Sri M.Sridhar

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS, KADAPA.

Present: Sri M. Sridhar, B.L, III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, FAC of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Wednesday, this the 22 nd day of February, 2017

C.C.No.180 of 2016

State: Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Kadapa II Town Police station. … Complainant.

Vs.

1.Gajula Haji Basha @ Haji, Aged 40 years, Son of Fareed Ahmed, Resident of D.No.24/9, Trunk Road, Rayachoty town, Y.S.R. District.

2.Shaik Mohammad Hidayathulla, Aged 44 years, Son of Mohammad Karamathulla, Resident of D.No.11/104, New D.No.54/104, Kagitalapenta, Kadapa City. … Accused.

This case coming on 15-02-2017, for final hearing in the presence of Asst.

Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri P.Prabhanjan, Advocate for the accused No.1 and 2, and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this court made the following :-

J U D G M E N T

The Station House Officer, Kadapa II Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 in Crime No.141/2015 for the offence punishable

U/sec.323,506 of Indian Penal Code.

02. The case of the prosecution in brief is that there is a property dispute pending in between Shaik Mohammad Yosuf (LW.1) and his younger brothers namely Saleem and Younus. A.1 is nephew of Ex-minister Ahmedulla threatened that LW.1 would compromise with his brothers, on 07.9.2015 night about 08.30

P.M., while Shaik Mohammad Yosuf and Shaik Sarfaraj (LWs.1 and 2) are present at Bombay function hall, Trunk road, Kadapa, when LW.2 eating chicken pakoda, 2

A.1 and A.2 proceeded on car and on seeing LW.1, stop the car and came to there, then A.1 abused LW.1 in filthy language by holding shirt collar and forcibly beat

Shaik Mohammad Yosuf (LW.1) with hands near right ear, further A.1 took a knife available in the car and threatened LW.1, in the meantime Shaik Sarfaraj (LW.2) intervened to rescue LW.1, for which A.1 beat LW.2. At that time, A.2 caught hold the hands of Shiak Mohammad Yosuf (LW.1) and abused them in filthy language and LW.1 sustained dumb injuries over all over his body. LW.2 Shaik Sarfaraj shifted the LW.1 to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa for treatment. On 07.9.2015 LW.7 S.I.

of Police recorded the statement of LW.1 and basing on the statement of LW.1

Shiak Mohammad Yosuf, LW.7 S.I. of Police, Kadapa II Town P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.141/2015 for the offence U/sec.323, 506 of IPC and took up investigation. On 30.9.2015 LW.6 Medical officer issued wound certificate and opined that the injury sustained by LW.1 is simple in nature and on 02.10.2015,

LW.7 S.I. of Police, arrested the accused and released him on bail after obtaining sufficient sureties and thereby the accused No.1 and 2 are liable for punishment for the offence U/sec.323, 506 of IPC.

03. This case was taken on file for the offence U/sec.323, 506 of IPC against the accused No.1 and 2.

04. After the appearance of all the accused, the copies of documents as required U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to them.

05. The accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C., charges 

U/sec.323, 506-II of IPC were framed against the accused No.1 and 2, and the same was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution PWs.1 to 5 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. On behalf of the defense, Ex.D.1 got 3 marked. No material objects are marked. The evidence of LWs.3 and 5 were given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

07. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material available against the accused, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

08. Heard the arguments of both sides counsel.

09. Now the point for determination is:-“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges U/sec.323, 506-II of IPC. ?”

10. This is a case of voluntarily causing simple hurt coupled with criminal intimidation that occurred on 07.9.2015 at 08.30 P.M., near Bombay function hall,

Trunk Road, Kadapa, the accused No.1 and 2 threatened the defacto complainant

Shaik Mohammad Yosuf and beat him and his son i.e. (LW.2) Shaik Sarfaraj with hands and legs with dire consequences and the motive of the incident is that there are property disputes in between the defacto complainant and his brother and the accused supported the brother of the defacto complainant which leads to the offence.

11. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 are consistent and corroborated with each other and the evidence of PW.4

Medical officer also supports the evidence of PW.1 in all material aspects and that the prosecution has able to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed the Court to convict the accused.

12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused No.1 and 2 are falsely implicated in this case due to previous grudges and there are inconsistency with regard to the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and also the 4 injuries spoken by PW.1 and the medical evidence and therefore, he prayed the

Court to acquit the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

POINT:-

13. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5 and

Ex.P.1 to P.6 are got marked. PW.1 is the defacto complainant cum injured witness,

PW.2 is also injured witness, PW.3 is the eye witness to the incident, PW.4 is the

Medical officer and PW.5 is the investigating officer respectively.

14. According to PW.1, the property dispute is pending in between him and his brothers Saleem and Younus, a suit is also pending in the Hon'ble Addl. Senior

Civil Judge, Kadapa in O.S.No.96/2009, after the date of present incident, the said

suit was decreed in his favour awarding costs and by the date of this incident, the suit was pending. A.1 is the nephew of Ex-Minister Ahamadullah had been threatening him, sine the filing of the suit to withdraw the suit filed by him against his brothers. On 07.9.2015 around 08.30 P.M., his son LW.2 was eating chicken pakoda near Bombay Kalayanamandapam, by that time he was also present there, at that time A.1 and A.2 were proceeding in the car and on seeing him, the accused stopped the car and got down from the car, then A.1 started abusing him in filthy language stating that 'Emira Lanja Kodaka chebithe ardham kavatlea', and A.1 caught hold of his shirt collar and forcibly beat him below right ear, further A.1 took out a knife from his car and trying to assault him, his son LW.2 came and intervened, A.1 also beat his son with his hands and legs and also A.2 caught hold his hands and also the accused threatened him with dire consequences. As he was feeling severe pain in his right ear, he along with his son went to RIMS Hospital,

Kadapa for treatment and police examined me and recorded his statement. Ex.P.1 is his statement.

