Smt.M.Sudha Rani

C.C. No.421 of 2021 1 PJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PITHAPURAM.

Present Smt.M.Sudha Rani

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram

Thursday, the 18th day of April, 2024

CALENDER CASE NO.421/2021

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Town Police Station. …Complainant

And

Yendapalli Suribabu, S/o.Kondarao, A/38 years, C/Kapu, Ulimeswaram Village, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. … Accused

This case is coming on 12.04.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant-State and of Sri K.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for the accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.Nos.130/2021, 145/2021 and 153/2021 on its file for the offence punishable under section 457, 380 or 411 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the charge-sheet are that the accused had involved in so many cases and he is an habitual offender, and that on the night of 13.06.2021, some unknown offenders gained entrance into the house of PW1 situated at

Viswamgari Layout, Pithapuram Township by broke open the lock of main doors and forcibly opened the wardrobe in the bed room and stolen away gold ornaments ie., 1) Gold bangles – 4, Wg., about 34 grams, 2) Gold ear studs (2 pairs) - 2 Wg., about 7 grams, 3) Silver bowl – 25 grams, 4) Silver Lamps – 2 – 6 Tulas (not stolen) and some cash and all worth of Rs.95,500/- during the temporary absence of PW1 and his wife and escaped with booty. On 14.06.2021

PW1 presented a report before Pithapuram Town P.S for the above commission of theft, and that PW6 received the report and registered the same as a case in

Crime No.130/2021 U/Section.457, 380 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, it came to light that silver lamps are not stolen and kept intact in the house of PW1.

C.C. No.421 of 2021 2 PJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

2(i) It is further averred in the charge-sheet that in between 30.06.2021 to 01.07.2021 in the night some unknown offenders gained entrance into the house of PW2 bearing D.No.4-3-102/D3, Lions Club Kalyana Mandapam Area,

Pithapuram, by broke open the lock of main doors and opened the wardrobe forcibly and stolen away 1) Silver plate – 1, 2) Sandalwood bowl – 1, 3) Small

Silver bowls – 3, 4) Old cell phones – 2 and escaped with booty during the temporary absence of inmates, and on that on 03.07.2021, PW2 presented a report before Pithapuram Town P.S, for the above commission of theft, and that

PW6 received the report and registered the same as a case in Crime

No.145/2021 U/Section.457, 380 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, it came to light that one silver plate, one old cell phone are not stolen and kept intact in the house of PW2.

2(ii) On the night of 09.07.2021 wherein some unknown offenders gained entrance into the house of PW3/Dasetti Kishore at Seethayyagari Thota,

Pithapuram by broke open the locks of main doors and opened the wardrobe and stolen away the gold rings-3 Wg., about 14 grams, Silver articles Wg., about 143 grams and some cash all are worth of Rs.41,000/- and escaped with booty during their temporary absence, and on that on 10.07.2021 night at about 8:00 P.M,

PW3 presented a report before Pithapuram Town P.S, for the above commission of theft, and that PW6 received the report and registered the same as a case in

Crime No.153/2021 U/Section.457, 380 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, it came to light that gold rings -2, gold papidibilla-1, gold ear studs one pair, gold chain are not stolen and kept intact in the house of PW3.

2(iii) During the course of investigation, PW6 visited the scene of offence in the above said three crimes, prepared rough sketches of the same, recorded the statements of the witnesses, and that on prior credible information, PW5 arrested the accused on 16.11.2021 at about 8:00 A.M, Near RTC Bus Stand,

Kakinada in the presence of two mediators ie., PW4, LW16/Atcha Appalaraju in

Crime No.No.108/2021 U/Sec.379 IPC (MO Auto Mobile -2 ) of II Town CCS,

Kakinada. Basing on the voluntary confession of accused, PW5 seized the stolen

C.C. No.421 of 2021 3 PJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

property from the possession of accused in the above said crimes under the cover of mediators report, and accused was brought to II Town CCS, Kakinada along with the seized property, and served notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C and released him on bail after obtaining bond from the accused, thereafter, on 19.11.2021, PW6 secured the accused and served notice under section 41-A

Cr.P.C to comply the same in Crime Nos.130/2021, 145/2021 and 153/2021

U/Sec.457, 380 IPC of Pithapuram Town P.S. On completion of entire investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

3. This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under

Section 457, 380 or 411 Indian Penal Code.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 Cr. P. C.

5. Accused was examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Charges under Section 457, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code are framed against the accused, read over and explained to accused in Telugu. Having heard and understanding the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In support of the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and

Exs.P1 to P10 are marked besides marking MO1 to MO11.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material available against him, for which he denied the same. Accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the oral and documentary evidence on record.

9. Now the point for determination is,

1.“Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 457 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. “Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 380 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

3. “Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

C.C. No.421 of 2021 4 PJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

10. POINT No.1 & 2 :

It is the evidence of PW1/Sappa Veera Suryanarayana that on 13.06.2021, they left to their daughters village in Pedapudi by put lock to their house, and on 14.06.2021 they returned to their house and found the locks of the house were broke open, and found that the almyrah was kept open and all the articles were in pell-mell condition, and found missing of 4 gold bangles, 2 pairs of gold ear hangings, 1 silver sandle bowl, 2 silver lamps and cash of Rs.50,000/-, and that some unknown offenders committed theft of their house, and then he gave report to police which was marked as Ex.P1, and after six months police informed that their stolen articles were recovered from the culprits and returned 4 Gold bangles - MO1, MO2 Silver kumkum barina, 2 pairs of gold ear hangings(MO3) as per the orders of Hon'ble Court.

During his cross-examination, he deposed that police examined after six months of Ex.P1. He admitted that he did not mention the descriptive particulars of MO1 to MO3 in Ex.P1, and that MO1 to MO3 were committed theft from their house and he had seen it in the court itself.

11. PW2/Dodla Ravi Kumar deposed that on 30.06.2021 he went to his in-law’s house in Vijayawada along with his family, and that on 02.07.2021 their neighbours made a phone call and informed him that the doors of their house were kept open and on 03.07.2021 they reached their house and found the locks of their house were broke open and the articles in the house were in pell-mell condition, and found missing of some silver articles from almyrah and cell phones, and then he gave report to police, which was marked as Ex.P2, and after three or four months police informed them that they recovered the stolen property from the culprits which were marked as MO4 Big silver cup, MO5

Small silver cups, MO6 MI cell phone, and he was examined by police.

During his cross-examination, he admitted that they did not mention the descriptive particulars of MO4 to MO6 in Ex.P2 and that MO4 and MO5 are available in the gold shops, and 3 or 4 months of Ex.P2 he identified MO4 & MO5

C.C. No.421 of 2021 5 PJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

at police station when the police called him.

12. PW3/Dasetti Kishore deposed that in July, 2021 he went to his in-law’s house and after two or three days he returned to his house and found the locks of the house were broke open, and found the household articles were in pell-mell condition and found missing of 5 gold rings, 1 silver bowl, 2 silver glasses, 2 silver kundulu, 1 silver spoon from the almyrah, and then he gave report to police which was marked as Ex.P3, and after three months police informed him that they recovered the stolen articles, and he had taken over the silver articles, 3 gold rings through court which were marked as MO7 to MO11 ie., 3 Gold

rings, One Silver spoon, Silver cup, 2 Silver Kundulu, 2 Silver glasses.

During his cross-examination, he admitted that clear particulars of MO7 to

MO11 in Ex.P3 and all the stolen articles were not returned to him, and that the articles like MO7 to MO7 available in the gold shop, and SI of Police handed over

MO7 to MO11 to him as per the orders of the court.

