Smt.Mohd. Ishrath Fathima

1 O.S.No.15 of 2020

 IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAYACHOTY

PRESENT : Smt Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.

Monday, this the 11 th day of December, 2023

O.S.No.15 of 2020

Between:

Bojanapu Sankaraiah, S/o Chinna Venkatesu, aged about 53 years, Hindu, Business, residing at D.No.39/107, opposite Balaji School, Sanjeeva Nagar, Rayachoty town and mandal. … Plaintiff

And

K.Madan Mohan Reddy, S/o Chenga Reddy, aged about 63 years, Hindu, cultivation, Business, residing at D.No.79 Mamanduru village, Ithe palli post, Chandragiri mandal, Chittoor District. … Defendant

This suit coming on 05.12.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri. U.Ramanjaneyulu,

Advocate for the defendant and in the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,60,000/­ being the principal and interest due on a promissory notes date 17.06.2017 executed by the defendant in favor of plaintiff for a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/­ agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum with future interest and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments in the plaint are:­ The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff on 17.06.2017 for his family and business necessities and on the same day the defendant executed the suit 2 O.S.No.15 of 2020 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. The plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the debt amount due under the suit promissory note and the defendant did not discharge the debt amount intentionally the defendant postponed the same with some pretext and other. On 14.10.2019 the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant informing him to pay the promissory note amount and he refused to received the same and failed to discharge the debt amount. Thus the plaintiff has no other option except to file the present suit for recovery of debt amount and for costs of the suit. Hence, the suit. 

3. The defendant filed his written statement and submits that the plaintiff is an utter stranger to him and the present suit is caused at the instance of his enemies with collusion of plaintiff. The defendant never borrowed any amounts much less Rs.1,00,000/­ on 17.06.2017. He further submits that the plaintiff is not entitled for the suit amounts and the above suit filed by the plaintiff basing on false averments. The recitals of the suit demand promissory note clearly establish that false claim of the plaintiff. There is no creditor or debtor relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. He further submits that, he never received any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time on the alleged date i.e. on 17.06.2017 and never executed any demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff. The suit promissory note is devoid of consideration and there is no jurisdiction of the suit. He submits that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief much less the relief as prayed in the suit. There is no cause of action to file the suit and the alleged cause of action are all false and incorrect. The present 3 O.S.No.15 of 2020 suit is not a bonafide one and liable to be dismissed. The suit demand promissory note is devoid of consideration and fabricated with the support of attestors and alleged scribe. He further submits that, the suit promissory note is unenforceable law and it is created and forged one. The defendant never received any notice from the plaintiff. The defendant reserving his right to take all necessary criminal prosecution and to file petition under Section 45 of Indian

Evidence Act against the persons responsible in creating the document. The defendant submits that the entire documents produced by the plaintiff are self created one for the purpose of the suit. The defendant further submits that on 17.06.2017 he borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff and agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. for his family and business necessities of defendant and in evidence thereon the defendant executed a suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff and that the defendant received consideration of

Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note in the presence of scribe and attestors and that after that inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not discharge the promissory note amount intentionally and he postponed the same with some pretext and other and that on 14.10.2019 the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant informing him to pay the debt amount and he refused to receive the same and failed to discharge the debt amount and that thus the plaintiff has no other option except to file the suit for recovery of money of Rs.1,60,000/­ with costs and with future interest against the defendant are all false. He further submits that the defendant doing business and having permanent abode and also having Ac.5.00 cents agricultural lands in his native village and thus M.A.D. Relief Act. IV of 1938 and 4 O.S.No.15 of 2020

A.P.Act 7/77 and 45/87 is not applicable to the defendant are all not true and correct. The defendant prayed the Hon’ble court to dismiss the suit with costs in the interest of justice.

4. Taking into consideration the above the pleadings the following issues were framed for trial:­ 

1. Whether the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated document as prayed by the defendant?

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

3. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial the plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the original pronote dt.17/06/2017 executed by the defendant in favor of plaintiff. Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice dt.14/10/2019. Ex.A3 is returned postal cover. The 1st attestor and scribe of

Ex.A1 were examined as PWs.2 and 3. Thereafter even when sufficient time was given the defendant failed to cross­examine PWs.2 and 3 and did not adduce any evidence on his side and no documents were also marked on his side.

6.Heard the arguments on plaintiff side and the defendant counsel did not adduce his side arguments and his side arguments were treated as heard. This court carefully gone through the pleadings, the oral, documentary evidence 5 O.S.No.15 of 2020 adduced and considered the same. For better convenience both the issues are discussed together.

7. ISSUE NO::1:­ Whether the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated document as prayed by the defendant?

8. ISSUE NO::2:­ Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?

The oral evidence of PW.1 is completely supported by Ex.A1 clearly deposes regarding the money transaction between himself and defendant. It is the contention of PW.1 that on 17/06/2017 the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ from him for his family and business necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest of 24% pa whenever on his demand or order and executed Ex.A1. Subsequently the Plaintiff had demanded the defendant for repayment but the defendant did not pay any amount to him either towards principal or interest. He submits that the defendant was postponing the same on some pretext or another. He submits that inspite of his repeated demands, the defendant did not pay any amount to him. Subsequently on 14/10/2019 the Plaintiff had issued legal notice to the defendant but in vain.

Hence PW.1 was constrained to file thisuit against the defendant. The 1st attestor and scribe of Ex.A1 were examined as Pws.2 and 3 and they also corroborated with the evidence of PW.1. 

9.PW.1 in his cross­examination stated that he got acquaintance with the defendant while they were in Kuwait. He stated that he did not have personal 6 O.S.No.15 of 2020 knowledge about his family and other affairs. He stated that Ex.A1 was executed at this place. He stated that it waas executed in the presence of attestors and scribe. He admitted that they were called by him since he is uneducated. He admitted that the defendant does not know the attestors and scribe. He stated that the said amount was given in denomination of Rs.200/­ and Rs.500/­. He stated that the amount of Rs.500/ was given in 200 numbers in 2 bundles. He stated that the time was around 9.30 am. He stated that the defendant had come to his house in car. He was unable to say that car bearing number. He denied the suggestion that Ex.A1 was falsely created by colluding with attestors and scribe even though when no consideration was passed under it. He denied the suggestion that Exs.A1 to A3 are self created documents for the purpose of this suit.

