P. Mounika

1

O.S.No.68/2023

Date.03.07.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT MAHABUBABAD

Dated this the 3rd day of JULY, 2024

Present: P.Mounika, Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate ofFirst Class, Mahabubabad.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.68 OF 2023

Between:-

Adla Upender, S/o.Mallaiah, Age.48years, Occ.Printing press Business, R/o.Anantharam village, Mahabubabad Mandal of Mahabubabad District …….Plaintiff

AND

Chepuri Venkanna, S/o.Laxminarsaiah, Age.50years, Occ.Government Teacher, R/o.Malayala village, Mahabubabad Mandal of Mahabubabad District …….Defendant -*-

This suit came before me for final hearing on 03.07.2024 in the presence of Sri.A.Srinivas, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri.Syed Raheem Patel, Advocate for Defendant; upon perusing the material papers available on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

2

O.S.No.68/2023

Date.03.07.2024

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by plaintiff under Order VII, Rule 1 r/w Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 for recovery of suit claim with costs and subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization.

1. The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint are concisely stated as follows:

The plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other. Out of such acquaintance, the defendant had approached the plaintiff on 06-04-2020 and borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities and defendant had executed a promissory note in favor of the plaintiff on 06-04-2020 by agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the plaintiff. Inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to pay the debt due under promissory note. Vexed with the attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to defendant on 20-10-2022, but the defendant failed to pay the borrowed amount. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of suit amount along with costs and subsequent interest.

2. The contentions raised by the defendant in his written statement are concisely stated as follows:

The defendant had filed his written statement by denying the suit transaction in between him and the plaintiff. Further submits that he never borrowed suit amount from the plaintiff nor executed any promissory note in 3

O.S.No.68/2023

Date.03.07.2024 favor of plaintiff and the said promissory note is created by the plaintiff to have wrongful gain and the defendant never received any legal notice from the plaintiff.

Further submits that the plaintiff and defendant had no acquaintance with each other and when the defendant is in dire need of money he requested Mohammad Rafi to arrange amounts and said

Mohammad Rafi inturn met the plaintiff and the plaintiff had arranged 8 lakhs in various dates. In the year 2018 at 2.00clk mid day, the plaintiff along with

Burla Prabhakar, Mohammad Rafi, Kompelly Krishna and some other unknown persons went to the defendant and stated to him that as the period of promissory notes is getting nearer, you need not to pay amount to plaintiff but give fresh promissory notes by filling contents of them, stating so the plaintiff had obtained 8 blank promissory notes having signatures of defendant and not returned old promissory notes i.e., on 15.11.2015-Rs.50,000/-, on 17.11.2015-

Rs.50,000/-, on 24.05.2016-Rs.1,00,000/-, on 24.07.2016-Rs.1,00,000/-, on 22.08.2016-Rs.50,000/-, on 15.08.2016-Rs.2,00,000/-, on 20.09.2016-

Rs.2,00,000/-, on 01.11.2016-Rs.50,000/- total amount of Rs.8,00,000/-.

Further submits that when the defendant along with his friend by name

Annabathula Prabhakar Rao approached the plaintiff for return of old promissory notes, the plaintiff was reluctant to return the same and asked for assurance, upon which the defendant had registered a plot infavor of the plaintiff admeasuring to an extent of 150 square yards for the entire amount taken by him and on getting registered said plot in his name, the plaintiff had 4

O.S.No.68/2023

Date.03.07.2024 returned bunch of promissory notes to defendant and the defendant had taken those promissory notes without verifying. Later to the sudden surprise of the defendant the plaintiff had filed the present suit and the suit in OS.No.72 of 2023 against the defendant for recovery of money and the defendant at a later point of time got to know that at the time of returning promissory notes, the plaintiff did not given all the promissory notes to him and kept some of the blank promissory notes with him. Further submits that there is no cause of action in filing present suit by the plaintiff, the suit is time barred and undervalued. Hence, with these main contentions, the defendant prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

3. Upon the pleadings of both the parties, this court had settled following issues for trial.

Issue No:1Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid, and binding on the defendant ?

Issue No:2Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount together with interest as prayed for?

Issue No:3 To what relief?

4. During the course of trial the plaintiff examined himself as Pw.1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2 i.e., Ex.A1 is the original promissory note executed by defendant, dated 06-04-2020, Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 20-10-2022. The Scribe of the suit promissory note is examined as Pw.2 and the witness to the promissory notes is examined as Pw.3 in support of contentions of plaintiff. Though the defendant himself examined as Dw.1 and 5

O.S.No.68/2023

Date.03.07.2024 got marked Ex.B1, for the reasons best known to him, the defendant had failed to appear before this court for his cross examination, despite several conditional orders, as such chief examination evidence of Dw.1 is eschewed.

