Sri M.Subbarao

// 1 //

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE: ALAMURU.

Present:- Sri M.Subbarao, Judl. First Class Magistrate, Alamuru

Tuesday, this the 24th day of April, 2018

C.C.No.498/2017

Between:- State Represented by Proh., & Excise Sub-Inspector of Police,

Alamuru P.S. .... Complainant

And

Kudipudi Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o.Surya Narayana, 50yrs, C/Settibalija,

r/o.Alamuru village .... Accused

This case coming on 23-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned A.P.P. for Prosecution and Sri Sk.Shareef, Advocate for accused and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The Proh. & Excise Sub Inspector of Police, Alamuru P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused U/sec 8(b) (1) of A.P. Proh. Act, 1995 with the following allegations:

(i) The case of prosecution in brief that on 30-04-2014 at about 06.00 p.m.,

LW.1 along with staff while conducting patrolling for Proh. & Excise offences in

Alamuru village found the accused in possession of mica hand bag. On seeing the raid party he tried to escape from scene of offence. Then The LW1 stopped him with the help of staff and he LW.1 tried secure mediators by sent LW.2 into the village but nobody came forward. Then he got opened the bag and found

Bagpiper Whisky 180ml - 4 bottles, Power Star Whisky – 180ml- 5 bottles, total 9 bottles. On enquiry, he furnished address particulars as accused and confessed that he purchased the same in different four shops and in order to selling at higher price in his village, for his livelihood. All the bottles found duty paid liquor bottles with company seals and capsules. Then LW1 explained about the offence and LW1 arrested the accused and seized the property taken one bottle as samples for chemical analysis, duly sealed and affixed identity slips duly signed by LW’s and accused, to the entire property and samples under the cover of special report drafted at the scene of offence as nobody is available to act as mediators.

(ii) The LW1 registered the case in Cr.No.28/2014-15 U/Sec.8(b) (1) of A.P.

Proh. Act 1995. The LW1 sent samples to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada for chemical analysis. The Chemical Examiner analyzed the samples opined under // 2 //

C.E.No.768/2014, dt.06-06-2014 that the samples in S.No.12383 & 12384 are “Indian Made Liquor”. The remaining property was produced before the Deputy

Commissioner, Proh., & Excise, Kakinada for confiscation to the state. Hence the charge.

2. On perusing the material on hand cognizance is taken against the accused for the offence U/sec.8 (b) (1) of A.P Proh. Act.

3. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents furnished on accused as required U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter he was examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C. In which he denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove the guilty of the accused prosecution examined P.W.1 and marked EX.P1 to Ex.P4 and MO.1.

Ex.P1 is the Special Report, Ex.P2 is the Original FIR, Ex.P3 is the letter of advice, Ex.P4 is the analysis report.

MO.1 is the sample bottles.

5. After closing of prosecution evidence the examination of accused

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the entire evidence of the prosecution and reported the no defence.

6. Heard both sides and perused the records:

7. Now point for determination:

Whether the prosecution proved the case against accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec. 8 (b) (1) of A.P Proh. Act,1995 ?

8. It is the case of prosecution is that on 30-04-2014 at about 06-00 pm,

PW.1 went along with his staff at Alamuru village and at that place he found the accused along with possession of total 9 duty paid bottles i.e., Bagpiper Whisky 180ml-4 bottles and 999 Power Star Whisky 180ml – 5 bottles in a mica hand bag. The PW1 detained him with the help of staff, and asked about his I.D.

Particulars. The accused stated that he purchased the said liquor bottles from four different shops at lower price, in order to selling at higher price for his livelihood. Then PW1 arrested the accused and seized the property and took two bottles as samples for chemical analysis and brought the accused to the

Police station and the PW1 registered the case in Cr.No.28/2014-15,

U/Sec.8(b)(1) of A.P Proh. Act, 1995. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet.

// 3 //

9. For proving the case of prosecution, LW.1 was examined as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and MO.1 and the defence counsel did not examined any witnesses, except availing the opportunity to cross examine of prosecution witnesses. The evidence of LW.2 and LW.3 given up by the Learned APP. The

PW1 deposed his evidence as that of the contents mentioned in charge sheet.