5

15. PW.2 is the son of PW.1 deposed that on 07.9.2015 at about 08.00 PM, he along with his friend i.e. LW.4 Mohammed Ali went to Bombay function hall at

Trunk road to eat the chicken pakoda, by that time his father PW.1 was already present there, then A.1 and A.2 came there in a car and caught hold the shirt collar of his father and started abusing in filthy language. Prior to this incident, some disputes arose in between his father and brothers of his father and a civil suit is also pending before the Court in between them. The accused abused his father that 'Emira Lanja Kodaka ma gurinchi edhi padithe chapukuntunavu', by saying that they caught hold the shirt collar of his father and started assaulted him. A.2 caught hold of his father, then A.1 went to his car and took one dragger from his car and try to kill his father, then he intervened and pushed the A.1, then A.1 and A.2 came up on him and started beating him, on seeing the same his father intervened and came to rescue, then A.1 fisted his father below his right ear, due to that his father fell down on the ground. Then the accused left that place, while leaving the place the accused abused and warned his father that they will kill PW.1 and after that himself and his father went to RIMS Hospital, in an auto and after admission in the hospital, the police came to the hospital and examined them.

16. PW.3 is the eye witness to the incident deposed that he along with LW.5

Ayaz Basha, went to SDM travels near Bombay Kalyanamandapam on 07.9.2015, at that time they heard some cries, then they saw that the accused No.1 and 2 assaulting PW.1, then PW.2 intervened in that galata, then A.1 beat PW.1 on his right ear and also A.1 took out a knife from his car and tried to beat PW.1 with that knife and on seeing the galata, the persons at that place gathered and then PWs.1 and 2 went to RIMS Hospital in an auto and he was examined by the police.

17. PW.4 who is Medical officer deposed that on 07.9.2015 at 3.30 P.M., he examined PW.1 and found the following injury i.e. complaining of pain over the 6 left hand and no external injuries are found. Then he opined that the injury is fresh and simple in nature which probably due to blunt object and the age of the injury is less than 6 hours prior to his examination and he issued Ex.P.2 wound certificate.

18. PW.5 is the investigating officer deposed that on 07.9.2015 at about 11.30 PM, PWs.1 and 2 came to the police station and PW.1 gave a oral complaint and he reduced the same into writing. Ex.P.1 is the complaint of PW.1. As the contents of Ex.P.1 are non-cognizance in nature and made requisition under Ex.P.3 for permission of investigation in this from this Court and on 09.9.2015 this Court permitted accordingly under Ex.P.4, basing on the Ex.P.4, he registered a case on 10.9.2015 at about 7-00 P.M., in Cr.No.141/2015 for the offence U/sec.323 and 506 of IPC, then he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P.6 and he also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 02.10.2015 the accused voluntarily surrendered before him and after obtaining sufficient sureties, he released the accused on station bail and he collected Ex.P.2 wound certificate of PW.1 and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.

19. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.9.2015 at 08.30 P.M., near

Bombay function hall, Trunk Road, Kadapa, the accused No.1 and 2 threatened

PW.1 with dire consequences and also the accused beat him and his son i.e. PW.2 with hands and legs, due to which the PW.1 sustained injury near his right ear and the motive of the incident is that there are property disputes in between the PW.1 and his brothers and the accused supported the brothers of the defacto complainant which leads to the offence.

20. On perusal of entire record, it has to be seen whether the evidence of

PWs.1 to 5 and the facts and circumstances of the case attracts the provisions

U/sec.323 and 506 of IPC. In order to substantiate the injuries spoken by PW.1, the prosecution mainly relied on PW.4 Medical evidence coupled with Ex.P.2 wound 7 certificate. The testimony of PW.1 shows that A.1 caught hold of his shirt collar and forcibly beat him below his right ear, but whereas the medical evidence PW.4 stated that complaining of pain over the left hand and no external injuries are found. Except the above said injury, the medical evidence of PW.4 not found any of the injuries on PW.1. Certainly, there is inconsistent in respect of injuries spoken by PW.1 and the injury mentioned in Ex.P.2 wound certificate. Apart from that as per the evidences of PWs.1 and 2, PW.1 sustained injury in the hands of A.1, but as per the wound certificate Ex.P.2, except complaining of pain, no injury mentioned in Ex.P.2. PW.4 Medical Officer also categorically admitted that complaining of pain is not a injury. Therefore, the injuries spoken by PW.1 and the injuries mentioned in Ex.P.2 wound certificate are entirely different. When there is inconsistent and omission with regard to the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, the evidence of PW.1 does not inspires confidence with respect to the injuries received by PW.1.

21. As far as the weapon used by the accused No.1 is concerned, PW.1 deposed that A.1 took out a knife in his car and trying to assault him, but whereas the evidence of PW.2 deposed that A.1 went to his car and took one dragger from his car and tried to kill his father i.e. PW.1. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 are inconsistent with respect to the weapon used by the accused.

22. Apart from that, the name of accused No.2 does not find place in Ex.P.1 complaint. Had really A.2 involved in the said incident, certainly PW.1 must have mentioned the name of A.2 in Ex.P.1 complaint, but PW.1 was not mentioned the name of A.2 in the Ex.P.1 complaint for the reasons best known to him. Further the

PW.1 has not mentioned the names of eye witnesses to the incident i.e. LW.3, PW.3 and LW.5 in the Ex.P.1 complaint and as well as Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1, but PW.1 improved his version with regard to the presence of eye witnesses to the 8 incident before this Court. PW.5 investigating officer categorically admitted that

PWs.1 and 2 did not state before him specifically about the presence of LW.3, PW.3 and LW.5. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 in respect of presence of eye witnesses at the time of incident does not inspires confidence.

