Smt.M.Sudha Rani

1 C.C.No.935/2024 dtd 03.12.2024 JFCM Court ,GDV

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, GUDIVADA

Present Smt.M.Sudha Rani

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudivada

Tuesday this the 03rd day of December, 2024

CALENDER CASE NO.935/2024 Between: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandivada Police Station. …Complainant

And

Pedada Anjaneyulu, S/o Venkateswara Rao, aged about 36 Years, Gopalapuram, H/o Rudrapaka Village, Nandivada Mandal.

… Accused

This case is coming before this court for final hearing on 02.12.2024 in the presenceofAssistantPublicProsecutorforStateandof Smt M.Lakshmi, Counsel for the Accused, upon hearing both sides, and matter have stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector, Nandivada Police Station filed a charge sheet in

Cr.No.150/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968, against the Accused.

2.The averments of the charge-sheet are that on 05.11.2024 at about 9.00 p.m, on receipt of credible information with regard to selling of liquor bottles, PW3 along with his staff, P.Ws.1 & 2 accompanied their S.I rushed to Sundry Shop of accused at

Gopalapuram, H/o Rudrapaka Village, Nandivada Mandal, and apprehended the accused while trying to escape, and on enquiry, the accused revealed his identity particulars as accused in the above case. Basing on the confession given by the accused, PW3 arrested the accused, seized 35 liquor bottles of various brands of 180 ML., each drawn sample of one bottle from each brand for chemical examination, prepared occurrence report at the scene of offence as the mediators are not available, and P.W.3 registered the same as a case in Crime No.150/2024

U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act. During the course of investigation, P.W.3 visited the scene of offence and draw the rough sketch, recorded the statements of witnesses and also served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused, sent the sample to the chemical examiner for analysis and after receipt of the chemical analysis report, which opined that the samples are Indian Made Liquor and after completion of 2 C.C.No.935/2024 dtd 03.12.2024 JFCM Court, GDV investigation, P.W.3 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

3.On receipt of charge sheet, this case is taken on file against the Accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

4.On appearance of the Accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section-230 of B.N.S.S (herein after referred as 'B.N.S.S.' for the sake of brevity).

5.When examined under Section 262 of BNSS., Accused denied the allegations leveled against him. After perusing the entire material on record and on hearing both sides, a charge had been framed against the Accused under Section 34 (a) of

A.P.Excise Act, 1968 which was read over and explained to the Accused in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs1 to 3 were examined, Ex.P1 to P5, M.O.1 is marked.

7.On closure of evidence let in by the prosecution, Accused is examined under

Section 351 of B.N.S.S., with regard to the incriminating material available against him, for which, he plea is total denial and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard arguments on both sides and perused entire evidence on record.

9.Now, the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt of Accused for the charge framed against him under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968, beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10.POINT :

11.PW1/K.Praveen Kumar/Police Constable of Nandivada Police Station deposed that on 05.11.2024 at about 9.00 p.m, on receipt of information regarding selling of

I.D.liquor, he along with his staff, P.W.2 accompanied their S.I ie., PW3 and rushed to buddy shop in Gopalapuram Village, Nandivada Mandal and found a person and on seeing them, he tried to escape and they apprehended him and on enquiry, he revealed his identity particulars as accused in this case. He voluntarily confessed 3 C.C.No.935/2024 dtd 03.12.2024 JFCM Court, GDV that as his financial status is not good, due to that reason he purchased the liquor bottles and selling the same for higher price for his livelihood, and handed over 35 liquor bottles of various brands 180 ML each. As mediators are not available, P.W.3 seized all those bottles and affixed identity slips on one of those bottles and sent the same for chemical analysis. He further deposed that they brought the accused to the police station along with occurrence report and seized property.

During his cross examination, he admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality. He admitted that the batch numbers are not shown on liquor bottles. He denied the suggestion that he did not accompany the S.I of police to the alleged scene of offence and that accused is noway concerned with the offence.

12.P.W.2/P.Appa Rao who is eye witness at the time of raid at scene of offence and seizure of case property under the cover of occurrence report did not whisper about the case of prosecution and he simply deposed he do not know anything about the case and he do not know the accused and police did not examine him. The case of prosecution was suggested to him and he denied it as false.