10. In cross examination by the defence counsel the PW1 clearly admitted that the scene of offence is situated in busy area and they had not issue any written requisition to the mediators and also clearly admitted that the details of the persons who were requested to act as mediators were not mentioned in

Ex.P1 report. Further admitted that the description of the sample bottle also not mentioned in the Ex.P1 report.

11. The PW1 is denied the suggestion made by defence counsel that they are not try to secure the mediators, but for proving the same there is no material available in the case record. The PW1 said that they are try to secure the presence of mediator, but no one came forward to act as mediators, but for proving the said statement they did not issue any written summons for search and seizure of the contraband. PW.1 also admitted that he did not issue any written requisition to other persons for acting as mediators.

12. It is mandatory U/Sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C it stated that before making of search the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent witnesses and the respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. As per Sec.100 (4) it is the duty of investigation officer shall secure at least two inhabitants as mediators to witness is search and seizure. It is the reveal from the evidence of PW1 that he deputation the constable for securing mediators except that PW1 not issued any written summons to anybody to act as mediators.

13. Thus the seized contraband i.e., MO1 sample bottles taken as samples from each variety and seized in the absence of local inhabitants. It is the evidence of PW1 that the accused confessed before them that the said bottles as samples from each variety. But the alleged confession of accused before excise police is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The said confession made by accused to the Police i.e., PW1 is hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act.

// 4 //

Hence alleged confession can not be use against the accused as such the alleged special report cannot be relied upon. In this case the PW1 admitted that he did not mention the description of the sample bottles in Ex.P1 report. So there are some lapses in the investigation of PW1 in this case.

14. In this case the PW1 himself is a complainant and himself investigated this case and Lw.3 filed charge sheet in this case after receiving of analysis report and after verification only and it is a well established principle of Law that the person who is complainant in a case should not be allowed as investigation officer. In such case the investigation certainly prejudices to the accused and impartial investigation is doubtful. Here it is clear from the record that entire proceedings in this case were taken up by PW1 alone himself and PW1 detected the offence, seized the contraband, drawn the sample, prepared the occurrence report and arrested the accused herein and sent sample bottle to analysis and except filing of charge sheet. Lw.3 verified the records only for filing of charge sheet. In such circumstances impartial investigation by the complaint is doubtful.

15. Though the Ex.P4 discloses that the samples are Indian Made Liquor, unless the recovery of contraband from the possession of the accused is proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the same is not served any purpose and also no way helpful to the prosecution case. In the circumstances, there is no hesitation to say that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the links of the prosecution case are found missing and the prosecution story fall short of the test of reliability, acceptability and probability.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.8(b)(1) of A.P. Proh. Act, 1995 and he is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The accused is set at liberty. MO1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the accused as well as his sureties shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2018.

Sd/- M.Subbarao

J.F.C. MAGISTRATE,

ALAMURU.

// 5 //

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution :- For Accused :-

P.W.1: 17-04-2018: B.Srinivasa Rao, SI of Police None

Exhibits marked :-

For Prosecution :- For Accused:-

Ex.P1 is Special Report Nil

Ex.P2 is original FIR

Ex.P3 is Letter of advice

Ex.P4 is Chemical analysis report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: is the Sample bottles

Sd/-M.Subbarao

J.F.C. MAGISTRATE,

ALAMURU.

// 6 //

ABSTRACT: EAST GODAVARI

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

CALENDER CASES TRIED BY SRI M.SUBBARAO.

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE: ALAMURU

C.C.No.498/2017

Date of Offence : 30-04-2014 Complaint : 30-04-2014 1st Appearance of the accused : 30-01-2018 Released on bail : 30-04-2014

Commencement of trial : 17-04-2018 Closure of Trial : 17-04-2018 Sentence or Order : 24-04-2018 Explanation for delay : ----

Name of the complainant: State Represented by Proh., & Excise Sub-Inspector of Police, Alamuru P.S.

Name of accused: Kudipudi Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o.Surya Narayana, 50yrs, C/Settibalija, r/o.Alamuru village

Nature of offence : Under Sec.8(b)(1) of A.P Proh. Act, 1995

Plea of accused : Not guilty

Finding : Not Guilty

ORDER:-

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.8 (b) (1) of A.P. Proh. Act, 1995 and he is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The accused is set at liberty. MO1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the accused as well as his sureties shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- M.Subbarao

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Senior

Civil Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::ALAMURU::

PRESENT: - Sri M.Subba Rao, Junior Civil Judge.

