Sri M.Shankar Rao

1

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

GIDDALUR

Present: Sri M. Sankar Rao, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

Monday, this the Twentieth(20th) day of August, 2018

C.C. No. 485 of 2016

State: Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Proh. & Excise Station,

Giddalur ... Complainant

V/s

Narra Singareddy @ Balaramireddy, Owner of Sunanda Restaurant S/o. Balaramireddy, age 39years, Reddy by caste, R/o. Pitakayagulla village, Bestavaripeta Mandal, Prakasam District.

... Accused

This case is coming on 16-08-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri P.N. Seshasayana Reddy,

Advocate appearing for accused and upon hearing both side arguments and on perusal of the entire record having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following:

-::J U D G M E N T::-

1.The Prohibition & Excise Inspector, P & E Station, Giddalur filed charge sheet in

P.R. No. 439/2014-15 against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 34 (a) of

A.P. Excise Act.

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

On 12-02-2015 while LW.3/V.Naga Sreenu, Sub Inspector of Police, received reliable information about the illegal sale of liquor bottles at Sunanda Restaurant at

R.K.Junction, Bestavaripeta village, then reached to the scene of offence, at that time said noticed accused sitting in his counter and having liquor bottles in a card- board box kept under the counter, look after he saw a uniformed police staff tried to escape from the counter. Then LW.3/V.Naga Sreenu, Sub Inspector of Police stopped him with active assistance of his staff, on interrogation accused disclosed his particulars, voluntarily disclosed his identity particulars and also confessed he is the owner of M/s. Sunanda Restaurant and run the same since 4 years for livelihood and also stated that he purchased from out side of the shops and the same sell to 2 customers in his restaurant at the rate of Rs.20/- extra margin from each bottle more than an MRP and on questioned him about the liquor bottles, the accused shown liquor bottles under the counter. On verification LW.3/V.Naga Sreenu, Sub Inspector of Police found '3' bottles of M.C. Dowell's No.1 celebration XXX rum each 180 ml and '6' bottles of Old Tavern Fine whiskey each 180 ml. Then LW.3/V.Naga Sreenu, Sub Inspector of

Police asked the accused about whether any valid license or permit to sell the liquor bottles, the accused disclosed has not valid license or permit. Then LW.3/V.Naga

Sreenu, Sub Inspector of Police drawn one 180ml bottle of Mc.Dowell's No.1

Celebration XXX rum from 3 bottles and one 180ml bottle of Old Tavern fine whisky from 6 bottles as samples for the purpose of chemical analysis. Later LW.3/V.Naga

Sreenu, Sub Inspector of Police seized the property and sample bottles, arrested the accused after explaining the grounds of his arrest and prepared police proceedings as no body came forward to act as mediators and registered the police proceedings as a case in Cr.No.16/2015 u/sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Later LW.3/V.Naga Sreenu, Sub

Inspector of Police forwarded the accused to the Hon'ble court for judicial remand. On 01-03-2015 LW.3/V.Naga Sreenu, Sub Inspector of Police transferred the connected case records along with seized property, samples to LW.4/M. Sreeram Prasad, P & E

Inspector. There after LW.4/M. Sreeram Prasad basing on the police proceedings re- registered a case in PR.No.439/2014-15 u/s 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act and took up investigation. Later, LW.4/M.Sreeram Prasad, P & E, Inspector sent the sample to the

Analyst and after receipt of Analyst report and after receipt of confiscation proceedings from the Deputy Commissioner, P & E, Ongole, LW.4/M. Sreeram Prasad, P & E Inspector filed charge sheet in the case.

3.On 21-12-2016, this Court took cognizance for the offence u/Sec.

34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, he is furnished with the copies of documents as required u/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined u/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. and a charge u/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P.

3

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

6.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.3, got marked

Exs.P1 to Ex.P7 besides M.O.1 and M.O.2 and the remaining witness was given up by the learned A.P.P.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined u/Sec. 313 of

Cr.P.C., explaining incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, accused denied the same and reported ‘no defence evidence’ and accused furnished bail bond as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

‘Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence u/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?’