Neither any witnesses are examined nor marked any other documents on behalf of defendant.

5. Heard both the learned counsel for plaintiff and Defendant.

6. Perused the plaint, written statement, depositions of Pws.1 to 4 and entire material available on record.

ISSUE Nos.1 to 3:

7. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other. Out of such acquaintance, the defendant had approached the plaintiff on 06-04-2020 and borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities and defendant had executed a promissory note in favor of the plaintiff on 06-04-2020 by agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the plaintiff. Inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to pay the debt due under promissory note. Vexed with the attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to defendant on 20-10-2022, but the defendant failed to pay the borrowed amount.

The plaintiff who examined himself as Pw.1 had filed an affidavit in lieu of his chief examination as contemplated under Order 18, Rule 4(1) of Civil

Procedure Code,1908. His evidence is nothing but replica of plaint pleadings.

6

O.S.No.68/2023

Date.03.07.2024

The Scribe and attestor of the suit pro-note who are examined as Pws.2 and 3 respectively also deposed in the same lines as that of Pw.1 in his chief affidavit which he filed before this court in lieu of his chief examination. In the cross examination of Pws.1 to 3, except bare denial to his suggestions, the learned counsel for the defendant could not elicit anything worthy to prove the alleged contentions of defendant.

8. Despite several opportunities given to the defendant, he failed to adduce evidence on his behalf, as such the evidence on behalf of defendant is treated as Nil.

9. On perusal of oral evidence of Pws.1 to 3 coupled with the documentary evidence of Exs.A1 and A2, it establishes that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff/Pw.1 on 06-04-2020 and also executed Ex.A1 in favor of plaintiff and subsequently, the defendant had failed to discharge the liability under Ex.A1, in spite of plaintiff’s repeated demands, which shows that the plaintiff had discharged his initial burden and now the burden shifts on to the defendant to disprove the case of the plaintiff.

10. Though the defendant in his written statement alleged that the suit pro-note was forged and fabricated one and by taking advantage of blank and empty promissory notes given by the defendant to plaintiff in relation to their previous money transaction, the plaintiff had filed false suit against the defendant with a dishonest intention and the digit number (2) in the rupees column, on the left side of Ex.A1 is over written, however to prove the same neither the defendant has taken any steps to send Ex.A1 for expert opinion to prove his alleged contention that the digit number (2) in the rupees column, 7

O.S.No.68/2023

Date.03.07.2024 on the left side of Ex.A1 is overwritten nor he had chosen to enter into the witness box so as to state the contentions taken by him in his written statement on oath before the court. There is no explanation forthcoming from the side of the defendant for this failure of defendant to be examined on oath and more particularly, for shunning the witness box.

It is a well settled principle of law reiterated in a catena of judgments from time to time including the milestone judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in “Vidhyadhar Vs Manikrao and another, reported in AIR 1999(3)

ALT(Supreme Court)” and “Iswar bhai C.Patel and Bachu bhai(vs.)

Harihar Behra and another,(1999(2) ALD Supreme Court SC19)” that in a case, where a party fails to enter into the witness box to speak the contentions taken by that party in the pleadings, on oath before the court, that would give rise to draw an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872, that the case of that party is not true and correct. This proposition of law has been followed by the courts since long time right from the Judgment of the privy council in “Sarada Gurbaksh singh Vs. Gurdial

Singh, (AIR 1927 Privy Council 230)”

The above discussed principle of law is squarely applicable to the present case on hand, as here the defendant failed to adduce evidence in support of the pleadings taken in the written statement and fails to enter into the witness box to speak the contentions taken by him as a witness, on oath 8

O.S.No.68/2023

Date.03.07.2024

before this court. In the absence of any such evidence placed by the

defendant, an adverse inference can be drawn under Section 114(g) of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 that the case of the defendant is not true and correct..

11. On the strength of evidence of Pws.1 to 3, the plaintiff could be able to prove the suit claim and the plaintiff is also further aided by a strong presumption unser Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 attached to Ex.A1/pronote, which remained unrebutted by the defendant and also as the defendant had failed to adduce any cogent and convincing evidence in support of his pleadings, as such, the irrebutable evidence of plaintiff is taken into consideration. Mere baseless allegations cannot be entertained by this court, unless there is valid proof supporting the contentions of the defendant pertaining to the case. Henceforth, by considering the ample oral evidence of Pws.1 to 3 coupled with the documentary evidence of Exs.A1 and A2 and in absence of any rebuttal evidence in support of defendant pleadings, the plaintiff had established his suit claim and the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount from the defendant with subsequent interest and costs.

12.From the foregoing discussion, this court is of opinion that the plaintiff is successful in establishing his case and defendant had failed to discharge his due debt under suit promissory note i.e., Exs.A1 and A2. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount with subsequent interest.

