawyer's notice dated 14-11-2015 under Ex.A3 which was evaded by the defendant.

9. In view of these circumstances I hold that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for.

10. P O I N T No.2:

In view of my finding on point No.1 the suit is to be decreed with costs.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,08,800/- together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on Rs.85,000/-.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open

court this the 20th day of June, 2016.

Sd/M.Sankar Rao

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ATMAKUR

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined For Plaintiff: For Defendant: PW1:N.Dhanamma -NONE -

Documents Marked For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Suit Promissory note dated 08-10-2014 - NIL - Ex.A2: Earlier pronote dated 05-11-2011 Ex.A3: Office copy of lawyer's notice dated 14-11-2015 Ex.A4: Postal acknowledgment Ex.A5: Returned notice

Sd/M.Sankar Rao

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ATMAKUR

Order Record 98 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/22/2016	Nune Dhanamma vs Chowturi Ramaiah	20 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	Compromised
CC/3/2016	S.I of Police, Kaluvoy P.S vs Anem Thirupalaiah	20 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
OS/139/2015	Syndicate Bank, D.C.Palli rep its Branch Manager vs Borra China Penchalaiah	10 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/2/2016	S.I of Police, Chejerla P.S vs Bangi Muni Kumar @ Muni	10 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/14/2015	Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rapur vs Kota Kondla Lakshmaiah	07 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
OS/29/2016	Cherukuru Vamsi Krishna Chowdary vs Madala Vasantha	02 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/30/2016	Cherukuru Ramanamma vs Madala Vasantha	02 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/24/2013	S.I of Police, Atmakur P.S vs Kakunuri Sreenivasulu	01 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/97/2015	Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rapur vs Vssanapureddy Eswaramma	27 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/174/2014	S.I of Police, Atmakur P.S vs Gaddam Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy	27 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/97/2015	Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rapur vs Vssanapureddy Eswaramma	23 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/98/2015	Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rapur vs M.Chenchu Rathnam	23 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/148/2015	Cheemala Anki Reddy vs Shaik mohiddin	06 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/2/2013	Bommireddy Savithramma vs Bommireddy Kanakamma	05 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/91/2012	Shaik Shabana vs Shaik Kaluvaya Mahaboob Basha	05 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/102/2012	Bommireddy Savitramma vs Bommireddy Kanakamma	05 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/121/2015	Allampati Venkateswarlu vs Podalakuru Srinivasulu	04 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/122/2015	Allampati Venkateswarlu vs Podalakuru Srinivasulu	04 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/95/2015	Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rapur vs Masala Nageswara Rao	04 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/88/2015	Basineni Ramanaiah vs Madala Hanumantha Rao	03 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/54/2015	Patluri China Ramanaiah vs Kukkapalli Parandhamaiah	27 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/55/2015	Patluri China Ramanaiah vs Kukkapalli Parandhamaiah	27 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/56/2015	Patluri China Ramanaiah vs Kukkapalli Parandhamaiah	27 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/147/2015	Atmakuru Venkateswarlu vs Mannem Penchalaiah	27 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/3/2015	Shaik Masthan Shareef vs Kodikuthala Obulesu	26 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/34/2015	Devireddy Janardhana Reddy vs Perumalla Brahmaiah	26 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/95/2011	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Kaluvoy Mandal vs Shaik Khajaramtulla	25 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/166/2015	Challa Madhana Mohan Reddy vs Gaddam Venkata Reddy	25 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/114/2011	Nagireddy Venkata Narasa Reddy vs Sakhapuram Venkateswarlu	23 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/87/2013	Mukku Pulliah vs Galipati Mariamma	22 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/142/2015	Eluru Penchala Reddy vs Mannem Venkateswarlu	21 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/21/2016	Shaik Rajeeja vs Thota Subbaiah	11 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/69/2015	Syndicate Bank, A.S.Peta Mandal vs Shaik Bikari Saheb	11 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/3/2015	S.I of Police, Chejerla P.S vs Polepalli Vijaya Kumar	11 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/24/2015	Kasa Subbarayudu vs Aratipalli Ravindra Reddy	31 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/25/2015	Kasa Subbarayudu vs Aratipalli Ravindra Reddy	31 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/69/2014	Gaddam Subbarayudu vs Kamma Dasaiah	31 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/11/2013	Slub-Inspector of Police, Chejerla vs Yacha Rupendra	28 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/18/2016	Gotham Dorasanamma vs Shaik Mastanamma	24 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/42/2014	Challa Jayamma vs Bijivemula Jayarami Reddy	24 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/123/2015	Pabolu Narendra Kumar vs Nagalapuram Syam Raj	24 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/124/2015	Pabolu Narendra Kumar vs Nagalapuram Syam Raj	24 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/134/2015	Atmakuru Venkateswarlu vs A.V.S.N.V.Prasad	24 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/15/2016	Veerapareddy Venkata Sesha Reddy vs Shaik Rajab Saheb	21 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/16/2014	Andhrapragathi Grameena Bank, Adurupalli Branch vs Thumati Seshaiah	18 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/51/2015	Moramreddy Narasimha Reddy vs Challa Swarupa	18 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/15/2015	Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rapur vs Thalla Hari	18 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/16/2016	Nune Dhanamma vs Kishore Kumar	16 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/57/2015	Nune Dhanamma vs Neerukattu Bangarurao	16 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/14/2016	Mallu venkatareddy vs Nagalapuram Syam Raj	15 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/16/2015	Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rapur vs Udutha Thirupalu	15 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/17/2015	Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rapur vs Sankara China Venkataiah	09 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/96/2015	Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rapur vs Indla Nagaraju	02 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/99/2015	Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rapur vs Sk.Rahamthulla	02 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/89/2015	Induru Dayakar Reddy vs Bola Venkata Subbaiah	26 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/36/2015	Pachipulusu Eswaraiah vs Petati Krishnaiah	25 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/115/2015	Renangi Srinivasulu vs Kavali Arunamma	16 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/108/2015	Mannam Srihari Naidu vs Kudithipudi Sampoornamma	15 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/162/2015	Naga Ramana Reddy vs Shaik Mastanamma	15 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/71/2014	Veluru China Kondamma vs Late Shaik Masthan	11 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/163/2015	Siddana Penchala Reddy vs Siddana Naramma	29 Jan 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/40/2014	Gaddam Janardhan Reddy vs Pulimi Ramanareddy	28 Jan 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/4/2015	Induru Venkureddy vs Thalari Venkata Seshaiah	31 Dec 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/83/2014	Angadala Subbaiah vs Amudalapalli Prasad	31 Dec 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/64/2014	Pattan Fayaz vs Shaik Rasheed	02 Dec 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/44/2014	Koppolu Ratnamma vs Koppolu Kamaiah	29 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/24/2014	Goda Bhaskar Reddy vs Kancherla Jayaramaiah	30 Jul 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/31/2015	Muramreddy Subbareddy vs Boddu Rajeswari @ Rajamma	13 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/32/2015	Mekala Vijayalakshmi vs Boddu Rajeswari @ Rajamma	13 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/18/2015	Shaik Hussian Basha vs Thenali Sudhakar	08 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/23/2015	Puvvadi Venkateswarlu vs Gali Venkata Rathnam	06 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/8/2015	Uribindi Venkata Ramanareddy vs Pattan Chand Basha	02 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/9/2015	Duggireddy Krishnareddy vs Balli Penchalaiah	01 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/20/2015	Shaik Hussian Basha vs Vankadari Venkateswarlu	27 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/21/2015	Shaik Hussian Basha vs Chirthanulu Balakrishna	27 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/80/2012	Marri Venkata Rao vs Mabbu Chinna Ankulu	16 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1/2015	Vennapusa Chennakrishna Reddy vs Vasipalli Chenchuratnam	09 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/52/2014	Palapati Chandra Sekhar vs Jyothi Krishnaiah	29 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/51/2014	Korsipati Sundararami Reddy vs Anumalasetti Venkateswarlu	19 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/184/2010	S.I of Police, Atmakur P.S vs Chengalagari Rama Krishna	19 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/206/2011	S.I of Police, Chejerla P.S vs Doddamreddy Hazarath Reddy	17 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/111/2007	Poosala Krishnaiah vs Chanduluru Venkateswarlu	16 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/85/2011	S.I of Police, Atmakur P.S vs Kandukuru Pitachaiah	16 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/96/2011	S.I of Police, A.S.Pet P.S vs Shaik Lliyaz	16 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/28/2014	Goda Bhaskar Reddy vs Uruturu Rangaiah	15 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/94/2012	Banala Vijayagopala chary alias Vijaya gopal vs Vanteru Balakondaiah	12 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/17/2014	Onteru Lakshmikanthamma vs Potluri Sudhakar	04 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/18/2014	Onteru Lakshmikanthamma vs Potluru Sudhakar	04 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/70/2014	Yendluri Prasad vs Madamanchi Venkateswarlu	04 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/13/2013	MS Shriram Chits Private Ltd vs Yadala Venkata Subbamma	03 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/76/2012	Mavilla Hazarattaiah vs Poosapati Chinnamma	03 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/130/2010	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Kaluvoy vs Utla Venkataiah	02 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/121/2011	Sadu Koteswara Rao vs Nagipogu Penchalaiah	01 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/9/2014	Banala Vijaya vs Vanteru Mallemkondaiah	13 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/59/2014	Nune Dhanamma vs Paleti Rajamanoharam	13 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/14/2014	Korisipati Ramana Reddy vs Moram Narayana Reddy	04 Aug 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/7/2014	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Adurupalli Branch, vs Vs1. Madamanchi Penchalaiah	17 Jun 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/8/2014	Natakala Kishore vs Galam Subbarao	17 Jun 2014	Order On Exgibit	—