13.PW3/K.Srinivasu/S.I deposed as on the same lines of PW1. He further deposed that he registered the occurrence report as case in crime No.150/2024 U/Sec.34 (a) of AP Excise Act, issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and recorded the statements of witnesses and on the same day went to the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence and sent the sample for chemical analysis and after receipt of chemical analysis report he filed charge sheet.

During his cross examination, he admitted that the batch numbers are not shown on M.O.1. He admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality. He denied the suggestion that accused is noway concerned with the offence.

14.The learned APP argued that by examining PWs 1 to 3 and by marking Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and M.O.1, the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and prays to convict the accused according to law.

15.The defence counsel argued that there are no independent witnesses except the police officials to establish that the accused found in possession of M.O.1, and 4 C.C.No.935/2024 dtd 03.12.2024 JFCM Court, GDV that while discharging their duties, they failed to follow the prescribed procedure as contemplated U/sec.103 (4) of B.N.S.S. He further argued that the accused is no way concerned with the offence and that M.O.1 is planted for the purpose of this case. Thus, he prays to acquit the accused under benefit of doubt.

16. As can be seen from the record, the search, seizure and arrest was conducted by PW3 while conducting raid along with his staff. On careful perusal of the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, it is quite evident that PW3 failed to follow the prescribed procedure as contemplated U/sec.103(4) of B.N.S.S during the search and seizure. The learned counsel for the accused rightly pointed out that PW3 failed to take any one to act as mediators. Admittedly, no summons were served on any one, calling them as mediators. It is expedient to have a glance on section 103 (4) of B.N.S.S. for better appreciation of the evidence in this case.

17.“Sec.100 (4) reads as follows:: Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate 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 the Sec 103 (4) of B.N.S.S. when the independent mediators in that locality are not available, the police officials has to record the same and issue an order in writing as prescribed above. It is pertinent to note here that PW1 along with his staff while discharging their duties at the scene of offence categorically stated in his cross-examination that no one were available by that time to act as mediators, but they did not try for mediators at the scene of offence.

18.It is settled law that in the absence of independent mediators the entire procedure vitiates the case. I feel it is just and proper to go through the relevant case law in this regard. The Hon’ble High Court of A.P in the case of “S.BABU SAHEB @ BABU VS THE STATE OF A.P, reported in “2010(1) A.L.T. (Crl.) 32 A.P, wherein it is held that “When they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein 5 C.C.No.935/2024 dtd 03.12.2024 JFCM Court, GDV there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the Excise officials or Prohibition Officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable persons to act as mediators”. In Pothabathula Abbulu V. State of AP in Crl.R.C.No.1758/2005

dated 6.7.2021, wherein it is held that lack of punch witness at the time of seizure-

conviction on the basis of such evidence would not be appropriate.

19. It is clear from the record that no such procedure was adopted by the

Investigating Officer though the scene of offence is located at Gopalapuram Village,

Nandivada Mandal, at 9.00 p.m is not an odd hour and there is every possibility of securing the neighours as mediators. PW3 deposed that he prepared occurrence report. He did not whisper about the presence of VRA or VRO by the time of apprehension of accused. It is settled law that in the absence of independent mediators, the entire procedure vitiates the trial.

20.As seen from the record, no special circumstances are explained by PW3 what compelled him to proceed under Ex.P2, though the scene of offence is not an isolated area. It is pertinent to note that the reason shown by PW3 for his failure to secure the mediators is not convincing, as he had information about possession, sale and transportation of liquor at the place of offence. For all these reasons, it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of PWs2 and 3. Hence, the search and seizure of

MO1 from the possession of the accused is not proved. No photographs were taken by the time of arrest of accused and seizure of M.O.1 at the scene of offence and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. PW3 is S.I, who arrested the accused and seized the M.O 1 and prepared Ex.P2 Report and thus, except the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, there is no other material evidence is available on record to prove the search and seizure in this case. Moreover, P.W.3 did not obtain the signatures of accused on the occurrence report or the sample bottle and it is fatal to the case of prosecution. He also did not obtain the signature of P.Ws.1 and 2 on Ex.P.2 occurrence report so also on the sample bottle to establish his presence by the time of alleged apprehension of accused, seizure of liquor bottle from the possession of accused.

6 C.C.No.935/2024 dtd 03.12.2024 JFCM Court, GDV

21.With the above said observation, I safely came to conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of A.p.Excise Act, 1968, beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly point is answered.