23. All the above said material contradictions and omissions which goes to the root of the prosecution case and which also weakness to the evidence of PW.1.

Therefore, there is a doubt on the evidence of PW.1 about the injuries spoken by him and the injuries mentioned in the Ex.P.2 would certificate and also not supported from other prosecution witnesses. In view of the above said discussion,

I feel that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused

No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal for the charges U/sec.323, 506-II of IPC.

24. In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the charges

U/sec.323, 506-II of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. for the above said charges. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 22nd day of February, 2017.

Sd/- M. Sridhar,

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa FAC lI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses examined for:

For ProsecutionFor Defence: Nil.

P.W.1: Shaik Mohammad Yousuf.

P.W.2: Shaik Sarfaraj.

P.W.3: Shaik Mohammad Ali.

9

P.W.4: Dr. M. Sreenivasulu.

P.W.5: B.Arun Reddy, S.I. of Police.

Exhibits marked for:- For Prosecution

Ex.P.1: Complaint of PW.1.

Ex.P.2: Wound certificate of PW.1.

Ex.P.3: Requisition for permission to investigate the present case.

Ex.P.4: Permission issued by this Court.

Ex.P.5: First Information Report.

Ex.P.6: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

For Defence:

Ex.D.1: Part of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2.

Material objects marked: - Nil - Id/- M.S. III A.J.C.J., Kdp. FAC II A.J.M.F.C., Kdp.

10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by the II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I class, Kadapa

Date of offence:07-09-2015 Date of report:10-09-2015 Date of apprehension of accused: 05-10-2015 Date of release of accused:05-10-2015 Date of commencement of trial:21-07-2016 Date of close of trial: 01-02-2017 Date of Judgment:22-02-2017

Calendar and judgment in C.C.No. 180 of 2016 on the file of II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I class, Kadapa.

Complainant:- State: Rep. By Sub inspector of Police, II Town Police Station

Name of the accused with Age calling Religion Residence Father’s name

3.Gajula Haji Basha @ Haji, Age 40 years, S/o Fareed Ahmed, D. No. 24/9,, Trunk Road, Rayachoty Town, YSR District.

4.Shaik Mahammed Hidayathulla, age 44 years, S/o Mahammed Karamathulla, D.NO. 11/104,, New D.No. 54/104, Kagithalapeta, Kadapa City.

Offence:- U/sec.323,506 of IPC.

Finding:- Accused No.1 and No2 are found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused NO.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.323,506 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over.

Sd/- M. Sridhar,

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, FAC.II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Kadapa Dis.No……………………Dt. …………..

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS, KADAPA.

Present:- Sri M. Sridhar, B.L, III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, FAC of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Saturday, this the 25 th day of February, 2017

C.C.No.127 of 2016

State: Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Kadapa Traffic U/G Police station. … Complainant.

Vs.

1.Mogili Harsha Vardhan, Son of Nagabhushanam, D.No.1/1666, Kandhipalem, Yerramukkapalli, Kadapa District.

2.V. Rajesh Kumar, Son of Sadhu Sundhar, D.No.43/193, Prakash Nagar, Kadapa town. … Accused.

This case coming on 22-02-2017 for final hearing in the presence of Asst.

Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri Mogali Nagaraju, Advocate for the accused, and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this court made the following :-

J U D G M E N T

The Station House Officer, Kadapa Traffic U/G Police station filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 in Crime No.634 of 2015 for the offence punishable U/sec.338 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.134 (a) and (b) r/w.187 of

Motor Vehicle Act.

02. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 08.7.2015 at 6-00 P.M., opposite Rajadhani Hotel, Sandhya Circle to Yerramukkapalli circle road, Kadapa

City, A.1 drove the car bearing No.AP04 AP 3138 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed K.Ramana Reddy, Y.Kadiramma and A.G.Nirmala (LWs.1, 3 and 5), resulting all were received multiple injuries and admitted in the

Hospital, then K.Ramana Reddy (LW.1) preferred a complaint to LW.10 S.I. of 2

Police, then LW.10 S.I. of Police registered a case in Cr.No.634/2015 for the offence U/sec.337 of IPC and he also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and arrested the accused and released him on bail as it is a bailable offence and received wound certificates of injured persons i.e. LWs.1, 3 and 5. A.1 produced his driving license, A.2 is the owner of the crime vehicle produced the records of the crime vehicle, but failed to produce valid insurance certificate. LW.8

Medical Officer who treated the injured LWs.1 and 3 and issued wound certificates and opined that LW.1 received simple injuries and the injuries found on LW.3 are grievous in nature, LW.9 Medical officer who treated LW.5 and issued wound certificate and opined that the injuries found on LW.5 are grievous in nature, basing on the wound certificates, LW.10 altered the section of law from 337 of IPC to 338 of IPC and thereby the accused are liable for punishment for the offence U/sec.338 of IPC and Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w.187 of Motor vehicle Act.

03. This case was taken on file for the offence U/sec.338 of IPC and Sec.134

(a) and (b) r/w.187 of Motor vehicle Act against the accused No.1 and 2.

04. After the appearance of the accused, the copies of documents as required

U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to them.

05. The accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/sec.251 of Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation for the offence U/sec.338 of IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) r/w.187 of Motor vehicle Act is put to the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution PWs.1 to 8 are examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12. No material objects are marked. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunity, the evidence of LWs.4 and 5 were not turn up, hence this Court closed the evidence of Lws.4 and 5.

3

07. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material available against the accused, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

08. Heard the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for prosecution and also heard the learned counsel for the accused.

09. Now the point for determination is:-“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/sec.338 of IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) r/w.187 of Motor vehicle Act ?”