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jun 2016		8
May 2016		12
Apr 2016		14
Mar 2016		20
Feb 2016		6
Jan 2016		2
Dec 2015		3
Sep 2015		1
Jul 2015		1
Apr 2015		6
Mar 2015		4
Dec 2014		16

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri M.SANKAR RAO M.A, LL.M., handled?

Sri M.SANKAR RAO M.A, LL.M., has handled 99 court orders since 2014 at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Atmakur (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 3 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri M.SANKAR RAO M.A, LL.M., hear?

Based on available records, Sri M.SANKAR RAO M.A, LL.M., primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Atmakur (Taluka).

Where is Sri M.SANKAR RAO M.A, LL.M., currently posted?

Sri M.SANKAR RAO M.A, LL.M., is posted as Judge Addl Family Court at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Atmakur (Taluka), Nellore, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri M.SANKAR RAO M.A, LL.M., available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri M.SANKAR RAO M.A, LL.M., are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri M.SANKAR RAO M.A, LL.M., dispose cases?

Sri M.SANKAR RAO M.A, LL.M., disposes approximately 3 cases per month, based on 99 orders handled over their tenure at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Atmakur (Taluka).

Since when is Sri M.SANKAR RAO M.A, LL.M., serving?

Sri M.SANKAR RAO M.A, LL.M., has been serving at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Atmakur (Taluka) since 2014.

Case Types

OS 80%

CC 20%

Posting History

Apr 2014 — May 2017

Judge Addl Family Court · 99 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 3

Compromised 1

Other Judges at this Court

L. Jagadeesh Kumar

Junior Civil Judge-cum Judicial Magistrate

3 orders

← View all judges at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Atmakur (Taluka)