Thursday, this the 26th day of April, 2018

O.S.No.51/2018

Between: - Kolla Kanaka Durga, W/o.Janardhana Rao(late), 60yrs, D.No.34-13-27/1, 26th ward,

Gandhinagar, Mandapeta .... Plaintiff.

And

1.Gadu Satyanarayana, S/o.Suryarao, 50yrs, Ex.Counselor, Saidula peta, Mandapeta 2.Vinjarapu Siva Kumar, S/o.Veerabrahmam, 30yrs, Press reporter, Gold Shops Street, Mandapeta ….Defendants

This suit is coming before me on this day in the presence of Sri J.Satyanarayana, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants are being set exparte, and upon hearing and perusing the material available on record, and as the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendants praying to pass a decree and Judgment in favour of plaintiff (a) to grant Permanent

Injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2, their men, agents, servants, successors or any one in any manner of right not to interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff‟s plaint schedule property (b) to award costs of the suit, and (C) to grant such other reliefs.

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

The plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property and originally the plaint schedule property belongs to one Kolla Krupavarao who is the brother of plaintiff‟s husband. The said Kolla Krupavarao and husband of plaintiff by name Kolla Janardhanarao are entered into execution of convertibility of their properties on 10-04-2010 and then plaintiff‟s husband

Kolla Janardhanarao and his brother Kolla Kruparao are executed convertibility deed on the even date i.e., on 10-04-2010 which was duly registered in the

Sub-Registrar of Mandapeta vide Docu.No.1111/2010 and as per the recitals of

Convertibility deed the „B‟ marked property was fell to the share of plaintiff‟s husband by name Kolla Janardhanarao. The plaintiff‟s husband put into possession and enjoying the same along with plaintiff and his children.

While being so, in the year 2011 A.P. Housing Corporation sanctioned house loan in favour of plaintiff and then the plaintiff constructed house in the 2 plaint schedule property along with her family and enjoying the same with peaceful right and title. Unfortunately the husband of plaintiff died on 08-11- 2016 leaving behind the plaintiff and her children and the plaintiff father in law

Kolla Venkanna died on 22-07-2002 and plaintiff mother in law by name

Seethamma died on 05-12-2007.

The plaintiff further submit that in the month of December, 2017 the plaintiff appears to construct up stair portion on the building with the help her children. While constructing up stair portion, at that time the 2nd defendant is captured a photo of plaintiff‟s house and threatened the plaintiff demanding to give Rs.1,00,000/- and instructed to come his paper office, otherwise he will stop the building work and dismantled the house and also stated that he is assistant of 1st defendant and threatened dire consequences that kill to all family members of plaintiff not having any right and title. Then she informed the same to the Municipal Authorities and also gave a report to the Mandapeta

Town P.S. and it was registered a Cr.No.2/2018, dt.4-1-2018. Thereafter also the defendants threatened her day by day to give Rs.1,00,000/- even or otherwise they will stop the building work and also dismantled the house.

Hence the plaintiff has no other go to file the suit. Hence the suit.

3. This court issued summons to defendants, and the same were received by them and they failed to appear before this court to contest the matter, as such they were set exparte.

4. During the course of trial, the plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.8 on her behalf.

5. P.W.1 in her affidavit of chief examination reiterated same facts of her plaint. In support of her pleadings she also got marked Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.8 documentary evidence.

6. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property and originally the plaint schedule property was devolved upon her husband under convertibility deed, dt.10-04-2010 „B‟ schedule property devolved to him and since then her husband had been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. While being so, her husband died on 08-11-2016 leaving behind the plaintiff and her children.

Since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by paying taxes to the government. In the month of

December, 2017 the plaintiff try to construct up stair portion on the building with the help of her children. For proving her version, she also got marked

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8. Ex.A1 :Convertible deed, dt.19-04-2010 in between the plaintiff‟s husband Kolla janardhanarao and his brother Kruparao, 3

Ex.A2:Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.2/18 dt.4-1-18 against the defendants 1 and 2 issued by Mandapeta Town Police, Ex.A3:Death certificate of Kolla

Venkanna, Ex.A4:Death Certificate of Kolla Seethamma, Ex.A5:Death certificate of Kolla Janarthanarao, Ex.A6:Two Digital Photos, Ex.A7:House tax receipts,

Ex.A8:Electricity bills in respect of plaint schedule property.