POINT:

10. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 8 and

Ex.P.1 to P.12 are got marked. PWs.1 and 3 are the injured witnesses, PWs.2, 4 and 5 are the eye witnesses to the incident, PWs.6 and 7 are the Medical officers and

PW.8 is the investigating officer respectively. Ex.P.1 is the complaint of PW.1,

Ex.P.2 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3, Ex.P.3 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

statement of PW.4, Ex.P.4 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5, Ex.P.5 is the wound certificate of PW.3, Ex.P.6 is the X-ray report, Ex.P.7 is the wound certificate of PW.1, Ex.P.8 is the X-Ray report, Ex.P.9 is the wound certificate of

A.G.Nirmala i.e. LW.5, Ex.P.10 is the Police intimation dt.09.7.2015, Ex.P.11 is the

First Information Report and Ex.P.12 is the Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

11. PW.1 is the injured witness deposed that he owned a motorcycle Bajaj

Boxer bearing No.AP04 F 3198 and on 08.7.2015 at about 6-00 P.M., he was proceedings to Yerramukkapalli circle from Sandhya Theater in his motorcycle, when he reached near Himalaya Hospital and Rajadhani hotel, one white car bearing No.AP04 AP 3138 which was coming in a rash and negligent manner at high speed from the back side of his motorcycle, hit his motorcycle, due to that he 4 fell down on the ground and he sustained his left side bone got fractured, sustained injuries below the right leg knee, on the right side of his back. Then the crime vehicle car was not stopped, it again dashed against LW.3 Kadiramma, even then it was not stopped, the crime vehicle cross the divider on the right side and dashed against LW.4 Venkata Narayana Reddy and LW.5 Nirmala who were standing adjacent to the road, after that the crime vehicle was stopped. He further deposed that due to the said accident, LW.3 sustained fractured injuries to her knees, sustained injury on her right eye and some other injuries, LW.4 did not receive any injuries and LW.5 Nirmala sustained bleeding injuries to her both knees. He can identify the driver of the crime vehicle and A.1 who is standing in the Court was the driver of the crime vehicle and he was examined by the police. Ex.P.1 is his statement.

12. PW.2 is the eye witness to the incident deposed that on 08.7.2015 at about 06-15 PM, her husband i.e. PW.1 informed her that he met with an accident near Yerramukkapalli, then she went to that place and her husband was laid down on a table and she noticed the blood stains on the road and she noticed bleeding injuries on the both knees of her husband and also injuries on the back of PW.1 on his right side, she also came to know that two doctors i.e. Lws.4 and 5 also sustained injuries in that accident, she also noticed that LW.3 Kadiramma sustained bleeding injury on the left knee and on the left eye and she also observed the crime vehicle i.e. car white in colour bearing No.AP04 AP 3138 and after arrival of her brother-in-law Venkata Subba Reddy, they shifted PW.1 and LW.3 to RIMS

Hospital and LW.5 Nirmala received injuries and she was admitted in the Himalaya

Hospital and she was examined by the police.

13. PW.3 injured witness, Pws.4 and 5 eye witnesses to the incident, did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor 5 declared them as hostile witnesses. Even in their cross examination by Assistant

Public Prosecutor, nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution, except marking the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statements of Pws.3, 4 and 5 under Exs.P.2 to P.4.

14. PW.6 is the Medical officer deposed that on 08.7.2015 he examined

PWs.1 and 3 and opined that PW.3 sustained grievous and simple injuries and PW.1 sustained simple injuries and the said injuries might be caused due to road accident and he issued wound certificates under Ex.P.5 to P.7 and Ex.P.6 and P.8 are the X- ray reports of PWs.1 and 3.

15. PW.7 also Medical officer deposed that on 08.7.2015 at about 06.20

P.M., he examined LW.5 A.G.Nirmala and opined that all the injuries are fresh, injury No.5 is simple in nature and injuries No.1 to 4 and 6 to 12 are in grievous in nature and he issued wound certificate under Ex.P.9 and he also handed over the police intimation certificate dt.09.7.2015 under Ex.P.10.

16. PW.8 is the investigating officer deposed that on 08.7.2015 at about 09.30 P.M., he received phone call from RIMS Police station regarding admission of PW.1, then he proceeded to RIMS Hospital and enquired PW.1 and PW.1 gave his oral statement and the same was reduced into the writing, subsequently he came back to the Traffic P.S., Kadapa, basing on the statement of PW.1, he registered a case in Cr.No.634/2015 under Ex.P.11, subsequently he went to RIMS Hospital and secured PWs.2 and 3 and examined them and recorded their statements, on the next day he examined Lws.4 and 5 at Himalaya Hospital, Kadapa and recorded their statements, then he proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P.12. While he was in the police station, A.1 came to the police station and surrendered before him, then he arrested the accused and released him on bail by obtaining sufficient sureties and after obtaining wound certificate of PW.1, he laid charge sheet.

6

17. As far as the injuries spoken by PW.1 is concerned, he stated that one white car bearing No.AP04 AP 3138 which was coming in a rash and negligent manner from the back side of his motorcycle and hit his motorcycle, due to which he fell down on the ground and his side bone left side got fractured and he also sustained below the right leg knee, on the right side of his back. As per the Medical evidence i.e. PW.6, he examined PW.1 and found the following injuries :- A laceration injury on left forearm, A laceration injury on right leg contusion over the left and chest and as per X-ray report Ex.P.8, no bone injury. Certainly, there are inconsistent version in respect of injuries received by PW.1 and the medical evidence PW.6. When there is inconsistent and omission with regard to the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, the evidence of PW.1 does not inspires confidence in the mind of the Court with respect to the injuries received by PW.1.

The another injured i.e. PW.3 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution in any manner. The another injured witness i.e. LW.5 A.G. Nirmala, but the prosecution has failed to examined the LW.5.

