Currently Serving

Sri Merigani Bhaskara Rao

Junior Civil Judges Court,Bantumilli

Junior Civil Judge Court, Bantumilli (Taluka) · Krishna · Andhra Pradesh

Sri Merigani Bhaskara Rao, Junior Civil Judges Court,Bantumilli, is posted at Junior Civil Judge Court, Bantumilli (Taluka), Krishna, Andhra Pradesh, India. 881 court orders on record since 2024. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, MC cases.

881

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/29/2022

Yadlapalli Rukesh vs Thumu Srinivasarao

07 May 2026

FAIR

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

BANTUMILLI

PRESENT: Sri M.Bhaskara Rao,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bantumilli

THURSDAY, THE 7 th DAY OF MAY,

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

(07.05.2026)

Original Suit Original Suit No.29/2022 No.29/2022

B e t w e e n : Yadlapalli Rukesh, S/o Satyanarayana, A/33 years, Bantumilli Village and Mandal. . . . Plaintiff

And :

Thumu Srinivasarao, S/o Venkateswararao, A/48 years, ZP High School, Indupalli, Unguturu Mandal. . . . Defendant

This case coming before me for final hearing on 15.04.2026 in the presence of Sri S.Brahmaji, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri P.Pavan Kumar Advocate for the Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G E M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.5,62,761/- (Rupees five lakhs sixty two thousand seven hundred and sixty one only) from the Defendant being the principal and interest amount due under the suit promissory note,

dated 12.05.2019 for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) and for

subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

FAIR

2.The brief averments of the Plaint are :

On 12.05.2019 the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his necessities agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% per annum undertaking to repay the same on demand to him or to his order. On the same day the defendant executed the suit promissory note with the above said stipulations at

Bantumilli. Subsequently after repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant failed to repay the suit pronote debt. Hence, the suit.

3.On the other hand the Defendant filed his written statement and denied the plaint allegations and contended that the suit promissory note is forged document. The defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and he did not execute the promissory note. It is clearly presume that the document i.e., promissory note was rank forged one.

Plaintiff unlawfully get the amount from the defendant with created forged signatures of the defendant and filed the suit promissory note. The defendant has no faciel acquaintance with the plaintiff. The defendant was acted as mediator to Bathula Venkata Subbarao and another person by name Nagineni Adi Basaveswara Rao, S/o Seshagiri Rao, R/o

Vijayawada. At that time Bathula Venkata Subbarao kept some of the defendant’s blanked sign cheques i.e., 329167, 329168, 329169, 329170, 329178, 329198, 63141, 63142, 957948, 957949 with that person as surety. Even after payment of the entire amount by the above said

Nagineni Adi Basavewara Rao to the Bathula Venkata Subbarao, the

Bathula Venkata Subbarao did not return the above said cheques to the defendant and there was a dispute between the defendant and the said

Bathula Venkata Subbarao for the above said cheques. In those cheques, the plaintiff obtained one cheque from the said Bathula Venkata Subbarao 3

FAIR

and created the forged promissory note. The defendant has sufficient economic possession and doing employee and he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff or any others. Since the suit promissory note is forged document created with followers of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim any relief on the basis of forged promissory note. There is no cause of action to the suit and the one alleged is not true. The defendant denied all the allegations in the plaint except those which are specifically admitted and traversed herein and prays to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the rival contentions of both the parties the following issues were settled for trial.

I S S U E S

1)Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration?

2)Whether the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated as alleged by defendant?

3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?

4)To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for?

5.To substantiate his respective claim the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 i.e., Ex.A1/original promissory note dt.12.05.2019. The plaintiff also examined the attestor as PW.2. The defendant did not adduce any evidence on his behalf.

6.Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendant not ready for arguments as such defendant arguments treated as heard.

FAIR

I S S U E Nos. 1 to 3 :

7.Issue nos.1 to 3 are inter linked and co-related, hence they are discussed together for better appreciation.

8.In order to substantiate his contention the plaintiff himself examined as PW,.1 by reiterating the contents of the plaint as such not repeated and got marked Ex.A1/original promissory note, dt.12.05.2019.

Coming to cross examination PW.1 admitted that he is running cloth ready made shop by name L.R.Fashions at Bantumilli. He has acquaintance with the defendant as he is used to visit his shop for purchase of clothes. He do not know the family details of the defendant.

The defendant some times purchased the clothes from his shop on credit if no cash available to him and the subsequently he will pay the said amount. The defendant executed the Ex.A1/ promissory note on 12.05.2019. The defendant is a Government School teacher but he do not know name at which school he is doing job and the said school is in

Sangamudi village. He do not know the defendant teacher of what subject. One Kammidi Srinivasu scribed the Ex.A1/ promissory note at his shop between 5.00 P.M to 6.00 P.M. He gave instructions to the scribe for preparation of Ex.A1/promissory note at the presence of himself and defendant. The scribe is resident of Bantumilli and he has acquaintance with the scribe. He has acquaintance with the attestors by name Illuri

Rathna Kumar and Puppala Narayana Rao. PW.1 denied the suggestion that Ex.A1/ promissory note is filled before filing of this suit. There is no

CC camera in his shop. He do not know at present where the defendant working as a teacher. He do not know the contention of the defendant in his written statement. He did not ask the defendant for self scribing of

Ex.A1/promissory note. PW.1 admitted that the defendant being 5

FAIR

government teacher will get sufficient salary every month. He do not know one Bathula Venkata Subba Rao. He do not know One Nagineni Adi

Basweswara Rao. PW.1 denied the suggestion that Bathula Venkata

Subba rao and Nagineni Adi Basweswara Rao handed over the blank signed cheques and promissory notes to him and by using the said blank signed cheques and promissory note he fabricated the Ex.A1/ promissory note with the help of attestors and scribe. PW.1 denied the suggestion that the defendant handed over his blank signed cheques and promissory note to the Bathula Venkata Subba rao and Nagineni Adi Basweswara

Rao for surety purpose as they stood as surety to the defendant for Sri

Ram chits Transaction. PW.1 denied the suggestion that the defendant cleared the chit amount to the Sri Ram chits and thereafter the defendant sent notice to Bathula Venkata Subba rao and Nagineni Adi Basweswara

Rao for return of his blank signed cheques and promissory note but they did not return the said cheques and promissory notes and they filed this suit for through him by the using the said blank signed promissory note of the defendant. He do not remember whether the signature of the defendant on the vakalat of the defendant as well as written statement shown to him belongs to the defendant or not. PW.1 denied the suggestion that even he can not say the about the signature of the defendant and he filed this suit with false averments. He gave the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant in Cash at the time of Ex.A1/ promissory note transaction out of the amount available in his shop. He did not produce any document before the court about availability of the cash of Rs.3,00,000/- in his shop at time of Ex.A1/promissory note transaction. He has acquaintance with the defendant prior to two years from the Ex.A1 promissory note transaction as he used to visit his shop and purchased clothes in his shop. He did not obtain any ID proofs of the 6

FAIR

defendant at the time Ex.A1 promissory note transaction. PW.1 denied the suggestion that he do not know the any particulars of the defendant and he got the particulars of the defendant from the Bathula Venkata

Subba rao and Nagineni Adi Basweswara Rao and filed this false suit against defendant. He did the monthly business of Rs.5,00,000/- to

Rs.6,00,000/- in his ready made cloth business and at the season time

Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.15,00,000/-. He is not income tax assessee. PW.1 denied the suggestion that he filed this false suit with false averments and the suit is not maintainable, with this the PW.1 clarified how he has acquaintance with the defendant and the defendant is a School Teacher and the defendant executed Ex.A1/promissory note on 12.05.2019 and one Kammidi Srinivasu scribed the Ex.A1/promissory note at his shop between 5.00 p.m., to 6.00 p.m., even tough cross examined the Pw.1 nothing was elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1 with regard to execution and passing of consideration under Ex.A1/promissory note.