7. At the time of construction of up stair building, the 2nd defendant is captured a photo of plaintiff‟s house and threatened the plaintiff demanding to give Rs.1,00,000/- and instructed to come his paper office, otherwise he will stop the building work and dismantled the house and also stated that he is assistant of 1st defendant and threatened dire consequences that kill to all family members of plaintiff not having any right and title. In order to disprove the same, the defendants failed to appear before this court to contest the matter, as such they were remained set exparte and the evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.8 clearly established the case of Plaintiff. In view of my above analysis and discussion, it can be safely concluded that the Plaintiff has clinchingly proved her case and claim and her possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule by virtue of her evidence and by virtue of her documentary evidence against defendants.

8. Hence In the result, the suit is decreed by granting Permanent

Injunction by restraining the defendants 1 and 2 and their men, agents, servants, successors or any one in any manner of right not to interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff‟s over the plaint schedule property. However in the circumstances of the case no costs are awarded.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 26th day of April, 2018.

Sd/- M.Subbarao

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALAMURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

P.W.1: 25-04-2018: Kolla Kanaka Durga None 4

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 :Convertible deed, dt.19-04-2010 in between the plaintiff‟s husband

Kolla janardhanarao and his brother Kruparao

Ex.A2:Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.2/18 dt.4-1-18 against the defendants 1 and 2 issued by Mandapeta Town Police

Ex.A3:Death certificate of Kolla Venkanna

Ex.A4:Death Certificate of Kolla Seethamma

Ex.A5:Death certificate of Kolla Janarthanarao

Ex.A6:Two Digital Photos

Ex.A7:House tax receipts

Ex.A8:Electricity bills in respect of plaint schedule property

For Defendants:

Nil

Sd/- M.Subbarao

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALAMURU.

5

Plaint presented on: 21-03-2018 Plaint filed on: 21-03-2018

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ALAMURU:

PRESENT: - Sri M.Subba Rao, Junior Civil Judge.

Thursday, this the 26th day of April, 2018

O.S.No.51/2018

Between: - Kolla Kanaka Durga, W/o.Janardhana Rao(late), 60yrs, D.No.34-13-27/1, 26th ward,

Gandhinagar, Mandapeta .... Plaintiff.

And

1.Gadu Satyanarayana, S/o.Suryarao, 50yrs, Ex.Counselor, Saidula peta, mandapeta 2.Vinjarapu Siva Kumar, S/o.Veerabrahmam, 30yrs, Press reporter, Gold Shops Street, Mandapeta ….Defendants

This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendants praying to pass a decree and Judgment in favour of plaintiff (a) to grant Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2, their men, agents, servants, successors or any one in any manner of right not to interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff‟s plaint schedule property (b) to award costs of the suit, and (C) to grant such other reliefs.

Cause of action for the suit arose originally the plaint schedule property was devolved upon her husband under convertibility deed, dt.10-04-2010 „B‟ schedule property devolved to him and since then her husband had been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. While being so, her husband died on 08-11-2016 leaving behind the plaintiff and her children.

Since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by paying taxes to the government. In the month of

December, 2017 the plaintiff try to construct up stair portion on the building with the help of her children and At the time of construction of up stair building, the 2nd defendant is captured a photo of plaintiff‟s house and threatened the plaintiff demanding to give Rs.1,00,000/- and instructed to come his paper office, otherwise he will stop the building work and dismantled the house and also stated that he is assistant of 1st defendant and threatened dire consequences that kill to all family members of plaintiff not having any right and title and at Mandapeta where the plaint schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this Hon‟ble Court.

6

Value of suit:-

The relief of Permanent Injunction to the plaint schedule property is valued at Rs.10,000/- On this a court fee of Rs.786/- is paid under section 29, Schedule-I, Article-I (c) of APCF & SV Act

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

J.Satyanarayana, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants are being set exparte, and upon hearing and perusing the material available on record, and as the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this Court doth

ORDER AND DECREE as follows:-

i)that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed without costs; ii)that the defendants 1 and 2, their men, agents, servants, successors or any one do hereby permanently restrained by way of

Permanent Injunction not to interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff‟s over the plaint schedule property.

iii)that each party do bear their own costs.

