Ms. N.gayathri

CC No.139/2025 1 Dt.31.03.2026

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) -CUM- XII

ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, GANNAVARAM

PRESENT:-N.Gayathri

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, GANNAVARAM

FAC.XII ADDL.JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE;GANNAVARAM

Tuesday, this the 31 st day of March, 2026

C.C. No.139 of 2025

Between:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Atkuru PS. …Complainant

And

1. Garike Kiran S/o Babu, age 22 yrs, R/oPedaogiriala village, Vuyyuru Mandal 2.Katta Nagababu S/o Subbayya, age 21 yrs, R/o Akunuru village, Vuyyuru Mandal, 3.Donepudi Lakshmi Vara Prasad S/o Ramesh, age 21 yrs, R/o Ogirila village, Vuyyuru Mandal 4.Punukollu Bavyanth @ Chinnu, S/o Rajeev, age 24 yrs, R/o Dr.No.2-15, Pedaparapudi village & Mandal, C/o Dr.No.8-345, Santhinagar, Rajendranagar, Gudiwada now at Katuru village, Vuyyuru Mandal, .. A1 to A4

This case is coming before me on 30.03.2025 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri A.Chandra Sekhar and K.Varaprasad, Advocates for A1 to A4, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Atkuru Police Station filed charge sheet in

Crime No.103 of 2024 against A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under Section 303(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (herein after referred as BNS for brevity)

2.The brief facts of prosecution case, in nutshell:

On 17.07.2024 at about 11:00 PM, P.W.1, namely K. Venu, tied his sheep in his cattle shed situated behind the Cinema Hall at Manikanta Village. On the next

CC No.139/2025 2 Dt.31.03.2026

day, i.e., on 18.07.2024 at about 5:00 AM, P.W.1 woke up and found that three of his sheep were missing, having been stolen by some unknown offender who committed theft and decamped with the booty. Immediately, P.W.1 searched in and around the area, but in vain. Thereafter, on 30.09.2024, P.W.1 went to the Police

Station and gave a report to the police. Basing on the report of P.W.1, P.W.4, namely U.Govindu, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.103 of 2024 under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence, prepared a rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 180(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita (BNSS). Later, P.W.4, Sub-Inspector of Police, arrested A1 to A4 in the presence of mediators (L.Ws.6 and 7) on 01.10.2024, and seized the stolen property, namely three sheep, along with two motor cycles bearing registration numbers AP 37 DR 8778 (Honda Access) and AP 16 EW 0134 (Royal Enfield), which were allegedly utilized by A1 to A4 for the commission of the offence and transportation of the stolen sheep. The said property was seized under the cover of a Mahazar report duly attested by L.Ws.6 and 7, and the proceedings were videographed by P.W.3, Head Constable. Thereafter, P.W.4, Sub-Inspector of

Police, served Section 35(3) of BNSS notice to A1 to A4. During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police handed over the seized three sheep to

P.W.1 under acknowledgment for grazing purposes, as the recovered property consisted of living animals. After completion of investigation, P.W.4, Sub-Inspector of Police, filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under

Section 303(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS.

3. On the appearance of A1 to A4, copies of the case documents were furnished to them as required under Section 230 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The accused were examined under Section 262 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), for which they denied the commission of the offence.

The charge against A1 to A4 under Section 303(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS was read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

CC No.139/2025 3 Dt.31.03.2026

4. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined. P.W.1 is the de facto complainant, P.W.2 is the mediator, and P.Ws.3 and 4 are the Investigating Officers. Exs.P1 to P5 were marked on behalf of the prosecution, besides M.O.1. The evidence of L.Ws.2 to 6, namely K. Padma Sree,

K. Madhu, K. Naga Vardhan, K. Sivannarayana and M. Ramesh, was given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A4 were examined under

Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by putting to them the incriminating material that appeared against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. A1 to A4 denied the incriminating material against them and reported that they had no defence evidence.

6. Heard arguments on both sides.

7.Now Point for determination is:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A3 for the

offence under Section 303(2) or 317(2) r/w 3(5) BNS beyond reasonable

doubt?

8.POINT :-

In order to prove the offence under section 303 (2) BNS prosecution relied upon the testimonies of PWs 1 to 4. P.W.1, namely K. Venu, is the de facto complainant in this case. His evidence is that he is a resident of Manikonda Village and is doing cultivation. He stated that on 17.07.2024 at about 10:00 PM, he kept his buffaloes and sheep in his cattle shed situated behind the Cinema Hall in

Manikonda Village. On the next day morning, i.e., on 18.07.2024 at about 5:00 AM, he noticed that three of his sheep were stolen by some unknown offenders, and he searched in and around the area but could not trace them. He further stated that he gave a report to the police, which was marked as Ex.P1, and that thereafter the police informed him that the stolen sheep were recovered and the same were handed over to him. However, during cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that he had not seen the accused A1 to A4 at any time and that he does not know who

CC No.139/2025 4 Dt.31.03.2026

committed the theft of his sheep. He also admitted that he registered the case only to recover his stolen sheep.

9.P.W.2 is the mediator witness to the alleged seizure. His evidence is that on 01.10.2024, while he was present at Nandamuru Centre, the Sub-Inspector of

Police requested him to act as mediator and took him to the Nandamuru Bus Stand, where he saw three persons coming on a scooty and one bike with sheep on their vehicles. He stated that the police caught those persons and that they disclosed their names as Kiran, Naga Babu and Prasad, namely A1 to A3, and confessed that they committed theft of sheep in the cattle shed situated near Manikonda Cinema

Hall along with another person. He further stated that the police seized three sheep, and two motor cycles bearing registration numbers AP 37 DR 8778 (Honda Access) and AP 16 EW 0134 (Royal Enfield) under the cover of Ex.P2 mediator report, and that the proceedings were videographed. However, during cross-examination,

P.W.2 admitted that he was not given any written summons to act as mediator and that he does not know whether the description of the sheep was mentioned in

Ex.P2. He further admitted that he could not remember the registration number of the police vehicle and could not state who was driving the bikes at the relevant time.

These admissions weaken the credibility of the seizure proceedings.

10.P.W.3 is the Police Constable who allegedly accompanied the Sub-Inspector during the arrest and seizure. His evidence is that on 01.10.2024 at about 2:00 PM, on receiving credible information, the police proceeded to Nandamuru Bus Stop and noticed three persons coming on bikes with sheep, and upon enquiry those persons confessed that along with A4 they had committed theft of sheep about three months earlier near Venkateswara Theatre in Manikonda Village. He stated that the Sub-

Inspector seized the three sheep and two motor cycles and that he videographed the incident and submitted the video to the Investigating Officer. However, during cross-examination, P.W.3 admitted that his name was not mentioned in the mediator report Ex.P2, that he had not signed the mediator report, and that there was no mention regarding the device used for videographing the incident. He also admitted that he had not produced any documentary proof showing that he was on

CC No.139/2025 5 Dt.31.03.2026

duty on the relevant day. These admissions create serious doubt regarding the authenticity of the alleged videography and seizure.

11.P.W.4, namely U. Govindu, Sub-Inspector of Police and Investigating Officer in this case, deposed that on 30.09.2024 at about 7:00 PM, he received the report from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.103 of 2024 under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the First Information Report was marked as

Ex.P3. He further stated that on 01.10.2024 at about 2:00 PM, acting upon credible information, he proceeded to Nandamuru Bus Stop along with police staff and apprehended A1 to A3, who were allegedly found in possession of three sheep and two motor cycles bearing registration numbers AP 37 DR 8778 (Honda Access) and

AP 16 EW 0134 (Royal Enfield), and that the said property was seized under the cover of Ex.P2 mediator report in the presence of mediators. He further stated that the proceedings were videographed and that the videograph was saved in a pendrive marked as Ex.P4, and that thereafter he handed over the seized sheep to the complainant and completed the investigation by filing charge sheet against A1 to

A4.

12.However, during cross-examination, P.W.4 made several material admissions which go to the root of the prosecution case. He admitted that there was a delay of 75 days in reporting the crime from the date of the alleged theft, i.e., from 18.07.2024 to 30.09.2024, and that no reason for such delay was mentioned in the entire investigation. He further admitted that no descriptive details of the sheep were mentioned in the complaint or in the investigation records. Most importantly, he categorically admitted that there is no mention in Ex.P2 regarding the person who videographed the seizure proceedings or the device through which the videography was conducted, and that he did not submit the certificate under Section 63(b) of the

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) before the Court in respect of Ex.P4 pendrive.