10.POINT: -

PW.1 who deposed that on 12-02-2015 at about 1.00 pm on the information received by the PW.2 himself and LW.2/Shaik Nayab Rasool and PW.2 proceeded to

Sunanda Restaurant, R.K. Junction, B.V. Peta and on seeing them one person sitting in the counter tried to escape then, PW.2 stopped the person with their assistance and on enquiry the accused stated his identity particulars and he is the owner of Sunanda

Restaurant at counter of the restaurant under a chair a card board box was found on questioning the accused about the contents, he revealed the card board box is containing liquor bottles and he further stated that he purchased from out side shops and selling the same to the customers of restaurant for Rs. 20/- extra on each bottle and accused shown the liquor bottles. Then, PW.2 requested the customers present in the restaurant to act as mediators and no one came forward and then, PW.2 verified the card board box and found 3 bottles of M.C. Dowell's No.1 Celebration XXX rum each 180 ml and 6 bottles of Old Tavern fine whisky each 180 ml on further enquiry about the license and permit the accused stated that he has no license and permit and 4

PW.2 taken sample from each variety of 180 ml each for analysis purpose and seized the property and sample bottles and arrested the accused on complying the formalities under the cover of police proceedings scribed by him on the dictation of

PW.2 and marked Ex. P1 Police Proceedings, MO.1 180 ml sample bottle of M.C.

Dowells Celebration XXX rum, MO.2 180 ml sample bottle of Old Tavern fine whisky.

11.PW.2 also reiterated the contents of PW.1 and he further deposed that he returned to the police station along with accused, case property and sample bottles, accordingly he registered a case in Cr.No. 16/2015 u/sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and submitted the original F.I.R. to all concerned officers and marked Ex. P2 is F.I.R. and later he sent the accused for Hon'ble Court for judicial remand. Subsequently he transferred the case to Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Giddalur along with case property and sample bottles.

12.PW.3 deposed that on 01-03-2015 at about 09.30 pm he received case and property from the SHO, B.V. Peta P.S., on that he re-registered those proceedings as case in P.R. No. 439/2014-15 u/sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and submitted original

F.I.R. to all concerned officers and marked Ex. P3 is second F.I.R., later he sent the sample bottle to Chemical Examiner, Regional Proh & Excise Laboratory, Guntur for analysis marked Ex.P4 is Letter of Advise. PW.3 further deposed that he received

Analyst report under Ex. P5, the Analyst opined that the sample bottles are Indian liquor and he sent confiscation proposal of case property to Deputy Commissioner of P & E, Ongole and after receipt of confiscated order, he auctioned the case property in the presence of mediators and credited the sale proceeds to the state and marked Ex.

P6 is Confiscated Orders, Ex. P7 is auction, mediator report and challan. During the cross examination of PW.3 nothing material is elicited.

13.During the cross examination of PW.1 & PW.2 it is elicited that the Sunanda

Restaurant is at walkable distance to B.V. Peta P.S. and there is agricultural market committee check post works round the clock opposite to the restaurant. They further stated that the revenue people of all villages were available at B.V. Peta and further 5 they do not seized any proof of documents/Certificate of concerned authorities to show that the accused was the owner of Sunanda Restaurant of B.V. Peta.

14.As seen from the testimonies of PW.1 to Pw.3 it is clear that B.V. Peta Village is a major panchayat and revenue officials were available and there is agricultural market committee check post works round the clock opposite to the restaurant. In the said circumstances drafting Ex. P1 Police Proceedings without any efforts to secure the mediators goes against the case of prosecution as they failed to follow the procedure contemplated u/sec. 100 (4) Cr.P.C. further it is also not the case of prosecution that the scene of offence is remote place and it is an odd time to justify their cause in drafting Ex. P1 Police proceedings when they proceeded to scene of offence on information.