9.In support of his contention the plaintiff examined the attestor of Ex.A1/promissory note as PW.2 who deposed with regard on 12.05.2019 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff at Bantumilli. On the even date the defendant executed a pronote in favour of the plaintiff. Kammili Srinivas scribed the pronote. Himself and

Puppala Narayanarao signed as witnesses. Ex.A1 is the suit pronote. It bears his signature.

Coming to cross examination of PW.2 admitted that he is running cloth shop by name Padmaja Textiles at Gandhi Statute, Bantumilli and the said shop is in the name of his mother. From the last ten years he is participating in out cloth shop business, Bantumilli. The plaintiff is husband of his own sister. The plaintiff stated to him about the contents of 7

FAIR

his chief affidavit. The plaintiff lent the amount to the defendant on 12.05.2019. He know the defendant as he is customer of his shop. He do not know from how many years the defendant is customer of their shop.

They did not sale the clothes in their shop in credit basis. He did not receive any summon from the court for his deposition. Ex.A1/ promissory note transaction took place after 4.00 P.M but he do not remember the said exact time. Ex.A1/promissory note took place at the shop of plaintiff.

He has agricultural land as such mentioned his occupation as cultivation in his chief affidavit. At the time of Ex.A1/promissory note transaction plaintiff and defendant and himself, and One Narayana Rao present and

One Kammili Srinivasa Rao scribed the Ex.A1/promissory note. PW.2 denied the suggestion that he signed as attestor in Ex.A1/ promissory note before filing of this suit. He do not remember who brought the

Ex.A1/promissory note. The plaintiff gave instruction to the scribe for preparation of Ex.A1/ promissory note at the time of lending amount. He signed at first as first attestor in Ex.A1/ promissory note and later second attestor signed in Ex.A1/promissory note. The defendant is a Government

Teacher. He do not know at present where the defendant is working as

Government teacher. The scribed filled the Ex.A1/ promissory note with blue ink and counter foil also filled along with Ex.A1/ promissory note. He do not know whether the plaintiff filled the said counter foil along with promissory note or not. He cannot identify signature of the defendant, if he see the signature of the defendant. He do not remember purpose of the borrowing of the defendant of Ex.A1/ promissory note amount. He do not know the contention of the defendant in this suit. PW.2 denied the suggestion that the defendant never borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and never executed the Ex.A1/ promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff obtained blank signed promissory note of the 8

FAIR

defendant from others and filed this false suit against defendant. There is no CC Cameras in his shop. Their shop IT returns in the name of his mother. He do not know whether the plaintiff filing his income tax returns or not, with this PW.2 clarified that Ex.A1/promissroy note transaction took place after 4.00 p.m., and the plaintiff lent the amount to the defendant on 12.05.2019 and at the time of Ex.A1/promissory note transaction plaintiff, defendant himself and one Narayanarao are present and one Kammili Srinivasa Rao scribed the Ex.A1/promissory note and

Ex.A1/promissory note transaction took place at the shop of the plaintiff.

Further, suggested to PW.2 about the plaintiff obtained blank signed promissory note of the defendant from others and filed this false suit against the defendant which is contrary to the pleadings of the defendant in his written statement about the suit promissory note is forged document. Even tough cross examined the PW.2 nothing was elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW.2 with regard to his presence as attestor and execution and passing of consideration under Ex.A1/promissory note.

The evidence of PW.2 corroborated with the evidence of PW.1 with material particulars of the Ex.A1/promissory note with regard to place, date and Ex.A1/promissory note transaction.

10.In view of the above, by adducing the evidence of PW.1 and

PW.2 along with Ex.A1/Promissory note, the plaintiff discharged his initial burden of proof as contemplated u/s 118 of NI act. The defendant only cross examined the PW.1 and PW.2 and during cross examination suggested to PW.2 with regard to the plaintiff obtained blank signed promissory note of the defendant from others and filed this false suit against the defendant which is contrary to the pleadings of the defendant in his written statement about the suit promissory note is forged document 9

FAIR

More over, the defendant filed his written statement with the contention of the Ex.A.1/promissory note is forged document but the defendant not chosen to file his evidence to prove his contention and not chosen to take steps to send the Ex.A1/promissory note for expert opinion for comparison of his signature on Ex.A1/promissory note as such the defendant failed to prove his contention. In view of the above, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 established the execution of

Ex.A1/promissory note, dt.05.05.2021 in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant and passing of consideration. Hence, this Court is of considered view that Ex.A1/promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration and binding on the defendant and it is not forged document as contended by the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount. Accordingly issues No.1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

ISSUE NO.4:

11.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.5,62,761/- (Rupees five lakhs sixty two thousand seven hundred and sixty one only) with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of the decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., till realization on principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only).

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 7 th day of May, 2026.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

BANTUMILLI

FAIR

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

FOR PLAINTIFF

PW.1 : Yadlapalli Rukesh PW.2: Yeluri Rathnakumar

FOR DEFENDANT

Nil

Documents Marked

For PLAINTIFF :-

Ex A1 : Original Promissory Note Dt.12.05.2019

For DEFENDANT :-None

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

BANTUMILLI

FAIR

CC-21/3/2026 Acquitted

The S.E.B Bantumilli. vs Peddasingu Rambabu

11 May 2026

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

:: AT BANTUMILLI.

Present: Sri M.Bhaskara Rao,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bantumilli

MONDAY, THE 11 th DAY OF MAY, 2026.

C.C.No. 03 of 2026

Between:-

The State represented by Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector, Bantumilli. Cr.No.52/2025 of SEB Bantumlli P.S.,

...Complainant.

And

Peddasingu Rambabu, S/o Krishnamurthy, A/54 years, R/o Interu Village, Kruthivennu Mandal.

.... Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on this day 08.05.2026 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Sri T.N.S.Suresh and Sri S.Suresh Babu Advocates for 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 Inspector of Police, SEB Bantumilli Police Station, filed a charge sheet in Cr.No.52/2025 for the offence punishable under section 34(a) r/w 34(1)(i) of of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act (in short “A.P. Excise Act) against the accused.

2.The prosecution case is that on 11.12.2025 at about 03.00 p.m.,

LW.1/PW.1 Prohibition and Excise Inspector of Police, Bantumilli/LW.1/PW.1 along with staff for detection of Prohibition and Excise offences at road margin beside

Anjaneya Swamy temple in Interu Village, Kruthivennu Mandal and found the accused with one white mica bag in his shoulder. On seeing the raid party in uniform the accused perturbed and tried to escape, LW.1 detained the accused with the help of staff and questioned him about the contents of mica bag. The accused 2

FAIR

stated that the mica bag contains IML bottles. LW.1 tried to secure mediators nobody came forward to act as mediators. Then LW.1 examined the bag in the presence of staff and found1. Binnies Super fine whisky 180 ML 25 bottles, 2.