10.The defendant had filed his written statement with contentions that the plaintiff is an utter stranger to him and the present suit is caused at the instance of his enemies with the collusion of plaintiff. He submits that he never borrowed any amounts much less Rs.1,00,000/­ on 17/06/2017. He submits that the plaintiff is not entitled for the suit amounts and the above suit filed by the plaintiff basing on false averments. He submits that the recitals of the suit promissory note clearly establish that false claim of the plaintiff. He submits that there is no creditor or debtor relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. He submits that he never received any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time on the alleged date ie on 17/06/2017 and never executed any demand promissory note in favor of plaintiff. He submits that the above demand 7 O.S.No.15 of 2020 promissory note is devoid of consideration. He submits that there is no jurisdiction of above suit and that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief much less the relief as prayed in the suit. He submits that there is no cause of action to file the suit and the alleged cause of action are all false and incorrect.

11.He submits that the present suit is not a bonafide one and liable to be dismissed. He submits that the suit demand promissory is devoid of consideration and fabricated with the support of attestors and alleged scribe. He submits that the suit demand promissory note is unenforceable law and it is created and forged one. He submits that he never received any notice from the plaintiff. He submits that he reserves his right to take all necessary criminal prosecution and to file petition under section 45 of Indian Evidence Act against the persons responsible in creating the document. He submits that the entire documents produced by the plaintiff are self created one for the purpose of the suit. He submits that there are no merits in the plaint. Hence he prays that the Hon’ble

Court may be pleased to dismiss the above suit with costs. 

12.This Court observed that except mentioning in the pleadings, the defendant had not come forward with any type of evidence to show that the suit promissory note is forged one. Except filing written statement, the defendant failed to cross­examine Pws.2 and 3 and failed to adduce any evidence to prove his contentions. 

13.If the plaintiff pleads that the promissory note is supported by a consideration as is recited in the instrument, the burden is on the defendant to 8 O.S.No.15 of 2020 disprove that the promissory note is not supported by consideration or different consideration, other than the one as cited in the promissory note did pass. If that consideration is not valid in law nor enforceable the court would consider whether the instrument is supported by by valid and legally enforceable consideration. The position of law was thus summarised; “It would thus be clear that when the suit is based on pronote, and promissory note is proved to have been executed, Section 118(a) raises the presumption, until the contrary is proved, that the promissory note was made for consideration. That initial presumption raised under Section 118(a) becomes unavailable when the plaintiff himself pleads in the plaint considerations. If he pleads that the promissory note is supported by a consideration as recited in the negotiable instrument and the evidence adduced in support thereof, these burden is on the defendant to disprove that the promissory note is not supported by consideration or different consideration other than one recited in the promissory note did pass, if that consideration is not valid in law nor enforceable in law, the court would consider whether the suit pronote is supported by valid consideration or legally enforceable consideration. 

14.Here in this suit the defendant had not taken any efforts to disprove that the promissory note is supported by consideration. In order to substantiate

Plaintiffs contention, PWs.1 to 3 were examined. On the other hand, the defendant contended that there is no cause of action to this suit. It has to be seen that except taking the said plea, the defendant did not cross­examine PWs.2 and 3 and get himself examined or adduce any evidence on his behalf either oral or 9 O.S.No.15 of 2020 documentary. Moreover no worthwhile admissions were elicited in the cross­ examination of PW.1. In the absence of any acceptable evidence much weight cannot be attached to accept the contention of the defendant that Ex.A1 is not supported by consideration. As such, it cannot be held that the contention of the defendant is correct. Hence the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant and the Plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount. Hence these issues are answered in favor of plaintiff.

15. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/­ (Rupees one lakh sixty thousand only) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant together with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and with a future interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/­.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 11 th day of December, 2023.

Sd/­ Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Rayachoty.

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

For plaintiff: For defendant: P.W.1: B.Sankaraiah. – None­

P.W.2: G.Swamy Konda Naidu. 

P.W.3: V.Venkatramana.

10 O.S.No.15 of 2020

Exhibits marked

For plaintiff: Ex.A1: The original pronote dated 17.06.2017 executed by K.Madan Mohan

Reddy (defendant) in favor of Bojanapu Sankaraiah (plaintiff).

Ex.A2: The office copy of legal notice dated 14.10.2019.

Ex.A3: Returned postal cover. 

For Defendant:

­ Nil ­

Sd/­ Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Rayachoty.

O.S.No.15 of 2020

Plaint presented on: 06.01.2020 Plaint filed on: 20.01.2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAYACHOTY

PRESENT : Smt Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.

Monday, this the 11 th day of December, 2023

O.S.No.15 of 2020

Between:

Bojanapu Sankaraiah, S/o Chinna Venkatesu, aged about 53 years, Hindu, Business, residing at D.No.39/107, opposite Balaji School, Sanjeeva Nagar, Rayachoty town and mandal. … Plaintiff

And

K.Madan Mohan Reddy, S/o Chenga Reddy, aged about 63 years, Hindu, cultivation, Business, residing at D.No.79 Mamanduru village, Ithe palli post, Chandragiri mandal, Chittoor District. 

… Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,60,000/­ being the principal and interest due on a promissory notes date 17.06.2017 executed by the defendant in favor of plaintiff for a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/­ agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum with future interest and for costs of the suit.

The value of suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is

Rs.1,60,000/­ on which a total court fee Rs.4,026/­ paid U/sec.20 of A.P.C.F. and

S.V. Act.

This suit coming on 05.12.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri.