22.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968, and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 271 (1) of

B.N.S.S. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of judgment as per Section 481 of B.N.S.S and thereafter shall stand cancelled. M.O 1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 03rd day of December, 2024.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gudivada Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:

PW1 : K.Praveen Kumar (P.C)For Defence

P.W2: P.Appa Rao (Eye Witness) -None-

PW3: K.Srinivasu (I/o)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:For Defence

Ex.P1 : Statement of P.W.2 recorded U/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Nil Ex.P2 : Occurrence report Ex.P3 : First Information Report Ex.P4 : Rough Sketch Ex.P5 : Analysis report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 : 2 Sample liquor bottles Sd/Smt M.Sudha Rani.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gudivada //True copy//

JFCM,GDV

7 C.C.No.935/2024 dtd 03.12.2024 JFCM Court, GDV

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, GUDIVADA

C.C.No.935/2024 Date of offence:05.11.2024 Date of report or complaint:05.11.2024 Date of apprehension of the accused :05.11.2024 (Sec.41-A Cr.P.C Notice) Date of Release on bail:--- Date of commencement of trial : 27.11.2024 Date of closer of trial:: 29.11.2024

Date of sentence or order: 03.12.2024 Explanation of delay or remarks: No delay

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

Name of the accused:

Pedada Anjaneyulu, S/o Venkateswara Rao, aged about 36 Years, Gopalapuram, H/o Rudrapaka Village, Nandivada Mandal.

Offence: U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968

Finding: Found not guilty. Sentence:

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34 (a) of

A.P.Excise Act, 1968, and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 271 (1) of

B.N.S.S. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of judgment as per Section 481 of B.N.S.S and thereafter shall stand cancelled. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/Smt M.Sudha Rani.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gudivada

Copies submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

//True copy//

JFCM,GDV

1 C.C.No.936/2024 dtd 03.12.2024 JFCM Court ,GDV

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, GUDIVADA

Present Smt.M.Sudha Rani

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudivada

Tuesday this the 03rd day of December, 2024

CALENDER CASE NO.936/2024 Between: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandivada Police Station. …Complainant

And

Kotturi Krushibabu, S/o Chinna Kanthaiah, aged about 21 Years, Ilaparru Village of Nandivada Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming before this court for final hearing on 02.12.2024 in the presenceofAssistantPublicProsecutorforStateandof Sri J.Siva Sankara Rao, Counsel for the Accused, upon hearing both sides, and matter have stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector, Nandivada Police Station filed a charge sheet in

Cr.No.153/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968, against the Accused.

2.The averments of the charge-sheet are that on 10.11.2024 at about 8.00 p.m, on receipt of credible information with regard to selling of liquor bottles, PW3 along with his staff, P.Ws.1 & 2 accompanied their S.I rushed to Chicken shop of accused in

Lakshminarasimhapuram, H/o Ilaparru Village of Nandivada Mandal, and apprehended the accused while trying to escape, and on enquiry, the accused revealed his identity particulars as accused in the above case. Basing on the confession given by the accused, PW3 arrested the accused, seized 19 liquor bottles of Short Whisky of 180 ML., each drawn sample of one bottle from each brand for chemical examination, prepared occurrence report at the scene of offence as the mediators are not available, and P.W.3 registered the same as a case in Crime

No.153/2024 U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act. During the course of investigation, P.W.3 visited the scene of offence and draw the rough sketch, recorded the statements of witnesses and also served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused, sent the sample to the chemical examiner for analysis and after receipt of the chemical analysis report, which opined that the samples are Indian Made Liquor and after completion of 2 C.C.No.936/2024 dtd 03.12.2024 JFCM Court, GDV investigation, P.W.3 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

3.On receipt of charge sheet, this case is taken on file against the Accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

4.On appearance of the Accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section-230 of B.N.S.S (herein after referred as 'B.N.S.S.' for the sake of brevity).

5.When examined under Section 262 of BNSS., Accused denied the allegations leveled against him. After perusing the entire material on record and on hearing both sides, a charge had been framed against the Accused under Section 34 (a) of

A.P.Excise Act, 1968 which was read over and explained to the Accused in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs1 to 3 were examined, Ex.P1 to P5, M.O.1 is marked.

7.On closure of evidence let in by the prosecution, Accused is examined under

Section 351 of B.N.S.S., with regard to the incriminating material available against him, for which, he plea is total denial and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard arguments on both sides and perused entire evidence on record.