13. PW4/Palepu Parvathi, Village Revenue Officer, deposed that on 16.11.2021 at about 7:30 A.M, police called her to act as mediator for arrest of accused, and then she along with LW18/Atcha Appalaraju accompanied the SI of Police and his staff to the scene of offence ie., RTC Bus Stand, Recharlapeta, there they found a person trying to escape on seeing the police by reversing the bike, and then the police apprehended the said person, and on enquiry he revealed his identity particulars ie., Yendapalli Suribabu, and he voluntarily confessed that he used to commit thefts from the year 2008 and involved in 30 theft cases and also convicted in some of the cases, and also confessed about the commission of theft in Crime Nos.130/2021, 145/2021, and 153/2021 of Pithapuram Town P.S, and handed over a polythene bag containing gold ornaments, silver articles, cell phone and watch to the police which are the stolen properties in several cases.

PW4 further deposed that SI of Police arrested the accused, seized above said items from the possession of accused under mediatorsnama prepared by her.

C.C. No.421 of 2021 6 PJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

During her cross-examination, she deposed that she might have prepared more than 20 mediatornamas, and the place of Ex.P4 is cycle stand, RTC

Complex premises. She admitted that the buses used to stop there and the passengers got down from the buses, and she obtained oral permission from

Mandal Revenue Officer, and II Town Police of Kakinada seized bike from the accused, and they did not seize the bag from the possession of accused. PW4 further deposed that SI of Police, Kakinada made a phone call to Station House

Officer, Pithapuram, and he came to the place of arrest of accused. She denied the suggestion that she prepared Ex.P4 mediatorsnama at police station and that the accused was not arrested in her presence, and that the accused did not confess anything in their presence and nothing was seized from the possession of accused under Ex.P4 and that she is deposing false at the instance of police officials.

14. PW5/B.Tirupathi Rao, CI of Police deposed as on the same lines of PW3 in his chief and cross-examinations. He further deposed that he handed over the seized property to the respective police stations and they served 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused as per the directions of the Hon'ble Court, and that they did not take photographs by the time of arrest of accused.

15. PW6/B.Shankar Rao, SI of Police deposed that PW1 to PW3 came to police station and presented Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 reports on 14.06.2021, 03.07.2021 and 10.07.2021, for which he registered the same as a case in Crime Nos.130/2021, 145/2021, 153/2021 U/Section.457, 380 IPC, recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared rough sketches, and on 19.11.2021 on receiving the record from PW4, he also served 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused, and after completion of investigation, he filed charge-sheet against the accused.

During his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the accused is no way concerned with the offence and that he filed false charge-sheet against the accused for statistical purpose to dispose off the pending cases.

C.C. No.421 of 2021 7 PJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

16. The learned APP argued that by examining PW1 to PW6, and by marking

Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and by marking MO1 to MO11, the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and prays to convict the accused according to law.

17. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused is no way concerned with the offences and that as per the evidence of PW1 to PW3, they did not produce the receipts for MOs 1 to 11 to show that said property belongs to them, and that the accused committed thefts in their houses. He further argued that PW4 is a government servant and she did not prepare the mediatorsnamas. He further argued that PW4 signed on the mediatorsnama at the police station and that the confession of accused is also recorded while he was in the police custody, and that none of the independent mediators secured by the police by the time of arrest of accused, recording the confession of accused, seizure of the stolen properties and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Thus, he prays to acquit the accused under benefit of doubt.

18. As per Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 reports of PW1 to PW3, some unknown offenders broke open the locks of the houses of PW1 to PW3, and MO1 to 11 were committed theft from their houses. But, PW1 to PW3 are not the direct witnesses for the alleged offences. Coming to the evidence of PW4 she is the mediator for arrest of the accused, recording the confession of accused, and also seizure of

MO1 to 11 from the possession of accused. As per Ex.P4 those part of stolen articles are the case properties in Cr.No.130/2021, 145/2021, 153/2021 under section 457, 380 IPC of Pithapuram Town P.S. Thus, there are no direct witness for the alleged commission of theft by the accused. Thus, the prosecution is not able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 457 and 380 IPC ie., lurking trespass into the houses and commission of theft of MO1 to 11. Accordingly, Point No.1 & 2 are answered.

C.C. No.421 of 2021 8 PJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

19. POINT No.3 :

PW4/Palepu Parvathi, VRO categorically deposed about her presence by the time of mediatorsnama, arrest of accused, recording the confession of accused by her, so also seizure of the stolen properties(MO1 to 11) from the possession of the accused under Ex.P4. I could not see any reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW4 since there is no enmity to PW4 with the accused and that

MO1 to 11 were seized from the possession of accused which are the stolen properties in Cr.Nos.130/2021, 145/2021, and 153/2021, and the evidence of

PW1 to PW4 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 is also clearly corroborating with the particulars of stolen articles from the houses of PW1 to PW3. Thus, the confession of accused also leads to recovery of MOS 1 to 11, under Ex.P4 mediatorsnama, and it is relevant under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

20. The evidence of PW5 & PW6, investigating officers is also corroborated with the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 in all aspects. I found no reason to suspect the evidence of PW4 who is the mediator for arrest the accused, recording of confession and seizure of property from the possession of accused. Since MO1 to 11 are seized from the accused in the presence of mediators and the accused failed to account for the same, the offence under section 411 IPC is proved against the accused . Since there are no direct eye witnesses for commission of thefts by the accused in the houses of PW1 to PW3, the offence under section 457, 380 IPC is not proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Since the accused failed to account for MO1 to 11, there is a presumption drawn under 114 of Indian Evidence Act that he is either the thief or receiver of the stolen goods. Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered.

21. With the above said observation, I safely come to conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, and the accused is liable for conviction.

C.C. No.421 of 2021 9 PJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

22. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.457, 380 IPC and accordingly acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C, and accused is found guilty for the offence under section 411 IPC, and accordingly, accused is convicted U/sec.248(2) Cr.P.C for the said offence.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 18 th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- Smt.M.Sudha Rani

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram.

23. Accused explained about the punishment provided U/sec. 411 IPC and also questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him.

24. Accused submitted that “He is the only bread winner of his family consisting his old aged parents. He had to look after their welfare, and prays to take lenient view while imposing sentence.”

25. Considering the nature of offence proved against the accused, and as the accused dishonestly in possession of the stolen property, if the accused is released under Probation of Offenders Act, it is nothing but traverse of justice.

Considering the nature of offence, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to invoke beneficial provisions of Probation of Offenders Act in favour of the accused.

26. Considering all these circumstances, I feel the following sentence will meet the ends of justice.

27. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.457, 380 IPC, and accordingly the accused is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C, and accused is found guilty for the offence under section 411 IPC, and accordingly, accused is convicted U/sec.248(2) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One Year for the offence under section 411 IPC. The accused is entitled to the benefits of set off

U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C and the remand period of accused, if any, undergone by him

C.C. No.421 of 2021 10 PJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

shall be set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. As can be seen from the record, the accused is in judicial custody from 14.12.2023 till today. Further, accused is informed about his right of appeal before Hon'ble Sessions Court and also informed about his right to get free legal Aid through Hon'ble Chairman, District Legal Service

Authority, Rajamahendravaram, if he has no means. Office is directed to serve the copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith at free of cost. Prepare the conviction warrant accordingly. MO1 to MO11 which were already given to PW1 to

PW3 vide in Crl.M.P.Nos.2/2022, dated:18.01.2022, 136/2024,

dated:09.02.2024, 768/2023, dated: 17.07.2023, shall holds good and made

absolute after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 18 th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- Smt.M.Sudha Rani

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: PW1/05.02.2024 : Sappa Veera Suryanarayana PW2/09.02.2024 : Dodla Ravi Kumar PW3/12.02.2024 : Dasetti Kishore PW4/28.02.2024 : Palepu Parvathi, VRO PW5/06.03.2024 : B.Tirupathi Rao, CI of Police PW6/07.03.2024 : B.Shankar Rao, SI of Police For Defence: None.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1/PW1 : Report given by PW1 to police Ex.P2/PW2 : Report given by PW2 to police Ex.P3/PW3 : Report given by PW3 to police Ex.P4/PW4 : Attested copy of mediatorsnama Ex.P5/PW6 : FIR in Crime No.130/2021 Ex.P6/PW6 : Rough sketch Ex.P7/PW6 : FIR in Crime No.145/2021 Ex.P8/PW6 : Rough sketch Ex.P9/PW6 : FIR in Crime No.153/2021 Ex.P10/PW6 : Rough sketch For Defence: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1: 4 Gold Bangles MO2: Silver Kumkum Barina MO3: 2 pairs of Gold Rings MO4: Big Silver Cup MO5: 3 Small Silver Cups MO6: MI Cell Phone MO7: 3 Gold Rings

C.C. No.421 of 2021 11 PJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

MO8: One Silver Spoon MO9: Silver Cup MO10: 2 Silver Kundulu MO11: 2 Silver Glasses

Sd/- Smt.M.Sudha Rani

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram.