He also admitted that the seized sheep were returned to the complainant prior to producing them before the Court. These admissions create serious doubt regarding the authenticity and admissibility of the alleged electronic evidence and the overall reliability of the prosecution case.

CC No.139/2025 6 Dt.31.03.2026

13.Upon careful evaluation of the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to several material defects and legal infirmities in the prosecution case.

The first and foremost circumstance which creates serious doubt in the prosecution case is the inordinate delay of more than 75 days in lodging the complaint.

According to the prosecution, the alleged theft occurred on 18.07.2024 at about 5:00

AM, whereas the report was lodged only on 30.09.2024 at about 7:00 PM, resulting in a delay of approximately 75 days. The Investigating Officer, P.W.4, has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that there was delay of 75 days in reporting the crime and that no explanation for such delay was mentioned in the investigation. In criminal law, prompt reporting of an offence is an important safeguard to ensure the authenticity of the prosecution case. When there is unexplained delay of such magnitude, the possibility of false implication or afterthought cannot be ruled out. The failure of the prosecution to explain the delay assumes greater significance in a case based solely on recovery of property.

14.Another important circumstance which creates doubt in the prosecution case is the non-production of the alleged stolen sheep before the Court. The evidence of

P.W.4 clearly shows that the seized sheep were handed over to the complainant prior to producing them before the Court. Thus, the material objects forming the subject matter of the alleged offence were never produced before the Court for identification or verification. In cases of theft, production of the stolen property

before the Court is a vital requirement to establish the identity of the property and its

connection with the accused.

15.The prosecution has also failed to establish the identity and ownership of the alleged stolen property. P.W.4 admitted that no descriptive details of the sheep were mentioned either in the complaint or in the investigation records. In the absence of description such as color, age, size, or identification marks of the sheep, it becomes impossible to conclude that the recovered sheep belonged to the complainant.

16.Another important circumstance is that the complainant himself, namely

P.W.1, admitted in his cross-examination that he had not seen the accused A1 to A4

CC No.139/2025 7 Dt.31.03.2026

and that he does not know who committed the theft of his sheep. This admission clearly establishes that there is no direct evidence connecting the accused with the alleged offence. The prosecution has relied entirely on the alleged confession of the accused and recovery of property. However, confession made before police officers is not admissible in evidence except to the limited extent of discovery under law. In the present case, even the alleged recovery is doubtful due to procedural irregularities and lack of proper documentation.

17.The evidence regarding seizure of vehicles also does not inspire confidence.

Though the prosecution alleged that two motor cycles bearing numbers AP 37 DR 8778 (Honda Access) and AP 16 EW 0134 (Royal Enfield) were used for transportation of stolen sheep, there is no reliable evidence to establish that those vehicles were actually used in the commission of the offence. The mediator witness admitted that he was not given written summons and could not state important details regarding the seizure. The police witness admitted that his name was not mentioned in the mediator report and that he had not signed the document. These circumstances create doubt regarding the authenticity of the seizure proceedings.

18.The prosecution relied upon the videograph of the alleged seizure said to have been stored in a pendrive marked as Ex.P4, to establish recovery of the stolen sheep and vehicles bearing registration numbers AP 37 DR 8778 (Honda Access) and AP 16 EW 0134 (Royal Enfield) from the possession of the accused on 01.10.2024. However, the Investigating Officer, namely P.W.4, U. Govindu, Sub-

Inspector of Police, categorically admitted during cross-examination that there is no mention in Ex.P2 mediator report regarding the person who videographed the proceedings or the device through which such videography was conducted, and that he did not submit the certificate under Section 63(b) of the Bharatiya Sakshya

Adhiniyam before the Court in respect of Ex.P4 pendrive. Under the provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, electronic records can be admitted in evidence only when accompanied by the statutory certificate certifying the manner of production, authenticity, and integrity of the electronic record. In the absence of such certificate, the electronic record cannot be relied upon as legally admissible evidence. Therefore, the alleged videography produced as Ex.P4 loses its

CC No.139/2025 8 Dt.31.03.2026

evidentiary value and cannot be considered as proof of recovery or involvement of the accused. This non-compliance with the mandatory legal requirement further weakens the prosecution case and creates an additional ground for extending the benefit of doubt to the accused.

19.In view of the foregoing appreciation of evidence and detailed reasoning, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of A1 to A4 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 303(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The evidence on record is found to be insufficient and unreliable inasmuch as there is an unexplained delay of more than 75 days in lodging the complaint from the date of the alleged theft on 18.07.2024 to the date of registration of the case on 30.09.2024, the alleged stolen property, namely three sheep, was not produced before the Court for proper identification, and the electronic evidence relied upon by the prosecution in the form of Ex.P4 pendrive is rendered inadmissible due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of submitting a certificate under Section 63(b) of the

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. These material lapses create serious doubt regarding the prosecution case and the alleged involvement of the accused.

Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against A1 to A4 beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore A1 to A4 are entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal.

20.In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) or 317(2) r/w 3(5) BNS ; accordingly, they are Acquitted

Sec.271 (1) of BNSS for the above said offences. Mos.1 and 2 were given to owner of the property vide Crl.MP Nos 1660/2024 and 1673/2024. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 4 shall be in force for a period of six months as under Section 480 of

BNSS.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this 31st day of March, 2026. N.Gayathri,

XII ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE,GANNAVARAM.

Fac.JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM

CC No.139/2025 9 Dt.31.03.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:-For accused:-Nil

PW.1:K.Venu P.W.2:P.Vamsi P.W.3:M.Naveen Babu P.W.4:U.Govindu

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

For Complainant:-For accused :NIL

Ex.P1:Report given by P.W.1 Ex.P2:Mediator report Ex.P3: Original FIR Ex.P4: Pendrive Ex.P5: Rough sketch of the scene MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

M.O.1/Honda Access bearing No.8778 MO.2/Royal Enfield bearing No.0134

N.Gayathri,

XII ADDL.JUDLCIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE,GANNAVARAM

Fac.JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

GANNAVARAM

CC No.139/2025 10 Dt.31.03.2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF XII ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

C.C.No.139/2025

Date ofReport orApprehensionReleasedCommencementClose ofSentence OffenceComplainantof accusedon bailof trialtrialor Order 17.07.2417.07.24-----21.01.2626.03.2631.03.26

Between:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Atkuru PS. …Complainant

And

1. Garike Kiran S/o Babu, age 22 yrs, R/oPedaogiriala village, Vuyyuru Mandal 2.Katta Nagababu S/o Subbayya, age 21 yrs, R/o Akunuru village, Vuyyuru Mandal, 3.Donepudi Lakshmi Vara Prasad S/o Ramesh, age 21 yrs, R/o Ogirila village, Vuyyuru Mandal 4.Punukollu Bavyanth @ Chinnu, S/o Rajeev, age 24 yrs, R/o Dr.No.2-15, Pedaparapudi village & Mandal, C/o Dr.No.8-345, Santhinagar, Rajendranagar, Gudiwada now at Katuru village, Vuyyuru Mandal, .. A1 to A4

Offence: under Sections 303(2) or 317(2) r/w 3(5) BNS

Finding: Found not guilty Sentence: A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) or 317(2) r/w 3(5) BNS ; accordingly, they are Acquitted Sec.271 (1) of BNSS for the above said offences. Mos.1 and 2 were given to owner of the property vide Crl.MP Nos 1660/2024 and 1673/2024. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 4 shall be in force for a period of six months as under Section 480 of BNSS.

Explanation for Delay:This case was taken on file on 22.04.2025. On appearance of the accused 1 to 4 copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/Sec.230 BNSS on 17.12.2025. On 19.01.2026 accused 1 to 4 were examined u/Sec.262 BNSS, framed the charges for the offence under Sec.303(2) or 317(2) BNS. On behalf of prosecution, Pws 1 to 4 were examined and Exs P1 to

CC No.139/2025 11 Dt.31.03.2026

P5 besides MOs1 and 2 ware marked. On 30.03.2026 accused were examined under Section 351 BNSS and reported no defense evidence and heard arguments on both sides. On 31.03.2026 Judgment was pronounced in open court. Hence, the delay. N.Gayathri,

XII ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

Fac.JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada

CC No.21/2025 1 Dt.12.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) -CUM-JUDICIAL

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, GANNAVARAM

PRESENT:-N.Gayathri

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, GANNAVARAM.