9.Now, the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt of Accused for the charge framed against him under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968, beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10.POINT :

11.PW1/K.Praveen Kumar/Police Constable of Nandivada Police Station deposed that on 10.11.2024 at about 8.00 p.m, on receipt of information regarding selling of

I.D.liquor, he along with his staff, P.W.2 accompanied their S.I ie., PW3 and rushed near Lakshminarasimhapuram Village of Nandivada Mandal and found a person and on seeing them, he tried to escape and they apprehended him and on enquiry, he revealed his identity particulars as accused in this case. He voluntarily confessed 3 C.C.No.936/2024 dtd 03.12.2024 JFCM Court, GDV that as his financial status is not good, due to that reason he purchased the liquor bottles and selling the same for higher price for his livelihood, and handed over 19 liquor bottles of Shot Whisky of 180 ML each. As mediators are not available, P.W.3 seized all those bottles and affixed identity slips on one of those bottles and sent the same for chemical analysis. He further deposed that they brought the accused to the police station along with occurrence report and seized property.

During his cross examination, he admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality. He admitted that the batch numbers are not shown on liquor bottles. He denied the suggestion that he did not accompany the S.I of police to the alleged scene of offence and that accused is noway concerned with the offence.

12.P.W.2/P.Pentaiah who is eye witness at the time of raid at scene of offence and seizure of case property under the cover of occurrence report did not whisper about the case of prosecution and he simply deposed he do not know anything about the case and he do not know the accused and police did not examine him. The case of prosecution was suggested to him and he denied it as false.

13.PW3/K.Srinivasu/S.I deposed as on the same lines of PW1. He further deposed that he registered the occurrence report as case in crime No.153/2024 U/Sec.34 (a) of AP Excise Act, issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and recorded the statements of witnesses and on the same day went to the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence and sent the sample for chemical analysis and after receipt of chemical analysis report he filed charge sheet.

During his cross examination, he admitted that the batch numbers are not shown on M.O.1. He admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality. He denied the suggestion that accused is noway concerned with the offence.

14.The learned APP argued that by examining PWs 1 to 3 and by marking Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and M.O.1, the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and prays to convict the accused according to law.

15.The defence counsel argued that there are no independent witnesses except the police officials to establish that the accused found in possession of M.O.1, and 4 C.C.No.936/2024 dtd 03.12.2024 JFCM Court, GDV that while discharging their duties, they failed to follow the prescribed procedure as contemplated U/sec.103 (4) of B.N.S.S. He further argued that the accused is no way concerned with the offence and that M.O.1 is planted for the purpose of this case. Thus, he prays to acquit the accused under benefit of doubt.

16. As can be seen from the record, the search, seizure and arrest was conducted by PW3 while conducting raid along with his staff. On careful perusal of the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, it is quite evident that PW3 failed to follow the prescribed procedure as contemplated U/sec.103(4) of B.N.S.S during the search and seizure. The learned counsel for the accused rightly pointed out that PW3 failed to take any one to act as mediators. Admittedly, no summons were served on any one, calling them as mediators. It is expedient to have a glance on section 103 (4) of B.N.S.S. for better appreciation of the evidence in this case.

17.“Sec.100 (4) reads as follows:: Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate 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 the Sec 103 (4) of B.N.S.S. when the independent mediators in that locality are not available, the police officials has to record the same and issue an order in writing as prescribed above. It is pertinent to note here that PW1 along with his staff while discharging their duties at the scene of offence categorically stated in his cross-examination that no one were available by that time to act as mediators, but they did not try for mediators at the scene of offence.

18.It is settled law that in the absence of independent mediators the entire procedure vitiates the case. I feel it is just and proper to go through the relevant case law in this regard. The Hon’ble High Court of A.P in the case of “S.BABU SAHEB @ BABU VS THE STATE OF A.P, reported in “2010(1) A.L.T. (Crl.) 32 A.P, wherein it is held that “When they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein 5 C.C.No.936/2024 dtd 03.12.2024 JFCM Court, GDV there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the Excise officials or Prohibition Officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable persons to act as mediators”. In Pothabathula Abbulu V. State of AP in Crl.R.C.No.1758/2005

dated 6.7.2021, wherein it is held that lack of punch witness at the time of seizure-

conviction on the basis of such evidence would not be appropriate.