15.Hence basing on the testimonies of PW.1 & PW.2 who are the interested witnesses and also who detected the offence and investigated the matter, this court cannot holds that the prosecution established its case against the accused beyond all reasonable and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted u/sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail

bonds of accused shall be stand discharged after a period of six months as per

section 437-A Cr.P.C. The MO.1 (180 ml sample bottle of Mc.Dowell's No.1

Celebration XXX rum ) MO.2 (180 ml sample bottle of Old Tavern Fine whisky) shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of August, 2018

Sd/- M. Sankar Rao

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GIDDALUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1: I. Malyadri, Head Constable - None -

PW.2: V. Naga Sreenu, Sub-Inspector of Police 6

PW.3: M. Sreeram Prasad, P & E Inspector

DOCUMENTS FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Police proceedings

Ex.P2: F.I.R. in Cr.No.16/2015

Ex.P3: FIR in PR.No.439/2014-15

Ex.P4: Letter of advise

Ex.P5: Analyst report

Ex.P6: Confiscation Orders

Ex.P7: Auction mediator report along with Challan

DOCUMENTS FOR DEFENCE

- Nil –

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1: 180 ml sample bottle of Mc.Dowell's No.1 Celebration XXX rum

M.O.2: 180 ml sample bottle of old Tavern Fine whiskey

Ild/- M.S.R. A.J.F.C.M.:GDLR 7

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 485 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

1. Date of Offence: 12-02-2015

2. Date of Report: 12-02-2015

3. Date of arrest of accused: 12-02-2015

4. Date of release: 16-02-2015

5. Date of commencement of trial: 13-04-2018

6. Date of close of trial: 13-08-2018

7. Date of Judgment: 20-08-2018

8. Complainant: State: Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Proh. & Excise Station, Giddalur

9. Accused: Narra Singareddy @ Balaramireddy, Owner of Sunanda Restaurant S/o. Balaramireddy, age 39years, Reddy by caste, R/o. Pitakayagulla village, Bestavaripeta Mandal, Prakasam District.

10. Offence: u/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act

11. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of Court: Found not guilty

13. Sentence or Order:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

u/sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted u/sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail

bonds of accused shall be stand discharged after a period of six months as per

section 437-A Cr.P.C. The MO.1 (180 ml sample bottle of Mc.Dowell's No.1

Celebration XXX rum ) MO.2 (180 ml sample bottle of Old Tavern Fine whisky) shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Explanation for delay: - This case was taken on file on 21-12-2016 for the offence u/Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused. After appearance of the accused, on 30-01-2017, copies of all the documents were furnished to the accused u/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. On 08-01-2018, accused was examined u/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. On behalf of prosecution, PW.1 to PW-3 were examined, got marked Exs.P1 to P7 besides M.O.1 and

M.O.2. On closure of prosecution evidence, on 13-08-2018, accused was examined u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported ‘no defence evidence’. Hence, defence side evidence is closed. Arguments heard on 16-08-2018. On 20-08-2018 Judgment

pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- M. Sankar Rao

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GIDDALUR

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole Copy to: The Asst. P.P., Addl. J.M.F.C. Court, Giddalur

1

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

GIDDALUR

Present: Sri M. Sankar Rao, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

Monday, this the Twentieth (20th) day of August, 2018

C.C. No. 482 of 2016

State: Prohibition & Excise Inspector,

Giddalur ... Complainant

V/s

D.Rajaiah, S/o. Balaiah, age 56 years, Yadava by caste, R/o. Ambavaram village, Giddalur Mandal.

... Accused

This case is coming on 16-08-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri K.Ravi Prakash Babu,

Advocate appearing for accused and upon hearing both side arguments and on perusal of the entire record having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following:

-::J U D G M E N T::-

1.The Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Giddalur filed charge sheet in P.R. No.

108/2015-16 against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P.

Excise Act.