Tuesday, this the 12 th day of MAY, 2026

C.C. No.21 of 2025

Between:-

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Atkuru PS. … Complainant

Vs

Routhu Nagireddy S/o Ramu, age 29 yrs,

R/o Vangaya Gudem, Nerella Raja Colony, Eluru District .. Accused

This case is coming before me on 08.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri G.Sita Ramaiah, Advocate for accused and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Atkuru Police Station filed charge sheet in

Crime No.172 of 2024 against the accused for the offence punishable under

Sections 304 & Sec.317 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (herein after referred as BNS for brevity)

2.The brief facts of prosecution case, in nutshell:

On 08.07.2024 at about 12.30 pm, while P.W.1 M.Satyanarayana was going to his daughter’s hosue after attending the death ceremony, when reached near Ganesh School at 1.30 pm, one unknown male person came on

Scooty and pulled his gold chain wg.about 12 grams(1.5 kasulu) and escaped with scooty, the worth of property is Rs.35,000/-. On that, P.W1 went to PS and gave report to the police.

Basing on the report of P.W.1, P.W.3/S.I of police, registered a case in

Cr.No.172/2024 under Sec.304 BNS and investigated into. During the course of

CC No.21/2025 2 Dt.12.05.2026

his investigation, P.W.3 S.I of police visited the scene examined the scene, prepared rough sketch of the scene, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements under Sec.180 BNSS. During the court of further investigation,

P.W.3 S.I of police, Atkuru Police station produced the accused on PT warrant

before the Hon’ble court, Gannvaram in Cr.No.178/2024 under Sec.304 BNS of

Atkuru Police staiton, Later, S.I of police arrested the accused in this Crime in the presence of mediators and got drafted mediators report dt.22.07.2024 and seized gold chain in this case also. On enquiry, on reliable information the accused was nabbed on 22.07.2024 at 12.00 noon at Telaprolu village near

Brundavan garden and on repeated questioning the accused voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence and seized the stolen property from the possession of accused under the cover of mediators report; then, S.I of police arrested the accused and produced before this court for judicial custody.

After assuming charge, L.W.9/Ch.Suresh S.I of police, Atkuru PS filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.304 and 317(2) of

BNS.

3.On appearance of Accused, case documents were furnished to him as required under Section 230 BNS. Accused was examined under Section 262

BNSS for which, he denied the commission of the offence. The charge against

Accused under Section u/Sec.304 or 317(2) BNS was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 3 were examined. PW.1is defacto-complainant, P.W2 is mediator/VRO, P.W.3 is

Investigating officer. Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. Ex.P1 is report of P.W.1, Ex.P2 is property acknowledgment, P.W.3 is mediators report, Ex.P4 is Original FIR,

Ex.P5 is rough sketch of the scene.

5.Accused was examined under Section 351 of BNSS., by putting forth the incriminating material that appeared against him in the evidence of the

CC No.21/2025 3 Dt.12.05.2026

prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the incriminating material against him and reported no defense evidence.

6. Heard arguments on both sides.

7.Now Point for determination is:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for the offence under section 304 BNS beyond reasonable doubt?

or

2. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for offence under section 317(2) BNS beyond reasonable doubt?

8.POINT No.1:-

In order to prove the offence u/Sec.304 BNS prosecution relied upon the testimonies of PWs 1 to 3.

8.1 P.W.1, who is the de facto complainant, deposed that on 08.07.2024, after attending a function and having lunch, he was proceeding to her daughter’s house at Peddavutapalli and near Ganesh Public School, Peddavutapalli, one person came from behind on a Scooty and enquired about an address to which he stated that he was not a resident of that village, the said person suddenly snatched away the gold chain from his neck and fled away. He further stated that he raised cries, but nobody came to his rescue. Thereafter, he went to his daughter’s house and informed the incident to her son-in-law, later, both of them went to Atkuru Police Station and presented Ex.P1 report before the police.

During trial, he identified the accused present in the Court hall. P.W.1 further stated that subsequently police informed him regarding recovery of the stolen property in the form of a gold coin, as the original gold chain had allegedly been melted by the accused. He stated that he received the said property on interim custody through Court in Crl.M.P.No.1280/2024. Ex.P2 acknowledgment was marked through her.

In cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that he had not furnished any descriptive particulars of the gold chain such as appearance or model to the

CC No.21/2025 4 Dt.12.05.2026

police and not submitted any purchase bills relating to the stolen property and he had not informed the police regarding the description of the accused such as his height, clothes or other identifying features.

8.2P.W.2 is the Village Revenue Officer/Mediator submitted that on 22.07.2024, the then Sub-Inspector of Police of Atkuru Police Station requested him and L.W.7 to act as mediators in chain snatching cases. Thereafter, along with police officials, they proceeded to Brindavan Gardens at Telaprolu Village.

At that place, they noticed one person travelling on a bike. On seeing the police, the said person allegedly attempted to escape, but police apprehended him.

P.W.2 stated that on enquiry the said person disclosed his name as Routhu

Nagireddy and confessed about his involvement in chain snatching offences committed at various places including Eluru, Gudivada, Peddavutapalli and

Telaprolu. P.W.2 further deposed that on verification of the Scooty, police found one gold chain and three melted gold coins including the property connected with the present crime. He stated that police seized the bike, mobile phone, gold coins and chain under mediators report and affixed slips containing signatures of himself, L.W.7 and the accused. Ex.P3 certified copy of mediators report

dated 22.07.2024 was marked through him. He also identified the accused

present in the Court hall.

In cross-examination, P.W.2 admitted that no written summons were issued to him to act as mediator and that he had not obtained any permission from his superiors to act as mediator. He further admitted that he could not state the engine number and chassis number of the crime vehicle mentioned in Ex.P3.

He admitted that videography of the arrest and other proceedings was taken by police. He further admitted that there is no mention in Ex.P3 regarding any appraiser or measurement of weight of the seized property. He also admitted that details of the laptop and printer used for preparation of Ex.P3 are not mentioned therein. He further admitted that Ex.P3 does not mention that the signatures of the mediators and accused were obtained in his presence. He

CC No.21/2025 5 Dt.12.05.2026

denied the suggestion that Ex.P3 was prepared in the police station and that the accused was falsely implicated.

8.3. P.W.3 is the Sub-Inspector of Police submitted that on 08.07.2024 at about 7.00 P.M., while he was present at the police station, P.W.1 and L.W.2 came to the station and presented Ex.P1 report. Based on the said report, he registered Crime No.172/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 304 of

BNS. Thereafter, he examined P.W.1 and L.W.2 and recorded their statements.

He further stated that he visited the scene of offence situated near Ganesh

School, Peddavutapalli Village, examined L.Ws.3 to 5 and prepared Ex.P5 rough sketch of the scene. P.W.3 further deposed that on 22.07.2024, upon receiving credible information regarding movement of the accused, he secured mediators P.W.2 and L.W.7 and proceeded to Brindavan Gardens at Telaprolu

Village along with police staff. According to him, while conducting vehicle checking, they noticed one person travelling on Scooty bearing No.AP 40 AA 1869. On seeing the police, the said person allegedly attempted to escape, but he was apprehended. P.W.3 stated that on enquiry the accused disclosed his identity as Routhu Nagireddy and confessed regarding commission of chain snatching and theft offences at various places including the present offence committed on 08.07.2024 near Ganesh School, Peddavutapalli.

P.W.3 further stated that during interrogation the accused showed the stolen property concealed in the Scooty and further confessed that he melted the stolen gold chains into gold coins. He stated that he seized 12 grams gold coin relating to the present crime under Ex.P3 mediators report and obtained signatures of mediators and accused thereon. Thereafter, he arrested the accused and produced him before the Court. Subsequently, after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for offences under

Section 304 of BNS or alternatively under Section 317(ii) of BNS.

In cross-examination, P.W.3 admitted that P.W.1 had not stated descriptive particulars of the accused such as colour, height or clothes either in Ex.P1

CC No.21/2025 6 Dt.12.05.2026

report or in his statement recorded during investigation. He further admitted that

P.W.1 had not stated that he could identify the accused if shown and that no

Test Identification Parade was conducted. He admitted that no written notice or summons were issued to the mediators. P.W.3 further admitted that he had not submitted the e-Sakshya videos and photographs before the Court in the present case and voluntarily stated that the CD containing such material was filed in another crime. He further admitted that Ex.P3 does not mention details regarding the weighing machine, the person who brought it, or the company to which it belongs. He also admitted that P.W.1 had not furnished any description of the stolen property in Ex.P1 report or in her statement. He admitted that

Ex.P3 does not mention the details of the laptop used for preparation of the mediators report or the person who scribed it. He also admitted that Ex.P3 does not disclose the device through which photographs were taken. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P3 was prepared in the police station and that a false case was foisted against the accused.

