M.Suneel Kumar

APKR030011762019

IN THE COURT OF XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri M.Suneel Kumar, XII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Wednesday, this the 22 nd day of April, 2026

Appeal Suit No.50/2019

Between:

Venna Seetha Rami Reddy, S/o.Rami Reddy, 62 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.41-5-7, ….Appellant/ Old Police Station Road, Vijayawada. Plaintiff

And

Kalepalli Sudhakar, S/o.Subba Rao, 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.11-24-21/6,

...Respondent/

Chippadavari Street, Vijayawada. Defendant

Appeal is filed Under Sec.96, Order 41, Rule 1 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree dated 05-01-2019 passed in O.S.No.150/2015 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Between:

Venna Seetha Rami Reddy…Plaintiff

And

Kalepalli Sudhakar...Defendant

* * * This Appeal Suit coming on 26-03-2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.V.Rama Krishna, Advocate for Appellant/Plaintiff and Sri

B.Subba Rao, Advocate for Respondent/Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and upon consideration this Court delivered the following:

AS.No.50/2019 2 XII ADJ Court,

Dt.22-04-2026 VJA.

J U D G M E N T

1. Appellant is the Plaintiff in O.S.No.150/2015 on the file of III Additional Senior

Civil Judge, Vijayawada, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 13-03-2024

passed against him, and preferred this appeal.

2. The parties in this appeal are hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff" and "Defendant" as arrayed in the suit, for the sake of convenience and brevity to avoid confusion.

3. Brief facts of the plaint are that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Thousand Only), Rs.4,20,000/- (Rupees Four

Lakhs and Twenty Thousand Only) and Rs.49,500/- (Rupees Forty Nine Thousand and Five Hundred Only) on 07-02-2012, 09-11-2012 and 01-01-2013 respectively from the plaintiff for his business purpose and executed promissory notes in favour of plaintiff on the respective dates, agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% per annum. Despite repeated demands, the defendant issued a cheque for

Rs.1,00,000/- on 19-08-20213 towards part payment of the due amount under the promissory note dated 07-02-2012, which was dishonoured. The plaintiff sent a lawyer's notice on 27-08-2013 demanding repayment of the debt. The defendant, though, received the lawyer's notice under postal acknowledgment, dated 28-08-2013, but kept quiet. The plaintiff filed a case against the defendant in

C.C.No.123/2013 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, under

Section 138 of N.I.Act, and it is pending. The defendant is not an agriculturist, and he is not entitled to the benefits of A.P. Act 4 of 1398 and other "Debt Laws". As the defendant did not pay the amounts due under the said three promissory notes, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

4. The defendant filed a written statement denying the plaintiff's averments and contended that he borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on three or four occasions in the year 2012; on those occasions, the plaintiff obtained blank signed promissory notes from him. The plaintiff is a moneylender and lends amounts on a

AS.No.50/2019 3 XII ADJ Court,

Dt.22-04-2026 VJA.

daily basis, charging interest. As he had no other means to fulfill his financial commitments, he had borrowed the said Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on three or four occasions by giving signed blank promissory notes and cheques. The defendant had been paying interest regularly and also paid part of the principal amount, totalling Rs.4,00,000/- to the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff to calculate the interest and expressed his readiness to discharge the debt, but the plaintiff did not calculate and postponed the same on one or other pretext. The plaintiff presented the said cheque without prior intimation and issued a lawyer's notice on 27-08-2013 with all false and frivolous allegations. The plaintiff fabricated promissory notes and filed this suit; he is not entitled to the relief sought, and the suit may be dismissed.

5. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the following issues were settled for determination:

1. Whether the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on three or four occasions in the year 2012 and repaid Rs.4,00,000/- towards discharge of his debt and handed over signed blank promissory notes and signed blank cheques to the plaintiff?

2. If so, there is no passing of consideration of Rs.1,20,000/-, Rs.4,20,000/- and Rs.49,500/- on 07-02-2012, 09-11-2012 and 01-01- 2013, respectively?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of entire suit amount ?

4. To what relief ?

6. To substantiate contentions of respective parties, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 and exhibited Exs.A.1 to A.9. The 2nd attestor of promissory notes was examined as P.W.2. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant himself was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B.1 was marked on his behalf.

AS.No.50/2019 4 XII ADJ Court,

Dt.22-04-2026 VJA.