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

On 13-07-2015 while LW.4/M.Sreeram Prasad, P & E, Inspector and staff

Sk.Nagoor Meeravali, SK.Basha, P & E Constables & Shaik Syda, P & E Sub Inspector (Lws. 1 to 3) conducting raids to detect the Excise offences at the scene of offence, then at about 04:30 P.M found the accused having in possession of one white plastic bag in his right hand and on seeing the excise officials the accused tried to skulk away from the spot, then LW.4/M.Sreeram Prasad, P & E, Inspector detained the accused with the help of staff and enquired about the contents of said bag, then the accused disclosed that the said bag contained liquor bottles, then LW.4/M.Sreeram Prasad, P &

E, Inspector sent LW.2 to the village to secure mediators and after some time he returned to the spot and stated that nobody came forward to act as mediators and the

V.R.O are not available. Then, LW.4/M.Sreeram Prasad, P & E, Inspector enquired 2 about the address and identity particulars of accused and also about the contents of liquor bottles and accordingly the accused disclosed the same and found 15 nip bottles of OLD TAVERIN Whiskey each 180 ml. Then, LW.4/M.Sreeram Prasad, P & E, Inspector took one sample for analysis purpose, affixed identity slips for the purpose of

Chemical Analysis, sealed and seized the property and arrested the accused under a cover of special report drafted at the spot by LW.1/SK.Nagoor Meeravali and obtained the signature of accused on the special report and brought the accused along with property to the Excise station, Giddalur and registered the special report as a case vide P.R. No. 108/2015-16 u/sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and submitted the copies of

F.I.R. to all concerned officers and took up investigation. Later, LW.4/M.Sreeram

Prasad, P & E, Inspector sent the sample to the Analyst and after receipt of Analyst report and after receipt of confiscation proceedings from the Deputy Commissioner, P & E, Ongole, LW.5/A.Ratnam, P & E, Inspector filed charge sheet in the case.

3.On 21-12-2016, this Court took cognizance for the offence u/Sec.

34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, he is furnished with the copies of documents as required u/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined u/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. and a charge u/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P.

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

6.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.3, got marked

Exs.P1 to Ex.P5 besides M.O.1 and the remaining witnesses were given up by the learned A.P.P.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined u/Sec. 313 of

Cr.P.C., explaining incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, accused denied the same and reported ‘no defence evidence’ and accused furnished bail bond as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.

3

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

‘Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence u/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?’

10.POINT: -

PW.1 & PW.2 deposed that on 13-07-2015 at 4.30 pm they accompanied the

PW.3 for petrolling and to detect excise offences towards Ambavaram Village and they found one person with white plastic can in his right hand near Railway bridge on the way to Ambavaram village and on seeing them he tried to escape. Then, on suspicion,

PW.3 instructed them to catch him and they caught hold the person and brought to

PW.3. On enquiry by PW.3 he revealed his name and address particulars and on further enquiry about the contents in the bag, he revealed that the bag containing liquor bottles. Then, PW.3deputed PW.2 to Ambavaram village for securing mediators and after some time he returned back and informed that V.R.O. And Panchayat secretary were not available and no body came forward to act as mediators. Then,

PW.3 decided to draft special report and searched the bag and found 15 nip bottles of

Old Tavern whiskey each 180 ml on verification found EAL numbers were removed on the bottle. On that PW.3 drawn on e bottle as sample for analysis and remaining put in the same bag affixed identity slips on the sample and remaining property duly obtain the signature of accused and PW.3. On further questioning of the accused about the source of supply he stated that he purchased from unknown person and he has not have any license and permit. Then PW.3 on serving the notices against accused arrested him and seized the sample and case property under cover of special report which was drafted by PW.1 on the instructions of PW.1 and marked Ex. P1 is the special report, MO.1 is the 180 ml sample bottle of Old Tavern whiskey.

11.PW.3 also reiterated the contents of PW.1 & PW.2 and he further deposed that he brought the accused, sample bottle and case property to Excise station, Giddalur.

Basing on the special report, he registered a case in P.R. No. 108/2015-16 u/sec. 34(a) of Excise act and submitted the original F.I.R. to all concerned officers and marked Ex.