U.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for the defendant and in the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth Judgment and decree are as follows:­

O.S.No.15 of 2020

1. That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,60,000/­ (Rupees one lakh sixty thousand only) with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and with a future interest @ 6% p.a.

on principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the date of decree till the date of realization; and 

2. That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 10,621 /­ being the costs of the suit and the defendant do bear his own costs (costs memo not filed).

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 11th day of

December, 2023.

Sd/­ Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Rayachoty.

Memorandum of costs:

Plaintiff: Defendant CM not filed

Stamp on plaint 4,026­00­­

Stamp on vakalat 2­00­­

Batta85/­­­

Petitions8/­

Advocate fees 6,500­­

TOTALRs.10,621­00 ­­

Sd/­ Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

P.J.C.J., RCT

Note:­ The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all documents which they may wish to preserve as records otherwise they will be destroyed after three years from this date.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

LAKKIREDDIPALLI.

PRESENT: SMT.MOHD. ISHRATH FATHIMA,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYACHOTY.

FAC/JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LAKKIREDDIPALLI.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021.

C.C.No.206/2021

Between:

State Rep.,. by Station House Officer, Chakrayapeta PS.

….. Complainant

Vs

1.Tammisetty Venkatesh, S/o. Late Venkatesh, aged 55 years, Caste by Vaddera, Occ. Coolie, Sree ram Nagar, Vempalli Town (A.1)

2.NallavengitigallaNeedidaiah,S/o.Late Deimanthu, aged 42 years, Caste: SC Mala, Occupation: Coolie, Kumarakalva Harijanawada Village, Chakrayapeta Mandal(A.2)

….. Accused Nos.1 and 2

This calendar case coming on this day before me for final hearing on 18.10.2021 in the presence of Sri G. Madhusudhanachari, Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant/State and of Sri V.Siddaiah Counsel for Accused Nos.1 and 2, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Chakrayapeta PS., laid charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.152/2020 for the offence punishable under Sec.7 (B) r/w. 8(B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment)

Act.

2) The case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet, in brief, are as follows:

On 03.12.2020 at about 5.00 am., on receipt of credible information about transporting of ID arrack illegally, P.W.2 left PS., along with P.W.1 and

L.Ws.2 and 3 and other staff and reached vacant place at Vennapalli Cross road, Chakrayapeta Mandal at about 5.30 am., and found two persons were standing there with white plastic cans in their hands and on seeing the arrival of police both the persons tried to escape and on suspicion P.W.2 along with staff detained and caught hold of them with able assistance of his staff and them to the police jeep. Then P.W.2 kept Accused No.2 in custody of his taff and 2 interrogated the A.1 about the identity particulars and plastic can. On interrogation A.1 revealed his identity particulars as in this case and A.1 and

A.2 with intent to earn money illegally, both purchased ID arrack from one unknown person at Talupula Village for low price and came here to sell the ID arrack for a profit of Rs.10/- on a glass. Then P.W.2 observed the white plastic can in his hand and found it is 05 liters white plastic can filled with ID arrack.

P.W.2 opened the cap of the can and arrack smell is omitting from it. Then P.W.2 interrogated A.2 and A.2 revealed his identity particulars as in this case and added the same version of A.1. Then P.W.2 observed the white plastic can in his hand and found it is 05 liters white plastic can filled with ID arrack. P.W.2 opened the cap of the can and arrack smell is omitting from it. Then P.W.2 arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2 at 6.25 am., after informing the grounds of arrest and seized 10 liters of Id arrack in two white plastic cans from the possession of A.1 and A.2 after taking 180 ml of ID arrack from each can in two empty bottles for sending chemical analysis under cover of police proceedings.

Later, P.W.2 examined the scene of offence and drafted the rough sketch of the scene of offence. Then P.W.2 left the place along with A.1 and A.2, seized the property and basing on the police proceedings, he registered a case in

Cr.No.152/2020 under Section.7(B) r/w. 8(B) of A.P Prohibition Amendment Act and submitted FIR copies to all the officers and investigated into. Later the accused Nos.1 and 2 were produced before the Court and sent them to judicial custody for remand. During the course of investigation, P.W.2 sent the sample to the chemical examiner for analysis. L.W.4/chemical examiner issued report and opined that the same is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. During the investigation P.W.2 received proceedings from the Superintendent of police, Kadapa to destroy the property in the presence of Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Pulivendula and the contraband was destroyed as per orders of Superintendent of Police, Kadapa on 21.06.2021.

After completion of investigation P.W.2/SI of Police, Chakrayapeta laid charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, the Charge.

3) Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/sec.7(B) r/w.

8(B) of AP Prohibition Act against Accused Nos.1 and 2.

4) On appearance of Accused Nos.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5)Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. She denied the accusation made against them. A charge U/sec.7 (B) r/w. 8(B) of A.P.P. Act has been framed against Accused Nos.1 and 2 and the contents of the said charge were read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of Accused Nos.1 3 and 2 have examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of L.W.2/P.Vijay

Vardhan Reddy, PC2846, Chakrayapeta PS, L.W.3/B.Salmon, HG-618,

Chakrayapeta PS, L.W.4/C.Rajeswaramma, Chemical Examiner,

7) On closure of prosecution evidence, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material appearing against them in the prosecution evidence by explaining to them the same in Telugu, for which they denied the same and further they stated that they have no defence evidence on their behalf.

8) Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing for Accused Nos.1 and 2. Perused the material on record.

9)Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 and the contents of Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1 are sufficient to prove the case of prosecution and prayed to convict the accused Nos.1 and 2 as per law.

10)Learned counsel appearing for Accused Nos.1 and 2 would contend that P.Ws.1 and 2 are the Police Officials and their evidence is not corroborated by the evidence of any independent witness, as such it is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.1 and 2 would contend that Police Officials should have made an attempt to secure the panchayatdars from the immediate vicinity of the scene of offence, but they did not do so and it throws a doubt about the version of the P.Ws.1 and 2.

Learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.1 and 2 would contend that except the self serving testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are Police Officials, absolutely there is no evidence on record to prove the recovery of the property from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 2 and its disposal. He would further contend that in the absence of any corroborative evidence from independent source as to the recovery of illicitly distilled liquor from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 2, or that the very same property was tested by the chemical analyst and the property was destroyed, it is unsafe to conclude that the accused Nos.1 and 2 committed the offence punishable under Sec. 7(B) r/w. 8(B) of AP

Prohibition (Amendment) Act.

11)Point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of accused

Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sec.7(B) r/w.8(B) of A.P.

Prohibition (Amendment) Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

12)POINT:

The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1. It is the 4 contention of the learned counsel for accused that P.Ws.1 and 2 are the Police

Officials and their evidence is not corroborated by the evidence of any independent witness, as such it is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. In the light of above contentions of learned counsel for accused

Nos.1 and 2, I proceeded to scrutinize the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 with meticulous care and caution and whether her evidence inspires confidence in the mind of the court or not.

13)P.Ws.1 and 2 are the Police Constable and Sub Inspector of Police,

Chakrayapeta Police Station. P.Ws.1 and 2 in their chief-examination deposed that about the conducting of raids on 03.10.2020 at Vempalli Cross road, found accused Nos.1 and 2 having possession of one white plastic can each which were containing 5 liters of I.D.Liquor in each can, seizure contraband, arrest of the accused Nos.1 and 2, lifting of 180 ml sample from each can, drafting of

Ex.P.1 Confessional statement cum seizure police procedings report, registration of case in Cr.No.152/2020 U/Sec.7(B) r.w 8(Be) of AP Prohibition Act and Issued FIR under Ex.P.2, sending of accused Nos.1 and 2 for remand into judicial custody, sending of sample to the chemical examiner, obtaining of chemical analysis report under Ex.P.3, sending of remaining ID liquor to

Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, destroyed the property under

Ex.P.4/Destruction proceedings issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa and laying of charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2.

14)The cross examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 is nothing but total denials only. P.W.1 in his cross examination denied the suggestion that the scene of offence is busy locality. P.W.1 in his cross examination denied the suggestion that they did not make efforts to secure the mediators. P.W.1 in his cross examination denied the suggestion that they did not prepare the rough sketch of the scene of offence accused did not commit any offence and that they had foisted a false case against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for statistical purpose.

P.W.2 in his cross examination denied the suggestion that the scene of offence is busy locality. P.W.2 in his cross examination admitted that he did not prepare the rough sketch of the scene of offence. P.W.2 did not file the vehicle movement chart before this Court. the suggestion that they did not make efforts to secure the mediators. P.W.2 in his cross examination denied the suggestion that they did not conduct raid on the said date. P.W.2 in his cross examination admitted that in the charge sheet the date mentioned as 03.12.2020. Witness said that it is a typographical mistake.

15)As seen from the evidence, except the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 there is no other independent witness is available on record. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 shows that they did not make any efforts for securing mediators at the scene of offence. If really, they made serious attempts for 5 securing mediators, definitely they would secure the mediators at the scene of offence. Therefore, it is not safe to act upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.

16)Our Hon'ble High Court in Mudavath Mothia Vs. State Of A.P.

reported in 2002 1 ALT(Cri) 437= 2002 0 Supreme(AP) 232 at para

No.5, it was held as follows:- “Once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials. When once they become police officials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible.”

It is further held that: “When the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the contraband from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Secs. 25 and 27 of the Indian

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 and Sec. 161 of Cr. P. C.”

17)Further our Hon'ble High Court S. BABU SAHEB ALIAS BABU

VS.STATE OF A.P reported in 2010 (1) ALT(Cri) 32 at para No.16, it was held as follows:- “When the police conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators.That is the mandate of Section 100 (4) of Cr. P. C. As referred to in the above provisions, the excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under subsection (4) of Section 100 Cr.P. C. The object of Section 100 Cr. P. C. is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the presence of mediators of any other locality would not only weaken, but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.”

18)In the case on hand, the prosecution failed to secure the independent mediators and failed to examine any independent witness rather than the interested witness to establish the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 and failed to follow proper procedure prescribed under law. Hence, viewed from any angle there is no credibility to the prosecution witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused Nos.1a and 2 and their evidence cannot be believed.

6

Therefore, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to implicate the complicity of the accused in commission of the offence. The material produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thereby, the point is decided in favour of the defense and against to the prosecution.

19)In view of the above discussion the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under

Sec.7(B) r/w. 8(B) of A.P.P. Act. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused Nos.1 and 2 and against the prosecution.

20)In the result, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.7(B) r/w. 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months under

Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C., M.O.1 sample bottle under C.P.R. Item No.126/2021 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of October, 2021.

Sd/- Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYACHOTY.

FAC/JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LAKKIREDDIPALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 K. Babu Reddy, -NONE- Police Constable – 2087, Chakrayapeta PS P.W.2 K. Raghuram, SI of Police, Chakrayapeta PS

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P.1 Police proceedings -NIL- Ex.P.2 Original FIR in Crime No.152/2020. Ex.P.3 Chemical analysis Report. Ex.P.4 Destruction proceedings

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 Sample bottle.

Sd/- Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYACHOTY.

FAC/JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LAKKIREDDIPALLI.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

LAKKIREDDIPALLI.

C.C.NO.206/2021

01. Date of offence: 03-12-2020

02. Date of Complaint : 03-12-2020

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: 03-12-2020

04. Release on bail: 08-12-2020

05. Commencement of trial: 07-10-2021

06. Closure of trial: 08-10-2021

07. Date of Judgment : 22-10-2021

08. Name of the complainant: State represented by: Sub-Inspector of Police, Chakrayapeta PS

09. Name of the accused :

1.Tammisetty Venkatesh, S/o. Late Venkatesh, aged 55 years, Caste by Vaddera, Occ. Coolie, Sree ram Nagar, Vempalli Town (A.1)

2.NallavengitigallaNeedidaiah,S/o.Late Deimanthu, aged 42 years, Caste: SC Mala, Occupation: Coolie, Kumarakalva Harijanawada Village, Chakrayapeta Mandal(A.2)

10. Offence : U/sec.7 (B) r/w. 8(B) of APP Act.

11. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

12. Finding : Not guilty

13. Sentence : Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.7(B) r/w. 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of accused

Nos.1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months under Sec.437-A of

Cr.P.C., M.O.1 sample bottle under C.P.R. Item No.126/2021 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYACHOTY.