7. On hearing the arguments of the plaintiff and the defendant and on considering the oral and documentary evidence of both sides, on 05-01-2018, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs by Judgment and Decree.

8. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 05-01-2018, the plaintiff filed this appeal.

9. The arguments of the appellant and the respondent have been heard.

10.Now, the points for determination are :

1. Whether the defendant borrowed Rs.1,20,000/-, Rs.4,20,000/- and Rs.49,500/- on 07-02-2012, on 09-11-2012 and on 01-01-2013, respectively and executed three promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same @24% per annum?

2. Whether the defendant borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- in the year 2012 on different occasions and delivered blank cheques and promissory notes to the plaintiff?

3. Whether the defendant paid Rs.4,00,000/- towards discharge of the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- borrowed in the year 2012 ?

4. Whether Judgment and Decree dated 05-01-2018 in O.S.No.150/2015 suffers from any irregularity either on fact or on law and is liable to be set aside?

11. P oint No.1: (1) Whether the defendant borrowed Rs.1,20,000/-,

Rs.4,20,000/- and Rs.49,500/- on 07-02-2012, on 09-11-2012 and on 01-01-2013 respectively and executed three promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same @24% per annum?

AS.No.50/2019 5 XII ADJ Court,

Dt.22-04-2026 VJA.

The case and evidence of P.W.1 is that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,20,000/-,

Rs.4,20,000/- and Rs.49,500/- on 07-02-2012, on 09-11-2012 and on 01-01-2013, respectively and executed Exs.A.1 to A.3 promissory notes respectively in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% per annum. Despite repeated demands, the defendant did not pay the amount due under the Ex.A.1 to

A.3 promissory notes. The defendant has been borrowing amounts from the plaintiff and his wife since 2010 for business purposes, using promissory notes to execute and discharge the same in installments. He filed a case against the defendant in

C.C.No.123/2013 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, under

Section 138 of N.I.Act, and it was transferred to the Court of the II Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada vide C.C.No.656/2015, and it is pending.

12.The defendant, in his written statement, admitted borrowing amounts, issuing cheques, and issuing blank promissory notes, but claimed that he had discharged the said amounts. The defence counsel, while cross-examining P.W.1, suggested that the plaintiff did not mention in Ex.P.8 or Ex.B.1 or in the complaint filed under section 138 of N.I.Act in C.C.No.233/2016 that the defendant himself scribed the promissory notes. The defence counsel pleaded that he had handed over blank promissory notes and cheques. The plaintiff, in his evidence in chief, stated that the defendant himself scribed the promissory notes. But there is no force in said suggestion, since Under Order 6 Rule 2 of CPC, "Every pleading shall contain, and contain only a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved". So the defendant did not elicit anything from the cross-examination of P.W.1, contrary to his evidence in chief and a question was posed :

Q. According to you, did the defendant pay the amounts, except amounts due under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 ?

Ans: To date, I have not calculated the amounts paid by the defendant, so I cannot say how many promissory notes the defendant is still due to pay.

AS.No.50/2019 6 XII ADJ Court,

Dt.22-04-2026 VJA.

13.When a witness is in the box for cross-examination, if anyone poses a question as above, generally, the answer is given by the plaintiff only, but not otherwise. Because the transactions took place from 2010 to 2013 and the cross- examination took place on 01-09-2017, it is humanly impossible to remember the amounts borrowed and the amounts discharged about 7 years back. If someone provided it, it is only a tutor or giving false evidence. The defendant, in his cross- examination, deposed that "I do not know P.W.2. I did not instruct my counsel for the cross-examination of P.W.2. The plaintiff obtained 8 blank promissory notes signed by me. I mentioned the same in my written statement also. I borrowed money from the plaintiff on 4 occasions. It is true that I did not specify the amounts borrowed by me from the plaintiff on 4 occasions in my written statement. The contents of the written statement are read over to me. I did not ask my counsel as to why he did not specify the amounts borrowed by me on 4 occasions in the written statement. It is true I did not mention in my written statement that I gave 8 blank promissory notes signed by me in plaintiff. I mentioned in my written statement that I signed and gave 4 blank cheques to the plaintiff………." In the further cross-examination, D.W.1 deposed that "It is true I have not filed any proof to show that I discharged the debt due to the plaintiff by making an online payment.