9.A perusal of Evidence on the record shows that the version of the prosecution has not been supported by the evidence produced before this

Court. The entire prosecution case rests upon two circumstances, namely, the alleged identification of the accused by P.W.1 and the alleged recovery of stolen property from the possession of the accused under Ex.P3 mediators report.

However, both these circumstances are not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

9.1The evidence of P.W.1 regarding identification of the accused is wholly unreliable. Though he identified the accused in Court, admittedly neither Ex.P1 report nor his statement recorded during investigation contains any descriptive particulars of the accused. P.W.3, the Investigating Officer, categorically admitted that P.W.1 had not stated the colour, height, clothes or any identifying features of the accused before police. He further admitted that P.W.1 had not even stated that he could identify the accused if shown. Admittedly, no Test

Identification Parade was conducted during investigation.

CC No.21/2025 7 Dt.12.05.2026

9.2Further, the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the stolen property. P.W.1 admitted that he did not furnish any particulars of the chain such as appearance, model or design and that he did not submit any purchase bills

before police. According to the prosecution, the original gold chain was melted

and converted into gold coins. However, no scientific or independent evidence was adduced to establish that the seized gold coin was prepared from the alleged stolen chain belonging to P.W.1.

9.3The alleged recovery proceedings under Ex.P3 also suffer from serious infirmities. P.W.2 admitted that Ex.P3 does not mention details regarding the weighing machine, appraiser, laptop, printer or the person who scribed the mediators report. P.W.3 also admitted these omissions. Though the prosecution claimed that videography of the proceedings was conducted, the same was not produced before the Court in the present case. Even according to P.W.3, the

CD containing the videography was filed in another crime. Such lapses create serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the alleged seizure proceedings.

9.4.Further, the alleged confession made before police is inadmissible in evidence except to the limited extent permissible under law. Therefore, the prosecution cannot rely upon such confessional statements to establish the involvement of the accused in the offence.

10.It is settled law that however, strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023 INSC 678) has held thus:- “18. It can thus be seen that this Court has held that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It has been held that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved”. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has been held that the circumstances should be of a conclusive

CC No.21/2025 8 Dt.12.05.2026

nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, and that there must be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 10.1The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SD. Shabuddin Vs The State of

Telangana [2025 INSC 999] held as follows; 14.2. In our view, to base a conviction under Section 411 IPC solely on the ground that both the accused were unable to account for being in possession of such huge amount of cash is both incorrect and untenable. Therefore, the approach adopted by the High Court in upholding the order of conviction of Trial Court for inability of the accused to account for the cash so recovered from their possession is alien to the criminal jurisprudence of our legal system.

15.2. This Court in the case of Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 13 had the occasion to deal with the ingredients of Section 411 IPC and noted that: - “14. Section 411 IPC: “411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property.—Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

The penal section extracted above can be broken down into four segments, namely : Whoever, ( i ) dishonestly; ( ii) receives or retains any stolen property; ( iii ) knowing; or ( iv) having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” (emphasis supplied) 15.3. Thus, to establish culpability under Section 411 IPC, it must be proved that the accused had dishonestly received or retained the stolen property and in doing so, he either had knowledge or reason to believe that the same is a stolen property. The natural corollary being if the courts upon trial reach a conclusion that the property in question is not a stolen property, therefore, the accused cannot be charged for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC especially when the whole case of the prosecution relates to the events forming part of the same transaction.

Based on the above principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal proof. The prosecution is bound to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through reliable, cogent and convincing

CC No.21/2025 9 Dt.12.05.2026

evidence. In the present case, the prosecution evidence suffers from material omissions, contradictions and procedural irregularities. The chain of circumstances sought to be established by the prosecution is incomplete and does not unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused.

11.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.304 BNS & Sec.317(2) BNS; accordingly, he is acquitted under

Sec.271 (1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of Six months as prescribed under Section 480 BNSS. Since no property was produced before this court, as there no order with regard to the case property.

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

JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:-For accused:-Nil

P.W.1:M.Satyanarayana P.W.2:A.Sunil Kumar P.W.3:A.Pydi Babu

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

For Complainant:-For accused :NIL

Ex.P1 is report of P.W.1,

Ex.P2 is property acknowledgment,

Ex.P3 is mediators report,

Ex.P4 is Original FIR,

Ex.P5 is rough sketch of the scene.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

-NIL-

JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM

CC No.202/20251Dt.31.03.2026

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) -CUM-VIII

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, GANNAVARAM

PRESENT:-N.GAYATHRI

FAC/JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, GANNAVARAM.

Tuesday, 31 st day of March, 2026

C.C. No.202/2025

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police

Gannavaram PS ..Complainant

AND Kasumarthi Suresh S/o Samba Siva Rao, age 42 yrs, R/o Madalavarigudem village, Gannavaram Mandal,

Krishna District ... Accused.

This case is coming before me on 30.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri K.Vara Prasad, Advocate

for accused, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, and the matter having stood

over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

The Sub-Inspector, Gannavaram Police Station filed charge sheet against the above named accused in Crime No.193 of 2025 for the offence under Sec.34 (a) of AP

Excise(amendment) Act, 1968.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:

On 02.08.2025 evening hours, P.W.4/K.Sridhar, S.I of police, received credible information about illegal selling of liquor in SSS Dhaba, Madalavarigudem village,

Gannavaram Mandal, then, himself along with his staff P.Ws 1 and 2 and mediators rushed to the spot and found the accused tried to skulk away on seeing the police party, then, S.I of police caught hold him and on enquiry he had been working as SSS Dhaba and with an intention to earn easy money and brought liquor bottles in Wines of Nekkala

Gollagudem village and sell them in his Dhaba for huge rates. Later, P.W.4/S.I of police verified the room behind cash counter and found two King Fisher Splended Strong beer bottles-2(650 ml) from the possession of the accused. Then, P.W.4/Sub Inspector of police, asked the accused to show bills or license from the possession of the same and he failed to do so. Then, P.W.4/S.I of police had seized the property from the possession of the accused and arrested the accused and brought to police station along with seized

CC No.202/20252Dt.31.03.2026

property and prepared mediator report. Later, basing on the mediators report, P.W.4/S.I of police registered a case in Crime No.193/2025 under Section 34 (a) of AP Excise Act and investigated into. During the course of his investigation, he took up investigation, examined the witnesses, prepared rough sketch of the scene. He served notice under

Sec.35(3) BNSS to the accused. He sent samples for chemical analysis along with letter of advice. The CE report opined that the sample is “Beer and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.34(a) of A.P Excise Act.

3.Thiscase was taken on file u/Section 34(a) of AP Excise(amendment) Act,2023 against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents are furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 230 BNSS.

4.The accused was examined under Section 262 BNSS for which, he denied the offence.The charge under Section 34 (a) of AP Excise (Amendment) Act, 2023 was framed against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu, for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Siva Shankar/PC as PW.1,

P.Kishore as PW.2, one N.Naveen who is examined as mediator as P.W.3,

K.Sridhar/investigating officer as P.W.4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of Lws.4 and 6 namely Ch.Boby and K.Tirupathi Rao. Exs.P.1 to P5 are marked besides Mo.1 & 2. Ex.P.1 is mediator report. Ex.P.2 is Original FIR. Ex.P.3 is rough sketch, Ex.P4 is letter of advice, Ex.P.4 is Chemical Analysis Report. Mos.1 and 2/sample bottles.

6.Accused was examined under Section 351 BNSS by putting forth the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. The accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments for both sides. Perused the material on record. The learned

APP reported that the arguments may be treated as heard.

8.Now the point for determination.

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the

offence u/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise (amendment) Act, 1968 beyond all

reasonable doubt?

CC No.202/20253Dt.31.03.2026

9. POINT:-

The gist of the prosecution case is that accused was in illegally possession of liquor bottles in order to sell those on profit without any license or permit. On 02.08.2025 P.W.4 who led the raid party apprehended the accused and seized the contraband under the cover of an mediators report in the presence of P.W.1. The plea of defense is that of total denial.

10.As seen from the evidence of P.W.1/PC deposed that on 02.08.2025 at 10.10 pm, on credible information about illegal selling of liquor received by P.W.4 S.I of police himself along with his staff rushed to the scene i.e., outskirts of Madalavarigudem and they notice one person in a suspicious manner, on seeing them, he tried to skulk away.

They caught hold him, revealed his identity as accused is the said person. On enquiry, he brought the liquor bottles in and around liquor shops of Nekkalam Gollagudem and the same were sold high price. On searching they found two Kingfisher splended strong

Beer, out of one was empty, further, he did not show any bills for the purchased bottles.