// t.c.f.b.o //

PJFCM PTP

C.C. No.421 of 2021 12 PJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PITHAPURAM.

C.C.No.421/2021

Date of offence : 13.06.2021, 30.06.2021, 08.07.2021 Date of report or complaint : 14.06.2021, 03.07.2021, 10.07.2021

Date of apprehension of the accused : 14.12.2023 Date of Release on bail : Accused is in judicial custody from 14.12.2023 to till today Date of commencement of trial : 05.02.2024

Date of close of trial: : 07.03.2024 Date of sentence or order : 18.04.2024

Explanation of delay or remarks : Due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Name of the Complainant : State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Town P.S.

Name of the accused :

Yendapalli Suribabu, S/o.Kondarao, A/38 years, C/Kapu, Ulimeswaram Village, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District.

Offence : U/Sec.457, 380 or 411 of IPC. Finding : Accused found not guilty U/Sec.457, 380 IPC Accused found guilty U/Sec.411 IPC Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.457, 380 IPC, and accordingly the accused is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C, and accused is found guilty for the offence under section 411 IPC, and accordingly, accused is convicted U/sec.248(2) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One Year for the offence under section 411 IPC. The accused is entitled to the benefits of set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C and the remand period of accused, if any, undergone by him shall be set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. As can be seen from the record, the accused is in judicial custody from 14.12.2023 till today. Further, accused is informed about his right of appeal before Hon'ble Sessions Court and also informed about his right to get free legal Aid through Hon'ble Chairman, District Legal Service Authority, Rajamahendravaram, if he has no means. Office is directed to serve the copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith at free of cost. Prepare the conviction warrant accordingly. MO1 to MO11 which were already given to PW1 to PW3 vide in Crl.M.P.Nos.2/2022, dated:18.01.2022, 136/2024, dated:09.02.2024, 768/2023, dated: 17.07.2023, shall holds good and made absolute after appeal time is over.

Sd/- Smt.M.Sudha Rani

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram. Copies submitted to:

1.The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

2.The Superintendent of Pendent of Police, Kakinada.

// t.c.f.b.o //

C.C. No.70 of 2022 1 PJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PITHAPURAM.

Present Smt.M.Sudha Rani

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram

Thursday, the 18th day of April, 2024

CALENDER CASE NO.70/2022

Between: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Town Police Station. …Complainant

And

Yendapalli Suribabu, S/o.Kondarao, A/38 years, C/Kapu, Ulimeswaram Village, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. … Accused

This case is coming on 12.04.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant-State and of Sri K.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for the accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.162/2021 on its file for the offence punishable under section 380 or 411 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the charge-sheet are that the accused had involved in so many cases and he is an habitual offender, and that PW1 has been doing fish business since six months and he came to Amalapuram purchased and re-selling the fish at Palasa and some other areas and eking out his livelihood, and that on 21.07.2021, PW1 came from his district for purchasing fish and brought an amount of Rs.1,12,000/- and stayed in Lakshminarayana Lodge situated near

Cinema Centre, Pithapuram Town, and kept the cash viz., 200 hundred rupee notes-300, 500 hundred rupee notes -100, and 2000 rupee note – 1 in the locker of lodge and went out for his business purpose, and on 25.07.2021 at about 6:0

P.M, PW1 returned to lodge and opened the locker and found missing of cash, and that during the temporary absence of PW1 in the lodge, some unknown offenders might have stolen away the cash of Rs.1,12,000/- from the locker of lodge and escaped with stolen cash, and on 26.07.2021 afternoon at about 12:00

Noon, PW1 presented a report to that effect.

C.C. No.70 of 2022 2 PJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

2(i) Basing on the report of PW1, PW4 registered a case in Crime

No.162/2021 U/Sec.380 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, PW4 visited and inspected the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.

2(ii) On 18.12.2021 at 9:00 A.M, PW4 arrested the accused Near

Veternary Hospital, Jaggayyacheruvu, Pithapuram Town in the presence of two mediators ie., PW3 and LW5/Pattem Suribabu and found two bundles of cash having Rs.500/- notes and gold ornaments packets packed in a white paper cover in his bag, and basing on the voluntary confession given by the accused, PW4 seized cash of Rs.90,000/- from the possession of accused which was part of the stolen property in the above case, and kept in a plastic cover and affixed identity slips under the cover of mediators report small gold piece-1 wg., about 4 grams, silver anklets – one pair wg., about 121.89 grams which are part of stolen property in Crime No.255/2021 U/Sec. 457, 380 IPC of Pithapuram Town P.S from the possession of accused and got weighed the same under the cover of mediators report, and sent the accused for judicial remand. On completion of entire investigation, PW4 filed charge-sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

3. This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under

Section 380 or 411 Indian Penal Code.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 Cr. P. C.

5. Accused was examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Charges under Section 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code are framed against the accused, read over and explained to accused in Telugu. Having heard and understanding the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In support of the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and

Exs.P1 to P4 are marked besides marking MO1.

C.C. No.70 of 2022 3 PJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material available against him, for which he denied the same. Accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the oral and documentary evidence on record.

9. Now the point for determination is,

1.“Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 380 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. “Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT No.1 :

PW1/D.Madhava Rao deposed that on 21.07.2021, he stayed in

Lakshminarayana Lodge and kept Rs.1,12,000/- in the locker of the lodge and went out, after three days he came out and opened the locker and found missing of that amount and then he gave Ex.P1 report.

During his cross-examination, he admitted that one locker key is with him and one is with lodge owner.

11. PW2/M.Padma Raju, owner of the lodge deposed as on the same lines of

PW1.

During his cross-examination, he admitted that all the locker keys are kept with him and there are three keys for each locker, one key with the customer and two keys were kept with him, and he had not noticed open of any locker.

12. PW3/Cheekatla Satyanarayana, VRO deposed that on 18.12.2021 he along with mediator accompanied the SI of Police and his staff to Jaggayyacheruvu area and apprehended the accused while he is trying to escape and the police seized Rs.90,000/-, one gold chain, two ear studs, one pair of bangles, one pair of silver anklets from the bag in the possession of accused. The accused also

C.C. No.70 of 2022 4 PJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

confessed that he committed theft of cash from Lakshminarayana Lodge,

Pithapuram, and he also confessed that he committed theft of Rs.1,22,000/- and committed several offences in Pithapuram area, and that police seized cash, gold and silver articles under the cover of mediatorsnama and MO1 is cash of

Rs.90,000/-.

During his cross-examination, by the time when they reached near veterinary hospital, there are ten persons near the temple, and that the suspected person was slowly walking towards apartments. He deposed that total five objects were seized by the police from that person including the liquid cash of Rs.90,000/-. He further deposed that the weighing machine was taken along with the police. He deposed that the seized cash was in Rs.500/- currency notes.

He admitted that signature of Yendapalli Suribabu on ExP2 mediators report and on the slip attached to MO1.