FAC/JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LAKKIREDDIPALLI.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon'ble I Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

LAKKIREDDIPALLI.

PRESENT: SMT.MOHD. ISHRATH FATHIMA,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, 

RAYACHOTY. 

FAC/JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, 

LAKKIREDDIPALLI. 

TUESDAY, THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021.

C.C.No.249/2021 

Between:

State Rep.,. by Inspector of Police , SEB Lakkireddypalli PS.

….. Complainant 

Vs

Repana Papaiah, S/o R.Balaiah, age 58 years, R/o ThlamudipiVillage,GaliveeduMandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.

….. Accused 

This calendar case coming on this day before me for final hearing on 25.10.2021 in the presence of Sri G. Madhusudhanachari, Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant/State and of Sri V.Balaji Reddy, Counsel for Accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following: 

:: J U D G M E N T ::

State represented by Inspector of Police, SEB Lakkireddypalli

PS., laid charge sheet against Accused in Crime No.106/2020 for the offence punishable under Sec.7 (B) r/w. 8(B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act. 

 2) The case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet, in brief, are as follows:

On 09.07.2020 at about 6­30 A.M during the raids conducted by SEB Inspector and staff raided at Tankbund 1KM west to Thalamudipi village of Galiveedu Mandal found one male person while in possession of carrying one white colour plastic bottle in his right hand. On suspicion we detained him. On enquiyr he stated that the white colour plastic bottle 2 containign I.D. Liquor in it. Then special Enforcement Bureadu Inspector,

L.R.palli deputed Sri Y.B Prabhakar, SEB Head constable To Thalamudipi village to secure mediators. After some time he returned to the scene of offence and reported that no one came forward to act as mediators. Then the special enforcement Bureau Inspector, L.R.palli examined the said white color plastic can and found 02 Lts., of I.D. Arrack in it. Then the special enforcement Bureau Inspector, L.R.Palli drawn one 180ml sample bottle of I.D.Liquor duly sealed and labled, and the remaining property has been sealed and labled. After informing the grounds of arrest the SEB inspector, L.R.palli arrested the accused person and seized the sample bottle and property under cover of special report drafted on the spot. 

Then left the place and reached SEB, station, L.R.palli at about 9­00

A.M along with accused person, sample bottle and case records and registered the case in Cr.No.106/20 U/sec. 7(B) r/w8(B) of A.P. Prohibition ( Amendment Act), 2020 SEB station, Lakkireddypalli and issued F.I.Rs to all concerned . The arrest of the accused was informed to his relatives for his welfare. 

The accused was arrested under the following reasons. a)to prevent the accused from committing any further offence, b) to prevent the accused from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. On 09.07.2020 the above noted accused is here by produced before the Hon’ble Court, Lakkireddypalli along with the case records, under proper escort for Judicial custody. Hence it is requested that the accused may kindly be remanded to Judicial custody for a period of 15 days so as to enable me to complete the investigation and to file charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3) Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/sec.7(B) r/w. 8(B) of AP Prohibition Act against Accused.

4) On appearance of Accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5)Accused was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. She denied the accusation made against them. A charge U/sec.7 (B) r/w. 8(B) of A.P.P.

3

Act has been framed against Accused and the contents of the said charge were read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of Accused has examined P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1. Learned

AssistantPublicProsecutorgivenuptheevidenceof

L.W.1/Y.B.Prabhakar, Head Constable and L.W.2/M.Viswanath Reddy,

Cconstable of Lakkireddypalli PS.

7) On closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence by explaining to him the same in Telugu, for which he denied the same and further he stated that he has no defence evidence on his behalf.

8) Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing for Accused. Perused the material on record.

9)Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of

P.W.1 and the contents of Ex.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1 are sufficient to prove the case of prosecution and prayed to convict the accused as per law.

10)Learned counsel appearing for Accused would contend that

P.W.1 is the Police Officials and their evidence is not corroborated by the evidence of any independent witness, as such it is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel appearing for accused would contend that Police Officials should have made an attempt to secure the panchayatdars from the immediate vicinity of the scene of offence, but he did not do so and it throws a doubt about the version of the P.W.1.

Learned counsel appearing for accused would contend that except the self serving testimony of P.W.1 who are Police Officials, absolutely there is no evidence on record to prove the recovery of the property from the possession of accused and its disposal. He would further contend that in the absence of any corroborative evidence from independent source as to 4 the recovery of illicitly distilled liquor from the possession of accused, or that the very same property was tested by the chemical analyst and the property was destroyed, it is unsafe to conclude that the accused committed the offence punishable under Sec. 7(B) r/w. 8(B) of AP

Prohibition (Amendment) Act.

11)Point for determination is:­ “Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Sec.7(B) r/w.8(B) of A.P.

Prohibition (Amendment) Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

12)POINT:

The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of accused examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1. It is the contention of the learned counsel for accused that P.W.1 is the Police

Official and her evidence is not corroborated by the evidence of any independent witness, as such it is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. In the light of above contentions of learned counsel for accused, I proceeded to scrutinize the evidence of P.W.1 with meticulous care and caution and whether her evidence inspires confidence in the mind of the court or not. 

13)P.W.1 is the Police Constable and Enforcement Inspector,

Lakkireddypalli Police Station. P.W.1 in her chief­examination deposed that about the conducting of raids on 09.07.2020 at about 6­30 A.M Tank bund, situated the distance of one kilometer from Talamudipi village of

Galiveedu mandal, found accused having possession of one white plastic bottle which were containing 2.5 liters capacity containing 02 lts of

I.D.Liquor in that bottle, seizure contraband, arrest of the accused , lifting of 180 ml sample from each can, drafting of Ex.P.1 is the special report and registered a case in Cr.No.106/2020 U/Sec.7(B) r.w 8(Be) of AP

Prohibition Act and Issued FIR under Ex.P.2, sending of accused for remand into judicial custody, sending of sample to the chemical examiner, obtaining of chemical analysis report under Ex.P.3, sending of remaining

ID liquor was destroyed at the instructions of superintendent of Police,

Kadapa, and laying of charge sheet against the accused.