Then, S.I of police seized the same in the presence mediators under the cover of mediators report and arrested him in the presence of mediators under the cover of mediators report.

During his cross examination, he admitted that the details of jeep such as registration number is not mentioned the mediators report. All the statements were recorded after reaching the police station. He denied that the present case is registered against the accused for statistical purpose and he had not committed any offence.

11.It is the evidence of PW.2 who is eye witness to the incident deposed that on 02.08.2025 at 10.00 pm, himself and L.W4/Ch.Boby went to Madalavarigudem to have dinner and while they were present, the police came and seized the empty liquor bottles in his presence.

During his cross-examination, he denied a suggestion that he deposing false

before the court at the instance of police and hence the accused had not committed any

offence.

12.It is the evidence of P.W.3 who is mediator deposed that on 02.08.2025 at 10.10 pm, on the request of S.I of police, Gannavaram himself and L.w.6 K.Tirupathi Rao went to SSS Dhaba at Madalavarigudem, they found one person on seeing he tried to skulk

CC No.202/20254Dt.31.03.2026

away; police caught hold of him and on enquiry, reveled his identity as accused is the said person. On enquiry, he voluntarily committed the commission of offence and sold away the liquor bottles; then, police seized the one empty liquor bottle and two full bottles and drafted mediators report under Ex.P1.

13.It is the evidence of P.W.4/Investigating officer that on 02.08.2025 at 10.10 pm, he received credible information about possession of liquor by illegally at SSS Dhaba,

Madalavarigudem, then, himself along with police constables and mediators proceeded to the scene, and they found one person trying to escape from that place. They caught hold him, revealed his identity as accused is the said person. The accused voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence and sold away the liquor bottles and he further confessed and brought the same from nearby wine shops and selling the same at high price. On searching, they found two full liquor bottles i.e., Kingfisher Splended strong beer 650 ml each. Later S.I of police seized the liquor bottles in the presence of mediators and drafted mediators report/Ex.P1 and affixed the slips on the liquor bottles and took the signatures on mediators report. Basing on the Ex.P1, he registered a case in Cr.No.193/2025 under Ex.P2. He issued Sec.35-(3) Cr.pc notice to the accused and he sent the sample bottles for chemical analysis and prepared rough sketch under

Ex.P3. He sent the sample to the Chemical Analysis through letter of advice under

Ex.P4; he received CE report under Ex.P5. He submitted all to the above concerned to the Proh.& Excise Inspector, Gannavaram. After completion of investigation, S.I of police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec.34(a) of AP Excise

Act.

During his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not taken any documents showing that the accused is the Manager of the SSS Dhaba and he had not examined the staff working in the SSS Dhaba. He had not issued any notice to any of the

Government officials to act as mediators. He denied a suggestion that the present case is foisted against the accused for the statistical purpose and the accused had not committed any offence.

12.The learned counsel for accused argued that there are several procedural irregularities committed by the Investigating officer who conducted search and seizure in this case. He failed to follow the prescribed procedure as contemplated under

Sec.103(4) BNSS during the search and seizure. It is clear from the record that no mediators were present during the search and seizure. P.W4 proceeded on mediators

CC No.202/20255Dt.31.03.2026

report. The learned counsel for accused rightly pointed out though the search and seizure was taken place was busy area P.W.4 failed to establish the reasonable grounds for not securing the mediators.

13.From the evidence of P.ws 1 and 4 it is apparent that the police failed to follow the procedure prescribed u/Sec.103(4) BNSS. As per Sec.103(4) of BNSS the officer who is conducting search need to secure at least two independent local inhabitants as mediators to witness the search and seizure. When the independent mediators in that locality are not available, the police officials has to record the same and issue an order in writing as prescribed. It is clear from the record that no such procedure was adopted by the police though the scene of offence is located in busy area. There is public movement at the scene of offence. It is strange to state that though the public were available, no one come forward to act as mediators. It is the settled principal of law that that in absence of independent mediators the entire procedure vitiates the case. This court feels that it is just and proper to go through the relevant case law in this regard.

“Yeduru Srinivasulu Reddy Vs State of AP reported 2002 (1) ALD Criminal 347 (AP) held that “when the search and seizure taken place in a busy locality and none have come forward to act as a punch witness, the police should have resort to Section 103(4) of BNSS and should pass a written order. Therefore, in the absence of any such written order, the evidence of police officials that no one come forward to act as mediator cannot believed and relied upon. Therefore, the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated. Held, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be sustained.”

14.The above Judgment is squarely applicable to the present case on hand. Here in the present case also the investigating officer have not made any endeavors or served notices to any of the inhabitants to secure the mediators from the scene. As held in the above authority the police officials failed to follow the prescribed procedure as contemplated and non securing of independent mediators by the police is creating a doubt on the entire prosecution case. The same is evident from the cross examination of the Pw.4 as he admitted that he did not secured any persons as mediators or witnesses from the scene of offence in this case.

15.It is pertinent to note that no reason was assigned by P.W.4 for his failure to secure mediators. Though the search was taken place in a busy area. There are no special circumstances to proceed under Ex.P1 mediators report as the scene of offence

CC No.202/20256Dt.31.03.2026

is not an isolated area and the time of arrest is not an odd hours. For all the above reasons it is difficult to believe the seizure was taken place in the absence of any independent mediators and the alleged confession of the accused cannot be acted upon.

16.Admittedly, no independent witness is examined to corroborate the testimony of

P.W.4. Except the evidence of PW.1 constable there is no other material on record to prove the case of prosecution. PW.1 being police constable of Gannavaram Police

Station nothing strange in supporting the case of prosecution. Hence, no independent witness or mediator were present at the time of arrest of accused and seizure M.Os.1 & 2 and remaining property from the possession of accused by PW.4. Further prosecution not filed the confiscation orders to show that PW.4 seized bottles on the date of incident from the possession of accused.

17.In view of the above discussion, it is not safe to rely upon the sole testimony of

P.W.4. Hence, the search and seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of accused is not proved. There is no basis to prove that accused was possessed the same for the purpose of selling at high price. The prosecution failed to connect MOs1 & 2 sample bottles and seized the contraband each to the accused. Therefore, there is no cogent and corroborative evidence to implicate the complicity of the accused in commission of offence. Thus, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused against the prosecution.

18.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 34(a) of AP Excise (Amendment) Act,2023 accordingly; the accused is acquitted under Section 271(1) of BNSS for the offence Section 34(a) of AP Excise (Amendment)Act, 2023. The accused set at liberty. MOs1 and 2 sample bottles, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as under Section 480 of BNSS.

XII ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM

FAC/JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

CC No.202/20257Dt.31.03.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:-For accused:-Nil

PW.1 :P.Siva Sankar P.W.2:P.Sai Kishore P.W.3:N.Naveen P.W.4:K.Sridhar

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

For Complainant:-For accused Nil

Ex.P.1 is mediator report

Ex.P.2 is Original FIR

Ex.P.3 is rough sketch,

Ex.P4 is letter of advice

Ex.P.4 is Chemical Analysis Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: M.Os1& 2/Sample bottles

Sd/-N.Gayathri

XII ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM

FAC/JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

CC No.202/20258Dt.31.03.2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM

C.C.No.202 of 2025

Date ofReport orApprehensionReleasedCommencementClose of trialSentence or OffenceComplainantof accusedon bailof trialOrder 02.02.2601.12.24--–-18.02.2626.03.2631.03.26

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police

Gannavaram PS ..Complainant

AND Kasumarthi Suresh S/o Samba Siva Rao, age 42 yrs, R/o Madalavarigudem village, Gannavaram Mandal,

Krishna District ... Accused.

Offence: under Section 34(a) of AP Excise(amendment) Act 2020

Finding: Found not guilty. Sentence: The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise (Amendment) Act,2023 accordingly; the accused is acquitted under Section 271(1) of BNSS for the offence Section 34(a) of AP Excise (Amendment)Act, 2023. The accused set at liberty. MOs1 and 2 sample bottles, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as under Section 480 of BNSS. Explanation for Delay: This case was taken on file on 29.08.2025. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated u/s.230 BNSS on 25.09.2025. On 20.11.2025 Accused was examined u/Sec.262 BNSS and charges framed for the offence under Sec.34 (a) of A P Excise (amendment) Act 2023. On behalf of prosecution P.Ws1 to 4 were examined and Exs P1 to P5 were marked besides MOs1and 2. On 30.03.2026 accused was examined under section 351 BNSS and reported no defense evidence and on 30.03.2026 heard both sides and on 31.03.2026 Judgment pronounced in open court. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-N.Gayathri

XII ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM

FAC/JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

OS No.161/2021 1Dt.31.03.2026

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) -CUM- VIII

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: GANNAVARAM.