Officer’s choice elegant whisky 180 ML 2 bottles and in total found 27 bottles and examined all the bottles and found all the bottles having company seals and labels.

The Heals were removed and for sale in Andhra Pradesh only” was printed on all the lables. Then LW.1/PW.1 concluded that the liquor bottles were duty paid Indian made liquor bottles. On enquiry the accused revealed her identity particulars as noted above and stated that she purchased the above bottles from different wine shops at MRP in Lakshmipuram and selling them for higher rate for profit for livelihood. Then LW.1/PW.1 explained that possession of IML bottles more than prescribed quantity, sale and transportation of IML bottles without permit or licence is offence under Sec.34-a of A.P.Excise Amendment Act, 2023, seized the case property, drawn 1 bottle as sample for chemical analysis, sealed and affixed identity slips to the sample bottle and the Mica bag containing remaining property and seized the entire property. Then LW.1/PW.1 served 35(3) BNSS notice against her under cover of special report drafted at the scene of offence as nobody came forward to act as mediators.

b.Basing on the special report LW.1/PW.1 registered a case in

Cr.No.52/2025 for the offence under Sec.34 (a) of A.P.Exicse Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation he sent the sample property to the chemical examiner, Kakinada for analysis and the chemical examiner Kakinada analyzed the sample and issued laboratory analysis report, vide C.E.No.71/2026, dt.09.01.2026 and opined that the sample at serial no.430 and 431 are Indian Made Liquor. The remaining case property other than sample was produced before the Deputy

Commissioner, SEB, Vijayawada for destruction. Later, the remaining property was destroyed on 14.01.2026 as per the order vide R.C.No.18/2025/C, dt.13.01.2026 of the Deputy Commissioner, SEB, Vijayawada. He served a notice under section 35(3) BNSS., to the accused. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.

FAIR

3.This Court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offence under Sec.34 (a) r/w 34(1)(i) of A.P. Excise Act.

4.After appearance of the accused, case copies are furnished as required under Sec.230 BNSS, and the accused was examined under section 262

BNSS. explaining the accusation levelled against the accused for which he denied the same. Charge under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained in telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the trial the prosecution has examined PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5, MO.1 and MO.2. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW.2/M.N.V.Anjaneyulu, P& EC.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 351 BNSS. by placing the incriminating circumstances appearing against him for which he denied the same once again and reported no defense evidence.

7. Heard the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the accused.

8.The learned APP submitted that the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 corroborated with Ex.P1/special report with regard to arrest and seizure of property from the possession fo the accused as such the prosecution proved the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and canvassed for conviction of the accused.

On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused contended that there is no independent witnesses secured at the time of alleged arrest and seizure pursuant to confession. The self serving testimony of PW.1 and PW.2,

Ex.P1/special report cannot be relied upon and the prosecution prepared the 4

FAIR

special report at Police station and foisted the false case against the accused for statistical purpose and it failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, canvassed for acquittal of the accused.

9. The point that falls for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of

accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the

charge U/Sec.34(a) of AP. Excise Act?

10. Point

In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution has to establish that the accused found in possession of 27 IML bottles at the scene place for sale purpose at higher price without any licence or permit. In order to determine the same, the evidence available before the Court is the testimonies of PW.1 who is the investigating officer and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and MO.1 and MO.2.

11.PW.1/M.Rama Seshaiah/P & ESI, Vijayawada, PW.2/Y.G.V.Ramana/ P & E SEB Inspector of Police, Bantumilli, testified in tune with the averments of the charge sheet and got marked Ex.P1 is the special report. Ex.P2 is the First

Information Report. Ex.P3 is the letter of advice. Ex.P4 is the C.E.Report. Ex.P5 is the copy of the destruction orders. MO.1 is the unexpanded portion of sample bottle of Binnies super fine whisky. MO.2 is the unexpanded portion of sample bottle of

Officer’s choice elegant whisky.

12. In order to establish the seizure of the IML liquor bottles from the possession of accused, the prosecution has to establish it either by adducing independent evidence or by offering plausible explanation showing the circumstances are such that it was an impossible task for them to secure the independent witnesses as such seizure and collection of sample by the police officials in the absence of independent witnesses is justifiable. The theory of prosecution is that the efforts of PW.1 in securing the independent witnesses were in vain as such PW.1 seized the same in the absence of independent witnesses.

PW.1 testified mechanically that he deputed one constable for securing mediator 5

FAIR

but in vain without disclosing the efforts made by them and also the persons to whom they approached to act as mediators. Moreover during the cross examination

PW.1 admitted that he did not issue notice to the VRO or VRA of Interu Village to act as mediators. Further more during the cross examination PW.1 admitted as the scene of offence is residential area and busy locality. As such when the scene of offence is busy locality, absolutely there was no difficulty for them to secure independent witnesses but the prosecution failed to do so.

13. On careful perusal of the above evidence available on record, the evidence adduced by the prosecution falling short to explain the justification for not following the procedure contemplated under Sec.100 of Cr.P.C. In the absence of plausible explanation for not following the procedure contemplated under the provision of Sec.100 Cr.p.c. while seizing the IML liquor bottles, it is not safe to base conviction by relying upon the self serving testimony of PW.1 who is the

Excise official based on the Ex.P1 special report.

14. At this juncture, this court relies upon Yeduru Srivasula Reddy V/s

State of AP, reported in 2002(1) ALD (crl.) 347 AP, where is it is held that when the search and seizure taken place in a busy locality and residential area and none have come forward to act as a punch witness the police should have resort to

Sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C and should pass a written order, the evidence of police that no one came forward to act as mediator cannot be believed and relied upon.

Therefore the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated and held the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be sustained.

15. In view of the above discussion, this court finds that the prosecution failed to observe the mandatory procedure prescribed under Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C.

by not securing any independent witnesses to act as mediator for seizure of the property when the scene of offence is busy locality and residential area as admitted by P.W.1 during his cross examination. P.W.1 failed to give plausible explanation for not following the procedure under Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, the 6

FAIR

prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the accused. Thereby the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

16. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act,1968. Accordingly, he is acquitted under

Section 271 (1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of accused shall remained in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated under section 481 BNSS. MO.1/Sample bottle unexpanded portion of IML bottle Binnies super fine whisky, MO.2/Sample bottle unexpanded portion of IML bottle officer’s choice elegant whisky shall be destroyed after laps of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bantumilli.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :- For Defence:- PW.1 –M.Rama Seshaiah None PW.2 - Y.G.V.Ramana

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution :- Ex.P1 : Special report Ex.P2 : FIR Ex.P3: Letter of advice. Ex.P4: C.E.report Ex.P5: Copy of the destruction orders. For Defence:- --Nil—

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1: Sample bottle unexpanded portion of IML bottle Binnies super fine whisky, MO.2: Sample bottle unexpanded portion of IML bottle officer’s choice elegant whisky

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bantumilli.

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BANTUMILLI.