13. PW4/B.Shankar Rao, SI of Police deposed regarding registration of FIR, recording the statements of witnesses, and also arrest of accused, seizure of property under mediatorsnama and filing of charge-sheet after completion of investigation, and that on 28.12.2021 he produced the accused before the court on execution of P.T.Warrant.

During his cross-examination, he deposed that there are no CC TV in that lodge. He admitted that there is a watchman to the lodge around the locker, and he did not take the photographs of locker in that lodge and found that the locker key was not broken. He deposed that they did not mention the number of currency seized from the accused in Ex.P2 mediatorsnama. He admitted that he did not mention the reason for not filing the PT warrant immediately and after the remand report in Crime No.269/2021 as both the offences are pertaining to their station. He deposed that immediately after the recovery the defacto complainant in Crime No.269/2021 got returned that property. He deposed that he did not get identify the property to the defacto complainant at police station.

He deposed that he did not seize any bag from the possession of the accused,

C.C. No.70 of 2022 5 PJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

and basing on the confession of accused only, they came to conclusion that they seized the bag of the accused as the stolen property. He admitted that they seized the stolen property from the accused and recorded his confession while he was in their custody, and that the place of arrest is a busy locality, and it is near to veterinary hospital. He denied the suggestion that he made table investigation and filed false case against the accused for statistical purpose.

14. The learned APP argued that by examining PW1 to PW4, and by marking

Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and by marking MO1, the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and prays to convict the accused according to law.

15. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused is no way concerned with the offence and that as per the evidence of PW1, he did not produce any piece of document to show that MO1 belongs to him, and that the accused committed theft in the lodge of PW2. He further argued that the confession of accused is recorded while he was in the police custody, and that none of the independent mediators secured by the police by the time of arrest of accused, recording the confession of accused, seizure of the stolen property and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Thus, he prays to acquit the accused under benefit of doubt.

16. As per Ex.P1, report of PW1, he stayed in the lodge of PW2 and kept

Rs.1,12,000/- in the locker of that lodge, and that some unknown offenders broke open the locker in the lodge of PW2, and committed theft of Rs.1,12,000/- from the locker. But, both PW1 and PW2 are not the direct witness for the alleged offence. Coming to the evidence of PW3 he is the mediator for arrest of the accused, recording the confession of accused, and also seizure of MO1 from the possession of accused. As per Ex.P2 those stolen articles are the case property in

Cr.No.162/2021 under section 380 IPC of Pithapuram Town P.S. Thus, there are no direct witness for the alleged commission of theft by the accused. Thus, the

C.C. No.70 of 2022 6 PJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

prosecution is not able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 380 IPC. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

17. POINT No.2 :

PW3/Cheekatla Satyanarayana, VRO categorically deposed about his presence by the time of mediatorsnama, arrest of accused, recording the confession of accused by him, so also seizure of the stolen property(MO1) from the possession of the accused under Ex.P2. I could not see any reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW3 since there is no enmity to PW3 with the accused and that MO1 was seized from the possession of accused which was the stolen property in Cr.No.162/2021, and the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and Ex.P1 is also clearly corroborating with the particulars of stolen property from the lodge of

PW2. Thus, the confession of accused also leads to recovery of MO1, under

Ex.P2 mediatorsnama, and it is relevant under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

18. The evidence of PW4, investigating officer is also corroborated with the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 in all aspects. I found no reason to suspect the evidence of PW3, who is the mediator for arrest the accused, recording of confession and seizure of property from the possession of accused. Since, MO1 was seized from the accused in the presence of mediators and the accused failed to account for the same, the offence under section 411 IPC is proved against the accused .

Since there are no direct eye witnesses for commission of theft by the accused in the lodge of PW2, the offence under section 380 IPC is not proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Since the accused failed to account for MO1, there is a presumption drawn under 114 of Indian Evidence Act that he is either the thief or receiver of the stolen goods. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered.

19. With the above said observation, I safely come to conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, and the accused is liable for conviction.

C.C. No.70 of 2022 7 PJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

20. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.380 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C, and accused is found guilty for the offence under section 411 IPC, and accordingly, accused is convicted

U/sec.248(2) Cr.P.C for the said offence.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 18 th day of February, 2024.

Sd/- Smt. M.Sudha Rani

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram.

21. Accused explained about the punishment provided U/sec. 411 IPC and also questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him.

22. Accused submitted that “He is the only bread winner of his family consisting his old aged parents. He had to look after their welfare, and prays to take lenient view while imposing sentence.”

23. Considering the nature of offence proved against the accused, and as the accused dishonestly in possession of the stolen property, if the accused is released under Probation of Offenders Act, it is nothing but traverse of justice.

Considering the nature of offence, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to invoke beneficial provisions of Probation of Offenders Act in favour of the accused.

24. Considering all these circumstances, I feel the following sentence will meet the ends of justice.

25. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.380 IPC, and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C, and accused is found guilty for the offence under section 411 IPC, and accordingly, accused is convicted

U/sec.248(2) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One Year for the offence under section 411

IPC. The accused is entitled to the benefits of set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C and the remand period of accused, if any, undergone by him shall be set off U/Sec.428 of

C.C. No.70 of 2022 8 PJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

Cr.P.C. As can be seen from the record, the accused is in judicial custody from 28.12.2021 to 29.07.2022 and from 14.12.2023 to till today. Further, accused is informed about his right of appeal before Hon'ble Sessions Court and also informed about his right to get free legal Aid through Hon'ble Chairman, District

Legal Service Authority, Rajamahendravaram, if he has no means. Office is directed to serve the copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith at free of cost. Prepare the conviction warrant accordingly. MO1 which was already given to

PW1 and it shall holds good and made absolute after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 18 th day of February, 2024.

Sd/- Smt. M.Sudha Rani

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1/14.07.2022 : D.Madhava Rao

PW2/21.07.2022 : M.Padma Raju

PW3/11.08.2022 : Cheekatla Satyanarayana, VRO

PW4/09.02.2023 : B.Shankar Rao, SI of Police

For Defence: None.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1/PW1 : Report given by PW1 to police.

Ex.P2/PW3 : Attested Copy of Mediatorsnama

Ex.P3/PW4 : FIR in Crime No.162/2021 Ex.P4/PW4 : Rough Sketch

For Defence: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1: Cash of Rs.90,000/-

Sd/- Smt. M.Sudha Rani

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram.

// t.c.f.b.o //

PJFCM PTP

C.C. No.70 of 2022 9 PJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PITHAPURAM.

C.C.No.70/2022

Date of offence : 21.07.2021 Date of report or complaint : 26.07.2021

Date of apprehension of the accused : 28.12.2021 Date of Release on bail : Accused is in judicial custody from 14.12.2023 to till today Date of commencement of trial : 14.07.2022

Date of close of trial: : 09.02.2023 Date of sentence or order : 18.04.2024

Explanation of delay or remarks : Due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Name of the Complainant : State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Town P.S.

Name of the accused :

Yendapalli Suribabu, S/o.Kondarao, A/38 years, C/Kapu, Ulimeswaram Village, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District.

Offence : U/Sec.380 or 411 of IPC. Finding : Accused found not guilty U/Sec.380 IPC Accused found guilty U/Sec.411 IPC Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.380 IPC, and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C, and accused is found guilty for the offence under section 411 IPC, and accordingly, accused is convicted U/sec.248(2) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One Year for the offence under section 411 IPC. The accused is entitled to the benefits of set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C and the remand period of accused, if any, undergone by him shall be set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. As can be seen from the record, the accused is in judicial custody from 28.12.2021 to 29.07.2022 and from 14.12.2023 to till today. Further, accused is informed about his right of appeal before Hon'ble Sessions Court and also informed about his right to get free legal Aid through Hon'ble Chairman, District Legal Service Authority, Rajamahendravaram, if he has no means. Office is directed to serve the copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith at free of cost. Prepare the conviction warrant accordingly. MO1 which was already given to PW1 and it shall holds good and made absolute after appeal time is over.