It is true I did not mention the payment made by me on Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3……..". He further deposed that "The plaintiff gave cash of Rs.3,00,000/- to me….. It is true in

Ex.A.8 that the plaintiff specified the amounts given by him. So also the amounts repaid by me. In further cross-examination, he deposed that "Exs.A.1 to A.3 appear my signatures….…" He denied the suggestion that he borrowed money from P.W.1 by executing Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3, on the dates and for the amounts mentioned in it. He deposed that "I did not issue notice to the plaintiff asking him to return the promissory notes, after the alleged discharge".

14.In support of his evidence, the plaintiff examined the 2nd attestor as

P.W.2. The plaintiff, by examining himself and examining P.W.2 by exhibiting

Exs.A.1 to A.3, discharges his initial burden. The promissory notes were self- scribed. The defendant, however, claimed that he handed over blank, signed

AS.No.50/2019 7 XII ADJ Court,

Dt.22-04-2026 VJA.

promissory notes and cheques and did not take any steps to send the promissory notes to the Handwriting Expert, except for denying them as fabricated. The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff vehemently argued that, once the plaintiff examined himself and exhibited Exs.A.1 to A.3, and examined the 2nd attestor as

P.W.2, he proved his initial burden. He relied upon a decision reported in 1999 (3)

ALT 144 between Ponuganti Subba Rao Vs. Sikhakollu Pulla Rao, wherein, the

Hon'ble High Court held by relying on theJudgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

reported in 1999 (2) Supreme 187 between Bharat Barrel and Drum

Manufacturing Co. Vs. Amin Chand Payrelal; while interpreting Section 118(a)

of the Indian Evidence Act, and also the Judgment reported in 1997 (6) ALT 36

between B.Mallamma Vs. V.T.V.Rangachary;The Hon'ble High Court held that 'the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove its execution, once its execution is proved, the burden shifts to defendant to disprove it'.

Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 , "inchoate stamped instruments :

"Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in India, and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount :

Provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder.

15.So, even if the plaintiff's plea is taken into consideration, the said documents delivered by the defendant with his signature are legally valid, and he gave authorization to the plaintiff to fill the same. Now, the defendant cannot claim

AS.No.50/2019 8 XII ADJ Court,

Dt.22-04-2026 VJA.

that they are not valid. Hence, in the circumstances stated above, the plaintiff proved that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,20,000/-, Rs.4,20,000/- and Rs.49,500/- on 07-02-2012, on 09-11-2012 and on 01-01-2013, respectively and executed

Exs.A.1 to A.3 promissory notes, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. Point No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

16. Points No.2 and 3: (2) Whether the defendant borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- in the year 2012 on different occasions and delivered blank cheques and promissory notes to the plaintiff? (3) Whether the defendant paid Rs.4,00,000/- towards discharge of the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- borrowed in the year 2012 ?

Though the defendant took a plea that he borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- and discharged the same by paying Rs.4,00,000/-, but he did not furnish any particulars about when he borrowed, when he discharged, and what the rate of interest was; those particulars, which are material and which are within the exclusive knowledge of the defendant. Except for taking a bald plea that he borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- only.

D.W.1, in his cross-examination, deposed that "I have not filed any proof to show that I discharged the debt due to the plaintiff by making an online payment…. The plaintiff gave me cash of Rs.3,00,000/-”. The plaintiff in Ex.A.8, he specifically mentioned that 14 transactions were made and when the defendant borrowed the amounts with dates, out of it, S.No.12, 13 and 14 of transactions were exhibited

Exs.A.1 to A.3.The plaintiff also specifically mentioned the payments made by the defendant partially from S.No.1 to 21, which were occurred from 12-07-2012 to 03-05-2013, all those 21 transactions, which comes around Rs.3,34,000/-. But the defendant did not send any reply to the said notice disputing it, and he admitted that Ex.A.9, the acknowledgment, contains his wife's signature. He also admitted that the address in the said notice is his. So the defendant, who has exclusive knowledge of the payments made by him and the amounts borrowed by him, had to give those particulars and to prove them, but he did not; he took a plea and did not examine any witnesses.

AS.No.50/2019 9 XII ADJ Court,

Dt.22-04-2026 VJA.