19. It is clear from the record that no such procedure was adopted by the

Investigating Officer though the scene of offence is located at

Lakshminarasimhapuram Village, Nandivada Mandal, at 8.00 p.m is not an odd hour and there is every possibility of securing the neighours as mediators. PW3 deposed that he prepared occurrence report. He did not whisper about the presence of VRA or VRO by the time of apprehension of accused. It is settled law that in the absence of independent mediators, the entire procedure vitiates the trial.

20.As seen from the record, no special circumstances are explained by PW3 what compelled him to proceed under Ex.P2, though the scene of offence is not an isolated area. It is pertinent to note that the reason shown by PW3 for his failure to secure the mediators is not convincing, as he had information about possession, sale and transportation of liquor at the place of offence. For all these reasons, it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of PWs2 and 3. Hence, the search and seizure of

MO1 from the possession of the accused is not proved. No photographs were taken by the time of arrest of accused and seizure of M.O.1 at the scene of offence and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. PW3 is S.I, who arrested the accused and seized the M.O 1 and prepared Ex.P2 Report and thus, except the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, there is no other material evidence is available on record to prove the search and seizure in this case. Moreover, P.W.3 did not obtain the signatures of accused on the occurrence report or the sample bottle and it is fatal to the case of prosecution. He also did not obtain the signature of P.Ws.1 and 2 on Ex.P.2 occurrence report so also on the sample bottle to establish his presence by the time of alleged apprehension of accused, seizure of liquor bottle from the possession of accused.

6 C.C.No.936/2024 dtd 03.12.2024 JFCM Court, GDV

21.With the above said observation, I safely came to conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of A.p.Excise Act, 1968, beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly point is answered.

22.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968, and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 271 (1) of

B.N.S.S. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of judgment as per Section 481 of B.N.S.S and thereafter shall stand cancelled. M.O 1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 03rd day of December, 2024.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gudivada Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:

PW1 : K.Praveen Kumar (P.C)For Defence

P.W2: P.Pentaiah (Eye Witness) -None-

PW3: K.Srinivasu (I/o)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:For Defence

Ex.P1 : Statement of P.W.2 recorded U/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Nil Ex.P2 : Occurrence report Ex.P3 : First Information Report Ex.P4 : Rough Sketch Ex.P5 : Analysis report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 : 1 Sample liquor bottle Sd/Smt M.Sudha Rani.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gudivada //True copy//

JFCM, GDV

7 C.C.No.936/2024 dtd 03.12.2024 JFCM Court, GDV

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, GUDIVADA

C.C.No.936/2024 Date of offence:10.11.2024 Date of report or complaint:10.11.2024 Date of apprehension of the accused :10.11.2024 (Sec.41-A Cr.P.C Notice) Date of Release on bail:--- Date of commencement of trial : 27.11.2024 Date of closer of trial:: 29.11.2024

Date of sentence or order: 03.12.2024 Explanation of delay or remarks: No delay

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

Name of the accused:

Kotturi Krushibabu, S/o Chinna Kanthaiah, aged about 21 Years, Ilaparru Village of Nandivada Mandal.

Offence: U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968

Finding: Found not guilty. Sentence:

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34 (a) of

A.P.Excise Act, 1968, and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 271 (1) of

B.N.S.S. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of judgment as per Section 481 of B.N.S.S and thereafter shall stand cancelled. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/Smt M.Sudha Rani.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gudivada

Copies submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

//True copy//

JFCM, GDV

O.S.No.292/2024 Dt 03.12.2024 1 P.C.J.(J.D.), Gudivada.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE( JUNIOR DIVISION), GUDIVADA

Present Smt M.Sudha Rani,

Principal Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Gudivada

Tuesday this the 03rd day of December, 2024.

Original Suit Number 292 of 2024

Between:

Uppala Praveen Kumar, S/o Narayana Rao, aged about 32 Years, Pvt Employee, R/o Dondapadu Village, Gudivada Rural Mandal, Krishna District.

... Plaintiff

Vs

1. Adusumilli Venkata Seetha Mahalakshmi, W/o late Adusumilli Mohana Ramdas, aged about 63 Years, R/o H.No.40-26/1-15, Sriram Nagar, Behind Mahita Public School, Brindavan Colony, Vijayawada, N.T.R, District.