Copy of plaint Schedule Property is hereto attached.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court that the 26th day of April, 2018.

Sd/- M.Subbarao

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALAMURU.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

No costs memo is filed on either side.

Sd/- M.Subbarao

J.C.J.

“The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all

Exhibits/documents which they may wish to preserve as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from this date.”

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ALAMURU:

PRESENT: - Sri M.Subba Rao, Junior Civil Judge, Alamuru.

Tuesday, this the 24th day of April, 2018

O.S.49/2018

Between: Duppalapudi Venkata Raju, S/o.Sriramulu, 50yrs, Cultivation, Modukuru, Alamuru mandal Plaintiff

And

1.Angara Mangadevi, W/o.Ganesh, 30yrs, House wife, D.no.3-50, Angara, Kapileswarapuram mandal 2.Angara Satyvathi, W/o.Venkataramana, 60yrs, House wife, D.No.3-50, Angara, Kapileswarapuram mandal Defendants

This suit is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri SVVSN.Murthy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendants are called absent, remained set exparte and having been stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.61,540/- being the amount of principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 22-03-2015 executed by the deceased borrower i.e., Angara Ganesh together with interest and for costs.

2. The brief averments in the plaint are that the 1st defendant is wife, 2nd defendant is daughter of late Angara Ganesh. During the life time of Angara

Ganesh borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/- from the plaintiff on 22-03-2015 for the purpose of house construction by executing demand promissory note agreeing to repay the same with an interest of 18% per annum. Inspite of several oral demands by the plaintiff the deceased borrower during his life time failed to repay the said amount and procrastinating the same on one pretext or the other. Thereafter plaintiff came to know that the said Angara

Ganesh died intestate on leaving behind the defendants as his nearest legal heirs. Then the plaintiff approached the defendants 1 and 2 and requested them to discharge the debt. But, the defendants failed to repay the said debt and postponing the same. Hence the plaintiff got issued a Regd. Legal notice 2 to the defendants on 16-05-2017, but they did not pay any amount nor gave any reply to the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

3. Though the defendants received summons through this court, but they did not choose to appear before this court to contest the matter and they called absent. Hence the defendants were set exparte.

4. The plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A3. Plaintiff's counsel reported no further evidence.

5. Heard plaintiff's counsel. Perused the plaint and material part on record.

6. The plaintiff filed his chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and admitted the contents of the same on oath. Hence the same is treated as the chief examination of P.W.1 and through him Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 are marked. As seen from the Ex.A1, it appears that the husband of the 1st defendant Angara Ganesh borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/- by executing the demand promissory note dated 22-03-2015. The said Angara Ganesh died intestate leaving behind the defendants as his nearest legal heirs. As seen from the Ex.A2 it shows that the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants by demanding the repayment of debt due under Ex.A1 and as seen from the Ex.A3 it shows that the same was received by the defendants.

Though the defendants received summons through this court, but they did not choose to appear before this court to contest the matter and they were set exparte. It appears that they have no objection to pass a decree against the estate of the deceased for the suit amount. Hence, the testimony of

PW.1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A3 are remained unchallenged, uncontroverted and un-rebutted and established the suit claim and thus plaintiff claim is proved.

7. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed.

8. In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs for

Rs.61,540/- (Rupees sixty one thousand five hundred and forty only) against the estate of deceased Angara Ganesh which is in the hands of the defendants together with interest at 6% p.a., on the principal sum of 3

Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) from the date of suit till realization.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 24th day of April, 2018.

Sd/- M.Subbarao

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALAMURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For plaintiff: For Defendants:

P.W.1: Duppalapudi Venkataraju None (By way of affidavit)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiff:

Ex.A.1:Promissory Note executed by the late Angara Ganesh in favour of plaintiff, dated 22-03-2015

Ex.A.2:Regd. Legal Notice got issued to the defendants, dt.16-05-2017 Ex.A.3:Acknowledgments from the defendants

For Defendants: -- NIL –

Sd/- M.Subbarao

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALAMURU.

4

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ALAMURU:

PRESENT: - Sri M.Subba Rao, Junior Civil Judge, Alamuru.