19. As far as the involvement of the accused No.1 and 2 and the manner of the accident is concern, Pws.3 to 5 who are material witnesses to the incident have not spoken anything to this extent and they did not support the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PW.8 investigating officer categorically stated in his cross examination that there is no crime vehicle number and its details in the police report. Even though PW.8 investigating officer deposed about the accused, but basing on the sole testimony without any corroboration from any other material witnesses, his evidence cannot be taken into consideration.

20. On considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for 7 acquittal for the offences U/sec.338 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w.187 of Motor Vehicle Act.

21. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.338 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w.187 of Motor Vehicle Act and accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec.255 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 25th day of February, 2017.

Sd/- M. Sridhar,

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa FAC of II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

I Class, Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: Witnesses examined for: For ProsecutionFor Defence: Nil.

PW.1: K. Ramana Reddy.

P.W.2: K. Nagarathnam.

P.W.3: Y. Kadiramma.

P.W.4: D.Ranga Naik.

P.W.5: A. Kiran Kumar.

P.W.6: Dr. M.Madhusudhan Reddy.

P.W.7: Dr. S.Sudhakar.

P.W.8: N.Vara Prasad, S.I. of Police.

Exhibits marked for:-

Ex.P.1: Complaint of PW.1.

Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3.

Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4.

Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5.

Ex.P.5: Wound certificate of PW.3.

Ex.P.6: X-ray report.

Ex.P.7: Wound certificate of PW.1.

Ex.P.8: X-Ray report.

Ex.P.9: Wound certificate of LW.5 A.G. Nirmala.

8

Ex.P.10: Police intimation dt.09.7.2015.

Ex.P.11: First Information Report.

Ex.P.12: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Material objects marked:

-Nil -

Id/- M.S. III A.J.C.J., Kdp. FAC II A.J.M.F.C., Kdp 9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by the II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I class, Kadapa

Date of offence:08-07-2015 Date of report:08-07-2015 Date of apprehension of accused:09-05-2015 Date of release of accused:09-05-2015 Date of commencement of trial:25-02-2016 Date of close of trial:15-02-2015 Date of Judgment:25-02-2017

Calendar and judgment in C.C.No. 127 of 2016 on the file of II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I class, Kadapa.

Complainant:- State: Rep. By Sub inspector of Police, Traffic Police Station

Name of the accused with Age calling Religion Residence Father’s name 1.Mogili Harshavardhan, S/o Nagabhushanam, D.No. 1/1666,Kandhipalem, YM Palli,YSR District.

2. V. Rajesh Kumar, S/o Sadhu Sundhar, D.No. 43-193, Prakash Nagar, Kadapa City.

Offence:- u/ss. 338 of IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) r/w 187 of Motor Vehicle

Act.

Finding:- Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 338 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.134 (a) and (b) r/w 187 of Motor Vehicle Act and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.255 (1) of

Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over.

Sd/- M. Sridhar,

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, FAC.II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Kadapa Dis.No……………………Dt. …………..

10

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KADAPA.

Present: Sri M. Sridhar, B.L, III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, FAC of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Tuesday, this the 04 th day of April, 2017

C.C.No.255 of 2015

Obulareddy Raghunath Reddy, Son of Ramasubba Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Hindu, Business, Residing at Bayanapalle village, Kamalapuram Mandal, Now residing at Balaji Nagar, Kadapa city, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. … Complainant.

Vs.

Andluru Nagamuni Reddy, Son of A.Nagaraja Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Hindu, Assistant Manager, Depot Parking Plant, Bharathi Cements, Residing at C-8/21, Bharathi Cement Colony, Nallingayapalli village and post, Kamalapuram Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. … Accused.

This case coming on 03-04-2017, for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.

Rami Reddy, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri G.V. Kalyana Reddy,

Advocate for the accused, after hearing on both sides, upon perusing the record and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

This is a private complaint U/sec.200 of Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable U/secs.138 and 142 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act.

02. The brief facts of the private complaint are as follows;-

The complainant and accused are the friends, due to that acquaintance, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as hand loan from the complainant for the purpose of his family necessities and agreeing to repay the same within 10 days. Inspite of several repeated demands made by the complainant, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.885076 dt.01.6.2015 for Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of complainant for discharging the above said hand loan in his drawee bank namely 2

State Bank of India, Kamalapuram Branch. The complainant presented the said cheque in his drawer bank i.e. Andhra Bank, Kadapa Branch for collection, but the said cheque was bounced and intimated the same to the complainant on 17.6.2015 stating that 'Funds Insufficient'. Knowing fully well that the funds are insufficient in the account of the accused, the accused issued the said cheque deliberately and cheated the complainant and the said debt is legally enforceable debt. Then the complainant issued legal notice dt.30.6.2015 to the accused calling him to repay the amount for the above dishonored cheque within 15 days and the same was served on the accused on 03.7.2015, but the accused did not give reply or to repay the said cheque amount and thereby the accused committed the offence and liable to be prosecuted under Sec.138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

03. The case was taken on file for the offence U/sec.138 r/w. Sec.142 of

Negotiable Instrument Act against the accused.

04. On appearance of the accused, the copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as required U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C..

05. The accused was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C., and the substance of accusation of accused for the offence U/sec.138 r/w.Sec.142 of Negotiable 

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

06. During the course of trial, the complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.4.

07. After closure of the complainant side evidence, the accused was examined

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material available against the accused, for which, he denied the same and reported defence evidence on his behalf.