CALENDAR IN CC.NO.03/2026

Date of offence: 11.12.2025 Date of complaint: 11.12.2025 Date of taken on file: 27.01.2026 Notice served to the accused u/s11.12.2025 35(3) BNSS Date of apprehension of accused:-- Release on bail:-- Date of commencement of trial: 23.03.2026 Date of close of trial: 07.05.2026 Date of sentence of order: 11.05.2026

Explanation of Delay: My best efforts police are not serving summons on witness it causing delay in disposal of this case. Particulars of the accused: Peddasingu Rambabu, S/o Krishnamurthy, A/54 years, R/o Interu Village, Kruthivennu Mandal. The State represented by Name of the Complainant Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector, and Cr.No.Bantumilli. Cr.No.52/2025 of SEB Bantumlli P.S., Nature of offence U/Sec. 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act Finding of the courtFound not guilty

Sentence of Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act,1968. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remained in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. MO.1 shall be destroyed after laps of appeal time.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bantumilli.

FAIR

//TRUE COPY//

JMFC, BTM

OS/98/2024

Sugnanam Naga Venkata Girija Mahesh and another vs Devatha Ranga Marthanda Guptha

12 May 2026

FAIR

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

BANTUMILLI

PRESENT: Sri M.Bhaskara Rao,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bantumilli

TUESDAY, THE 12 th DAY OF MAY,

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

(12.05.2026)

Original Suit Original Suit No.98/2024 No.98/2024

B e t w e e n :

1. Sugnanam Naga Venkata Girija Mahesh, S/o Venkata Reddy Naidu, A/47 years, D.No.3-219/2, Bantumilli, Bantumilli Mandal.

2. Sugnanam Keerthi Pavan, S/o Baji Satish, A/20 years, D.No.3-219/2, Bantumilli Village, Bantumilli Mandal. . . . Plaintiffs

And :

Devatha Ranganayaka Gupta, S/o Rama Krishna Mohanarao, A/54 years, D.No.4-50, Near Bus Stand, Bantumilli Village and Mandal. . . . Defendant

This case coming before me for final hearing on 01.05.2026 in the presence of Sri S.Brahmaji, Advocate for Plaintiff and Defendant set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G E M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, restraining the defendant and his men, followers or anybody on his behalf from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the plaint schedule property in any manner what so ever and costs of the suit.

FAIR

2.The brief averments of the Plaint are :

The plaintiff submitted that the 1st plaintiff purchased item

No.1 of the plaint schedule property from his vendors under a registered sale deed dt.24.07.2023 bearing document No.1885/2023 registered at

Sub Registrar Office, Bantumilli, for a valid consideration. Ever since, the 1st plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property having absolute rights without any interruption from anybody at any point of time and has been also paying taxes to the

Gramapanchayat regularly in respect of the plaint schedule property. The 2nd plaintiff purchased the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property from his vendors under a registered sale deed dt.24.07.2023 bearing document No.1886/2023 registered at Sub -registrar office, Bantumilli, for a valid consideration. Ever since, the 2nd plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property having absolute rights without any interruption from anybody at any point of time and has been also paying taxes to the Graapanchayath regularly in respect of the plaint schedule property. Since the plaint schedule property is abutting to Bantumilli – Machilipatnam main road and suitable for commercial use, the defendant demanded the plaintiffs to sell the plaint schedule property to him. Since, the plaintiffs have no need and necessity to sell the plaint schedule property, refused the same and for the above referred to reason the defendant boring grudge on the plaintiffs and with an evil intention to lay hands over the plaint schedule property, the defendant has been proclaiming that he will dispossess the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property and occupy the same either by way of hook or crook. The defendant with an intention to materialize his proclamation, made an attempt to trespass into the plaint schedule property on 01.12.2024 with his armed hooligans, without having any manner of right, 3

FAIR

interest or title over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs with the help of the neighbours could avert the high handed, aggressive attempt of dispossession of the plaintiffs from the schedule property. The defendant left the schedule property proclaiming that he is having political influence and he would dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule property within no time. The plaintiffs complained to the Bantumilli Police against the defendant and his men. The police have not moved their little finger as the defendant is politically influenced. Hence, the plaintiffs were advised to approach the Court of law. The plaintiffs are law abiding citizens and they cannot be expected to participate in street fights. The plaintiffs command respect in the society keeping in view of his family backdrop who cannot resist the high handed aggression of the defendant and his men always. The defendant and his men have no respect for the law and have been proclaiming that they have got the political influence and nobody would venture to face them. The defendant command muscle power and have been moving in the company of anti social elements.

Hence, the plaintiffs were advised to approach a Court of law for justice.

Hence, this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from ever interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Hence, the suit.

3.Defendant called absent and no representation. Service held sufficient. Hence, defendant set exparte.

4.To substantiate their contention the 1st plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A9. Ex.A1 is the registered sale deed bearing document No.1885/2023 of SRO, Bantumilli, dt.24.07.2023, Ex.A2 is the House Tax receipt in the name of the plaintiff 4

FAIR

respect of the plaint schedule issued by Gram Panchayath, Bantumilli, dt.12.06.2024, Ex.A3 is the House tax receipt in the name of the plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property issued by the Gram Panchayath,

Bantumilli, dt.03.12.2024, Ex.A4 is the electricity bill cum notice issued by

APCPDCL in the name of the plaintiff in respect of USC

No.6244100002957, dt.03.11.2024, Ex.A5 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1886/2023 of SRO, Bantumilli, dt.24.07.2023, Ex.A6 is the House tax receipt in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property issued by Gram Panchayath,

Bantumilli, dt.12.06.2024, Ex.A7 is the Original house tax receipt in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property issued by

Gram Panchayath, Bantumilli, dt.03.12.2024, Ex.A8 is the Original electricity bill cum notice issued by APCPDCL in the name of the plaintiff in respect of USC.No.6244100004410, dt.02.11.2024, Ex.A9 is the copy of the police report, dt.01.12.2024.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

7.In order to substantiate their contention, the 1st plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 by filing his chief affidavit reiterating the contents of the plaint as such not repeated and got marked Ex.A1 to

Ex.A9 i.e., Ex.A1 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.1885/2023 of SRO, Bantumilli, dt.24.07.2023, Ex.A2 is the

House Tax receipt in the name of the plaintiff respect of the plaint schedule issued by Gram Panchayath, Bantumilli, dt.12.06.2024, Ex.A3 is 5

FAIR

the House tax receipt in the name of the plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property issued by the Gram Panchayath, Bantumilli, dt.03.12.2024, Ex.A4 is the electricity bill cum notice issued by APCPDCL in the name of the plaintiff in respect of USC No.6244100002957, dt.03.11.2024, Ex.A5 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1886/2023 of SRO, Bantumilli, dt.24.07.2023, Ex.A6 is the House tax receipt in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property issued by Gram Panchayath, Bantumilli, dt.12.06.2024,

Ex.A7 is the Original house tax receipt in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property issued by Gram Panchayath,

Bantumilli, dt.03.12.2024, Ex.A8 is the Original electricity bill cum notice issued by APCPDCL in the name of the plaintiff in respect of

USC.No.6244100004410, dt.02.11.2024, Ex.A9 is the copy of the police report, dt.01.12.2024 and prayed for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, restraining the defendant and his men, followers or anybody on his behalf from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property in any manner what so ever and costs of the suit.

8.The evidence of PW.1 along with Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 remains unchallenged and unrebutted as the defendant remained exparte through out the course of the proceedings.