Accordingly, Issue nos.1 and 2 are decided in favour of plaintiff.

9

O.S.No.68/2023

Date.03.07.2024

ISSUE No.3:-

IN THE RESULT: This suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against defendant and the defendant is liable to pay the suit claim of Rs.3,40,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty Thousand only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till 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.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only).

(Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rdday of July, 2024).

Sd/-

Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

MAHABUBABAD

10

O.S.No.68/2023

Date.03.07.2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff: Defendant:

Pw.1 : A.Upender --None-- Pw.2 : G.Tirupathi Pw.3 : Md.Rafi

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

Plaintiff

Ex.A1 is the original promissory note executed by defendant,

dated 06-04-2020

Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 20-10-2022

Defendant -NIL-

Sd/-

Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

MAHABUBABAD

1

O.S.No.72/2023

Date.03.07.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT MAHABUBABAD

Dated this the 3rd day of JULY, 2024

Present: P.Mounika, Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate ofFirst Class, Mahabubabad.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.72 OF 2023

Between:-

Burla Prabhakar, S/o.Narsaiah, Age.45years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o.Anantharam village, Mahabubabad Mandal of Mahabubabad District …….Plaintiff

AND

Chepuri Venkanna, S/o.Laxminarsaiah, Age.50years, Occ.Government Teacher, R/o.Malayala village, Mahabubabad Mandal of Mahabubabad District …….Defendant -*-

This suit came before me for final hearing on 03.07.2024 in the presence of Sri.A.Srinivas, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri.Syed Raheem Patel, Advocate for Defendant; upon perusing the material papers available on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter is 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 plaintiff under Order VII, Rule 1 r/w Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 for recovery of suit claim with costs and subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization.

2

O.S.No.72/2023

Date.03.07.2024

1. The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint are concisely stated as follows:

The plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other. Out of such acquaintance, the defendant had approached the plaintiff on 10-05-2020 and borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities and defendant had executed a promissory note in favor of the plaintiff on 10-05-2020 by agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the plaintiff. Inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to pay the debt due under promissory note. Vexed with the attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to defendant on 20-10-2022, but the defendant failed to pay the borrowed amount. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of suit amount along with costs and subsequent interest.

2. The contentions raised by the defendant in his written statement are concisely stated as follows:

The defendant had filed his written statement by denying the suit transaction in between him and the plaintiff. Further submits that he never borrowed suit amount from the plaintiff nor executed any promissory note in favor of plaintiff and the said promissory note is created by the plaintiff to have wrongful gain and the defendant never received any legal notice from the plaintiff.

Further submits that the plaintiff and defendant had no acquaintance with each other and when the defendant is in dire need of 3

O.S.No.72/2023

Date.03.07.2024 money he requested Mohammad Rafi to arrange amounts and said

Mohammad Rafi inturn met the plaintiff and the plaintiff had arranged 8 lakhs in various dates. In the year 2018 at 2.00clk mid day, the plaintiff along with

Adla Upender, Mohammad Rafi, Kompelly Krishna and some other unknown persons went to the defendant and stated to him that as the period of promissory notes is get nearer, you need not to pay amount to plaintiff but give fresh promissory notes by filling contents of them, stating so the plaintiff had obtained 8 blank promissory notes having signatures of defendant and not returned old promissory notes i.e., on 15.11.2015-Rs.50,000/-, on 17.11.2015-Rs.50,000/-, on 24.05.2016-Rs.1,00,000/-, on 24.07.2016-

Rs.1,00,000/-, on 22.08.2016-Rs.50,000/-, on 15.08.2016-Rs.2,00,000/-, on 20.09.2016-Rs.2,00,000/-, on 01.11.2016-Rs.50,000/- total amount of

Rs.8,00,000/-. Further submits that when the defendant along with his friend by name Annabathula Prabhakar Rao approached the plaintiff for return of old promissory notes, the plaintiff was reluctant to return the same and asked for assurance, upon which the defendant had registered a plot infavor of the plaintiff admeasuring to an extent of 150 square yards for the entire amount taken by him and on getting registered said plot in his name, the plaintiff had returned bunch of promissory notes to defendant and the defendant had taken those promissory notes without verifying. Later to the sudden surprise of the defendant the plaintiff had filed the present suit and the suit in OS.No.68 of 2023 against the defendant for recovery of money and the defendant at a later point of time got to know that at the time of returning promissory notes, the plaintiff did not given all the promissory notes to him and kept some of the 4

O.S.No.72/2023

Date.03.07.2024 blank promissory notes with him. Further submits that there is no cause of action in filing present suit by the plaintiff, the suit is time barred and undervalued. Hence, with these main contentions, the defendant prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

3. Upon the pleadings of both the parties, this court had settled following issues for trial.

Issue No:1Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid, and binding on the defendant ?