17.The plaintiff exhibited Exs.A.4 to A.7 original promissory notes of the years 2010, 2011 and 2013. P.W.1, in his cross-examination, deposed that "It is true as per Ex.A.8, the defendant did not pay any amount from May, 2010 to July, 2012". Points No.2 and 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

18. Point No.4: Whether Judgment and Decree dated 05-01-2018 in

O.S.No.150/2015 suffers from any irregularity either on fact or on law and is liable

to be set aside? In view of my findings on Points No.1 to 3, the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.150/2015 suffer from irregularity in facts and on law and are liable to be interfered with and set aside. Hence, in the circumstances stated above, this appeal is allowed with costs.

19. As a result, the appeal is allowed with costs, setting aside the dismissal Judgment and Decree dated 05-01-2018 in O.S.No.150/2015 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. Thereby, the Suit in

O.S.No.150/2015 on the file III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada is decreed

for sum of Rs.9,26,270/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.4,89,500/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand and Five Hundred only).

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the Open Court, on this the 22nd day of April, 2026.

Sd/-M.Suneel Kumar,

XII Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada.

Appendix of Evidence

-Nil-

Sd/-M.Suneel Kumar,

XII A.D.J., VJA.

Copy to: The learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

APKR030001392025

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Sri M.Suneel Kumar,

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

XII Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 28th day of April, 2026

M.V.O.P. No.18/2025

Between:

1. Karasala Koteswaramma, W/o.Esaku @ Ishak, Hindu, 43 years, Housewife

2. Karasala Esaku @ Ishak, S/o.Karasala Aron, Hindu, 48 years, Agricultural Coolie, Both are R/o.609A, Returu Village, Kakumanu Mandal,

.... Petitioners

Guntur District.

And

1. Lankalapalli Sattish, S/o.Dasanjaneya, Hindu, 24 years, R/o.#5-112, Karmikanagar Katta, Tadigadapa Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. Rider of motor cycle bearingNo.AP-16-CH-1782

2. V.V.Pavan Kumar, S/o.Naga Raju, Hindu, 31 years, R/o.#41-1/14-311, Ranadheernagar, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada. Owner of motor cycle beairngNo.AP-16-CH-1782

3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Rep by its Legal Manager, #40-1-10, 2nd floor, Upstairs of Hyndai Showroom, M.G.Road, Labbipet,

Vijayawada.....Respondents

* * *

This Petition is coming before me on 27-04-2026 in the presence of Sri I.Murali Krishna Dhar, Advocate for Petitioners and of Sri M.Siva Ram Babu, Advocate for 1st Respondent and of Sri Sk.Abdul Azeem, Advocate for 3rd Respondent and 2nd Respondent remained set exparte and upon the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

M.V.O.P.No.18/2025 2 XII ADJ Court, Dt.28-04-2026 VJA.

O R D E R

1. Petitioners filed this petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act and under Section 455 of A.P. M.V.Rules, 1989 against respondents 1 to 3 claiming compensation of

Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum thereon, from the date of petition till date of realisation and for costs.

2. The brief facts of the petition are that on the night of 12-06-2016 at about 12.10 hours, while the deceased Karasala Dileep, along with his friends Rajesh,

Naresh and Bullibabu @ Babu, were returning from the Food Court at Indira Gandhi

Municipal Stadium, Vijayawada, on a motorcycle bearing No.AP-16-AM-5625 of

Jonnalagadda Rajesh, and he was riding his motorcycle, when they reached

Chennupati Petrol bunk, M.G.Road, Vijayawada and crossing the road, the 1st respondent, being the rider of the offending vehicle bearing Motorcycle No. AP-16-

CH-1782, along with two pillion riders, drove it in a rash or negligent manner at high speed without observing the traffic, and collided with the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of this, the deceased, along with his friends, fell on the road and sustained severe injuries, and they were shifted to the Government Hospital through an 108 ambulance. Doctors declared Bullibabu @ Babu brought-dead. The deceased Dilleep was shifted to Guntur Government Hospital, where the doctors declared that Dilleep had become brain-dead. His parents shifted him to their village, and on 14-06-2016 evening, he died. Based on the statement of

Jonnalagadda Rajesh, Krishnalanka Police registered a case under

Cr.No.401/2016 for the offences U/s.304-A and 388 of the IPC were investigated.

After completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the 1st respondent for the offences under Secs.304-A and 338 of the IPC.