Tuesday, this the 24th day of April, 2018

O.S.49/2018

Between: Duppalapudi Venkata Raju, S/o.Sriramulu, 50yrs,

Cultivation, Modukuru, Alamuru mandal Plaintiff

And

1.Angara Mangadevi, W/o.Ganesh, 30yrs, House wife, D.no.3-50, Angara, Kapileswarapuram mandal 2.Angara Satyvathi, W/o.Venkataramana, 60yrs, House wife, D.No.3-50, Angara, Kapileswarapuram mandal Defendants

This is a suit for recovery of Rs.61,540/- being the amount of principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 22-03-2015 executed by the deceased borrower i.e., Angara Ganesh together with interest and for costs.

Plaint presented on 20-03-2018 and filed on 20-03-2018

Value of suit:-

Amount borrowed under suit pronote dated 22-03-2015 :Rs.40,000.00

ADD : Interest @ 18% p.a. from 22-03-2015 :Rs.21,540.00 to 19-03-2018 ____________

TOTAL :Rs.61,540.00 ____________

A Court fee of Rs.2,626/- is paid as per section 20 Schedule I Article 1

(b) & (c ) of APCF and SV Act

Cause of action for the suit arose on 22-03-2015 when the late Angara Ganesh borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff and agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% p.a.. Later in spite of repeated demands made by the Plaintiff, the deceased Durgarao failed to repay the debt and dogged the matter and plaintiff came to know that the Durgarao died intestate leaving behind the defendants 1 and 2 and the defendants failed to repay the same and at Modukuru village where the suit transaction took place is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Contd..

5

This suit coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri SVVSN.Murthy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendants are called absent, remained set exparte and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows: 1.that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.61,540/- (Rupees sixty one thousand five hundred and forty only) from and out of the estate of the deceased Angara Ganesh which is in their hands, together with interest at 6% p.a., on the principal sum of

Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) from the date of suit till realization, 2.that the defendants do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,628/- towards institutional costs of the suit.

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

Sd/- M.Subbarao

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALAMURU.

Particulars of costs

For plaintiff:- For defendants:- No costs memo is filed. Institutional Costs: Stamp on vakalat.. Rs. 2-00 No costs memo is filed Do on plaint Rs. 2,626-00 ======== Costs allowed : Rs. 2,628-00 ========

Sd/- M.Subbarao

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALAMURU.

“The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all Exhibits/documents which they may wish to preserve as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from this date.”

In the Court of the Judl. First Class Magistrate :: Alamuru

Present: Sri M.Subbarao, Judl. First Class Magistrate

Thursday, this the 26th day of April, 2018

C.C.327/2017

Between:

Thathapudi Sudhir, S/o.Asirvadaham, 32yrs,

D.No.1-8-6, r/o.Mandapeta .. Complainant

And

Sayad Salman, S/o.Sayad Moulana, Musleem,

40yrs, D.No.34-24-66/1, Mandapeta .. Accused

This petition coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri

KVV.Sai Ram, Advocate for complainant and Sri B.Maheswararao, Advocate

for accused and on perusal of material papers on record and having stood

over for consideration till this day this court has delivered the following:-

DOCKET ORDER, DT.26-04-2018

As per memo filed by both counsels for accused this case is advanced from 01-05-2018 to this day. Both counsel filed a petition U/Sec.257 Cr.P.C.

stating that accused is paid Rs.1,25,000/- as full and final settlement and the same is received by complainant. Hence prays the Hon’ble court to withdraw the case and dismiss the case as not pressed. Petition is allowed.

Case is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 26th day of April,

2018.

Sd/- M.Subbarao

Judl. First Class Magistrate,

ALAMURU.

In the Court of :Principal Junior Civil Judge

Case No. :CC/0200434/2016 Ms.Dhana Lakshmi Poultry Complex Vs Shaik Shorab Ali

Date : 25-04-2018

Business: The matter is advanced to day as per memo filed by both parties and both parties also filed petition U/SEc.257 CR.P.c. stating that the matter is compromised and settled outside the court towords full and final settlement and the complainant is praying the court to with draw the case accordingly this case is dismissed as not pressed. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED

Sd/-

Junior civil Judge Alamuru