9.On perusal of the record and evidence of PW.1 along with

Ex.A1 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document

No.1885/2023 of SRO, Bantumilli, dt.24.07.2023 in favour of the 1st plaintiff in respect of the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property, Ex.A2 is the House Tax receipt in the name of the plaintiff respect of the plaint 6

FAIR

schedule issued by Gram Panchayath, Bantumilli, dt.12.06.2024, Ex.A3 is the House tax receipt in the name of the plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property issued by the Gram Panchayath, Bantumilli, dt.03.12.2024, Ex.A4 is the electricity bill cum notice issued by APCPDCL in the name of the plaintiff in respect of USC No.6244100002957, dt.03.11.2024, Ex.A5 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1886/2023 of SRO, Bantumilli, dt.24.07.2023 in favour of the 2nd plaintiff in respect of the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property,

Ex.A6 is the House tax receipt in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property issued by Gram Panchayath, Bantumilli, dt.12.06.2024, Ex.A7 is the Original house tax receipt in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property issued by Gram

Panchayath, Bantumilli, dt.03.12.2024, Ex.A8 is the Original electricity bill cum notice issued by APCPDCL in the name of the plaintiff in respect of

USC.No.6244100004410, dt.02.11.2024 and Ex.A9 is the copy of the police report, dt.01.12.2024 shows the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property. Further more, the evidence of

PW.1 also shows the interference of the defendant with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the plaint schedule property as such possession of plaintiffs shall be protected from the defendant by way of permanent injunction.

10.Under the above stated circumstances, this court is of considered view that the oral testimony of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A1 to

Ex.A9 clinchingly shows the rights and plaintiffs possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property as on the date of the filing of the suit and shows the interference of the defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property as such the possession of plaintiffs shall be 7

FAIR

protected from the interference of the defendant by way of permanent injunction. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered.

11. In the result, the suit is decreed by granting permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs restraining the defendant and his men, followers or anybody on his behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the plaint schedule property and no costs.

Typed to my dictation on my laptop by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 12 th day of May, 2026.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

BANTUMILLI

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

FOR PLAINTIFF

PW.1 : Sugnanam Naga Venakta Girija Mahesh

FOR DEFENDANT

Nil

Documents Marked

For PLAINTIFF :- Ex.A1: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.1885/2023 of SRO, Bantumilli, dt.24.07.2023, Ex.A2: House Tax receipt in the name of the plaintiff respect of the plaint schedule issued by Gram Panchayath, Bantumilli, dt.12.06.2024, Ex.A3: House tax receipt in the name of the plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property issued by the Gram Panchayath, Bantumilli, dt.03.12.2024, Ex.A4: Electricity bill cum notice issued by APCPDCL in the name of the plaintiff in respect of USC No.6244100002957, dt.03.11.2024, Ex.A5: Certified copy of the registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1886/2023 of SRO, Bantumilli, dt.24.07.2023, 8

FAIR

Ex.A6: House tax receipt in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property issued by Gram Panchayath, Bantumilli, dt.12.06.2024, Ex.A7: Original house tax receipt in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property issued by Gram Panchayath, Bantumilli, dt.03.12.2024, Ex.A8: Original electricity bill cum notice issued by APCPDCL in the name of the plaintiff in respect of USC.No.6244100004410, dt.02.11.2024, Ex.A9: Copy of the police report, dt.01.12.2024

For DEFENDANT :-None

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

BANTUMILLI

FAIR

CC-21/33/2026 Acquitted

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kruthivennu P.S vs Challagandla Suresh Kumar

13 May 2026

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL MAGISTSRASTE OF I CLASS,

BANTUMILLI.

PRESENT Sri M.Bhaskara Rao

Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

Bantumilli

TUESDAY, THIS THE 12 th DAY OF MAY, 2026

C.C.NO. 33/2026

Between:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kruthivennu Police Station. Cr.No.88/2025 of Kruthivennu P.S..

...Complainant.

AND

Challagandla Suresh Kumar, S/o Hanumantharao, A/40 years, D.No.7-6-3, Old ricemill sandhu, Narasayya Agraharam, Bhimavaram.

Driver of Weganor car bearing No.AP 39KD7747... Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me on 11.05.2026 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public prosecutor for Complainant and Sri K.V.Rambabu and Sri K.Naganjaneyulu Advocates for accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of all relevant records this court delivered the following-

JUDGMENT

1. The S.H.O., Bantumilli Police Station filed charge sheet against accused for the offence U/Sec. 106(1) BNS in Crime No. 88/2025 of

Kruthivennu Police Station.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is, that:

The deceased/Boddu Yedukondalu was married, having two children and eking his livelihood by doing cooli works. On 04.04.2025 at about 2

FAIR

07.45 hrs., LW.1/PW.1’s husband went to bazar for buying vegetables, after some time she heard that, there is accident was occurrence to her husband.

Immediately she went to the spot and found her husband fell down in road with blood injuries, her husband return to home, he is walking on NH-216 at that time, Weganor car bearing No.AP 39KD 7747 coming from Vijayawada to

Bhimavaram with rash and negligent, with high speed without blowing horn dashed from back side, resulting that her husband fell down in NH 216 road and received seviour blood injury on left side of head. Thereby she joined him to Vinayaka hospital, Bhimavaram, duty doctor admitted the treatment and refer to Imperial hospital for better treatment, thereby she shifted and joined injured to imiperial hospital, and then shifted to GGH, Guntur, while undergoing treatment he scrubbed on 08.04.2025 at about 11.15 hrs., the accident was occurred to the rash and negligence of Weaganor car driver bearing No.AP 39KD7747, thereby he is responsible for the death of deceased.

On 08.04.2025 at 19.30 hrs., LW.16/S.I., of Police/PW.2 Bantumilli

P.S., registered the same as FIR in Cr.No.88/2025 under Sec.106(1) BNS and investigated into. After completion of investigation PW.2 filed the charge sheet against the accused.

3.This Court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offence under Sec.106(1) BNS.

4.On appearance of the accused the case copies were furnished to him as required under Sec.230 BNSS.

5.The accused is examined under Sec.274 BNSS explaining the substance of accusation for the offence under Sec.106(1) BNS for which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

FAIR

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined PW.1 and

PW.2 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The learned APP has given up the evidences of LW.2/Boddu Nagaraju, LW.3/Karri Kurmarao, LW.4/Kollati

Govindaraju, LW.5/Boddu Ramakrishna, LW.6/Boddu Satyanarayana,

LW.7/Moka Edukondalu, LW.8/Boddu Manikanta, LW.9/Nadakuditi Hemalatha,

LW.10/Nakka Rama Mahamkalirao, LW.11/Kodeti Srinivasarao, LW.12/Dr.AP

Jaffar Hussain, LW.13/P.Lakanada Prasad/MVI, LW.14/ASI 1426,

LW.15/M.Srinivasarao/HC-1873.

7.On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.351 BNSS explaining the incriminating substance available in evidence, for which the accused denied and reported no defence evidence.

Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

8.Heard and perused the material on record.

9. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec.106(1) BNS beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT

In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to establish that the accused being driver of the Weganor car bearing No.AP 39

KD 7747 drive it in a rash and negligent manner and caused death of Boddu

Yedukondalu.

11. Sec.106(1) BNS defines: Causing death by negligence:-

Whoever causes death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable 4

FAIR

to fine; and if such act is done by a registered medical practitioner while performing medical procedure, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.— For the purposes of this sub-section, “registered medical practitioner” means a medical practitioner who possesses any medical qualification recognised under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and whose name has been entered in the National Medical Register or a State

Medical Register under that Act.

12.In order to determine the same, the evidence available before this

Court is PW.1 and PW.2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8.