4

P2 is F.I.R. PW.3 further submitted that he sent sample bottle to the Government P &

E Laboratory, Guntur along with letter of advise and he received Analyst report opined that sample is Indian liquor. Ex. P3 is Analysis Report. On his transfer he handed over the case file to LW.5/A. Ratnam, P & E Inspector. He received confiscate orders from

Deputy Comissioner, Ongole and auctioned the case property and credited the sale proceeds to state exchequer. PW.3 further deposed that he can identify the signatures of LW.5/A. Ratnam, P & E Inspector and marked Ex. P4 is Confiscated orders, Ex. P5 is auction mediator report along with challan.

12.During the Cross examination of PW.1 he stated that they proceeded from

Excise station at 8.30 to 9.00 am and he do not remember on the day in which villages they have been conducted checking and scene of offence is 3 kilometers distance to

Ambavaram village and 1½ kilometer to Giddalur town. On the other hand PW.2 during his cross examination stated that at 3.30 pm they started from Excise Police station and they reached scene of offence by 4.00 pm. Hence discrepancies which creates a doubt on the case of prosecution.

13. As seen from the testimonies of PW.1 & PW.2 it is clear that the scene of offence is 3 kilometers distance to Ambavaram village and 1½ kilometer to Giddalur town which is a major panchayat and revenue officials were available. In the said circumstances drafting Ex. P1 special report without any efforts to secure the mediators goes against the case of prosecution as they failed to follow the procedure contemplated u/sec. 100 (4) Cr.P.C. further it is also not the case of prosecution that the scene of offence is remote place and it is an odd time to justify their cause in drafting Ex. P1 special report.

14.Hence basing on the testimonies of PW.1 to PW.3 who are the interested witnesses and also who detected the offence and investigated the matter in the absence of independent witnesses corroboration, this court cannot holds that the prosecution established its case against the accused beyond all reasonable and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.

5

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted u/sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail

bonds of accused shall be stand discharged after a period of six months as per

section 437-A Cr.P.C. The MO.1 (180 ml sample bottle of Old Taverin Whiskey)

shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of August, 2018

Sd/- M. Sankar Rao

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GIDDALUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1: SK. Nagoor Meeravali, P & E, Constable - None -

PW.2: SK.Basha, P & E, Constable

PW.3: M. Sreeram Prasad, P & E Inspector

DOCUMENTS FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Special Report

Ex.P2: F.I.R. in P.R. No. 108/2015-16

Ex.P3: Analyst Report

Ex.P4: Confiscation Orders

Ex.P5: Auction mediator report along with Challan

DOCUMENTS FOR DEFENCE

- Nil –

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1: 180 ml sample bottle of Old Taverin Whiskey

Ild/- M.S.R. A.J.F.C.M.:GDLR 6

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 482 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

1. Date of Offence: 13-07-2015

2. Date of Report: 13-07-2015

3. Date of arrest of accused: 13-07-2015

4. Date of release: 13-07-2015 (Issued 41(A) Cr.P.C. Notice)

5. Date of commencement of trial: 13-04-2018

6. Date of close of trial: 13-08-2018

7. Date of Judgment: 20-08-2018

8. Complainant: State: Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Giddalur

9. Accused: D.Rajaiah, S/o. Balaiah, age 56 years, Yadava by caste, R/o. Ambavaram village, Giddalur Mandal.

10. Offence: u/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act

11. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of Court: Found not guilty

13. Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted u/sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be stand discharged after a period of six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. The MO.1 (180 ml sample bottle of Old Taverin Whiskey) shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Explanation for delay: - This case was taken on file on 21-12-2016 for the offence u/Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused. After appearance of the accused, on 10-03-2017, copies of all the documents were furnished to the accused u/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. On 07-07- 2017, accused was examined u/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. On behalf of prosecution, PW.1 to PW.3 were examined, got marked Exs.P1 to P5 besides M.O.1. On closure of prosecution evidence, on 13-08-2018, accused was examined u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported ‘no defence evidence’. Hence, defence side evidence is closed. Arguments heard on 16-08-2018. On 20- 08-2018 Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- M. Sankar Rao