Issue No:2Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount together with interest as prayed for?

Issue No:3 To what relief?

4. During the course of trial the plaintiff examined himself as Pw.1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2 i.e., Ex.A1 is the original promissory note executed by defendant, dated 10-05-2020, Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 20-10-2022. The Scribe of the suit promissory note is examined as Pw.2 and the witnesses to the promissory notes are examined as Pws.3 and 4 in support of contentions of plaintiff. The defendant neither examined himself before this court nor any other witnesses are examined on his behalf and no documents are marked supporting contentions of defendant.

5. Heard both the learned counsel for plaintiff and Defendant.

6. Perused the plaint, written statement, depositions of Pws.1 to 4 and entire material available on record.

5

O.S.No.72/2023

Date.03.07.2024

ISSUE Nos.1 to 3:

7. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other. Out of such acquaintance, the defendant had approached the plaintiff on 10-05-2020 and borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities and defendant had executed a promissory note in favor of the plaintiff on 10-05-2020 by agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the plaintiff. Inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to pay the debt due under promissory note. Vexed with the attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to defendant on 20-10-2022, but the defendant failed to pay the borrowed amount.

The plaintiff who examined himself as Pw.1 had filed an affidavit in lieu of his chief examination as contemplated under Order 18, Rule 4(1) of Civil

Procedure Code,1908. His evidence is nothing but replica of plaint pleadings.

The Scribe and witnesses of the suit pro-note who are examined as Pws.2 to 4 also deposed in the same lines as that of Pw.1 in his chief affidavit which he filed before this court in lieu of his chief examination. In the cross examination of Pws.1 to 4, except bare denial to his suggestions, the learned counsel for the defendant could not elicit anything worthy to prove the alleged con- tentions of defendant.

8. Despite several opportunities given to the defendant, he failed to adduce evidence on his behalf, as such the evidence on behalf of defendant is treated as Nil.

6

O.S.No.72/2023

Date.03.07.2024

9. On perusal of oral evidence of Pws.1 to 4 coupled with the documentary evidence of Exs.A1 and A2, it establishes that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff/Pw.1 on 10-05-2020 and also executed Ex.A1 in favor of plaintiff and subsequently, the defendant had failed to discharge the liability under Ex.A1, in spite of plaintiff’s repeated demands, which shows that the plaintiff had discharged his initial burden and now the burden shifts on to the defendant to disprove the case of the plaintiff.

10. Though the defendant in his written statement alleged that the suit pro-note was forged and fabricated one and by taking advantage of blank and empty promissory notes given by the defendant to plaintiff in relation to their previous money transaction, the plaintiff had filed false suit against the defendant with a dishonest intention and the digit number (1) in the rupees column, on the left side of Ex.A1 is over written, however to prove the same neither the defendant has taken any steps to send Ex.A1 for expert opinion to prove his alleged contention that the digit number (1) in the rupees column, on the left side of Ex.A1 is overwritten nor he had chosen to enter into the witness box so as to state the contentions taken by him in his written statement on oath before the court. There is no explanation forthcoming from the side of the defendant for this failure of defendant to be examined on oath and more particularly, for shunning the witness box.

It is a well settled principle of law reiterated in a catena of judgments from time to time including the milestone judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in “Vidhyadhar Vs Manikrao and another, reported in AIR 1999(3)

ALT(Supreme Court)” and “Iswar bhai C.Patel and Bachu bhai(vs.) 7

O.S.No.72/2023

Date.03.07.2024

Harihar Behra and another,(1999(2) ALD Supreme Court SC19)” that in a case, where a party fails to enter into the witness box to speak the contentions taken by that party in the pleadings, on oath before the court, that would give rise to draw an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872, that the case of that party is not true and correct. This proposition of law has been followed by the courts since long time right from the Judgment of the privy council in “Sarada Gurbaksh singh Vs. Gurdial

Singh, (AIR 1927 Privy Council 230)”

The above discussed principle of law is squarely applicable to the present case on hand, as here the defendant failed to adduce evidence in support of the pleadings taken in the written statement and fails to enter into the witness box to speak the contentions taken by him as a witness, on oath

before this court. In the absence of any such evidence placed by the

defendant, an adverse inference can be drawn under Section 114(g) of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 that the case of the defendant is not true and correct..