5

14)The cross examination of P.W.1 is nothing but total denials only. P.W.1 in his cross examination denied the suggestion that the scene of offence is busy locality P.W.1 in her cross examination denied the suggestion that they did not filed report before the Hon’ble Court. P.W.1 in his cross examination denied the suggestion that they did not prepare the rough sketch of the scene of offence, she cannot say the boundaries of scene of offence and accused did not commit any offence and that they had foisted a false case against the accused for statistical purpose.

15)As seen from the evidence, except the oral testimony of P.W.1 there is no other independent witness is available on record. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that she did not make any efforts for securing mediators at the scene of offence. If really, they made serious attempts for securing mediators, definitely they would secure the mediators at the scene of offence. Therefore, it is not safe to act upon the evidence of P.W.1.

16)Our Hon'ble High Court in Mudavath Mothia Vs. State Of

A.P. reported in 2002 1 ALT(Cri) 437= 2002 0 Supreme(AP) 232 at

para No.5, it was held as follows:­ “Once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials. When once they become police officials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible.”

It is further held that: “When the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the contraband from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non­examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Secs. 25 and 27 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 and Sec. 161 of Cr. P. C.” 6

17)Further our Hon'ble High Court S. BABU SAHEB ALIAS BABU

VS.STATE OF A.P reported in 2010 (1) ALT(Cri) 32 at para No.16, it was held as follows:­ “When the police conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators. That is the mandate of Section 100 (4) of Cr. P. C. As referred to in the above provisions, the excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under subsection (4) of Section 100 Cr.P. C. The object of Section 100 Cr. P. C. is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the presence of mediators of any other locality would not only weaken, but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.”

18)In the case on hand, the prosecution failed to secure the independent mediators and failed to examine any independent witness rather than the interested witness to establish the guilt of the accused and failed to follow proper procedure prescribed under law. Hence, viewed from any angle there is no credibility to the prosecution witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused and their evidence cannot be believed. Therefore, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to implicate the complicity of the accused in commission of the offence. The material produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thereby, the point is decided in favour of the defense and against to the prosecution.

19)In view of the above discussion the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under

Sec.7(B) r/w. 8(B) of A.P.P. Act. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

7

20)In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.7(B) r/w. 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Sec.437­A of

Cr.P.C., M.O.1 sample bottle under C.P.R. Item No.138/2021 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, Grade­III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 26th day of October, 2021.

Sd/­ Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, 

RAYACHOTY. 

FAC/ JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LAKKIREDDYPALLI 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED 

For Prosecution: For Defence: 

P.W.1 :W.Vinney Latha, Inspector of Police, ­ NIL­ SEB Station, lakkireddypalli P.S

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: 

Ex.P.1 Special Report ­NIL­ Ex.P.2 Original FIR in Crime No.106/2020. Ex.P.3 Chemical analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 Sample bottle.

Sd/­ Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, 

RAYACHOTY. 

FAC/ JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LAKKIREDDYPALLI 

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: 

LAKKIREDDIPALLI.

C.C.NO.249/2021

01. Date of offence: 09­07­2020

02. Date of Complaint : 09­07­2020

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: 09­07­2020

04. Release on bail: 16­07­2020

05. Commencement of trial: 18­10­2021

06. Closure of trial: 21­10­2021

07. Date of Judgment : 26­10­2021

08. Name of the complainant: State represented by: Inspector of Police, SEB Lakkireddipalli P.S

09. Name of the accused : Repana Papaiah, S/o R.Balaiah, age 58 years, R/o Thlamudipi village, Galiveedu Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.

10. Offence: U/sec.7 (B) r/w. 8(B) of APP Act.

11. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

12. Finding : Not guilty 

13. Sentence :

Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Sec.7(B) r/w. 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Sec.437­A of Cr.P.C.,

M.O.1 sample bottle under C.P.R. Item No.138/2021 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Sd/­ Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, 

RAYACHOTY. 

FAC/JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LAKKIREDDIPALLI. 

Copy submitted to:

The Hon'ble I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. 

1 O.S.No.188 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : : RAYACHOTY

 Present: Smt Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.

Wednesday, this the 13 th day of December, 2023

Original Suit No.188 of 2020

Derangula Chandra, S/o Venkata Swami, aged about 70 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at Kondavandlapalli, Narayanareddipalli village, Sambepalli mandal.

... Plaintiff

­ V s ­

Repana Mallaiah, s/o Venkata Swami, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Mason and cultivation, residing at Kondandlapalli, Narayanareddipalli village, Sambepalli mandal. 

... Defendant

This suit is coming on 06.12.2023 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.C. Reddeppa Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant set exparte, upon perusal of entire record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,07,466/­ being the principal and interest due on two suit promissory notes dated 22.10.2017 and 22.10.2017 executed by the defendant in favor of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.80,000/­ (Rs.40,000/­ +

Rs.40,000/­) agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum with future interest and for costs of the suit.

2. The case of the plaintiff as per the plaint in brief is as follows: The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/­ from the plaintiff on 22.10.2017 for his family necessities and on the same day the defendant executed a promissory 2 O.S.No.188 of 2020 note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Again the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/­ from the plaintiff on 22.10.2017 for his family necessities and on the same day the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. On 15.05.2019 the defendant paid interest on the said two suit promissory notes dated 22.10.2017 debt amounts and the same was endorsed on the back side of the said promissory notes. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the debt amount due under the two suit promissory notes. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for recovery of the amount. Hence the suit.

2. In this case on 19.06.2023 written statement of defendant not filed.

Stipulated period for filing written statement is over. Hence, opportunity for filing written statement is forfeited. Defendant called absent. No representation.