2. Adusumilli Krishna Mohan @ Chandu, S/o late Adusumilli Mohana Ramdas, aged about 36 Years, R/o H.No.40-26/1-15, Sriram Nagar, Behind Mahita Public School, Brindavan Colony, Vijayawada, N.T.R, District.

3. Adusumilli Sakunt Mohan @ Nandu, S/o late Adusumilli Mohana Ramdas, aged about 34 Years, R/o H.No.40-26/1-15, Sriram Nagar, Behind Mahita Public School, Brindavan Colony, Vijayawada, N.T.R, District.

4. Adusumilli Sakuntala Devi, D/o late Adusumilli Mohana Ramdas, W/o Donavalli Ananth, aged about 32 Years, R/o H.No.40-26/1-15, Sriram Nagar, Behind Mahita Public School, Brindavan Colony, Vijayawada, N.T.R, District.

... Defendants

This suit is coming up before this Court on 02.12.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Veeraiah, learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendants were set exparte and upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and on perusing the material available on record this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.12,48,533/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Forty

Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Three Only) being principal and interest due under suit promissory note dated 12.06.2022 executed by the Adusumilli Mohan Ramdas during his life time for Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) agreeing to repay the same with interest

O.S.No.292/2024 Dt 03.12.2024 2 P.C.J.(J.D.), Gudivada.

@ 24 % p.a with accrued interest either to plaintiff or his demand and with costs from the defendants.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that on 12.06.2022, Adusumilli Mohan Ramdas during his life time borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) from the plaintiff for his business purpose agreeing to repay the same with interest of 24 % per annum either to plaintiff or his demand and executed the suit promissory note.

3.The plaintiff further submitted that as the Adusumilli Mohan Ramdas during his life time did not choose to repay the suit amount despite of repeated demands made by him. Recently, the plaintiff came to know that the said Adusumilli Mohan Ramdas died intestate on 17.07.2024 leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs. On 30.09.2024, the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendants to repay the promissory note debt, the defendants returned the said notices. Hence the suit.

4.Defendants refused to receive summons. Hence they were set exparte by the court on 14.11.2024 and posted for plaintiff evidence.

5.Basing up on the plaint pleadings the points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?

2. To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, plaintiff himself got examined as P.W.1 and marked Original

Suit Promissory note, dated 12.06.2022 as Ex.A.1, Office copy of legal notice dated 30.09.2024 as Ex.A.2, Returned cover of Defendant No.1 dated 01.10.2024 as Ex.A.3,

Returned cover of Defendant No.2 dated 01.10.2024 as Ex.A.4, Returned cover of Defendant

No.3 dated 01.10.2024 as Ex.A.5, Returned cover of Defendant No.4 dated 01.10.2024 as

Ex.A.6. The defendant did not choose the contest the case but remained exparte.

7. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the records available and the evidence.

O.S.No.292/2024 Dt 03.12.2024 3 P.C.J.(J.D.), Gudivada.

8.Point No:1 :-

The plaintiff in order to establish his case got examined himself as P.W.1 by filing his affidavit in lieu of the examination-in- chief and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 which is nothing but replica of plaint.

9. The chief examination affidavit of P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 proves the claim of plaintiff. The evidence of plaintiff remains unchallenged as the defendants were set exparte.

10. The plaintiff has amply proved that Ex.A.1 promissory note is supported by consideration and Adusumilli Mohan Ramdas during his life time had executed the same and it is valid and binding on the defendants. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount mentioned in Ex.A.1 suit promissory note as per the terms contained therein and the defendants are not entitled to any relief as they have not contested the case. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for decree against the defendants. The point is answered accordingly.

11.Point No.2:-

I n the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the estate of deceased Adusumilli

Mohan Ramdas lying in the hands of defendants for a sum of Rs.12,48,533/- (Rupees Twelve

Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Three Only) with future interest at 12% p.a on the principal sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till its realization.

Directly typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on the 03 rd day of December, 2024.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gudivada.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff : Defendants

P.W.1 : U.Praven Kumar - None-

O.S.No.292/2024 Dt 03.12.2024 4 P.C.J.(J.D.), Gudivada.

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A.1 : Suit promissory note, dated 12.06.2022

Ex.A.2 : O/c of Legal notice dated 30.09.2024

Ex.A.3 : Returned cover of D.1 dated 01.10.2024

Ex.A.4 : Returned cover of D.2 dated 01.10.2024

Ex.A.5 : Returned cover of D.3 dated 01.10.2024

Ex.A.6 : Returned cover of D.4 dated 01.10.2024

Exhibits marked for defendants -Nil-

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gudivada.