3. The deceased was hale and healthy, working as a Fitter in a Spinning Mill, and earning a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. Hence, the petitioners filed a petition for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, along with interest @ 12% per annum, from the respondents 1 to 3, being the driver, owner, and insurer of the offending

Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-16-CH-1782. The 1st respondent has a valid driving license, and the vehicle is duly insured with the 3rd respondent's insurance company.

M.V.O.P.No.18/2025 3 XII ADJ Court, Dt.28-04-2026 VJA.

4. The 1st respondent filed a written statement denying the petition's averments.

He contended that the alleged accident was caused by the negligence of the rider of the deceased motorcycle only. The 1st respondent, being the rider of the offending vehicle, holds a valid driving license; the 2nd respondent, being the owner of said vehicle, insured it with the 3rd respondent's insurance company. If the petitioners required compensation, they had to claim it from the 3rd respondent only, but not from the 1st respondent. There are no valid and reasonable grounds to file the present petition against the 1st respondent, and he is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.

5. The 2nd respondent remained set exparte.

6. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement denying the petition affidavit averments. He contended that the alleged accident was caused only by negligence on the part of the rider of the deceased motorcycle, and four persons were travelling on the motorcycle at the time of the alleged accident, and they violated the traffic rules. The 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. There was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, and it did not occur due to rash or negligent driving of the 1st respondent. The compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners are excessive. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.

7. When the matter came for framing of issues, the matter was referred to mediation. Both the petitioners and the 3rd respondent attended the Mediation

Centre and filed the terms of agreement. The 3rd respondent agreed to pay

Rs.9,25,000/- as a full and final settlement, and the petitioners agreed to receive the said amount as a full and final settlement and signed the terms.

8. Now the point for determination is whether the petitioner and 3rd respondent settled their claim, signed the MOU, it has to be recorded, a decree shall be passed in accordance therewith, and it is lawful.

9. The petitioners and 3rd respondent were present before the Tribunal and admitted the MOU before the Mediation Centre. The 3rd respondent has agreed to pay a compensation amount of Rs.9,25,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Twenty Five

Thousand only). The petitioners agreed to receive the same as a full and final

M.V.O.P.No.18/2025 4 XII ADJ Court, Dt.28-04-2026 VJA.

settlement. Both parties were present and reported that they have signed the MOU and have no objection to the compromise being recorded and to the passing of a decree. Nothing to say that the said understanding is unlawful, and the 3rd respondent filed a cheque No.888600 for Rs.9,25,000/- in the name of the II

Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.

10.Out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.4,75,000/- (Rupees Four

Lakhs and Seventy Five Thousand Only) shall be deposited in the SB Account

No.32667067776 of the 1st petitioner Karasala Koteswaramma at State Bank of

India, Kakumanu Branch with IFSC No.SBIN0003120.

11.The remaining Rs 4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Fifty Thousand

Only) shall be deposited in the SB Account No. 35380721315 of the 2nd petitioner

Karasala Esaku @ Ishak at State Bank of India, Kakumanu Branch, with IFSC

No.SBIN0003120.

12.If the 3rd respondent is failed to deposit the agreed amount in the SB accounts of petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on

Rs.9,25,000/- from the date of default till the date of deposit. The 3rd respondent should file the compliance before this Tribunal. Accordingly, a compromise is recorded, and a decree is passed.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this 28th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-M.Suneel Kumar,

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

Sd/-M.Suneel Kumar,

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

In the court of the Spl. Judge for trial of NDPS Act cases-cum-

II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada

Present:- Sri M. Suneel Kumar, Spl. Judge for trial of NDPS Act cases – cum - II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. Monday, this the 18th day of May 2026

CRL.M.P. No.121 of 2026

(Crime No.404 of 2025 of Patamata P.S.,)

Between:

Akkisetty Chiranjeevi ...Petitioner/3rd party

and

1. State: Station House Officer, Patamata P.S.

2. Bangaru Hemanth Naga Durga Babu @ Hemanth

3. Yerramsetti Adi Seshu @ Babi... Respondents

This petition came before me 13.05.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri K. Arun Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri E.D. Christopher, Spl., Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1. Upon hearing the arguments having considered the material available on record, this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

1. The Petitioner/3rd party filed this petition U/secs 497 and 503 of BNSS, seeking to grant interim custody of the property, Auto Rickshaw bearing

Registration No.AP 39 X 8276.