Hence, defendant is set exparte.

3. In support of her case, the plaintiff himself got examined as P.W.1 and

Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on his behalf. The scribe of Exs.A1 and A2 was examined as P.W.2 on behalf of the plaintiff.

4. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff. I have carefully gone through the pleadings and the oral, documentary evidence on record and considered the same.

3 O.S.No.188 of 2020 5. The point for determination is: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?

6. Point: All the averments in the plaint which are necessary for a decision on the point are already stated supra and therefore the same are not restated.

The case of the plaintiff as pleaded and as sought to be established is as follows:

that the defendant approached him to lend money for which he agreed and on 22/10/2017 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/­ from the plaintiff for his family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% P.A.

either to him or to his order on demand. On the same day the defendant had executed two demand promissory notes each for Rs.40,000/­ in favor of the plaintiff. On 15/05/2019 the defendant paid interest on both pronotes debt and endorsed the same on reverse side of pronotes. Subsequently the plaintiff had demanded the plaintiff for payment, but the defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiff apart from above payment. The defendant was postponing the same on some pretext or another. Hence Plaintiff was constrained to file this suit for recovery of the suit amount. The scribe of Exs.A1 and A2 was examined as

PW.2 and he also corroborated with the evidence of PW.1.

7. On careful perusal of the documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff, it is clear that the same fully corroborate the oral testimony of the PW.1. On the other hand the defendant even failed to appear before this court and file his written statement and also failed to cross­examine Pws.1 and 2. Thus, the version of

Pws.1 and 2 remains unchallenged and uncontroverted.

4 O.S.No.188 of 2020

8.This court had carefully gone through the pleadings of the plaint, oral evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff. PW.1 in his chief examination had affirmed the plaint averments on oath and had translated the pleadings into direct evidence which is acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case. There are no inherent infirmities either in the claim or in the nature of evidence adduced to prove the suit claim. On the other hand the evidence on record is sufficient to safely conclude that the suit claim is proved. In view of the above discussion coupled with reasons the point is accordingly answered holding that the plaintiff had sufficiently established entitlement to a decree in his favour and against the defendant.

9. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.1,07,466/­ (Rupees one lakh seven thousand four hundred and sixty six only) with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.80,000/­ (Rs.40,000/­ +

Rs.40,000/­).

Directly typed my dictation by the Stenographer Gr­III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of December, 2023.

Sd/­ Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, 

Rayachoty. 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT 

P.W.1: D.Chandra. Exparte 

P.W.2: P.Chinna Reddenna.

5 O.S.No.188 of 2020

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original Promissory note dt.22.10.2017 executed by defendant in favor of plaintiff for Rs.40,000/­.

Ex.A2: Original Promissory note dt.22.10.2017 executed by defendant in favor of plaintiff for Rs.40,000/­.

Ex.A3: The endorsement on backside of Ex.A1.

Ex.A4: The endorsement on backside of Ex.A2.

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

Sd/­ Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

PJCJ, RCT. 

6 O.S.No.188 of 2020

Plaint presented on: 31.10.2020 Plaint filed on: 02.12.2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : : RAYACHOTY

 Present: Smt Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.

Wednesday, this the 13 th day of December, 2023

Original Suit No.188 of 2020

Derangula Chandra, S/o Venkata Swami, aged about 70 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at Kondavandlapalli, Narayanareddipalli village, Sambepalli mandal.

... Plaintiff

­ V s ­

Repana Mallaiah, s/o Venkata Swami, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Mason and cultivation, residing at Kondandlapalli, Narayanareddipalli village, Sambepalli mandal. 

... Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,07,466/­ being the principal and interest due on two suit promissory notes dated 22.10.2017 and 22.10.2017 executed by the defendant in favor of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.80,000/­ (Rs.40,000/­ +

Rs.40,000/­) agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum with future interest and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit Rs.1,07,466/­ in which a total court fee of Rs.4,932/­ (Rs.2,466/­ + Rs.2,466/­) is paid U/sec.20 of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act.

This suit is coming on 06.12.2023 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.C. Reddeppa Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant set exparte, upon perusal of entire record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows:­

1. That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,07,466/­ (Rupees one lakh seven thousand four hundred and sixty six only) 7 O.S.No.188 of 2020 with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and with a future interest @ 6% p.a. on the principal amounts of Rs.80,000/­ (Rs.40,000/­ + Rs.40,000/­) from the date of decree till the date of realization.; and

2. That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.7,480/­ being the costs of the suit 

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 13th day of

December, 2023.

Sd/­ Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Rayachoty.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

Plaintiff Rs.Defendant Rs.

Stamps on Plaint (C.F.)4,932/­Exparte

Stamps on Vakalath02/­­­

Stamps on B. Memos85/­­­

Petitions­­­­

Advocate’s fee2,461/­­­­

Total: Rs.7,480/­ ­­­

Sd/­ Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

P.J.C.J., RCT.

Note:­ The parties shall apply as soon as possible for return of all the documents which they may wish to preserve, as the records will be liable to be destroyed after three years from this date; 

1 O.S.No.73 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : : RAYACHOTY

 Present: Smt Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.

Tuesday, this the 12 th day of December, 2023

Original Suit No.73 of 2023

Kedri Gangojamma, W/o Late Lakhsmaiah, aged about 53 years, Hindu, Housewife, residing at D.No.2/424, Krishna Nagar, T.Sundupalli, mandal, Annamaiah District.

... Plaintiff

­ V s ­

Kedri Anjineyulu, S/o Subbarayudu, aged about 30 years, Hindu, Business, residing at Srinivasapuram, T.Sundupalli mandal, Annamaiah District.

... Defendant

This suit is coming on 05.12.2023 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Ramesh Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant set exparte, upon perusal of entire record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,10,400/­ (Rs.1,72,000/­ + Rs.38,400/­) being the principal and interest due on two suit promissory notes dated 11.02.2020 and 11.12.2021 executed by the defendant in favor of plaintiff for a sum of

Rs.1,30,000/­ (Rs.1,00,000/­ + Rs.30,000/­) agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum with future interest and for costs of the suit.