Later the accused reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

3

08. Heard both sides. The counsel for the complainant filed written arguments and submitted that by examining PW.1 and marking of original cheque

Ex.P.1 and returned memo Ex.P.2, they could establish that the cheque was issued by the accused towards legally enforceable debt under Ex.P.1 and the said Ex.P.1 cheque was dishonored due to 'Funds Insufficient' and also submitted that the accused knowing fully well that there was no sufficient funds in his account, issued

Ex.P.1 cheque to the complainant and hence the act of the accused clearly attracts the offence U/sec.138 r/w. Sec.142 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

09. The learned counsel for the defence also filed written arguments and submitted that the accused has not borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant as a hand loan. He further submitted that the accused having chit and money transaction with one O.Nageswara Reddy who is no other than the brother of complainant and that the O.Nageswara Reddy obtained blank signed cheque as security purpose towards chit transactions and due to disputes between the accused and brother of the complainant, the cheque was filed through the complainant and the complainant foisted a false case against him for unlawful gain and prayed the

Court to acquit the accused.

10. Now the point for determination are:-“ (i) Whether the complainant has followed all the statutory requirements ? and

(ii) Whether the Ex.P.1 cheque was issued by the accused for discharging of the legally enforceable debt ?

11. To substantiate his case, the complainant himself examined as PW.1 and

Ex.P.1 to P.4 are got marked. According to the complainant, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from him as hand loan and promised to repay the same within 10 days, but the accused failed to repay the said amount to the complainant, 4 on repeated demands made by the complainant, the accused issued a cheque bearing

No.885076 for Rs.5,00,000/- on 01.6.2015 under Ex.P.1 and the same was presented by the complainant through his bank i.e. Andhra Bank, Kadapa, the Bank Manager has returned the cheque along with the memo i.e. Ex.P.2 stating that 'Funds

Insufficient' in the account of accused. After that the complainant got issued a legal notice under Ex.P.3 dt.30.6.2015 by demanding the accused to pay the amount within 15 days and though the accused received the same under Ex.P.4, neither gave reply nor paid the cheque amount within stipulated time of 15 days, thus the accused willfully committed the offence punishable U/sec.138 and 142 of

Negotiable Instrument Act.

12. On perusing the documents i.e. Ex.P.1 to P.4, the complainant has followed all the mandatory requirements as prescribed U/sec.138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act. Therefore, by examining the complainant as PW.1 and marking documents, the complainant has established its legal requirements as envisaged

U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The complainant was cross examined by the defence counsel at length and put some suggestions that the accused had given

Ex.P.1 blank signed cheque to his brother Nageswar Reddy in a chit transaction and the Ex.P.1 cheque was not issued for discharge of legal enforceable debt and the accused did not issue Ex.P.1 filled up cheque to him, but it were completely denied by the complainant. No adverse inference can be drawn, as no favourable material was elicited in favour of accused by those suggestions and it were completely denied by the complainant. Therefore, now the burden is on the accused to disprove the case of the complainant.

13. In order to disprove the case of the complainant, the accused has not chosen to enter into the witness box to rebut the presumption. It is for the accused 5 to enter into the witness box to rebut the presumption that he has not issued cheque

Ex.P.1 for legal enforceable debt. The main contention of the accused is that he gave blank signed cheque to the brother of complainant by name O.Nageswara

Reddy for security purpose towards chit transactions and due to the disputes arose in between himself and brother of complainant, the said cheque was filed through complainant and foisted a false case against him. Except in cross examination, the accused has not chosen to enter into the witness box to rebut such a presumption.

Had really, there was a chit transaction in between the accused and O.Nageswara

Reddy, the same would have been established by the accused by adducing proper evidence, but the accused has not turn up and not adduce his part of evidence before this Court.

14. Apart from that the accused must have established that the cheque was issued in favour of O.Nageswara Reddy during the course of chit transaction, but the accused has not placed any material to show that the cheque was issued in favour of O.Nageswara Reddy, but not in favour of complainant and the said cheque was misused by the complainant with the collusion of his brother O.Nageswara

Reddy. When the burden shifted on the accused, he must have rebut the same by adducing proper evidence, but the accused has not turn up to enter into the witness box and not adduced his part of evidence on his behalf.

15. The another defence taken by the accused is that the complainant has not accounted for the cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and he has not filed any bank statements. The learned counsel for the accused also filed decisions which are reported in 2007 (2) ALD (Crl.) Page No.420 (AP), and 2010 (1) ALD (Crl.) (NOC) 3 Bombay High Court. But the above said rulings are not applicable to the present case on hand, as the accused did not enter into the witness box to rebut the 6 presumption that he has not issued cheque Ex.P.1 for legal enforceable debt and the accused has not adduced any evidence before the Court in support of his contention and no piece of documents is filed before the Court.

17. It is also the plea of the accused is that though he signed, but the blank cheque was got filled up by the complainant with the collusion of his brother

O.Nageswara Reddy. At this juncture, it is apt to place a decision of Hon'ble

Supreme Court reported in 1999 SCC (Crl.) 1284 in para No.9,

Wherein the Lordship held that “As the signature in the cheque is admitted to that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in Sec.118 of the Act can legally be inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears. The burden was on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption.”

In the present case on hand, there is no dispute from the accused with regard to signatures on the cheque and also not in dispute from the accused with regard to presentation of the cheque in the bank and its return with 'Funds Insufficient'. The complainant also filed return memo issued by the Andhra Bank, Kadapa under

Ex.P.2 which shows that the cheque was returned as 'Funds Insufficient'. As seen from the record, the legal notice was issued by the complainant on 30.6.2015 under

Ex.P.3 and the accused received the same on 03.7.2015 under Ex.P.5 served postal acknowledgment. In the present case also, there is no denial from the accused with regard to the receipt of the legal notice. Therefore, in the absence of such denial and suggestions, it can be safely held that the accused received the legal notice from the complainant and he has not issued reply notice. Therefore, the complainant has followed all the mandatory requirements as required U/sec.138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act and in support of the same Ex.P.1 to P.4 marked and there is no 7 dispute from the accused with regard to the signatures in the cheque Ex.P.1.