Sd/- Smt.M.Sudha Rani

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram. Copies submitted to:

1.The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

2.The Superintendent of Pendent of Police, Kakinada.

// t.c.f.b.o //

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PITHAPURAM

PRESENT: - Smt M.Sudha Rani, Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram.

Tuesday, the 21st day of February, 2023

O.S.No.171/2019

Between:

Kosireddi Bapanna Dora S/o Prakasarao, Age 34 years, R/o Gollaprolu Village, Gollaprolu Mandal. ..Plaintif

And

Marri Nookaraju S/o Marri Manikyam, Age 54 years, R/o Gollaprolu Village, Opposite to Mandal Revenue Office, Gollaprolu Mandal.

.. Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 27.1.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Raja, Advocate for the Plaintif and of Sri K.Venkata Ramana, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Plaintif filed the suit to pass a decree for an amount of

Rs.1,70,667/- with subsequent interest and costs.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintif on 01.04.2016, to meet his family expenses and for other needs as hand loan, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. On the same day, the defendant also borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the brother of the plaintif, to meet his family expenses. On repeated demands made by the plaintif the defendant issued cheque bearing No.00505 to the plaintif; and also to the brother of plaintif another cheque bearing No.00504 on 01.08.2018 for an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- each as part payment drawn on Bank of India, Gollaprolu branch and the same was presented by the plaintif in Andhra Bank for collection, but the said cheque was returned on 21.9.2018 with an endorsement “Insufficient funds” in defendant’s account and that the 2 defendant requested the plaintif not to file any criminal case and he will repay the entire amount within short time, but the defendant failed to repay the amount and that the plaintif got issued legal notice to the defendant on 21.11.2018 and the defendant intentionally avoid to receive the notice.

Hence the plaintif is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the suit amount along with interest and costs.

3.The defendant filed written statement by denying the contents of the plaint and further contended that he is running rice mill and doing paddy business and that he had no necessity to borrow such huge amounts from the plaintif or anybody. He further contended that in the year 2015 the defendant purchased paddy from the father of the plaintif and in that connection the father of the plaintif asked the defendant for security of the amount payable to him and that the father of the plaintif obtained promissory notes by affixing revenue stamp, cheques and obtained the signature of the defendant. Subsequently he repaid the said paddy amount to the father of the plaintif, but he did not return the said promissory notes and cheques saying that those were misplaced in his house. He further submitted that the father of the plaintif is also filed two suits on the file of

Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Pithapuram as OS No.133/2017;

and on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Pithapuram as

OS.No.5/2019; with false allegations against him and the brother of the

plaintif also filed another suit in OS No. 172/2019 and that plaintif intentionally filed this suit on the instigation of his father. After receipt of the suit summons from the court, he was surprised and mentally sufered a lot.

He further submitted that he never issued any cheques in favour of plaintif or his brother, set up by the plaintif and he is suspecting that the cheques are fabricated or forged for wrongful gain and that he is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintif, much less the suit amount and it is not legally 3 enforceable debt and the plaintif and his family members colluded together and filed this suit only to get unlawful gain from him; and he prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.On perusal of the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial:

1.Whether the suit promissory note dated.01.04.2016 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintif obtained suit promissory note in the circumstances alleged by the defendant?

3.Whether the plaintif is entitled to seek the relief as claimed for?

4. To what relief?

On 28.11.2022, as per the orders in I.A.515/2022 dt. 26.9.2022 the following additional issue is framed for trial:

1.Whether the plaintif is entitled for the suit amount basing on the cheque dated 1.8.2018 for Rs.1,00,000/-?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintif got examined Pws 1 to 3 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. The defendant himself got examined as

DW1 and no documents are marked on his behalf.

6.Heard. Perused the material on record.

7.ISSUE NO.1 to 3 and additional issue No.1:

By reiterating the contents of the plaint, the plaintif filed his evidence affidavit as PW1, and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. Ex.A1 is the cheque dated 01.08.2018 given by the defendant, Ex.A2 is the Cheque return memo dated 21.09.2018 received from bank; Ex.A3 is the Legal notice issued by the plaintif to the Defendant, dated. 21.11.2018; Ex.A4 is the

Postal Receipt dated. 26.11.2018 and Ex.A5 is the Returned cover of legal notice, dated. 05.12.2018.

4

During his cross examination, PW1 deposed that their family had 15 Acres of joint property and they used to raise paddy in it and the defendant is doing paddy business and had a rice mill also. He admitted that the defendant used to purchase paddy from them. He again says that they never sold paddy to the defendant. He deposed that In the year 2016 the defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from him and Rs.1,00,000/- from his elder brother and that there is no documentary proof to establish the same. He also admitted that prior to Ex.A1 they did not issue any notice to the defendant to discharge pronote debt. He deposed that no document was executed before giving cheque in favour of them and he do not know the contents of written statement of the defendant; and that Burra Durga Prasad and Naralasetti Sathibabu were present when the defendant gave cheque to him. He denied the suggestion that the defendant never borrowed any amount from him or his elder brother and that when they sold their paddy to the defendant they obtained empty promissory notes from him in the year 2015 and with said empty promissory notes, they foisted Ex.A1 promissory note and filed false suit against the defendant. He deposed that his elder brother and his father also filed suits against the defendant and that the debt under Ex.A1 is legally enforceable debt.

8.One Burra Durga Prasad filed his evidence affidavit as PW2 on the same lines of PW1.

During his cross examination he admitted that plaintif is his brother-in-law. He deposed that there is no document that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintif on 01.04.2016, so also from his brother Venkata Raju and no document is prepared by the time of issuance cheque in favour of the plaintif, for the reason for issuance of Ex.A1 Cheque.

He denied the suggestion that the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintif in his presence and he never issued any cheque in favour 5 of the plaintif and the he is deposing false due to the diference with the defendant and that the defendant issued cheque to the father of the plaintif in paddy transaction in the year 2014, taking advantage it they filed false suit against defendant for wrongful gain.

9.One Kosireddi Venkataraju filed his evidence affidavit as PW3 on the same lines of PW1.

During his cross examination he deposed that the plaintif is his younger brother and on 01.04.2016, the plaintif lent Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant and no promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif. He adds that on that day he also lent Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant but no promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of him. He deposed that no documents were prepared by that time. He denied the suggestion that the defendant never borrowed any amount from him or from the plaintif and that he gave empty cheques to his father towards security for purchasing paddy and that he is deposing false for wrongful gain and to support the plaintif as he is his younger brother.

10.The defendant filed his evidence affidavit as DW1 by reiterating the contents of written statement.

During his cross examination, he deposed that he is doing rice mill business. He admitted that Kosireddi Prakasam, who is the father of the plaintif, filed a pronote suit against him i.e., OS 5/2019. He also admitted that the suit filed basing on the cheque bearing No.5 and he issued 4 cheques to the father of the plaintif. He admitted that they used to maintain account books for their rice mill. He denied the suggestion that there are financial transactions between him and the father of the plaintif. He adds that except the paddy transaction, there are no other financial transaction between them. He denied the suggestion that he used to purchase paddy from the plaintif herein and his brother Venkata Raju and that he borrowed 6 amount from the plaintif in the year 2018 for his family expenses and he issued cheque in favour of him. He deposed that he will produce rice mill accounts, to show that he purchased paddy from the father of the plaintif and issued cheque to him.

11.The counsel for the plaintif argued that by examining Pws 1 to 3 and by marking Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 the plaintif established his case that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintif and inspite of repeated demands, he issued cheque under Ex.A1, and the same was returned due to insufficient funds in his account under Ex.A2 cheque return memo. He argued that though the defendant cross examined Pws 1 to 3 nothing was elicited to establish his contention in the written statement that in the year 2015 the defendant purchased paddy from the father of the plaintif and that the father of the plaintif obtained promissory notes by affixing revenue stamp, cheques and obtained the signature of the defendant and though he discharged the said paddy amount, he did not return the said promissory notes and cheques and got filed this suit through the plaintif with the help of those documents. Thus he prays to decree the suit.