Present: N.GAYATHRI Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division): Gannavaram

FAC/XII ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: GANNAVARAM.

Tuesday, the 31 st day of March, 2026

O.S.No.161 of 2021

Between:

Sree Bhavani packaging, Rep., by its proprietor, Smt.Vemparala Naga Lakshmi Surampalli… Plaintiff

VS

Chaitanya Food Product Rep.By its Proprietor Tammineni Pandu Rangaiah Nellore-524 002 …Defendant

This suit coming on this day on 26.03.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri.Dara Satyanarayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri.Challa Jayaram Advocate for defendant, after perusal of the material papers available on record and after hearing the counsel for plaintiff and defendant, this Court delivered the following:

:JUDGMENT:

The suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,15,360/-, being the principal and interest due by the defendant to the plaintiff towards Khata dealings carried on between the parties on 28.05.2019 and interest is claimed on Rs.3,93,317/-(as per khata copy) from 29.05.2019 to 02.10.2021 at the rate of 24% per annum, from the defendant as per the Khata and for costs.

2.The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as under:-

The plaintiff is doing manufacturing of packaging material Business under the name and style M/s Sree Bhavani Pack .0aging. The defendant is approached the plaintiff and requested for supply of packaging material stocks from the plaintiff on credit basis. Accordingly, the plaintiff

OS No.161/2021 2Dt.31.03.2026

opened khata account under the name and style of M/s Chaitanya Food Product,

Nellore. The defendant purchased stocks from the plaintiff form time to time and agreed to make payment within ten days from the date of supply. It is further submitted that as per the khata account, an amount of Rs.3,93,317 is outstanding in the account of the defendant as on 28.05.2019. Further, the defendant well aware that the defendant to pay interest @ 24% as per trade, custom and usage on the balance amount to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. It is further submitted that several times, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the outstanding due amount of Rs.3,93,317/- as on 28.05.2019, but the defendant did not comply with the request of the plaintiff and postponing the same on one pretext or other for the reasons best known to the defendant. Despite several requests and demands made by and on behalf of the plaintiff and even after issuance of legal notice, dated 30.06.2021, by demanding the defendant to pay Rs.3,93,317/- as on 28.05.2019 due under the above said khata account within fifteen days from the date or receipt of the notice. The defendant acknowledged the said Regd.notice and got issued reply notice dt.23.07.2021 with all false and untenable allegations and kept quite.

Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments and inter alia stating as under:-

The defendant is doing business of manufacturing food item of Honey Jujube

Pulp under the name and style of Chaitanya Food Product since several years and has acquired good reputation and good will in the eye of society. During the year 2019 March 22nd the defendant had supplied the said packaged material stocks with Film as per the terms and conditions. Wherein it is mentioned on Film (sachet) the manufacturing date printed as of March 2019 which is over dated. Due to plaintiff’s negligent and overlook act, the defendant happened to use the said film(sachet) and thereby filled the Honey Jujube Pulp Jam is those sachets and exported the same to the defendant’s agents to sell in public, but the manufacturing date of food item shows the expiry date within 90 days only due to supply of manufacturing packaging material to the defendant with expiry date. Due to the said impact, the entire stock was damaged by the leaders who found them with expiry

OS No.161/2021 3Dt.31.03.2026

date they thrown out the same into the dustbin due to finding of outdated sachets and complained the same to the defendant. The defendant further submitted that he immediately brought to the notice of the plaintiff and narrated about the misdeeds committed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff categorically admitted the mistake and negligence occurred. In that situation, the defendant duly returned the remaining material stocks to the plaintiff, calculation of the marital expiry stock and remaining balance from the defendant was closed. Since then there was no transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant till issuance of the legal notice dt.30.06.2021 by the plaintiff. The defendant sent old balance to the plaintiff and the accounts were closed and the entire matter was closed by the end of 30.12.2019 itself. Further, the plaintiff sent a legal notice on 30.06.2021 with all false and fictitious averments with a view to blackmailing, the defendant and get wrongful gain. The defendant also got issued a property reply on 23.07.2021. Hence, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the respective pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled for trial:-

1. Whether the khata account is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for.

3. To what relief?

5.On behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. Ex.B1 was marked. On behalf of the defendant, Dws.1 and 2 were examined and no documents were marked.

6.Heard. Perused the material on record.

7.Issue Nos.1 & 2:-

The present suit is filed by the plaintiff firm for recovery of an amount arising out of business transactions between the plaintiff firm and the defendant firm. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had been purchasing packing materials

OS No.161/2021 4Dt.31.03.2026

from the plaintiff on credit basis and that, after accounting for the transactions between the parties, the defendant was due to the plaintiff to the extent of

Rs.3,93,317/- as on 28.05.2019, and with accrued interest, the total amount payable as on the date of filing of the suit was Rs.6,14,565/-. In support of its claim, the plaintiff has produced the statement of accounts and account ledger, which are marked as Exhibit A1, showing the running account maintained in the ordinary course of business.

8.The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 establishes that the plaintiff firm has been engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying packing materials and that the defendant firm used to purchase such materials from time to time on credit basis. Though certain admissions were elicited during cross-examination regarding non-production of invoices and detailed transaction particulars, the plaintiff has produced the account statement and ledger extract maintained in the regular course of business. The said document, namely Exhibit A1, reflects the transactions between the parties and the balance outstanding against the defendant.

Significantly, the defendant has not denied the correctness of the entries contained in Exhibit A1, nor has he challenged the authenticity of the account statement by producing any contrary record.

9.The evidence of D.W.1 assumes considerable importance in the present case. D.W.1 has categorically admitted that he has been carrying on business for several years and that he used to purchase materials from the plaintiff firm. He has also admitted the existence of business transactions between the parties. His

principal defence is that the amount due to the plaintiff has already been settled long

back. However, except making a bald assertion regarding settlement, D.W.1 has not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate such claim. He admitted during cross-examination that no written record of settlement was prepared and that no receipt, voucher, or acknowledgment was filed before the Court to prove payment of the alleged dues.

OS No.161/2021 5Dt.31.03.2026

10.Once the defendant admits that he has transacted with the plaintiff and that goods were supplied to him, the initial burden cast upon the plaintiff to prove the existence of transactions stands discharged. In such circumstances, where the defendant sets up a specific plea that the amount has already been settled, the burden shifts upon the defendant to establish the fact of payment or settlement.

Settlement or discharge of liability is a matter specially within the knowledge of the defendant, and therefore, the law requires the defendant to prove the same by reliable evidence. In the present case, the defendant has failed to produce any documentary proof, such as payment receipts, bank statements, account extracts, or acknowledgment from the plaintiff, to establish that the alleged settlement actually took place.

11.The evidence of D.W.2, though not decisive, further corroborates the existence of business transactions between the parties. D.W.2 admitted that the defendant firm used to transact with the plaintiff firm and that there were dues initially payable to the plaintiff. He also stated that such dues were subsequently cleared; however, he candidly admitted that no documentary evidence has been produced to show repayment of the amount. Therefore, the testimony of D.W.2 does not assist the defence in establishing settlement of accounts and, instead, supports the plaintiff’s case regarding the existence of transactions and initial liability.

12.The Court also notes that the defendant has raised a plea that he suffered loss because the plaintiff supplied products bearing the defendant’s trademark to third parties without consent. However, the defendant has neither filed any counterclaim nor initiated any independent proceedings seeking damages for the alleged loss. In civil law, a party who claims damages must specifically plead and prove such claim. In the absence of any counterclaim or supporting evidence, this plea appears to be an afterthought introduced merely to avoid liability under the present suit.

13.Similarly, the defendant has contended that certain products supplied by the plaintiff contained incorrect expiry dates, resulting in return of goods and financial loss. However, this allegation has remained unsubstantiated. The defendant has not

OS No.161/2021 6Dt.31.03.2026

produced any returned goods records, correspondence, debit notes, or acknowledgment from the plaintiff to show that defective goods were returned. The absence of such evidence renders this plea unproved and incapable of being accepted.

14.Another circumstance which requires consideration is that the defendant has filed a criminal case against the plaintiff in the year 2023, as evidenced by Exhibit

B1, whereas the present civil suit was instituted earlier in the year 2021. The timing of the criminal proceedings suggests that the criminal complaint was filed subsequent to the institution of the present suit. While the pendency of criminal proceedings does not directly affect the merits of the civil claim, this sequence of events lends support to the inference that the criminal case may have been initiated as a retaliatory measure after the filing of the suit.