11. On the strength of evidence of Pws.1 to 4, the plaintiff could be able to prove the suit claim and the plaintiff is also further aided by a strong presumption unser Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 attached to Ex.A1/pronote, which remained unrebutted by the defendant and also as the defendant had failed to adduce any cogent and convincing evidence in support of his pleadings, as such, the irrebutable evidence of plaintiff is taken into consideration. Mere baseless allegations cannot be entertained by this court, unless there is valid proof supporting the contentions of the defendant pertaining to the case. Henceforth, by 8

O.S.No.72/2023

Date.03.07.2024 considering the ample oral evidence of Pws.1 to 4 coupled with the documentary evidence of Exs.A1 and A2 and in absence of any rebuttal evidence in support of defendant pleadings, the plaintiff had established his suit claim and the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount from the defendant with subsequent interest and costs.

12.From the foregoing discussion, this court is of opinion that the plaintiff is successful in establishing his case and defendant had failed to discharge his due debt under suit promissory note i.e., Exs.A1 and A2. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount with subsequent interest.

Accordingly, Issue nos.1 and 2 are decided in favour of plaintiff.

ISSUE No.3:-

IN THE RESULT: This suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against defendant and the defendant is liable to pay the suit claim of Rs.1,70,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till 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.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only).

(Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rdday of July, 2024).

Sd/-

Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

MAHABUBABAD

9

O.S.No.72/2023

Date.03.07.2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff: Defendant:

Pw.1 : Burla Prabhakar --None-- Pw.2 : G.Tirupathi Pw.3 : Md.Rafi Pw.4: N.Srinivas Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

Plaintiff

Ex.A1 is the original promissory note executed by defendant,

dated 10-05-2020

Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 20-10-2022

Defendant -NIL-

Sd/-

Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

MAHABUBABAD

1

O.S.No.18/2019

Date.03.07.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT MAHABUBABAD

Dated this the 3rd day of JULY, 2024

Present: P.Mounika, Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate ofFirst Class, Mahabubabad.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.18 OF 2019

Between:-

Mashetty Ravi Kumar, S/o.Bathakaiah, Age.50years, Occ.Business, R/o.Mahabubabad Mandal of Mahabubabad District …….Plaintiff

AND

Bomma Venkateswarlu, S/o.Biksham, Age.45years, Occ.Proprietor Manikanta Saw Mill and Timber Depot, R/o. Near Government Boys Junior College, Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District …….Defendant -*-

This suit came before me for final hearing on 03.07.2024 in the presence of Sri.T.Nagesh Kumar, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri.Kumaraswamy Velide, Advocate for Defendant; upon perusing the material papers available on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

2

O.S.No.18/2019

Date.03.07.2024

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by plaintiff under Order VII, Rule 1 r/w Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 for recovery of suit claim with costs and subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization.

1. The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint are concisely stated as follows:

The plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other. Out of such acquaintance, the defendant had approached the plaintiff on 20-04-2017 and borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- and also on 25-04-2017 and borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, in total Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his business necessities and defendant had executed two promissory notes in favor of the plaintiff on the above said respective dates by agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the plaintiff. In-spite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to pay the debt due under promissory note. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of suit amount along with costs and subsequent interest.

2. The contentions raised by the defendant in his written statement are concisely stated as follows:

The defendant had filed his written statement by denying the suit transaction in between him and the plaintiff. Further submits that he never borrowed suit amount from the plaintiff nor executed any promissory note/ 3

O.S.No.18/2019

Date.03.07.2024 notes in favor of plaintiff and the said promissory notes are created by the plaintiff to have wrongful gain and the defendant never received any legal notice from the plaintiff.

Further submits that the two promissory notes are materially altered and the plaintiff is a money lender and also used to run private chits at

Mahabubabad Town in the business circle and the defendant is one of the chit member and the above said two promissory notes were obtained by the plaintiff towards security purpose from the defendant towards private chit amount and the plaintiff had failed to mention the name of the attestor in the plaint and it is clearly shows that the plaintiff as an after thought had obtained the signature of attestors on the two promissory notes and the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, with these main contentions, the defendant had prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

3. Upon the pleadings of both the parties, this court had settled following is- sues for trial.

Issue No:1Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid, and binding on the defendant ?

Issue No:2Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount together with interest as prayed for?

Issue No:3 To what relief?

4. During the course of trial the plaintiff examined himself as Pw.1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2 i.e., Ex.A1 is the original promissory note for

Rs.50,000/- executed by defendant, dated 20-04-2017, Ex.A2 is the original 4

O.S.No.18/2019

Date.03.07.2024 promissory note for Rs.1,50,000/- executed by defendant, dated 25-04-2017,

The Attestor of the suit promissory note is examined as Pw.2 in support of contentions of plaintiff. The defendant neither examined himself before this court nor any other witnesses are examined on his behalf and no documents are marked supporting contentions of defendant.