13.In view of the above, to prove the prosecution case under

Sec.106(1) BNS, the prosecution has to establish the death of one Boddu

Yedukondalu. Accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of alleged incident and the rash or negligent driving of the accused.

14.PW.1/B.Nagamani testified that the deceased/Boddu Yedukondalu is her husband. When she was at her house through phone call she came to know about road accident to her husband/Yedukondalu as the Vagenor car dashed her husband at Pallepalem National High Way and immediately she rushed to the hospital, Bhimavaram and her husband is sustained severe injuries and unable to give statement to the police. Police recorded her statement in the hospital and obtained her thumb impression. She do not know the contents of statement, with this the PW.1 who is wife of the deceased not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile by resiling from her earlier version. As such the learned APP cross examined the PW.1 with the permission of the Court but nothing could be elicited in support of the case of 5

FAIR

the prosecution except marking Ex.P1 of her 180(3) BNSS statement which is noway useful to the case of prosecution.

15.PW.2/A.Pydibabu who is investigating Officer testified that on 05.04.2025 at about 06.30 PM while he was present in police station and PW.1 came to police station and presented written report and registered a case in

Cr.No.88/2025 for the offence U/s. 125(B) BNS of Kruthivennu P.S and submitted the copy of FIR to concerned authorities and took up investigation.

Then he along with his staff went to the scene of offence shifted the dead body to GGH, machilipatnam during night hours, he cannot conduct inquest.

On the next day he visited the scene offence along with mediators at

Lakshmipuram to pallepalem NH.216 road and he prepared the scene observation report in the presence of mediators and he got photograph the scene offence in station camera and prepared rough sketch at the scene offence and examined the PW.1, LW.2 to LW.4 and recorded their statements.

On 08.04.2025 he received death intimation of Boddu Yedukondalu from GGH,

Guntur and he altered the section of law from 125(B) BNS to 106(1) BNS and filed the alteration memo and LW.15/M.Srinivasa Rao/HC visited the GGH,

Guntur and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased/

Yedukondalu in the presence of blood relatives and recorded their statements.

On the same day LW.12 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. On the next day he served 35(3) BNSS notice to the accused and on same day he sent requisition to the MV inspector/LW.13 for inspection of the crime vehicle and after receiving post mortem report and MV inspector report and Form 54 and after completion of investigation he filed laid charge sheet against the accused under Sec.106(1) BNS. Ex.P2 is the statement of

PW.1, Ex.P3 is the FIR. Ex.P4 is the scene observation report, Ex.P5 is the rough sketch. Ex.P6 is the post mortem report of deceased Yedukondalu.

EX.P7 is the inquest report. Ex.P8 is MV Report, Ex.P9 is Form-54.

FAIR

16.In view of the above, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 along with

Ex.P4 scene observation report and Ex.P7 inquest report shows that the accident was occurred on 04.04.2025 and categorically proves about the factum of accident and the death of one Boddu Yedukondalu. PW.1 who is wife of the deceased not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile by resiling from her earlier statement and except the self serving testimony of

PW.2/Investigating Officer, there is no whisper in the evidence of PW.1 about identity of the accused and manner of the accident to connect the accused for the offence levelled against the accused under Sec.106(1) BNS and the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of such proof, the accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.106(1) BNS. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

17.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.106(1) BNS and he is acquitted under Sec.278(1) BNSS for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months under Sec.481 BNSS.

Typed to my dictation on my laptop by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 13 th day of May, 2026.

Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Bantumilli

Appendix of Evidence

(Witnesses examined)

Prosecution Defence

PW.1: B.Nagamani -None- PW.2: A.Pydibabu/Investigating officer.

FAIR

Exhibits marked

Prosecution

Ex.P1: 180(3) BNSS statement of PW.1 Ex.P2: Statement of PW.1 Ex.P3: FIR Ex.P4: Scene observation report Ex.P5: Rough sketch Ex.P6: Postmortem report of deceased Yedukondalu Ex.P7: Inquest report. Ex.P8: MVI report. Ex.P9: Form-54 Defense: -- Nil --

Material objects marked: Nil

Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Bantumilli 8

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BANTUMILLI

CALENDAR IN CC.NO.33/2026

Date of offence:04.04.2025

Date of complaint: 05.04.2025

Date of taken on file:24.02.2026

Notice served to the accused u/s 35(3) BNSS10.04.2025

Date of apprehension -- of accused:

Release on bail: --

Date of commencement of trial:16.04.2026

Date of close of trial:11.05.2026

Date of sentence of order:13.05.2026

Explanation of Delay:My best efforts police are not serving summons on witness it causing delay in disposal of this case.

Particulars of the accused: Challagandla Suresh Kumar, S/o Hanumantharao, A/40 years, D.No.7-6-3, Old ricemill sandhu, Narasayya Agraharam, Bhimavaram. Driver of Weganor car bearing No.AP 39KD7747

Name of the Complainant and State: Represented by The Cr.No.Sub-Inspector of Police, Kruthivennu Police Station. Cr.No.88/2025 of Kruthivennu P.S., 9

FAIR

Nature of offence:U/Sec. 106(1) BNS

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence of order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.106(1) BNS and he is acquitted under Sec.278(1) BNSS for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months under Sec.481 BNSS.

Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Bantumilli

OS/83/2023

Ponakala Satish Kumar vs Yerramsetti Sravana Praneeth

11 May 2026

FAIR

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

BANTUMILLI

PRESENT: Sri M.Bhaskara Rao,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bantumilli

MONDAY, THE 11 th DAY OF MAY,

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

(11.05.2026)

Original Suit Original Suit No.83/2023 No.83/2023

B e t w e e n : Ponakala Satish Kumar, S/o Pamulu, A/36 years, Native Avakuru Village, Kalidindi Mandal, Eluru District. . . . Plaintiff

And :

Yerramsetti Sravana Praneeth, S/o Venkateswara Rao, A/24 years, R/o Korukollu Village, Kalidindi Mandal. . . . Defendant

This case coming before me for final hearing on 27.04.2026 in the presence of Sri T.N.S.Suresh, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri P.Pavan Kumar Advocate for the Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G E M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.6,26,833/- (Rupees six lakhs twenty six thousand eight hundred thirty three only) from the Defendant being the

principal and interest amount due under the suit promissory note, dated

08.08.2021 for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) and for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

FAIR

2.The brief averments of the Plaint are :

The plaintiff submitted that on 08.08.2021 defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his old debt’s clearance and tanks development purpose, agreed and promised to repay the said sum together with interest @ 12% per annum to the plaintiff or his order, whenever demanded. On the even date, defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Inspite of repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff, on 15.04.2023 the defendant issued a

Bank cheque to the plaintiff towards part satisfaction of the said promissory note debt. The plaintiff presented the said cheque in his bank account and the same was dishonoured and the Branch Manager branch returned the said cheque along with memo. After that, on 05.05.2023 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice through his counsel to the defendant and the same was received by him and kept quite. The defendant did not choose to repay any amount till that day. Hence, the plaintiff filed N.I.Act case against the defendant on the file of this Court, bearing STC

No.19/2023 and the same is in pending and filed this suit for recovery of pronote debt. Hence, the suit.