12.By briefly narrating the plaint, written statement, and issues, the defendant counsel filed written arguments and argued that the plaintif has not obtained any document to lend such amount to the defendant and he failed to establish the same. Thus burden does not shift to the defendant. He argued that as per section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, presumption is a rebuttable one and it is open to the defendant to raise a defence regarding legally enforceable debt in which plaintif failed to produce substantive evidence. Thus, presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act is not available to the plaintif in the case on hand and if the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful, the onus would shift to the 7 plaintif and it would disentitle him to grant the relief on the basis of negotiable Instrument. He argued that the burden of proof under section 138 of N.I.Act is entirely diferent to that of a suit for recovery of amount and further a presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act is available to the efect that the drawer of cheque is presumed to have issued such an instrument towards repayment of legally recoverable debt or liability. But in this case, no such presumption is available to the plaintif to prove his case. He further argued that though the defendant not denied his signature on the cheque, it does not mean that the contents of the cheque are deemed to have been proved and heavy burden casts upon the plaintif and the plaintif failed to prove that he had lend that such huge amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant, whereas the defendant examined himself as DW1 that he never approached the plaintif to avail hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and that in view of paddy transaction with the father of the plaintif in the year 2015, he gave blank signed cheques as security to the father of the plaintif and by misusing the same, the present suit is filed against the defendant. Thus the evidence of DW1 is sufficient to believe the same and it strengthen the defence set up by the defendant. Thus he prays to dismiss the suit.

13.Coming to the evidence of Pws 1 to 3, their evidence is clearly corroborating regarding borrowing of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintif and on repeated demands the defendant issued Ex.A1 cheque. As per the evidence of PW1, their family had 15 acres of joint property and they used to raise paddy in it and the defendant is doing paddy business and had a rice mill also. The evidence of Pws 1 to 3 is clearly corroborating with each other regarding issuance of Ex.A1 cheque and that Pws 2 and 3 categorically deposed that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintif and on repeated demands the defendant issued Ex.A1 cheque and the same was returned due to insufficient funds in his account. Though the defendant put suggestions to the plaintif that the father of the plaintif obtained the 8 signature of the defendant on empty promissory notes and cheques, when he purchased paddy from the father of the plaintif, the defendant did not adduce any evidence in that aspect. The defendant did not whisper in his written statement that in whose presence, he issued empty promissory notes and cheques with his signature to the father of the plaintif, and that he did not put any suggestion to PW1 that in whose presence he discharged the paddy debt, and in whose presence he demanded the father of the plaintif to return the signed promissory notes and cheques. He did not assign any reason for not issuing any notice to the father of the plaintif for return of signed promissory notes and cheques. Moreover as per section 118 of N.I.Act when the defendant admitted his signature on Ex.A1, it is presumed that the said Negotiable Instrument is executed for receiving of the amount mentioned therein.

14.With the above said observation, I opined that the Ex.A1 cheque true, valid and binding on the defendant and it is supported by consideration and the plaintif is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for. Hence I intends to decree the suit. Accordingly issues 1 to 3 and additional issue No.1 are answered in favour of the plaintif.

15.Issue No.4:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.1,70,667/- (Rupees one lakh Seventy thousand Six Hundred and Sixty

Seven only) against the defendant, with subsequent interest at 12% p.a from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a from the date of decree till realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation to the stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 21st day of February, 2023.

Sd/-M.Sudharani.

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

`Pithapuram.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

PW1: Kosireddy Bapanna Dora.

PW2: Burra Durga Prasad

PW3: Kosireddi Venkataraju

For Defendant:

DW1: Marri Nookaraju

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1/01.08.2018: Cheque issued by the plaintif in favour of the plaintif

Ex.A2/21.09.2018: Cheque return memo

Ex.A3/21.11.2018: Legal notice issued by the plaintif to the Defendant

Ex.A4/26.11.2018: Postal Receipt

Ex.A5/05.12.2018: Returned cover of legal notice

For Defendant: Nil.

Sd/-M.Sudharani.

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

`Pithapuram.

P.J.C.J.COURT, PITHAPURAM 1 O.S.163/2020, Dt.19.04.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PITHAPURAM

Present : Smt.M.Sudha Rani

Principal Junior Civil Judge, PIthapuram

Friday, the 19th day of April, 2024

O.S.No.163/2020

Between:

Vanapalli Venkata Ramayya, S/o.Late Simhachalam, Hindu, Aged 41 years, Business, D.No.4-1-33, Mekavari Veedhi, Pithapuram, East Godavari District.

…Plaintiff

And

Dasari Krishna, S/o.Apparao, Hindu, Aged 45 years, Contractor, Resident of Mangayammaraopeta, Pithapuram, East Godavari District.

...Defendant

This suit coming on 01.04.2024 for final hearing before me in presence of Sri.P.Ravi, Advocate for Plaintiff and of K.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,72,000/- basing on a promissory note dt.14.12.2017 with subsequent interest and for costs of suit.

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

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 14.12.2017 for the purpose of family expenses and to repay sundry debts and executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff at Pithapuram agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. Subsequently the plaintiff made several demands for discharge of the entire amount due, but the defendant never made any payment. Thereby the plaintiff got issued a registered notice dt.22.09.2020 to the defendant, but the defendant did not respond to the notice and did not pay any amount due under the promissory note. The defendant is not an agriculturist, thereby he is not entitled to the benefits of Act 7/77 and any other debt relief.

Hence, the suit.

P.J.C.J.COURT, PITHAPURAM 2 O.S.163/2020, Dt.19.04.2024

3. The defendant filed written statement denying the averments in the plaint and contended that he took hand loan in the year 2017 from one Tallapudi Ganesh

Babu, who is scribe of alleged promissory note, and by that time the said Ganesh

Babu demanded an empty promissory note with the signature and thumb impression of the defendant, and as there is no other go, he handed over the same to him, and except that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. It is further submitted that after receipt of suit summons, the defendant came to know that plaintiff and T.Ganesh Babu are friends and filed the false suit basing on fabricated promissory note on empty promissory note. Defendant further submitted that the plaintiff must be explain that how the plaintiff collected much more amount in the form of cash in single transaction. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial :

1. Whether the suit promissory note dt.14.12.2017 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5. The plaintiff to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1 and examined

PWs 2 and 3 and got marked Ex.A1 & A2. The defendant himself examined as DW1, but no documents are got marked on his behalf.

6. Heard. Perused the record.

7. ISSUES 1 & 2 :

By reiterating the contents of the plaint, the plaintiff filed his evidence affidavit as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 & Ex.A2. Ex.A1 is the Promissory note dt.14.12.2017 for Rs.4,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff,

Ex.A2 is the Office copy of registered lawyer‟s notice with postal receipt dt.22.09.2020 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant.

During his cross examination, PW1 deposed that he is getting Rs.10,000/- per month by working in a shop. He admitted that previously he run a shop selling

P.J.C.J.COURT, PITHAPURAM 3 O.S.163/2020, Dt.19.04.2024 greeting cards etc., and again he deposed that at present said shop is not in existence and scribe Tallapudi Ganesh Babu is his friend, and that he got acquaintance with defendant in the vegetable market. He deposed that on 14.12.2017 he lent an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the defendant in Miripakayala

Veedhi in a shop near the temple of Goddess Maremma Thalli and that it is the only transaction between him and defendant, and the said amount is from his savings.