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GIDDALUR

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole Copy to: The Asst. P.P., Addl. J.M.F.C. Court, Giddalur

1

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

GIDDALUR

Present: Sri M. SANKAR RAO, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

Tuesday, this the Twenty First (21st) day of August, 2018

M.C. No. 12 of 2018

1. Dudekula Mabunni, W/o. Dasthagiri, aged about 29 years, Dudekula, House Wife, R/o. Gundampadu Village, Sirivella Mandal, Kurnool District, now residing at her parents house Podalakondapalli Village, Giddalur Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Dudekula Sahidha, D/o. Dasthagiri, aged about 07 years,

3. Dudekula Jubedha, D/o. Dasthagiri, aged about 04 years,

(2nd & 3rd petitioners are being minors, represented by next friend,

Natural Guardian Mother 1st petitioner i.e. Dudekula Mabunni) … Petitioners

Vs.

Dudekula Dasthagiri, S/o. Hussenaiah, aged about 36 years, Dudekula, Cultivation, Resident of Gundampadu village, Sirivella Mandal, Kurnool District., A.P. … Respondent

This petition is coming on today i.e. 21-08-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.N. Seshasayana Reddy, Advocate for Petitioners and the

Respondent is set ex-parte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

-::O R D E R::-

1. The 1st Petitioner filed the petition on behalf of her and on behalf of her minors 2nd Petitioner & 3rd petitioner against the Respondent, praying to grant monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs. 3,000/- to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners, from the date of filing the petition and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the petition are that the respondent married the 1st petitioner on 27-06-2009 as per the Muslim caste custom and rites. At the time of marriage, the parents of 1st petitioner gave cash of Rs.50,000/- towards dowry to the respondent and also presented 5 tulas gold to the 1st petitioner. Immediately after marriage the consummation took place and the 1st petitioner joined with the respondent and lead conjugal life at Gundampadu village of Sirivella Mandal, Kurnool

District. Due to their wed lock the 1st petitioner blessed with 2nd and 3rd petitioners. Till the birth of 3rd petitioner the respondent looked after the 1st 2 petitioner properly. After the birth of 3rd petitioner the respondent addicted to all bad vices like drinking, debauchery and gambling etc, and harassed the 1st petitioner both mentally and physically. Though the PW-1 beared all the tortures in the hands of respondent and his family members with a hope that the respondent will change his attitude in future. The family members of the respondent were also supported to the respondent and by listening the words of family members, the respondent used to beat the petitioner and some times he necked out her from his house along with the 2 and 3rd petitioners. The 1st petitioner parents held panchayath so many times whenever the respondent necked out the petitioners and convinced the respondent look after them properly. But the respondent was increased his torture day by day on the 1st petitioner which is not bearable. On 16-01-2018 the respondent beat the 1st petitioner with the pestle on her back side and the 1st petitioner sustained bleeding injuries. Though the 1st petitioner parents held mediations with the elders, but there is no change in the attitude of respondent and his family members. Due to unbearable torture, the 1st petitioner came to her parents house along with the 2nd and 3rd petitioners in the month of January, 2018. When 1st petitioner parents tried to conduct panchayath, the respondent did not turn up. Since January, 2018, 1st petitioner along with 2nd and 3rd petitioners are living in her parents house on their mercy. The 1st petitioner is not in a position to provide food, cloths and other needs to the 2nd and 3rd petitioner. The 1st petitioner is unable to maintain herself and also 2nd and 3rd petitioners.

The 1st petitioner further submit that the respondent himself discarded the petitioners and neglected to maintain the petitioners. The respondent is having

Ac.5.00 cents of land in Gundampadu village of Sirivella Mandal and he is getting income of Rs.2,00,000/- per year from said lands. The respondent is also having two houses in his village. The respondent neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners 1 to 3 and the 1st petitioner is unable to maintain herself and 2nd and 3rd petitioners. The respondent is having means and capacity to pay the maintenance amount to the petitioners. The 1st petitioner is unable to do any work 3 and now the petitioners are living on the mercy of parents of PW-1. The respondent neglected to maintain the petitioners and deserted them to their fate.