3.On the other hand the Defendant filed his written statement and denied the plaint allegations and contended that the suit promissory note rank forgery and the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff muchless Rs.5,00,000/- on 08.08.2021 and the defendant is native of Korukollu Village and residing at Hyderabad and there is no necessity to him to come to Bantumilli and borrowed the amount and the defendant is not having any fish or prawn tank. The defendant reserve his right to send the suit pronote to hand writing expert to prove the forgery 3

FAIR

signature of the suit pronote and to Government printing press Nasik for determination of the date of printing and date of release of Revenue

Stamp affixed on suit pronote. The other averments in the plaint which are not specifically traversed herein are all hereby denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. The defendant reserves his right to file

additional written statement as and when necessary if new facts will come

to light and prays to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the rival contentions of both the parties the following issues were settled for trial.

I S S U E S

1)Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration?

2)Whether the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated as alleged by defendant?

3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?

4)To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for?

5.To substantiate his respective claim the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 i.e., Ex.A1/original promissory note dt.08.08.2021, Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice, dt.05.05.2023. Inspite of several opportunities and even on conditional order, the defendant did not adduce his evidence as such the defendant evidence closed.

6.Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendant not ready for arguments as such defendant arguments treated as heard.

FAIR

I S S U E Nos. 1 to 3 :

7.Issue nos.1 to 3 are inter linked and co-related, hence they are discussed together for better appreciation.

Coming to the cross examination PW.1 present. Costs not paid. Defendant called absent and no representation. Hence, the cross examination of PW.1 is treated as nil.

10.In view of the above, by adducing the evidence of PW.1 along with Ex.A1/Promissory note, the plaintiff discharged his initial burden of proof as contemplated u/s 118 of NI act. The defendant not chosen to cross examine the PW.1. As such the evidence of PW.1 alogn with Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Further more, the defendant filed his written statement with the contention of the

Ex.A.1/promissory note is forged document but the defendant not chosen to file his evidence to prove his contention and not chosen to take steps to send the Ex.A1/promissory note for expert opinion for comparison of his signature on Ex.A1/promissory note as such the defendant failed to prove his contention. In view of the above, the evidence of PW.1 along with Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 established the execution of Ex.A1/promissory note, dt.08.08.2021 in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant and passing of consideration. Hence, this Court is of considered view that 5

FAIR

Ex.A1/promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration and binding on the defendant and it is not forged document as contended by the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount.

Accordingly issues No.1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

ISSUE NO.4:

11.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.6,26,833/- (Rupees six lakhs twenty six thousand eight hundred and thirty three only) with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of the decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., till realization on principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only).

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

BANTUMILLI

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

FOR PLAINTIFF

PW.1 : Ponakala Satish Kumar

FOR DEFENDANT

Nil

Documents Marked

For PLAINTIFF :- Ex.A1 : Original Promissory Note Dt.08.08.2021 Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice, dt.05.05.2023