One Ponnada Srimannarayana and T.Srinivas are the attestors of Ex.A1, and the defendant signed and put his thumb impression on Ex.A1, and the denomination under Ex.A1 is 6 bundles of 500 rupees and 10 bundles of 100 Rupees notes. He further deposed that he do not know whether the defendant filed a petition to send

Ex.A1 to finger print expert and he had no objection to send Ex.A1 to finger print expert. He denied the suggestion that due to financial disputes between scribe

Tallapudi Ganesh, and the defendant, they fabricated Ex.A1 promissory note and that no consideration was passed under Ex.A1 to the defendant, and that he is deposing false at the instance of said Ganesh.

8. PW2, the 1st attestor of promissory note filed his evidence affidavit and during his cross examination he deposed that he do not know Tallapudi Ganesh ie., the scribe of the promissory note, and he know the defendant only, as his neighbor, and when the defendant asked him to sign on the promissory note when he borrowed amount from the plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that the signature on

Ex.A1 as 1st attestor does not belongs to him. He admitted that in Ex.A1 shows that the figure one is corrected as four at Rs.4,00,000/-, and the defendant did chit business. He denied the suggestion that due to differences between the scribe and defendant, the scribe got filed the suit through the plaintiff with their assistance, and that he had been working in the shop of son of Ganesh and that he had been looking after the suit affairs of Tallapudi Ganesh and that he is deposing false at his instance, and that no consideration was passed to the defendant under Ex.A1.

9. PW3, the scribe of promissory note filed his evidence affidavit and during his cross examination he deposed that he gave instructions to his counsel for

P.J.C.J.COURT, PITHAPURAM 4 O.S.163/2020, Dt.19.04.2024 preparation of his evidence affidavit. Tirodala Srinivas and Ponnada

Srimannarayana are attestors of Ex.A1. He admitted that call money case is filed against him by the police. He denied the suggestion that the figure „4‟ on the top of promissory note is different from the body of promissory note and the figure „4‟ at the top of promissory note in Rs.4,00,000/- is corrected from „1‟. He deposed that the defendant do cell phone business. He denied the suggestion that the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and he along with plaintiff fabricated

Ex.A1 for wrongful gain and to harass the defendant.

10. The defendant filed his evidence affidavit as on the same lines of his written statement and examined as DW1.

During his cross-examination, he admitted that there is no document to show that he borrowed amount from the scribe Tallapudi Ganesh in the year 2017, and the amount of hand loan said to be obtained from Tallapudi Ganesh is not mentioned in the written statement or in his evidence affidavit, and that though he mentioned that there are different writings in the suit promissory note, he did not specify those differences. He denied the suggestion that he borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 and that he is deposing false to avoid suit promissory note debt.

11. It is the contention of the defendant that in the year 2017 the defendant took hand loan from one Tallapudi Ganesh Babu, who is scribe of Ex.A1, and by that time the defendant put his thumb impression and signature on empty promissory note on the demand of T.Ganesh Babu, and except that the defendant never borrowed any amount from plaintiff, and that the plaintiff fabricated the promissory note by colluding with the help of attestors and filed false case against the defendant for wrongful gain, and that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such a huge amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the defendant.

12. The plaintiff counsel argued that by examining PWs 1 to 3 and by marking

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, the plaintiff is able to establish his contention that the defendant borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 14.12.2017 by executing Ex.A1

P.J.C.J.COURT, PITHAPURAM 5 O.S.163/2020, Dt.19.04.2024 promissory note and inspite of issuing of legal notice, the defendant did not discharge the debt and to avoid the payment of debt, he took false pleas that the plaintiff fabricated Ex.A1 promissory note. He argued that though the defendant contended that he borrowed amount from Tallapudi Ganesh, the particulars of the borrowed amount, date of borrowal etc., and he did not issue any notice to

Tallapudi Ganesh to return the empty promissory note, and that he took false pleas to avoid the promissory note debt. Thus, he prays to decree the suit.

13. The counsel for the defendant argued that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 and he borrowed amount from Tallapudi Ganesh ie., scribe of promissory note and by that time he obtained empty promissory note from the defendant and taking advantage of the same, he got filed this suit through the plaintiff for wrongful gain since there are differences between defendant and

Tallapudi Ganesh. He argued that there are differences in figure “4” in Ex.A1 and the same is admitted by the plaintiff. Thus, it shows that it is a fabricated promissory note. Thus, he prays to dismiss the suit.

14. The defendant is not denying his signature on Ex.A1, his plea is that he gave empty promissory note containing his signature to one Tallapudi Ganesh when he borrowed amount from him, but the defendant did not mention when he borrowed amount from said Tallapudi Ganesh, and when he discharged the said debt. He did not mention in whose presence he issued empty promissory note to Tallapudi

Ganesh. He simply put suggestions to the plaintiff to that effect. When the defendant admitted his signature on Ex.A1 promissory note, a presumption can be drawn under section 118 of N.I.Act that said negotiable instrument is executed in favour of the person mentioned therein, and for the amount mentioned therein, and the date mentioned therein. It is a rebuttable presumption. To rebut the said presumption, the defendant though examined himself as DW1, it is no way helpful to establish his contention that Ex.A1 is a fabricated promissory note. Though, the defendant contended that there is a difference of writing in figure 4 in Ex.A1, admittedly in words it is clearly mentioned that Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs

P.J.C.J.COURT, PITHAPURAM 6 O.S.163/2020, Dt.19.04.2024 only) in Ex.A1. Moreover, he did not issue any notice to said Tallapudi Ganesh to return the empty promissory note. He did not file any complaint against the plaintiff or said Tallapudi Ganesh, that they fabricated empty promissory note containing his signature. Even, he did not issue any reply to the legal notice issued by the plaintiff. So also he did not mention the disputes between him and Tallapudi

Ganesh.

15. Moreover, the plaintiff established his contention by marking Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 and by examining himself as PW1, and the 2nd attestor of Ex.A1 as PW2, and the scribe of Ex.A1 as PW3, and the evidence of PWs1 to 3 is corroborating with each other, regarding execution of promissory note by the defendant. As per Ex.A1, it bears the signature of the defendant for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-.

16. With the above said observation, I opined that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant and it is supported by consideration and the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for. Hence, I intends to decree the suit. Accordingly issues 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

17. Issue No.3:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.6,72,000/-(Rupees six lakhs seventy two thousand only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at 6% p.a. from the date of decree to till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19 th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- Smt.M.Sudha Rani

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PITHAPURAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT

PW1/28.03.2023 : Vanapalli Venkata Ramayya DW1/15.02.2024 : Dasari Krishna PW2/25.07.2023 : Ponnada Srimmannarayana PW3/23.08.2023 : Tallapudi Ganesh Babu

P.J.C.J.COURT, PITHAPURAM 7 O.S.163/2020, Dt.19.04.2024

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Promissory note dt.14.12.2017 for Rs.4,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff

Ex.A2 : Office copy of registered lawyer‟s notice with postal receipt dt.22.09.2020 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant

FOR DEFENDANT:

Nil

Sd/- Smt.M.Sudha Rani

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PITHAPURAM

// t.c.f.b.o //

PJCJ PTP

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PITHAPURAM

PRESENT:- Smt M.Sudha Rani, Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram.

Monday, the 27th day of February, 2023.

O.S.No.217/2019

Between:

1.Kurakula Veera Raghavulu, S/o late Venkata Rao, 72 years, D.No.2-97, near Madhyaveedhi, Ramakovela, Viravada village, Pithapuram Mandal.

2.Cheekatla Veera Ramalakshmi, W/o Nageswara Rao, 54 years, D/o late Kurakula Veera Raghavulu, D.No.31-1-10/2, Rangayyanaidu Veedhi, Yetimoga, Kakinada, Kakinada Urban Mandal.

(2 nd plaintiff added as legal representative of deceased

plaintiff as per the orders in I.A.No.454/21 dt.14.12.2021).

..Plaintiffs

And

Kurakula Atchyutha Ramayya, S/o Srirama Murthy, 55 years, Near Madhyaveedhi, Ramakovela, Viravada village, Pithapuram Mandal.

.. Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 14.2.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Venkata Ramana, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri K.S.R.Bhaskar, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Plaintiff filed the suit to pass a decree for an amount of

Rs.1,61,135/- with subsequent interest and costs.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.94,600/- from the deceased plaintiff Kurakula Veera Raghavulu on 1.9.2016 for the purpose of agricultural investments and executed a demand promissory note in favour of deceased plaintiff Kurakula Veera

Raghavulu, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. Inspite of repeated oral demands made by deceased plaintiff, the defendant did not repay any amount under suit promissory note towards principal or interest and postponed the same on one pretext or the other and that the deceased 2 plaintiff Kurakula Veera Raghavulu got issued a legal notice dated 22.6.2019 to the defendant to repay the pronote debt and the defendant received the said notice and kept quiet. Hence the deceased plaintiff Kurakula Veera

Raghavulu is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the suit amount along with interest and costs.

3.The defendant filed written statement by denying the contents of the plaint and further contended that due to political rivalry the plaintiff got filed this false suit against the defendant and the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time and never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and the suit promissory note is a rank forged document and did not support by consideration and prays to dismiss the suit.

4.On perusal of the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial:

1.Whether suit promissory note dt.1.9.2016 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2.Whether plaintiff has capacity to lend such amount?

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief as claimed for?

4. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiffs got examined Pws 1 to 3 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. The defendant did not choose to examine any witnesses and no documents are marked on his behalf.

6.Heard. Perused the material on record.

7.ISSUE NO.1 to 3:

By reiterating the contents of the plaint, the 2nd plaintiff filed her evidence affidavit as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. Ex.A1 is the demand promissory note dt.1.9.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of father of 1st plaintiff. Ex.A2 is the registered legal notice dt.22.6.2019 got 3 issued by the father of 1st plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.A3 is the acknowledgement card from the defendant.

During her cross examination, PW1 admitted that the defendant is her relative and she know the contents of the written statement. She denied the suggestion that the defendant never borrowed any amount from her father.

8.The 1st attestor of Ex.A1 filed his evidence affidavit as PW2 by reiterating the contents of the plaint.

During his cross examination he deposed that except the suit promissory note he never signed as attestor of any other promissory note and that both the plaintiff and defendant are relatives. He denied the suggestion that no transaction took place in his presence and no consideration was passed under Ex.A1.

9.The scribe of Ex.A1 filed his evidence affidavit as PW.3 by reiterating the contents of the plaint.

During his cross examination, he deposed that execution of promissory note took place in his medical shop and as the defendant informed the amount, he mentioned the same in the promissory note. He denied the suggestion that the defendant informed him that he received amount, but no consideration was passed in his presence to the defendant from the plaintiff.

10.(I)The counsel for the plaintiff filed written arguments by briefly narrating the contents of the plaint and written statement and that the defendant executed suit promissory note in favour of the 1st plaintiff and after his death, daughter of 1st plaintiff is examined as PW1 and that attestor and scribe were examined as Pws 2 and 3. Thus a legal presumption was drawn under section 118 of N.I.Act, that promissory note was made or drawn for consideration and burden lies on the defendant to establish that the promissory note was executed without consideration and that plaintiff had 4 no capacity to lend such huge amount and that though the defendant pleaded forgery, there was no specific pleading in that aspect as required under Order 6 rule 4 of CPC, in case of fraud or misrepresentation. To support his contention he relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2010(2) CCC 579, wherein the parties are Shanti Budhiya Vesta Patel and others Vs. Nirmala Jayprakash Tiwari and others.

(ii)He further argued that the plaintiff is holder of the promissory note as per the NI.Act and as per section 118 of N.I.Act there is a presumption in favour of the plaintiff that promissory note was made or drawn for consideration, since it is not the case of the defendant that signature of the defendant was copied on the suit promissory note, burden lies on the defendant to rebut the presumption under section 118 of N.I.Act.

He argued that the evidence of attesting witness and scribe are sufficient to hold that suit promissory note was executed by the defendant by putting his signature and received consideration under the promissory note. He argued that the enquiry into a plea of forgery is a comprehensive one, calling for detailed evidence and material on either side and such plea of forgery even constitutes a serious offence under the Indian Penal Code and that the conduct of the parties prior to the suit and their silence goes a long way in considering the said plea. On this aspect the plaintiff relied on the decisions of Hon’ble High Court of A.P in Vanga Surya Rao and Others Vs. Guttula

Gopalakrishna on 28th July, 1999 Equivalent citations: 1999(6)ALD 611, 1999 (4) ALT 480 and Moden Venkataramana Vs. Palagiri Rasool Saheb, on 25th

October, 2002, Equivalent citations: 2003(1) ALT 545.

(iii) He argued that as per the evidence of scribe, promissory note was executed at his shop and attestor signed on it while the defendant put his thumb impression by receiving consideration. Even though the witnesses were subjected to cross examination nothing was elicited to discredit their evidence. He argued that as per the provision of 2(12) and 5 2(14) of Indian Stamp Act, it is presumed that the defendant had given blank promissory note with signature, it will amount to execution. He argued that the plea of the defendant is not supported by his evidence as he did not enter into witness box and it clearly shows that by itself, is enough to reject the claim of the defendant. To support his contention, he relied on a decision in Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikarao & Another, on 17th March, 1999 and another decisions reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441, 1999(3) ALT 1 SC, JT 1999(2)

SC 183, 1999(2) SCALE 93. He argued that since the defendant did not enter

into witness box to support his contention, a presumption can be drawn against him that the plea taken by him is false, as per the decision relied on by the plaintiff.

11.Inspite of giving several adjournments, the defendant did not choose to adduce his evidence and that defendant evidence is closed on 22.12.2022 as defendant is absent, no representation even at 5.00 p.m, and condition not complied and the matter is posted for arguments.

12.Though the defendant by way of written statement contended that due to political rivalry, the plaintiff got filed this false suit against him and that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and the suit promissory note is a rank forged document, he did not choose to send Ex.A1 for expert opinion. Moreover he did not give any reply to the legal notice issued by the plaintiff on 22.6.2019. Moreover the defendant did not choose to come into witness box to establish his case. Thus, an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant that the plea taken by the defendant is not correct.

13.To support my contention, I relied on a decision of our Hon’ble

Supreme Court reported in 1999(3) A.L.T. 1 (SC) wherein the parties are

Vidhyadhar vs. Manik Rao, wherein it is held that 6 “an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant that he intentionally avoided himself to enter into witness box apprehending that the plea taken by him is proved to be false, in the event, he enters into witness box.

14.By examining Pws 1 to 3 and by marking Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, the plaintiff established the execution of promissory note by the defendant, so also inspite of legal notice the defendant did not choose to discharge the pronote debt, and even he did sent reply to Ex.A2 legal notice. Though the defendant cross examined Pws 1 to 3 at length, no purpose will be served to establish the contention of the defendant in the written statement.

15.With the above said observation, I opined that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant and it is supported by consideration and the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for.

Hence I intends to decree the suit. Accordingly issues 1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

16.Issue No.4:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.1,61,135/- (rupees One Lakh Sixty-one thousand one hundred and Thirty- five only) against the defendant, with subsequent interest at 12% p.a from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a from the date of decree till realization on the principal amount of Rs.94,600/-.

Dictated to the shorthand writer, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 27th day of February, 2023.

sd/-M.Sudharani.

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

`Pithapuram.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

PW1: Cheekatla Veera Ramalakshmi.

PW2: Mummidi Naga Chakradarudu.

PW3: Durgapu Suryanarayana.

For Defendant: None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 is the demand promissory note dt.1.9.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of father of 1st plaintiff.

Ex.A2 is the registered legal notice dt.22.6.2019 got issued by the father of 1st plaintiff to the defendant.

Ex.A3 is the acknowledgement card from the defendant.

For Defendant: Nil.

Sd/-M.Sudharani.

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

`Pithapuram.