O.S.No.291/2024 Dt 03.12.2024 1 P.C.J.(J.D.), Gudivada.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE( JUNIOR DIVISION), GUDIVADA

Present Smt M.Sudha Rani,

Principal Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Gudivada

Tuesday this the 03rd day of December, 2024.

Original Suit Number 291 of 2024

Between:

Adusumilli Rammohan Rao, S/o Venkataratnam, aged about 36 Years, Aqua Business, R/o Dondapadu Village, Gudivada Rural Mandal, Krishna District.

... Plaintiff

Vs

1. Adusumilli Venkata Seetha Mahalakshmi, W/o late Adusumilli Mohana Ramdas, aged about 63 Years, R/o H.No.40-26/1-15, Sriram Nagar, Behind Mahita Public School, Brindavan Colony, Vijayawada, N.T.R, District.

2. Adusumilli Krishna Mohan @ Chandu, S/o late Adusumilli Mohana Ramdas, aged about 36 Years, R/o H.No.40-26/1-15, Sriram Nagar, Behind Mahita Public School, Brindavan Colony, Vijayawada, N.T.R, District.

3. Adusumilli Sakunt Mohan @ Nandu, S/o late Adusumilli Mohana Ramdas, aged about 34 Years, R/o H.No.40-26/1-15, Sriram Nagar, Behind Mahita Public School, Brindavan Colony, Vijayawada, N.T.R, District.

4. Adusumilli Sakuntala Devi, D/o late Adusumilli Mohana Ramdas, W/o Donavalli Ananth, aged about 32 Years, R/o H.No.40-26/1-15, Sriram Nagar, Behind Mahita Public School, Brindavan Colony, Vijayawada, N.T.R, District.

... Defendants

This suit is coming up before this Court on 02.12.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Veeraiah, learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendants were set exparte and upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and on perusing the material available on record this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.16,24,666/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs

Twenty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Six Only) being principal and interest due under suit promissory note dated 06.03.2022 executed by the Adusumilli Mohan Ramdas during his life time for Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) agreeing to repay the same

O.S.No.291/2024 Dt 03.12.2024 2 P.C.J.(J.D.), Gudivada.

with interest @ 24 % p.a with accrued interest either to plaintiff or his demand and with costs from the defendants.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that on 06.03.2022, Adusumilli Mohan Ramdas during his life time borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) from the plaintiff for his business purpose agreeing to repay the same with interest of 24 % per annum either to plaintiff or his demand and executed the suit promissory note.

3.The plaintiff further submitted that as the Adusumilli Mohan Ramdas during his life time did not choose to repay the suit amount despite of repeated demands made by him. Recently, the plaintiff came to know that the said Adusumilli Mohan Ramdas died intestate on 17.07.2024 leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs. On 27.09.2024, the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendants to repay the promissory note debt, the defendants returned the said notices. Hence the suit.

4.Defendants refused to receive summons. Hence they were set exparte by the court on 14.11.2024 and posted for plaintiff evidence.

5.Basing up on the plaint pleadings the points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?

2. To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, plaintiff himself got examined as P.W.1 and marked Original

Suit Promissory note, dated 06.03.2022 as Ex.A.1, Office copy of legal notice dated 27.09.2024 as Ex.A.2, Returned cover of Defendant No.1 dated 28.09.2024 as Ex.A.3,

Returned cover of Defendant No.2 dated 28.09.2024 as Ex.A.4, Returned cover of Defendant

No.3 dated 28.09.2024 as Ex.A.5, Returned cover of Defendant No.4 dated 28.09.2024 as

Ex.A.6. The defendant did not choose the contest the case but remained exparte.

7. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the records available and the evidence.

O.S.No.291/2024 Dt 03.12.2024 3 P.C.J.(J.D.), Gudivada.

8.Point No:1 :-

The plaintiff in order to establish his case got examined himself as P.W.1 by filing his affidavit in lieu of the examination-in- chief and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 which is nothing but replica of plaint.

9. The chief examination affidavit of P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 proves the claim of plaintiff. The evidence of plaintiff remains unchallenged as the defendants were set exparte.