5. Heard both the learned counsel for plaintiff and Defendant.

6. Perused the plaint, written statement, depositions of Pws.1 and 2 and entire material available on record.

ISSUE Nos.1 to 3:

7. It is the specific case of the plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other. Out of such acquaintance, the defendant had approached the plaintiff on 20-04-2017 and borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- and also on 25-04-2017 and borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, in total

Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his business necessities and defendant had executed two promissory note in favor of the plaintiff on the above said respective dates by agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the plaintiff. In-spite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to pay the debt due under promissory note.

The plaintiff who examined himself as Pw.1 had filed an affidavit in lieu of his chief examination as contemplated under Order 18, Rule 4(1) of Civil

Procedure Code,1908. His evidence is nothing but replica of plaint pleadings.

5

O.S.No.18/2019

Date.03.07.2024

The Attestor of the suit pro-note who is examined as Pw.2 also deposed in the same lines as that of Pw.1 in his chief affidavit which he filed before this court in lieu of his chief examination. In the cross examination of Pw.1 and 2, except bare denial to his suggestions, the learned counsel for the defendant could not elicit anything worthy to prove the alleged contentions of defendant.

8. Despite several opportunities given to the defendant, he failed to adduce evidence on his behalf, as such the evidence on behalf of defendant is treated as Nil.

9. On perusal of oral evidence of Pws.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence of Exs.A1 and A2, it establishes that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 20-04-2017 and an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on 25-04-2017 from the plaintiff/Pw.1 and also executed Exs.A1 and A2 in favor of plaintiff and subsequently, the defendant had failed to discharge the liability under Exs.A1 and A2, in spite of plaintiff’s repeated demands, which shows that the plaintiff has discharged his initial burden and now the burden shifts on to the defendant to disprove the case of the plaintiff.

10. Though the defendant in his written statement alleged that the plaintiff is doing money lending business and the suit pro-notes were forged and fabricated by the plaintiff and by taking advantage of blank and empty promissory notes given by the defendant to plaintiff in relation to their previous chit business, the plaintiff had filed the present false suit against the defendant, however to prove the same neither the defendant has taken any steps to send Exs.A1 and A2 for expert opinion to prove his alleged contentions that the said pro-notes are created and altered by the plaintiff nor 6

O.S.No.18/2019

Date.03.07.2024 he had chosen to enter into the witness box so as to state the contentions taken by him in his written statement on oath before the court. There is no explanation forthcoming from the side of the defendant for this failure of defendant to be examined on oath and more particularly, for shunning the witness box.

It is a well settled principle of law reiterated in a catena of judgments from time to time including the milestone judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in “Vidhyadhar Vs Manikrao and another, reported in AIR 1999(3)

ALT(Supreme Court)” and “Iswar bhai C.Patel and Bachu bhai(vs.)

Harihar Behra and another,(1999(2) ALD Supreme Court SC19)” that in a case, where a party fails to enter into the witness box to speak the contentions taken by that party in the pleadings, on oath before the court, that would give rise to draw an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872, that the case of that party is not true and correct. This proposition of law has been followed by the courts since long time right from the Judgment of the privy council in “Sarada Gurbaksh singh Vs. Gurdial

Singh, (AIR 1927 Privy Council 230)”

The above discussed principle of law is squarely applicable to the present case on hand, as here the defendant failed to adduce evidence in support of the pleadings taken in the written statement and fails to enter into the witness box to speak the contentions taken by him as a witness, on oath 7

O.S.No.18/2019

Date.03.07.2024

before this court. In the absence of any such evidence placed by the

defendant, an adverse inference can be drawn under Section 114(g) of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 that the case of the defendant is not true and correct..

11. On the strength of evidence of Pws.1 and 2, the plaintiff could be able to prove the suit claim and the plaintiff is also further aided by a strong presumption unser Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 attached to Exs.A1 and A2/pronotes, which remained unrebutted by the defendant and also as the defendant failed to adduce any cogent and convincing evidence in support of his pleadings, as such, the irrebutable evidence of plaintiff is taken into consideration. Mere baseless allegations cannot be entertained by this court, unless there is valid proof supporting the contentions of the defendant pertaining to the case. Henceforth, by considering the ample oral evidence of Pws.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence of Exs.A1 and A2 and in absence of any rebuttal evidence in support of defendant pleadings, the plaintiff had established his suit claim and the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount from the defendant with subsequent interest and costs.

12.From the foregoing discussion, this court is of opinion that the plaintiff is successful in establishing his case and defendant had failed to discharge his due debt under suit promissory note i.e., Exs.A1 and A2. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount with subsequent interest.

Accordingly, Issue nos.1 and 2 are decided in favour of plaintiff.

8

O.S.No.18/2019

Date.03.07.2024

ISSUE No.3:-

IN THE RESULT: This suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against defendant and the defendant is liable to pay the suit claim of Rs.2,89,333/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Three only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till 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.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only).

(Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rdday of July, 2024).

Sd/-

Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

MAHABUBABAD

9

O.S.No.18/2019

Date.03.07.2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff: Defendant:

Pw.1 : M.Ravi Kumar --None-- Pw.2 : G.Suresh

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

Plaintiff

Ex.A1 is the original promissory note for Rs.50,000/- executed by defendant,

dated 20-04-2017,

Ex.A2 is the original promissory note for Rs.1,50,000/- executed by defendant,

dated 25-04-2017,

Defendant -NIL-

Sd/-

Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

MAHABUBABAD

1 C.C.No.107 of 2019 Date.01.08.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT MAHABUBABAD

Dated this the 01st day of AUGUST, 2024

Present: P.Mounika, Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubabad.

C.C.No.107 of 2019

Between

The State, through S.I of Police, P.S.Mahabubabad Town, Mahabubabad

....Complainant

//and//

1. Tejavath Chandu, S/o.Makku, Age.40years, Occ.Coolie, R/o.Kotyanaik Thanda, H/o.Pocharam, Garla, Mahabubabad

…..Accused

@@@

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 01-08-2024 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri B.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for Accused, upon perusal of the entire material on record, of hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Mahabubabad Town registered a case against the accused person for the offences punishable u/Secs.457,380 r/w.511 of

IPC.

2 C.C.No.107 of 2019 Date.01.08.2024

The case of the prosecution in brief as per charge sheet is as follows:

The Sub Inspector of police, Mahabubabad Town had filed a chargesheet against the person shown herein as accused by alleging that on 24.04.2018, at about 7.00 AM, when the complainant went to

Gayathridevi Temple, Mahabubabad, he found temple locks are broke opened on 23.04.2018 at night hours and tried to commit theft in the said temple.

On report, police Garla, registered a case in Cr.No.144/2018, u/Secs.457, 380 r/w.511 of IPC against accused. During the course of investigation, the Sub Inspector of police examined the witnesses, visited the scene of offence and drawn Crime Details form in presence of mediators and the stolen property was recovered under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama.

2. This court took the cognizance for the offences punishable u/Secs.457,380 r/w.511 of IPC against accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents are furnished to him as contemplated u/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

3. The accused is examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. for which accused denied the charge sheet allegations, thereafter charges are made against the accused for the offences punishable u/Secs.457,380 r/w.511 of IPC and the same were read over and explained to the accused in his vernacular language for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined Pw.1 to Pw.7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

3 C.C.No.107 of 2019 Date.01.08.2024

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under

Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence made against him in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

6. Heard the learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused and also perused the documents available on record.

7. Now the point arises for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of

the accused for the offences punishable U/Secs.457,380 r/w.511

of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

8. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had relied upon the evidence of the Pw.1 who is the complainant, Pws.2 and 6 who are the panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchanama, Pw.3 who is the panch witness for CDF, Pws.4,5 and 7 who are the Investigation officers. The

Exhibits marked through prosecution during the course of trial are that Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 is the signature of Pw.2 on the attested copy of confession and seizure panchanama, dt.16.07.2018, Ex.P3 is the CDF, Ex.P4 is the attested copy of confession and seizure panchanama, dt.16.07.2018, Ex.P5 is the FIR.

POINT:

9. To prove its case, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Pws.1 to 7.

It is the specific case of prosecution that accused had gained entry into the gayathri devi temple, Mahabubabad by broke opening the door lock and 4 C.C.No.107 of 2019 Date.01.08.2024 attempted to commit theft of valuables in the said temple. From the evidence of Pws.1,3,4,5 and 7, it is evident that there is no direct evidence to believe that the accused herein had tried to commit theft in the gayathri devi temple,

Mahabubabad on the alleged date of offence and even one of the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama who is examined as Pw.2 though in his chief examination deposed that the accused had confessed

before him that he did not commit any offence, however at the instigation of

learned APP he deposed in his cross examination that the accused had confessed guilt of attempting to commit theft at the gayathri devi temple which is unreliable and the other panch witness who is examined as Pw.6 did not depose anything in his chief examination with regard to date and time as to on which date and time, the accused had tried to commit theft at the gayathri devi temple, Mahabubabad and he himself admits in his cross examination that he acted as panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama for morethan 40 cases, as such the evidence of Pws.2 and 6 cannot be treated as trustworthy.

Further in the evidence of Pws.2 and 6, they did not reveal any specific descriptive or identity particulars of accused person. Added to this in the evidence of Pw.3 who is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama deposed that the alleged date of panchanama was conducted on 24.04.2018 but on perusal of Ex.P3, the actual date of panchanama is on 25.04.2018.