2. The case of the plaintiff as per the plaint in brief is as follows: The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff on 11.02.2020 for his necessities and on the same day the defendant executed a promissory note in 2 O.S.No.73 of 2023 favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand. Again the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/­ from the plaintiff on 11.12.2021 for his necessities and on the same day the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand.

In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the debt amount due under the two suit promissory notes. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for recovery of the amount. Hence the suit.

2. In this case on 01.08.2023 written statement of defendant not filed.

Stipulated period for filing written statement is over. Hence, opportunity for filing written statement is forfeited. Defendant called absent. No representation.

Hence, defendant is set exparte.

3.  In support of her case, the plaintiff herself got examined as P.W.1 and

Exs.A1 and A2 were marked on her behalf. The first attestor of Ex.A1 was examined as P.W.2 on behalf of the plaintiff. The second attestor of Ex.A2 was examined as P.W.3 on behalf of the plaintiff. 

4. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff. I have carefully gone through the pleadings and the oral, documentary evidence on record and considered the same.

3 O.S.No.73 of 2023 5. The point for determination is: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?

6. Point: All the averments in the plaint which are necessary for a decision on the point are already stated supra and therefore the same are not restated. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded and as sought to be established is as follows: that the defendant approached her to lend money for which she agreed and on 11/02/2020 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff and again borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/­ on 11/12/2021 from the plaintiff and executed demand promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% P.A. either to her or to her assignee on demand. Subsequently the plaintiff had demanded the defendant for payment, but the defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiff apart from above payment. The defendant was postponing the same on some pretext or another. Hence Plaintiff was constrained to file this suit for recovery of the suit amount. The 1st attestor of

Ex.A1 was examined as PW.2 and the 2nd attestor of Ex.A2 was examined as

PW.3. Pws.2 and 3 corroborated with the evidence of PW.1.

7. On careful perusal of the documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff, it is clear that the same fully corroborate the oral testimony of the PW.1. On the other hand the defendant even failed to appear before this court and file his written statement and also failed to cross­examine PWs.1 to 3. Thus, the version of PWs.1 to 3 remains unchallenged and uncontroverted.

8.This court had carefully gone through the pleadings of the plaint, oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff. PW.1 in 4 O.S.No.73 of 2023 her chief examination had affirmed the plaint averments on oath and had translated the pleadings into direct evidence which is acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case. There are no inherent infirmities either in the claim or in the nature of evidence adduced to prove the suit claim. On the other hand the evidence on record is sufficient to safely conclude that the suit claim is proved. In view of the above discussion coupled with reasons the point is accordingly answered holding that the plaintiff had sufficiently established entitlement to a decree in her favour and against the defendant.

9. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.2,10,400/­ (Rs.1,72,000/­ + Rs.38,400/­) (Rupees two lakhs ten thousand and four hundred only) with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.1,30,000/­ (Rs.1,00,000/­ +Rs.30,000/­)

Directly typed my dictation by the Stenographer Gr­III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of December, 2023.

Sd/­ Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, 

Rayachoty. 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT 

P.W.1: K.Gangojamma. Exparte 

P.W.2: P.Subbarayudu.

P.W.3: S.Sulochana.

5 O.S.No.73 of 2023

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original Promissory note dt.11.02.2020 executed by defendant in favor of plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/­.

Ex.A2: Original Promissory note dt.11.12.2021 executed by defendant in favor of plaintiff for Rs.30,000/­.

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

Sd/­ Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

PJCJ, RCT. 

6 O.S.No.73 of 2023

Plaint presented on: 10.02.2023 Plaint filed on: 23.02.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : : RAYACHOTY

 Present: Smt Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.

Tuesday, this the 12 th day of December, 2023

Original Suit No.73 of 2023

Kedri Gangojamma, W/o Late Lakhsmaiah, aged about 53 years, Hindu, Housewife, residing at D.No.2/424, Krishna Nagar, T.Sundupalli, mandal, Annamaiah District.

... Plaintiff

­ V s ­

Kedri Anjineyulu, S/o Subbarayudu, aged about 30 years, Hindu, Business, residing at Srinivasapuram, T.Sundupalli mandal, Annamaiah District.

... Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,10,400/­ (Rs.1,72,000/­ + Rs.38,400/­) being the principal and interest due on two suit promissory notes dated 11.02.2020 and 11.12.2021 executed by the defendant in favor of plaintiff for a sum of

Rs.1,30,000/­ (Rs.1,00,000/­ + Rs.30,000/­) agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum with future interest and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit Rs.2,10,400/­ (Rs.1,72,000/­ + Rs.38,400/­) in which a total court fee of Rs.6,320/­ (Rs.4,226/­ + Rs.2,086/­) is paid U/sec.20 of

A.P.C.F and S.V. Act.

This suit is coming on 05.12.2023 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Ramesh Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant set exparte, upon perusal of entire record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows:­

1. That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,10,400/­ 7 O.S.No.73 of 2023 (Rs.1,72,000/­ + Rs.38,400/­) (Rupees two lakhs ten thousand and four hundred only) with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and with a future interest @ 6% p.a. on the principal amounts of Rs.1,30,000/­ (Rs.1,00,000/­ + Rs.30,000/­) from the date of decree till the date of realization; and

2. That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,463/­ being the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 12th day of

December, 2023.

Sd/­ Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Rayachoty.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

Plaintiff Rs.Defendant Rs.

Stamps on Plaint (C.F.)6,320/­Exparte

Stamps on Vakalath02/­­­

Stamps on B. Memos85/­­­

Typing charges50/­

Petitions­­­­

Advocate’s fee4,006/­­­­

Total: Rs.10,463/­ ­­­

Sd/­ Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,

P.J.C.J., RCT.

Note:­ The parties shall apply as soon as possible for return of all the documents which they may wish to preserve, as the records will be liable to be destroyed after three years from this date;