Accordingly, the complainant has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/sec.138 r/w.Sec.142 of Negotiable Instrument

Act.

18. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec.138 r/w.Sec.142 of Negotiable Instrument Act and accordingly, he is convicted U/sec.255 (2) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 04th day of April, 2017.

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa FAC of II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

I Class, Kadapa.

19. When questioned the accused with regard to the quantum of sentence, the accused stated that he is having wife, small children and old aged parents and he is sole bread winner to his family and requested to show mercy. By taking into consideration, the submission of accused and nature of offence and involvement of amount, it is not a fit case to take any lenient view by extending any benefit under

P.O. Act.

20. Hence, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The accused was informed about his right of appeal.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 04th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- M. Sridhar,

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa FAC of II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

I Class, Kadapa.

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses examined for:

For Complainant:For Defence:

P.W.1: O. Raghunath Reddy. - Nil -

Exhibits marked for:-

For Complainant:

Ex.P.1: Original cheque bearing No.885076 dt.01.6.2015 for Rs.5,00,000/-.

Ex.P.2: Cheque return memo issued by the Andhra Bank, Kadapa dt.17.6.2015.

Ex.P.3: Office copy of legal notice dt.30.6.2015 along with postal receipts.

Ex.P.4: Served postal acknowledgment.

For Defence: - Nil -

Id/- M.S. III A.J.C.J., Kdp. FAC II A.J.F.C.M., Kdp.

9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of cases tried by the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Cl ass, Kadapa

Date of ______________________________________________________________________ Offence Report Apprehen- Release Commence- Close Judgment Sion of on bail ment of of accused trial trial 01.6.2015 10.8.2015 --- – 08.7.2016 04.1.2017 04.4.2017

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.255/2015 on the file of II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Name of the Complainant: Obulareddy Raghunath Reddy, Son of Ramasubba Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Hindu, Business, Residing at Bayanapalle village, Kamalapuram Mandal, Now residing at Balaji Nagar, Kadapa city, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh.

Name of the Accused:- Andluru Nagamuni Reddy, Son of A.Nagaraja Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Hindu, Assistant Manager, Depot Parking Plant, Bharathi Cements, Residing at C-8/21, Bharathi Cement Colony, Nallingayapalli village and post, Kamalapuram Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District.

Offence: U/sec.138 r/w.Sec.142 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

Finding: The Accused is found guilty for the offence U/sec.138 r/w.Sec.142 of Negotiable

Instrument Act.

Sentence: The accused is convicted U/sec.255 (2) Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

Sd/- M. Sridhar,

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa FAC of II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Copy to the Hon’ble I Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

Dis.No. Dt.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : KADAPA

Present: Sri M. Sridhar, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa,

Wednesday, this the 25thday of April, 2018

O.S.No. 705 of 2017

S. Sajida Begum. …. Plaintiff.

Vs.

Amasagandla Bhaskaraiah. … Defendant.

This suit is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. Masthan Valli, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant called absent and remained set exparte, upon perused the records, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the follows:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.1,54,800/- being the principal and interest due on two promissory notes dated 02.08.2014 and 22.08.2014 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.60,000/- and 30,000/-, agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% per annum with future interest and for costs of the suit.

02. Despite of giving sufficient opportunity, the defendant did not appear

before this Court and hence he was set exparte.

03. In support of her case, the plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A4 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff.

04. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material on record.

05. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as prayed for ?

06. POINT:- The plaintiff states that the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.60,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- on 02.08.2014 and dt.22.08.2014 from the plaintiff for his family expenses, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, and executed two promissory notes under Ex.A.1 and Ex.A2 in her favour. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the debts due by him and postponing the same on one pretext or other. Finally the plaintiff got issued legal notice, dt.26.07.2017 under Ex.A3 calling upon the 2 defendant to discharge the debt due by him but the defendant failed to discharge the same. Hence, having no option the plaintiff filed the suit. In her chief examination, the plaintiff as P.W.1 reiterated the contents of plaint. On perusal of

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A4 coupled with the oral evidence of P.W.1 establishes the claim of the plaintiff.

07. As the defendant fails to rebut the evidence of plaintiff and it goes to show that the plaintiff established her case for the relief sought for and in the said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has good case for grant of recover of the suit amount against the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for recover of the suit amount as prayed for.

08. In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,54,800/- together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree and with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of passing of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.60,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- respectively.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 25th day of April, 2018.

Sd/- M.Sridhar.,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADAPA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT: Exparte

P.W.1: S. Sajida Begum.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1: Original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dt.02.08.2014.

Ex.A.2: Original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dt.22.08.2014.

Ex.A.3: Office copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant dt.26.07.2017

Ex.A.4: Postal receipt.

Sd/- M.S.,

P.J.C.J., Kdp.

Plaint presented on:02.08.2017 Plaint fled on:29.11.2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : KADAPA

Present: Sri M. Sridhar, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa,

Wednesday, this the 25thday of April, 2018

O.S.No. 705 of 2017

S. Sajida Begum, W/o. S. Chand Basha, aged 39 years, Muslim, R/at

D.No.2/483, Beldari Street, Nagarajupeta, Kadapa City, Kadapa District.

…. Plaintif.

Vs.

Amasagandla Bhaskaraiah, S/o A. Daveedu, aged 45 years, Hindu, working as a Teacher in Elementary School at Dadireddy Palli Village,

Kamalapuram Mandal, Kadapa District, R/at D.No.4/152, Pedda Cheppali

Village, Kamalapuram Mandal, Kadapa District.

… Defendant.

This is a suit fled for recovery of Rs.1,54,800/- being the

principal and interest due on two promissory notes dated 02.08.2014 and

22.08.2014 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for

Rs.60,000/- and 30,000/-, agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% per annum with future interest and for costs of the suit.