For DEFENDANT :-None

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

BANTUMILLI

FAIR

Order Record 841 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC-21/33/2026	The Sub Inspector of Police, Kruthivennu P.S vs Challagandla Suresh Kumar	13 May 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
OS/98/2024	Sugnanam Naga Venkata Girija Mahesh and another vs Devatha Ranga Marthanda Guptha	12 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/83/2023	Ponakala Satish Kumar vs Yerramsetti Sravana Praneeth	11 May 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/3/2026	The S.E.B Bantumilli. vs Peddasingu Rambabu	11 May 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
OS/29/2022	Yadlapalli Rukesh vs Thumu Srinivasarao	07 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/29/2026	Juluri Naga Venkata Lakshmi Sampth vs Jonnalagadda Nagamalleswara Rao	07 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/64/2023	Bethala Abdul Vazid vs Divanji Abdul Muneer	07 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/72/2025	Balapati Praddep vs Vanaparala Pratap	07 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/23/2026	Kopanati Mahalakshmi vs Nagidi Vijaya Lakshmi	05 May 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/7/2026	The Station House Officer Bantumilli. vs Lukka Rahul Madhavan	05 May 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/322/2025	The Station House Officer Bantumilli. vs Kandulapati Naga Manikyalarao	04 May 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/323/2025	The Station House Officer Bantumilli. vs Sammeta Srinivas	04 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/3/2023	Palaparthi Prasad vs Karre Jayamma	29 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/4/2026	The Station House Officer Bantumilli. vs Pemmadi Lakshmanarao	29 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/348/2018	Kagiatha Kumara Swamy vs Seru Naga Manendra Rao	28 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
DVC/8/2023	Vallabhu Venkateswaramma vs Vallabhu Ganga Raju	27 Apr 2026	Order	—
MC/13/2023	Vallabhu Venkateswaramma vs Vallabhu Ganga Raju	27 Apr 2026	Order	—
STC/15/2024	Darisi Suryanarayana vs Garikamukku Yohan	27 Apr 2026	Order	—
CC-21/1/2026	The S.E.B Bantumilli. vs Mallavolu Venkata Lakshmi	24 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/280/2025	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Proh. And Excise Station, Bantumilli. vs Pamarthi Nagaraju	24 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/2/2026	The S.E.B Bantumilli. vs Parimkayala Nageswara Rao	17 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/224/2025	The S.E.B Bantumilli. vs Borra Sombabu aliyas someswara Rao	17 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/132/2025	The Station House Officer Bantumilli. vs Muddineni. Lokesh	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/82/2025	The S.E.B Bantumilli. vs Arepalli. Sai kumari	07 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/256/2024	State represented by the Special Enforcement Bureau Sub Inspector, Bantumilli. vs Tammu Gopi Raju	06 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/265/2025	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Proh. And Excise Station, Bantumilli. vs Borra Nagaraju	06 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/152/2025	The Station House Officer Bantumilli. vs Kondrapu. Raju	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/221/2025	The S.E.B Bantumilli. vs Peddi Nagaleela	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/134/2025	The Station House Officer Kruthivennu. vs Banka. Jayaram	26 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/1/2019	Kantamaneni Murali Mohan vs Yalamanchili Syam Prasad	23 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/38/2025	The Station House Officer Bantumilli. vs Ede. Venkatesh	23 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/282/2025	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Proh. And Excise Station, Bantumilli. vs Peddi Venkateswaramma	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/283/2025	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Proh. And Excise Station, Bantumilli. vs Arepalli Ramalakshmi	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/281/2025	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Proh. And Excise Station, Bantumilli. vs Usala Dhana Lakshmi	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/284/2025	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Proh. And Excise Station, Bantumilli. vs Bolla Adilakshmi	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/58/2021	Pattapu Srinivasarao vs Panchakarla Haranatha Prasad	11 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/203/2024	The state represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Kruthivennu Police Station. vs Bokka Lakshmana Rao	28 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/254/2024	The state represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Kruthivennu Police Station. vs Tammu Satyanarayana	28 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/81/2024	The state represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Kruthivennu Police Station. vs Netala Tambi Babu	27 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/82/2024	The state represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Kruthivennu Police Station. vs Kunapareddy Rambabu	27 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/264/2022	The state represesnted by Sub Inspector of Police , Kruthivennu Police Station vs Borra Gopi	27 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/16/2025	The S.E.B Bantumilli. vs Gadidesi. Naveen Babu	22 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/232/2024	The state represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Kruthivennu Police Station. vs Enuga Satish Kumar	22 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OS/51/2025	Chillara Srinivasa Rao vs Gowrisetti Sri Hari	07 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OS/85/2025	Borra Naga Malleswara Rao vs Mohammad Hussen	07 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OS/87/2025	Borra Naga Malleswara Rao vs Botla Ankalayya	07 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/46/2025	The S.E.B Bantumilli. vs Gudipalli. Subbulu	06 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/219/2025	The S.E.B Bantumilli. vs Rajulapati Kanakadurga	06 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
DVC/8/2025	Meegada. Venkata Satyavathi vs Meegada. Nagaraju	06 Jan 2026	Order	—
MC/6/2025	Meegada. Venkata Satyavathi vs Meegada. Nagaraju	06 Jan 2026	Order	—
OS/52/2025	Yarramsetti Phanindra Babu vs Sabbisetti Joshi Venkata Prabhakar	05 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/120/2025	The S.E.B Bantumilli. vs Borra. Nagababu	05 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/124/2025	The S.E.B Bantumilli. vs Bora. Nagababu	05 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC-21/125/2025	The S.E.B Bantumilli. vs Kagitha. Nageswara Rao	24 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/150/2025	The S.E.B Bantumilli. vs Velikatla. Venkateswaramma	24 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/144/2025	The S.E.B Bantumilli. vs Borra.Bhavani	23 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/238/2024	State represented by the Special Enforcement Bureau Sub Inspector, Bantumilli. vs Bolla Vijaya Lakshmi	23 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/80/2024	The state represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Kruthivennu Police Station. vs Reddyrotu Seeta Mahalakshmi	22 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/148/2025	The S.E.B Bantumilli. vs Bolla. Naga Kumari	22 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/149/2025	The S.E.B Bantumilli. vs Borra. Govindamma	22 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/151/2025	The S.E.B Bantumilli. vs Borra. Ramakrishna	19 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/220/2025	The S.E.B Bantumilli. vs Donkina Satish	19 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
MC/30/2021	Kolli Durga Bhavani vs Kolli Balaji	18 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC-21/155/2025	The Station House Officer Bantumilli. vs Yarlagadda. Siva Bhogeswrarao	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/187/2022	S.H.O Bantumilli vs Vskandavalli mariyamma	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/199/2025	The Station House Officer Bantumilli. vs Seelam. Nagaswami	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/202/2025	The Station House Officer Bantumilli. vs Gudavalli. Kalyan Chakravarthi	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/203/2025	The Station House Officer Kruthivennu. vs Tirumani. Mangaraju	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/204/2025	The Station House Officer Kruthivennu. vs Kollati. Chandra Sekharraju	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/207/2022	S.H.O Bantumilli vs Gudavalli Kalyana Chakravarthy	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/215/2025	The Station House Officer Bantumilli. vs Padamata Naga Phani aliyas Phani	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/269/2025	The Station House Officer Bantumilli. vs Jogi Veeranjaneyulu aliyas Anjaneyulu aliyas Swamy	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/277/2024	State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kruthivennu P.S. vs Korukonda Ramu	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/278/2025	The Sub inspector of Police, Bantumilli police station vs Vucha Narsimharao	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/288/2024	State represented by the Special Enforcement Bureau Sub Inspector, Bantumilli. vs Gopu Gopaiah Swamy	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/288/2025	The Sub Inspector of police, Kruthivennu, P.S vs Vemula Nageswaramma	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/293/2025	The Sub Inspector of Police, Kruthivennu, P.S vs Thammu Bala Krishna	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/298/2025	The Station House Officer Kruthivennu. vs Veeravarapu Pavan Kumar	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/299/2025	The Sub inspector of Police, Bantumilli police station vs Nagulla Adinaryana	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/301/2025	The Sub inspector of Police, Bantumilli police station vs Bavisetti Durga Rao	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/302/2025	The Station House Officer Bantumilli. vs Arja Lakshmi	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/305/2025	The Station House Officer Bantumilli. vs Pedalanka Subrahmanyam	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/306/2025	The Station House Officer Bantumilli. vs Nagulla Seshu Babu	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/307/2025	The Station House Officer Bantumilli. vs Papani Sai Naganna	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC-21/308/2025	The Station House Officer Kruthivennu. vs Anku Ramesh	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/309/2025	The Sub inspector of Police, Kruthivennu police station vs Hari Seetha ram	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/312/2025	The Sub inspector of Police, Bantumilli police station vs Dasu Veerendra	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/313/2025	The Sub inspector of Police, Bantumilli police station vs Prathi Surya Teja	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/314/2025	he Sub inspector of Police, Bantumilli police station vs Ravi Lakshmanarao	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/316/2025	The Sub inspector of Police, Bantumilli police station vs Batraju Srinu	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/318/2025	The Station House Officer Kruthivennu. vs Pinnenti Srinivasa Rao	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/321/2024	The state represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Bantumilli P.S. vs Varikuntala Nagababu	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/513/2022	State rpresented by the sub Inspector of Police , Bantumilli P.s vs Gudavalli Manga Tayaru	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC-21/514/2022	State represented by the sub Inspector of Police Bantumilli P.s vs Gudavalli Malleswari	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
DVC/2/2025	Bolla Priyanka Devi alias Ede Priyanka Devi vs Ede Venkatesh and 2 others	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
MC/1/2025	Bolla Priyanka Devi alias Ede Priyanka Devi vs Ede Venkatesh	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
MC/24/2021	Nelaprollu Dhanusha vs Jithendra Uma Venkata Ayyappa	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
STC/34/2023	Juluri Rama Krishna Mohana Rao vs Rayavarapu Pushpanadam	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
OS/61/2025	Sabbisetti Govardhana Naga Venkata Praneeth Sowrya Kumar vs Gorla Veera Venkata Muralidhar	12 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
DVC/4/2025	Pedasanagaanti.Bhanu Malleswari vs Pedasanagaanti.Srinivasa rao	10 Dec 2025	Order	—

Showing 100 of 841 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		12
Apr 2026		17
Mar 2026		8
Jan 2026		17
Dec 2025		56
Nov 2025		26
Oct 2025		32
Sep 2025		75
Aug 2025		19
Jul 2025		91
Jun 2025		22
May 2025		35

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri Merigani Bhaskara Rao handled?

Sri Merigani Bhaskara Rao has handled 881 court orders since 2024 at Junior Civil Judge Court, Bantumilli (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 36 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri Merigani Bhaskara Rao hear?

Based on available records, Sri Merigani Bhaskara Rao primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Junior Civil Judge Court, Bantumilli (Taluka).

Where is Sri Merigani Bhaskara Rao currently posted?

Sri Merigani Bhaskara Rao is posted as Junior Civil Judges Court,Bantumilli at Junior Civil Judge Court, Bantumilli (Taluka), Krishna, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri Merigani Bhaskara Rao available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri Merigani Bhaskara Rao are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri Merigani Bhaskara Rao dispose cases?

Sri Merigani Bhaskara Rao disposes approximately 36 cases per month, based on 881 orders handled over their tenure at Junior Civil Judge Court, Bantumilli (Taluka).

Since when is Sri Merigani Bhaskara Rao serving?

Sri Merigani Bhaskara Rao has been serving at Junior Civil Judge Court, Bantumilli (Taluka) since 2024. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

CC 76%

OS 13%

MC 3%

DVC 3%

EP 2%

STC 2%

PRC 1%

A 0%

Posting History

May 2024 — Present

Junior Civil Judges Court,Bantumilli · 881 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 2

← View all judges at Junior Civil Judge Court, Bantumilli (Taluka)