15.Therefore, upon a cumulative appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that the plaintiff has successfully established the existence of business transactions and the outstanding balance due from the defendant as reflected in Exhibit A1. The defendant has admitted the transactions but has failed to prove settlement of accounts or discharge of liability by producing any credible evidence. The pleas raised by the defendant regarding alleged losses and defective goods remain unsupported by documentary proof and cannot be accepted.

16.For the afore said reasons, both the issues are answered in favor of the plaintiff against the dependent.

17.Issue No.3:

In view of the findings on issue Nos.1 &2, the suit has to be decreed with costs, as prayed for. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.6,14,505/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the balance amount as per Khata of Rs.3,93,317/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization.

OS No.161/2021 7Dt.31.03.2026

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 31st day of March, 2026.

Sd/-N.Gayathri

ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (J.D.,)

GANNAVARAM.

FAC.PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (J.D.,)

GANNAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT

PW.1:V.Nagalakshni DW.1: T.Pandu Rangaiah PW.2: K.Ramgopal DW2:K.V.Prasada Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Statement of account from 01.04.2017 to 16.10.2021 Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dt.30.06.2021 Ex.A3: Postal acknowledgment Ex.A4:Reply notice got issued by the defendant dt.23.07.2021 Ex.A5 is Digital GST Copy of plaintiff company dt.01.07.2017

FOR DEFENDANT :

Ex.B1: Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.231/2023

Sd/-N.Gayathri

ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

GANNAVARAM.

FAC.PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

GANNAVARAM

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) -CUM- XII

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: GANNAVARAM.

Present: N.GAYATHRI Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division): Gannavaram

FAC/XII ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: GANNAVARAM.

Tuesday, the 31 st day of March, 2026

O.S.No.161 of 2021

Between:

Sree Bhavani Packaging, Rep., by its proprietor, Smt.Vemparala Naga Lakshmi Surampalli… Plaintiff

AND

Chaitanya Food Product Rep.By its Proprietor Tammineni Pandu Rangaiah Nellore-524 002 …Defendant

The suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,15,360/-, being the principal and interest due by the defendant to the plaintiff towards Khata dealings carried on between the parties on 28.05.2019 and interest is claimed on Rs.3,93,317/-(as per khata copy) from 29.05.2019 to 02.10.2021 at the rate of 24% per annum, from the defendant as per the Khata and for costs.

Plaint presented on :11.11.2021 Plaint numbered on :16.11.2021

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,15,360/- u/s.50(1) of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act, 1956 on which a Court fee of Rs.8626/- is paid under section 20(1)(c) of the A.P.C.F and S.V. Act, 1956.

Cause of action for the present suit arose on on the dates, when the defendant purchased packaging material from the plaintiff under invoice on credit basis and on when the plaintiff opened running khata account in the name of the defendant under the name & Style of M/s Chaitanya Food Product, Nellore, and when the defendant indebted to the tune of Rs.3,93,317/- as on 28.05.2019 under running Khata was indebted to the plaintiff and when the plaintiff demanded the defendant for the due amount and on 30.06.2021 when the plaintiff got issued a legal demand notice to the defendant and on when the defendant acknowledged the Regd.,notice and on 23.07.2021 when the defendant got issued reply notice through his counsel with false, untenable allegations and at Surampalli where the suit transaction took place is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

This suit coming on this day on 26.03.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri.Dara Satyanarayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri.Ch.Anjaiah Advocate for defendant, after perusal of the material papers available on record and after hearing the counsel for plaintiff and defendant,, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:

i)that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs, ii)that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.6,15,360/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the balance amount as per Khata of Rs.3,93,317/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization and iii)that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.27,128/- towards costs of the suit and do bear its own institutional costs of Rs.nil.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 31st day of March, 2026.

ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (J.D.,)

GANNAVARAM.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendant

1.Vakalat2-00 2Plaint Fees Stamp duty8626-00-- 3Petition Stamp-

4.Process100-00 5Commissioner Fee--C.M. & F.C. not filed-

6.Advocate Fees 18,000-00-- 7Junior Advocate fee--

8.Type Charges200-00--

9.Writing Charges200-00-- Total = Rs.27,128-00

ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (J.D.,)

GANNAVARAM.

Note: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are marked have to be taken back by the parties concerned within the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

OS No.161/2021 1Dt.31.03.2026

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) -CUM- VIII

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: GANNAVARAM.

Present: N.GAYATHRI Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division): Gannavaram

FAC/XII ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: GANNAVARAM.

Tuesday, the 31 st day of March, 2026

O.S.No.161 of 2021

Between:

Sree Bhavani packaging, Rep., by its proprietor, Smt.Vemparala Naga Lakshmi Surampalli… Plaintiff

VS

Chaitanya Food Product Rep.By its Proprietor Tammineni Pandu Rangaiah Nellore-524 002 …Defendant

This suit coming on this day on 26.03.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri.Dara Satyanarayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri.Challa Jayaram Advocate for defendant, after perusal of the material papers available on record and after hearing the counsel for plaintiff and defendant, this Court delivered the following:

:JUDGMENT:

The suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,15,360/-, being the principal and interest due by the defendant to the plaintiff towards Khata dealings carried on between the parties on 28.05.2019 and interest is claimed on Rs.3,93,317/-(as per khata copy) from 29.05.2019 to 02.10.2021 at the rate of 24% per annum, from the defendant as per the Khata and for costs.

2.The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as under:-

The plaintiff is doing manufacturing of packaging material Business under the name and style M/s Sree Bhavani Pack .0aging. The defendant is approached the plaintiff and requested for supply of packaging material stocks from the plaintiff on credit basis. Accordingly, the plaintiff

OS No.161/2021 2Dt.31.03.2026

opened khata account under the name and style of M/s Chaitanya Food Product,

Nellore. The defendant purchased stocks from the plaintiff form time to time and agreed to make payment within ten days from the date of supply. It is further submitted that as per the khata account, an amount of Rs.3,93,317 is outstanding in the account of the defendant as on 28.05.2019. Further, the defendant well aware that the defendant to pay interest @ 24% as per trade, custom and usage on the balance amount to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. It is further submitted that several times, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the outstanding due amount of Rs.3,93,317/- as on 28.05.2019, but the defendant did not comply with the request of the plaintiff and postponing the same on one pretext or other for the reasons best known to the defendant. Despite several requests and demands made by and on behalf of the plaintiff and even after issuance of legal notice, dated 30.06.2021, by demanding the defendant to pay Rs.3,93,317/- as on 28.05.2019 due under the above said khata account within fifteen days from the date or receipt of the notice. The defendant acknowledged the said Regd.notice and got issued reply notice dt.23.07.2021 with all false and untenable allegations and kept quite.

Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments and inter alia stating as under:-

The defendant is doing business of manufacturing food item of Honey Jujube

Pulp under the name and style of Chaitanya Food Product since several years and has acquired good reputation and good will in the eye of society. During the year 2019 March 22nd the defendant had supplied the said packaged material stocks with Film as per the terms and conditions. Wherein it is mentioned on Film (sachet) the manufacturing date printed as of March 2019 which is over dated. Due to plaintiff’s negligent and overlook act, the defendant happened to use the said film(sachet) and thereby filled the Honey Jujube Pulp Jam is those sachets and exported the same to the defendant’s agents to sell in public, but the manufacturing date of food item shows the expiry date within 90 days only due to supply of manufacturing packaging material to the defendant with expiry date. Due to the said impact, the entire stock was damaged by the leaders who found them with expiry

OS No.161/2021 3Dt.31.03.2026

date they thrown out the same into the dustbin due to finding of outdated sachets and complained the same to the defendant. The defendant further submitted that he immediately brought to the notice of the plaintiff and narrated about the misdeeds committed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff categorically admitted the mistake and negligence occurred. In that situation, the defendant duly returned the remaining material stocks to the plaintiff, calculation of the marital expiry stock and remaining balance from the defendant was closed. Since then there was no transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant till issuance of the legal notice dt.30.06.2021 by the plaintiff. The defendant sent old balance to the plaintiff and the accounts were closed and the entire matter was closed by the end of 30.12.2019 itself. Further, the plaintiff sent a legal notice on 30.06.2021 with all false and fictitious averments with a view to blackmailing, the defendant and get wrongful gain. The defendant also got issued a property reply on 23.07.2021. Hence, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the respective pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled for trial:-

1. Whether the khata account is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for.

3. To what relief?

5.On behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. Ex.B1 was marked. On behalf of the defendant, Dws.1 and 2 were examined and no documents were marked.