The value of the suit on two promissory notes is Rs.1,54,800/- on it a court fee on two promissory notes is Rs.3526 + 2466= 5992/- is paid U/Sec 20 of APCF and SV Act.

This suit is coming on this day for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. Masthan Valli, Advocate for the plaintif and the defendant called absent and remained set exparte, upon perused the records, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court doth order and decree are as follows:

1. That the defendant do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.1,54,800/- together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit i.e.,2.08.2017 till the date of decree and with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of passing of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.60,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- respectively.

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.9,281/- being the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 25th day of April, 2018.

Sd/- M.Sridhar.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kadapa.

Memorandum of Costs:

PlaintifDefendant Rs.Rs. Stamps on Plaint (C.F.)5992/---

Vakalat2/---

Stamps on B. Memos65/-Exparte

Publication charges----

Typing charges50/---

Advocate’s fee3172/---

Total:Rs.9,281/- NIL

Sd/- M.S.,

P.J.C.J.,

KDP.

Note: The parties shall apply as soon as possible for return of all the documents which they may wish to preserve, as all the documents will be destroyed after three years from the date of decree.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KADAPA.

Present: Sri M. Sridhar, B.L, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa

Tuesday, this the 24 th day of April, 2018

O.S.No. 642 of 2017

A. Venkata Lakshmi @ Devi.

. . . Plaintiff.

Vs.

G. Ragamma.

. . . Defendant.

This suit coming on this day before me for disposal in the presence of Sri

V. Dharma Kumar, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant set exparte and upon perusing the records after hearing on plaintiff side having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

::JUDGMENT::

This suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,75,819/- based on a promissory note,dt13.04.2013 said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- and for cost of the suit.

02. Despite of giving sufficient opportunity, the defendant did not appear

before this Court and hence she was set exparte.

03. In support of her case, the plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and

Ex.A.1 to A4 got marked on behalf of the plaintiff.

04. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material on record.

05. Now the point for consideration is:

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

06. POINT:- The plaintiff who herself examined as PW1 in her evidence she deposed that the defendant on 13.04.2013 borrowed an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- from her for defendant family necessities, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24 % per annum either to the plaintiff or on her order on demand and the defendant executed a promissory note, dt.13.04.2013 under Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff. Later on 01.11.2015 the defendant paid Rs.10,000/- under part payment i.e.,

Ex.A2 towards interest of the borrowed principal amount and the same was endorsed on the back side of Ex.A1. Thereafter, on the repeated demands made by the Plaintiff, the defendant failed to discharge the debt due by her. Finally, the plaintiff issued legal notice, dt.04.08.2017 under Ex.A3 calling upon the defendant to discharge the debt due under Ex.A1 but the defendant failed to the comply the same. Hence, having no option the plaintiff obliged to file the suit. Hence, the suit. In her chief examination, the 2 plaintiff as P.W.1 reiterated the contents of plaint. On perusal of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A4 coupled with the oral evidence of P.W.1 establishes the claim of the plaintiff.

07. As the defendant fails to rebut the evidence of plaintiff and it goes to show that the plaintiff established her case for the relief sought for and in the said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has good case for grant of recover of the suit amount against the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for recover of the suit amount as prayed for.

08. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,75,819/- to the plaintiff together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree and with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of passing of decree till the date of realization on the balance principal sum of

Rs.1,30,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 24 th day of April, 2018.

Sd/- M. Sridhar.,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADAPA.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff:- Defendant: Exparte. P.W.1 : A. Venkata Lakshmi @ Devi.

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A1 Original suit promissory note, dt.13.04.2013 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-.

Ex.A2 Endorsement, dt.01.11.2015 on backside of promissory note, dt.13.04.2013.

Ex.A3 Office copy of legal notice, dt.04.08.2017.

Ex.A4 Postal Acknowledgment.

Sd/- M.S.,

P.J.C.J.,

Kdp.

Plaint presented on :20.10.2017 Plaint fled on:3.11.2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KADAPA.

Present: Sri M. Sridhar, B.L, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa

Tuesday, this the 24 th day of April, 2018

O.S.No. 642 of 2017

Akula Venkata Lakshmi @ Devi, W/o. T. Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 43 years, resident of D.No.41/833, Shankara Puram, Kadapa.

. . . Plaintif.

Vs.

Gopala Ragamma, W/o. G. Sriramulu, 4th class employee, Kadapa

Corporation, Kadapa city, residing at D.No.20/193, Akula Veedhi, Kadapa.

. . . Defendant.

This suit is fled for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,75,819/- based on a promissory note,dt.13.04.2013 said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- and for cost of the suit.

The value of the suit on a promissory note is Rs.2,75,819/- on it a court fee 5226/- is paid U/Sec 20 of APCF and SV Act.

This suit coming on this day before me for disposal in the presence of Sri V. Dharma Kumar, Advocate for plaintif and defendant set exparte and upon perusing the records after hearing on plaintif side having stood over for consideration till this day, the court doth order and decree are as follows:

1. That the defendant do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.2,75,819/- to the plaintif together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit i.e., 20.10.2017 till the date of decree and with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of passing of decree till the date of realization on the balance principal sum of Rs.1,30,000/-.

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.10,325/- being the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 24th day of April, 2018.

Sd/- M.Sridhar.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kadapa.

Memorandum of Costs:

PlaintifDefendant Rs.Rs. Stamps on Plaint (C.F.)5226/---

Vakalat2/---

Stamps on B. Memos60/-Exparte

Publication charges----

Typing charges50/---

Advocate’s fee4987/---

Total:Rs.10,325/- NIL

Sd/- M.S.,

P.J.C.J.,

KDP.

Note: The parties shall apply as soon as possible for return of all the documents which they may wish to preserve, as all the documents will be destroyed after three years from the date of decree.