10. The plaintiff has amply proved that Ex.A.1 promissory note is supported by consideration and Adusumilli Mohan Ramdas during his life time had executed the same and it is valid and binding on the defendants. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount mentioned in Ex.A.1 suit promissory note as per the terms contained therein and the defendants are not entitled to any relief as they have not contested the case. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for decree against the defendants. The point is answered accordingly.

11.Point No.2:-

I n the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the estate of deceased Adusumilli

Mohan Ramdas lying in the hands of defendants for a sum of Rs.16,24,666/- (Rupees Sixteen

Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Six Only) with future interest at 12% p.a on the principal sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till its realization.

Directly typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on the 03 rd day of December, 2024.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gudivada.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff : Defendants

P.W.1 : A.Rammohan Rao - None-

O.S.No.291/2024 Dt 03.12.2024 4 P.C.J.(J.D.), Gudivada.

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A.1 : Suit promissory note, dated 06.03.2022

Ex.A.2 : O/c of Legal notice dated 27.09.2024

Ex.A.3 : Returned cover of D.1 dated 28.09.2024

Ex.A.4 : Returned cover of D.2 dated 28.09.2024

Ex.A.5 : Returned cover of D.3 dated 28.09.2024

Ex.A.6 : Returned cover of D.4 dated 28.09.2024

Exhibits marked for defendants -Nil-

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gudivada.

O.S.No.300/2024 Dt 03.12.2024 1 P.C.J.(J.D.), Gudivada.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE( JUNIOR DIVISION), GUDIVADA

Present Smt M.Sudha Rani,

Principal Civil Judge( Junior Division), Gudivada

Tuesday, this the 03rd day of December, 2024.

Original Suit Number 300 of 2024

Between:

Duggireddy Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o Peddi Reddy, Business and cultivation, aged about 43 Years, R/o 11th ward, Gudivada.

... Plaintiff

Vs

Shaik Anwar Basha, S/o Joni Abdul, aged about 48 Years, Unit Number-2, Tenali Section, Tenali P.W.Office, S.C.Railway, Tenali, Guntur District, PF 09896089.

... Defendant

This suit is coming up before this Court on 02.12.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y.Ankineedu Prasad, learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant was set exparte and upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and on perusing the material available on record this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.4,29,333/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty

Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Three Only) being principal and interest due under suit promissory note dated 17.10.2021 executed by the defendant for Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees

Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24 % p.a with accrued interest either to plaintiff or his demand and with costs from the defendant.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that on 17.10.2021 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) from the plaintiff for his family necessities and to discharge of his sundry debts agreeing to repay the same with interest of 24 % per annum either to plaintiff or his demand and executed the suit promissory note.

3.The plaintiff further submitted that as the defendant did not choose to repay the suit amount despite of repeated demands made by him. Hence the suit.

4.The defendant was set exparte by the court on 25.11.2024, and posted for plaintiff evidence.

O.S.No.300/2024 Dt 03.12.2024 2 P.C.J.(J.D.), Gudivada.

5.Basing up on the plaint pleadings the points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?

2. To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, plaintiff himself got examined as P.W.1 and marked Original

Suit Promissory note, dated 17.10.2021 as Ex.A.1. The defendant did not choose the contest the case but remained exparte.

7. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the records available and the evidence.

8.Point No:1 :-

The plaintiff in order to establish his case got examined himself as P.W.1 by filing his affidavit in lieu of the examination-in- chief and got marked Ex.A.1 which is nothing but replica of plaint.

9. The chief examination affidavit of P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 proves the claim of plaintiff. The evidence of plaintiff remains unchallenged as the defendant was set exparte.

10. The plaintiff has amply proved that Ex.A.1 promissory note is supported by consideration and the defendant had executed the same and it is valid and binding on the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount mentioned in Ex.A.1 suit promissory note as per the terms contained therein and the defendant is not entitled to any relief as he has not contested the case. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for decree against the defendant.

The point is answered accordingly.

11.Point No.2:-

I n the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of

Rs.4,29,333/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Three

Only) with future interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree

O.S.No.300/2024 Dt 03.12.2024 3 P.C.J.(J.D.), Gudivada.

and thereafter at 6% p.a. till its realization on the principal sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only).

Directly typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on the 03 rd day of December, 2024.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gudivada.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff : Defendant

1. P.W.1 : D.V.Ramana Reddy - None-

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A.1 : Suit promissory note, dated 17.10.2021

Exhibits marked for defendant -Nil-

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gudivada.