6.Heard. Perused the material on record.

7.Issue Nos.1 & 2:-

The present suit is filed by the plaintiff firm for recovery of an amount arising out of business transactions between the plaintiff firm and the defendant firm. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had been purchasing packing materials

OS No.161/2021 4Dt.31.03.2026

from the plaintiff on credit basis and that, after accounting for the transactions between the parties, the defendant was due to the plaintiff to the extent of

Rs.3,93,317/- as on 28.05.2019, and with accrued interest, the total amount payable as on the date of filing of the suit was Rs.6,14,565/-. In support of its claim, the plaintiff has produced the statement of accounts and account ledger, which are marked as Exhibit A1, showing the running account maintained in the ordinary course of business.

8.The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 establishes that the plaintiff firm has been engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying packing materials and that the defendant firm used to purchase such materials from time to time on credit basis. Though certain admissions were elicited during cross-examination regarding non-production of invoices and detailed transaction particulars, the plaintiff has produced the account statement and ledger extract maintained in the regular course of business. The said document, namely Exhibit A1, reflects the transactions between the parties and the balance outstanding against the defendant.

Significantly, the defendant has not denied the correctness of the entries contained in Exhibit A1, nor has he challenged the authenticity of the account statement by producing any contrary record.

9.The evidence of D.W.1 assumes considerable importance in the present case. D.W.1 has categorically admitted that he has been carrying on business for several years and that he used to purchase materials from the plaintiff firm. He has also admitted the existence of business transactions between the parties. His

principal defence is that the amount due to the plaintiff has already been settled long

back. However, except making a bald assertion regarding settlement, D.W.1 has not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate such claim. He admitted during cross-examination that no written record of settlement was prepared and that no receipt, voucher, or acknowledgment was filed before the Court to prove payment of the alleged dues.

OS No.161/2021 5Dt.31.03.2026

10.Once the defendant admits that he has transacted with the plaintiff and that goods were supplied to him, the initial burden cast upon the plaintiff to prove the existence of transactions stands discharged. In such circumstances, where the defendant sets up a specific plea that the amount has already been settled, the burden shifts upon the defendant to establish the fact of payment or settlement.

Settlement or discharge of liability is a matter specially within the knowledge of the defendant, and therefore, the law requires the defendant to prove the same by reliable evidence. In the present case, the defendant has failed to produce any documentary proof, such as payment receipts, bank statements, account extracts, or acknowledgment from the plaintiff, to establish that the alleged settlement actually took place.

11.The evidence of D.W.2, though not decisive, further corroborates the existence of business transactions between the parties. D.W.2 admitted that the defendant firm used to transact with the plaintiff firm and that there were dues initially payable to the plaintiff. He also stated that such dues were subsequently cleared; however, he candidly admitted that no documentary evidence has been produced to show repayment of the amount. Therefore, the testimony of D.W.2 does not assist the defence in establishing settlement of accounts and, instead, supports the plaintiff’s case regarding the existence of transactions and initial liability.

12.The Court also notes that the defendant has raised a plea that he suffered loss because the plaintiff supplied products bearing the defendant’s trademark to third parties without consent. However, the defendant has neither filed any counterclaim nor initiated any independent proceedings seeking damages for the alleged loss. In civil law, a party who claims damages must specifically plead and prove such claim. In the absence of any counterclaim or supporting evidence, this plea appears to be an afterthought introduced merely to avoid liability under the present suit.

13.Similarly, the defendant has contended that certain products supplied by the plaintiff contained incorrect expiry dates, resulting in return of goods and financial loss. However, this allegation has remained unsubstantiated. The defendant has not

OS No.161/2021 6Dt.31.03.2026

produced any returned goods records, correspondence, debit notes, or acknowledgment from the plaintiff to show that defective goods were returned. The absence of such evidence renders this plea unproved and incapable of being accepted.

14.Another circumstance which requires consideration is that the defendant has filed a criminal case against the plaintiff in the year 2023, as evidenced by Exhibit

B1, whereas the present civil suit was instituted earlier in the year 2021. The timing of the criminal proceedings suggests that the criminal complaint was filed subsequent to the institution of the present suit. While the pendency of criminal proceedings does not directly affect the merits of the civil claim, this sequence of events lends support to the inference that the criminal case may have been initiated as a retaliatory measure after the filing of the suit.

15.Therefore, upon a cumulative appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that the plaintiff has successfully established the existence of business transactions and the outstanding balance due from the defendant as reflected in Exhibit A1. The defendant has admitted the transactions but has failed to prove settlement of accounts or discharge of liability by producing any credible evidence. The pleas raised by the defendant regarding alleged losses and defective goods remain unsupported by documentary proof and cannot be accepted.

16.For the afore said reasons, both the issues are answered in favor of the plaintiff against the dependent.

17.Issue No.3:

In view of the findings on issue Nos.1 &2, the suit has to be decreed with costs, as prayed for. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.6,14,505/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the balance amount as per Khata of Rs.3,93,317/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization.

OS No.161/2021 7Dt.31.03.2026

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 31st day of March, 2026.

Sd/-N.Gayathri

ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (J.D.,)

GANNAVARAM.

FAC.PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (J.D.,)

GANNAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT

PW.1:V.Nagalakshni DW.1: T.Pandu Rangaiah PW.2: K.Ramgopal DW2:K.V.Prasada Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Statement of account from 01.04.2017 to 16.10.2021 Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dt.30.06.2021 Ex.A3: Postal acknowledgment Ex.A4:Reply notice got issued by the defendant dt.23.07.2021 Ex.A5 is Digital GST Copy of plaintiff company dt.01.07.2017

FOR DEFENDANT :

Ex.B1: Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.231/2023

Sd/-N.Gayathri

ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

GANNAVARAM.

FAC.PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

GANNAVARAM

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) -CUM- XII

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: GANNAVARAM.

Present: N.GAYATHRI Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division): Gannavaram

FAC/XII ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: GANNAVARAM.

Tuesday, the 31 st day of March, 2026

O.S.No.161 of 2021

Between:

Sree Bhavani Packaging, Rep., by its proprietor, Smt.Vemparala Naga Lakshmi Surampalli… Plaintiff

AND

Chaitanya Food Product Rep.By its Proprietor Tammineni Pandu Rangaiah Nellore-524 002 …Defendant

The suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,15,360/-, being the principal and interest due by the defendant to the plaintiff towards Khata dealings carried on between the parties on 28.05.2019 and interest is claimed on Rs.3,93,317/-(as per khata copy) from 29.05.2019 to 02.10.2021 at the rate of 24% per annum, from the defendant as per the Khata and for costs.

Plaint presented on :11.11.2021 Plaint numbered on :16.11.2021

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,15,360/- u/s.50(1) of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act, 1956 on which a Court fee of Rs.8626/- is paid under section 20(1)(c) of the A.P.C.F and S.V. Act, 1956.

Cause of action for the present suit arose on on the dates, when the defendant purchased packaging material from the plaintiff under invoice on credit basis and on when the plaintiff opened running khata account in the name of the defendant under the name & Style of M/s Chaitanya Food Product, Nellore, and when the defendant indebted to the tune of Rs.3,93,317/- as on 28.05.2019 under running Khata was indebted to the plaintiff and when the plaintiff demanded the defendant for the due amount and on 30.06.2021 when the plaintiff got issued a legal demand notice to the defendant and on when the defendant acknowledged the Regd.,notice and on 23.07.2021 when the defendant got issued reply notice through his counsel with false, untenable allegations and at Surampalli where the suit transaction took place is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

This suit coming on this day on 26.03.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri.Dara Satyanarayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri.Ch.Anjaiah Advocate for defendant, after perusal of the material papers available on record and after hearing the counsel for plaintiff and defendant,, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:

i)that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs, ii)that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.6,15,360/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the balance amount as per Khata of Rs.3,93,317/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization and iii)that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.27,128/- towards costs of the suit and do bear its own institutional costs of Rs.nil.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 31st day of March, 2026.

ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (J.D.,)

GANNAVARAM.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendant

1.Vakalat2-00 2Plaint Fees Stamp duty8626-00-- 3Petition Stamp-

4.Process100-00 5Commissioner Fee--C.M. & F.C. not filed-

6.Advocate Fees 18,000-00-- 7Junior Advocate fee--

8.Type Charges200-00--

9.Writing Charges200-00-- Total = Rs.27,128-00

ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (J.D.,)

GANNAVARAM.

Note: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are marked have to be taken back by the parties concerned within the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.