2. Notice given to Spl. A.P.P. and accused.

3. The arguments of the petitioner and Spl. A.P.P has been heard.

4. Now the point for determination is whether the petitioner/3rd party

is entitled to grant interim custody of the Auto Rickshaw bearing

Registration No.AP 39 X 8276 as prayed for ?

5. The petitioner's counsel submitted that he is the owner of the above- mentioned Auto. It is required for his day-to-day life, and he is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court, to produce the property as and when required by the court, and to abide by the conditions imposed by the court.

6. As per the prosecution, on 29.07.2025 at about 3.00 hrs., while transporting the ganja in the auto bearing No. AP 39 X 8276, and the same is 2

used for transporting the contraband, and the police seized the said

vehicle.

7. To prove ownership of the auto bearing No.AP 39 X 8276, the petitioner produced an insurance certificate, a certificate of Registration, which shows the petitioner as the owner of the vehicle. In Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of

Gujarat (2002 10 SCC 283), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the apex court has observed as under:

"1. The owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation.

2. The court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

3. If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production

before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be

recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and

4. This jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be a further chance of tampering with the articles."

8. If the vehicle is kept idle in a police station without use, it will definitely be damaged due to wear and tear and non-use of the vehicle. The petitioner undertakes to abide by the directions issued by the court and to produce security for that purpose. It is not the case of the respondent that the vehicle is necessary for the completion of the investigation. If, after the conclusion of the trial, the vehicle is found to be liable for confiscation, the petitioner can be ordered to produce the same, and it can be confiscated. Hence, I feel it is just to order interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner. Accordingly, this point is answered.

9. As a result, this petition is allowed, ordering the return of the Auto bearing NO.AP 39 X 8276 to the petitioner for interim custody on execution of 3 bond for Rs. 1,30,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on the petitioner's undertaking not to alter the physical features of the vehicle and to produce the same as and when ordered by the court. The respondent/police shall have the vehicle photographed from different angles and obtain the petitioner's signature on the reverse of those photographs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 18th day of May 2026.

Special Judge for trial of NDPS Act cases

-cum-II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

In the court of the Spl. Judge for trial of NDPS Act cases-cum-

II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada

Present:- Sri M. Suneel Kumar, Spl. Judge for trial of NDPS Act cases – cum - II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. Monday, the 18th day of May 2026

CRL.M.P. No 374 of 2026

(Cr.No.290 of 2025 of Gannavaram P.S.,) Between: Deepak Abaji Tupe, S/o. Abaji Tupe, 38 years, Marata Matang, Trimurti Apartment, Flat No.28, Pune Cities, Maharastra, Present R/o. At Katraj Khandwa Road, Sri Krapa building, Pune, Maharastra.

...Petitioner/A1

and

State: Station House Officer, Gannavaram P.S., NTR District ... Respondent

This petition came before me 13.05.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri B. Sai Babu, Advocate for the petitioner/A.1 and of Sri E.D. Christapher, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent. Upon hearing the arguments having considered the material available on record, this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

1. The Petitioner/A1 filed this petition under U/secs. 480 and 483 of BNS to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The alleged offence against the petitioners is under section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, which is non-bailable in nature.

2. Notice given to Spl. A.P.P.

3. Counter filed CD produced.

4. The arguments of the petitioner and Spl. A.P.P has been heard.

5. Now the point for determination is: Whether the petitioner/A1 is entitled to be enlarged on bail?

6. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the alleged case against the petitioner, as per the prosecution, is that on 16.12.2025 at 4.00 PM, while the SI of Police, Gannavaram, was conducting vehicle checking near Chinaoutapalli underpass on the west bypass road, the petitioner/A.1, who was coming with a

Creta car bearing No.OD 02 BC 3555 tried to return hurriedly and was caught, and on checking his car, 112 packets of Ganja, each weighing 01 Kg, were 2 found. As a result, a mediator's report was prepared and based on it, an FIR was registered against A1 to A4. On production, the petitioner/A1 was remanded to judicial custody.