3.On 20-08-2018, the Respondent was called absent and no representation.

Hence, Respondent was set ex-parte.

4.The 1st Petitioner herself examined as PW.1.

5.Now the point for determination is: -

‘Whether the Petitioners 1 to 3 are entitled for maintenance

from the Respondent and if so, to what amount?’

6.Heard the arguments of Petitioners’ counsel.

7.POINT: -

The 1st petitioner/PW.1, in her affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination, reiterated the contents of her petition stating that the respondent married the PW.1 on 27-06-2009 as per the Muslim caste custom and rites. At the time of marriage, her parents gave cash of Rs.50,000/- towards dowry to the respondent and also presented 5 tulas gold to her. Immediately after marriage the consummation took place and she joined with the respondent and lead conjugal life at Gundampadu village of Sirivella Mandal, Kurnool District. Due to their wed lock she blessed with 2nd and 3rd petitioners. Till the birth of 3rd petitioner the respondent looked after the PW.1 properly. After the birth of 3rd petitioner, the respondent addicted to all bad vices like drinking, debauchery and gambling etc., and harassed her both mentally and physically, Though PW.1 beared all the tortures in the hands of respondent and his family members with a hope that the respondent will change his attitude in future. The family members of the respondent were also supported to the respondent and by listening the words of family members, the respondent used to beat the PW.1 and some times he necked out her from his house along with the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. PW.1 parents held panchayath so many times whenever the respondent necked out them and convinced the respondent to look after them properly. But the respondent increased his torture day by day on PW.1 which is not 4 bearable. On 16-01-2018 the respondent beat her with the pestle on her back side and she sustained bleeding injuries. Though her parents held mediations with the elders, but there is no change in the attitude of respondent and his family members.

Due to unbearable torture, the PW.1 came to her parents house along with the 2nd and 3rd petitioners in the month of January,2018, PW.1 along with 2nd and 3rd petitioners are living in her parents house on their mercy. PW.1 unable to maintain herself and also 2nd and 3rd petitioners.

8.The PW.1 further submitted that the respondent himself discarded them and neglected to maintain them. The respondent is having Ac.5.00 cents of land in

Gundampadu village of Sirivella Mandal and he is getting income of Rs.2,00,000/- per year from said lands. The respondent is also having two houses in his village.

9.The PW.1 further submits that the petitioners 2 & 3 are school going children and she is unable to maintain herself and her children. Further the parents of the

PW.1 are also unable to look after the maintenance of the petitioners. Further the

PW.1 submits that she requires Rs. 5,000/- and petitioners 2 & 3 are requires Rs.

3,000/- each per month for their maintenance and shelter. The respondent is having means and capacity to pay the said maintenance amount to the petitioners as asked by them. But he intentionally not paying the same. Hence the petitioners are obliged to file this petition for grant of maintenance to them.

10.The unrebutted and unchallenged testimony of PW.1 is held prove. Hence this court is inclined to allow the petition partly.

11.Considering the present day cost of living and the capacity of the Respondent to pay maintenance, this Court is inclined to grant a reasonable monthly maintenance to the Petitioners 1 to 3, so as to enable them to eke out their livelihood.

12.In the result, this petition is partly allowed granting monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- to the 1 st Petitioner and Rs. 1,500/- to the 2nd petitioner and Rs.

5

1,000/- to the 3rd petitioner from the date of this order. The Respondent is

directed to pay ordered maintenance to the Petitioners on or before 5 th of every

succeeding month and in the event of failure to pay ordered maintenance, the

Pe titioners are at liberty to proceed as per law.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21st day of August, 2018

Sd/- M. Sankar Rao

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GIDDALUR

Appendix of Evidence Witnessed examined

For Petitioners: For Respondent:

PW.1: Dudekula Mabunni Ex-parte

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioners: NIL

For Respondent: NIL

Ild/- M.S.R.

A.J.M.F.C., GDLR