7. Petitioner's earlier bail applications were dismissed on 08.01.2026 and 09.02.2026, 02.04.2026 respectively, as the seized contraband is of commercial quantity. The investigation is pending, and there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner/A1 is innocent as required under section 37B (ii) of the NDPS Act for the grant of bail. The record produced by the prosecution prima facie shows that the accused was caught in possession of 112 Kg of

Ganja, which is of commercial quantity. Case against A.2 to A.4 was registered based on the confession of petitioner/A.1. Hence, grant of anticipatory bail to

A.2 to A.4 doesn't automatically entitle the petitioner/A.1 to seek bail on parity.

The petitioner/A.1 failed to bring to the notice of this court any changed circumstances from the date of dismissal of his earlier bail applications till the filing of this application. The offence alleged against petitioner/A.1 is of a very serious nature, and a huge quantity of Ganja was involved. Bail cannot be granted to the petitioner/A.1 at this stage, if released on bail, the petitioner/A. 1 will try to obstruct the investigation and may continue his illegal business in

Ganja. Having considered the quantity of contraband involved, the fact that the accused was previously involved in a similar type of case, the bar under Sec.

37B of the NDPS Act, and the lack of changed circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this point is answered.

8.As a result, this petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation on computer by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 18th day of May 2026.

Spl. Judge for trial of NDPS Act cases – cum - II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. Copy to:

1. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Gannavaram.

2. The Special Public Prosecutor, NDPS Act, Vijayawada.

In the court of the Spl. Judge for trial of NDPS Act cases-cum-

II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada

Present:- Sri M. Suneel Kumar, Spl. Judge for trial of NDPS Act cases – cum - II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. Monday, the 18th day of May 2026

CRL.M.P. No 396 of 2026

(Cr.No.71 of 2026 of Machavaram P.S.,) Between: Vuyyuru Kaushik Reddy, S/o. Srinivasa Reddy, 25 years, 3rd floor, Sri Nagar, Poranki, Krishna District.

...Petitioner/A1

and

State: Station House Officer, Machavaram P.S., NTR District ... Respondent

This petition came before me 14.05.2026 for hearing in the presence of Smt. M.V.L. Gayathri, Advocate for the petitioner/A.1 and of Sri E.D. Christapher, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent. Upon hearing the arguments having considered the material available on record, this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

1. The Petitioner/A1 filed this petition under U/secs. 480 and 483 of

BNS to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The alleged offence against the petitioners is under section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, which is non-bailable in nature.

2. Notice given to Spl. A.P.P.

3. Counter filed CD produced.

4. The arguments of the petitioner and Spl. A.P.P has been heard.

5. Now the point for determination is: Whether the petitioner/A1 is entitled to be enlarged on bail?

6. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the alleged case against the petitioner, as per the prosecution, is that on 06.03.2026 at 10.00 PM SI of

Machavaram station collected mediators and proceeded to the burrial ground situated opposite to Amma Kalyana Mandapam at Sunnapubattila center and caught A1 to A4 when they tried to escape on seeing police 2 and on enquiry they confessed having MDMA drug purchased by A1 and shared by all of them and A1 produced 6.20 grams of MDMA, A2 produced 05 grams, 4.67 grams from A3, and 3.83 grams from A4 was seized besides seizing their mobiles phones used for communication and then they were arrested under the cover of mediators and FIR was registered and on production they were remanded to judicial custody.

7. In this case, accused 1 to 4 who were apprehended with contraband of 19.7 grams of MDMA in the scene of offence. The allegations against the petitioner/A1 are that the petitioner is the key person who collected the amount from the other accused, went to

Bangalore and through one Mike, he purchased 34 grams of MDMA and returned to Vijayawada for sale. Investigation in this case is pending to arrest the accused No.5. The petitioner/accused No.1 is involved in a case of synthetic drug. He is the previous offender in relation to the NDPS

Act case. If the petitioner is granted bail at this stage, he will alert the said

Mike, may obstruct the investigation, and may continue his illegal business. As per section 37 of the NDPS Act, where a commercial quantity of contraband is involved, unless there are grounds to believe that the accused is innocent, bail cannot be granted. Hence, in view of the bar under Sec.37 of the NDPS Act, and the stage of investigation, the quantity of contraband involved in this case, I am not inclined to grant bail.

8. As a result, this petition is dismissed

Typed to my dictation on computer by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 18th day of May 2026.

Spl. Judge for trial of NDPS Act cases – cum - II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. Copy to:

The Superintendent Central Prison, Nellore.