Therefore, this court has no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of accused person to the charges which are made against him under Sections 457, 380 of IPC. Now it has to be seen that 5 C.C.No.107 of 2019 Date.01.08.2024 whether the ingredients under section 511 of IPC would attract to the present case on hand and as aganist the accused.

10. To prove an offence under section 511 of IPC, the prosecution must prove the following two essentials :

1. Mensrea or guilty intention and

2. Any act done towards the commission of the crime.

Added to this the prosecution has to eshtablish aganist the accused that the preparation is done and the offender does anything towards the commission with the intention to commit the crime. However on perusal of material evidence on record, the prosecution has put nothing to prove alleged offence under section 511 of IPC as against the accused. The prosecution ought to have adduce any consistent or cogent evidence before this court, showing that on the alleged date of offence, the accused shown herein had intention to commit theft in the Gayathridevi temple, Mahabubabad.

11. To prove an offence under this section, it is incumbent on the part of the prosecution to identify the accused and only upon his identification, eventually, it must prove with cogent evidence that the accused shown herein had intention to commit theft. Unless the prosecution is able to prove identification of accused and such guilty intention of him, no conviction can be sustained.

12. In addition to the above, the evidence of Investigation officers is routine and in causal manner which render no help to the case of prosecution as they explained various stages of investigation in a chronological way and they also failed to collect any material before this court which could connect the 6 C.C.No.107 of 2019 Date.01.08.2024 accused to the present case and they also failed to collect any positive photographs or videos showing the alleged scene of offence on the alleged date showing that the accused had attempted to commit theft in the Gayathri devi temple, Mahabubabad. When there is serious anticipation as to the offences committed by the accused person, no conviction can be recorded by considering the unreliable evidence of prosecution witnesses. Henceforth this court has no hesitation to hold that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is hardly sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused under section 511 of IPC for which charge is made against him.

13. It is settled law that in criminal cases, the guilt of accused should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a reasonable man with ordinary prudence can have. There should be no doubt whether the accused is guilty or not. If there is slightest doubt, no matter how small it is, the benefit will go to the accused. At this juncture, this court relies upon the decision of Hon’ble

Apex court in BHAGAT RAM (VS.) STATE OF PUNJAB (AIR 1954 SC 621) in which it was held that “where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances, the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offence home beyond any reasonable doubt.

In the above facts and circumstances and on considering the evidence on record, it can be safely concluded that the inconsistent evidence led by prosecution does not create any faith in the mind of court with regard to alleged commission of offences by the accused person for the offences 7 C.C.No.107 of 2019 Date.01.08.2024 punishableU/Secs.457, 380 r/w.511 of IPC, as such, accused person is acquitted and he is set at liberty.

Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution and in favour accused.

14. IN THE RESULT: The accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.457, 380 r/w.511 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no case property in this case, as such no order has been passed with regard to the same.

(Typed to my dictation, by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 01st day of August, 2024.)

Sd/-

Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

MAHABUBABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

Pw.1: V.Jalendra Chary, Complainant -None- Pw.2: G.Ramulu, Panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama Pw.3: G.Suresh, panch for CDF Pw.4: CH.Arun Kumar, Investigation Officer Pw.5: P.Srinivas Reddy, Investigation Officer Pw.6: V.Srinu, Panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama Pw.7: B.Santhosh Rao, Investigation Officer 8 C.C.No.107 of 2019 Date.01.08.2024

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

Ex.P1 is the report, --Nil-- Ex.P2 is the signature of Pw.2 on the attested copy of confession and seizure panchanama, dt.16.07.2018, Ex.P3 is the CDF, Ex.P4 is the attested copy of confession and seizure panchanama, dt.16.07.2018, Ex.P5 is the FIR.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :

---Nil---

Sd/-

Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

MAHABUBABAD

1 C.C.No.226 of 2020 Date.01.08.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT MAHABUBABAD

Dated this the 01st day of AUGUST, 2024

Present: P.Mounika, Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubabad.

C.C.No.226 of 2020

Between

The State, through S.I of Police, PS.Mahabubabad Town, Mahabubabad.

…..Complainant

//and//

Yadla Vasubabu, S/o.Anjaneyulu, Age.36years, Occ.Business, R/o.H.No.9-28/2, Laxmidevipally, Kotthagudem, erstwhile Khammam

…..Accused

-o0o-

This case came before me on 01-8-2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri D.Mahendar, learned counsel for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Mahabubabad Town police station had filed the charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.86/2017 for the offences

U/Secs.420,292 of IPC, sec.67, 67(A) of I.T Act.

2 C.C.No.226 of 2020 Date.01.08.2024

The case of the prosecution in brief as per charge sheet is as follows :

The Inspector of Police, Mahabubabad Town had filed a charge sheet against the person shown herein as accused by alleging that on relaiable information received by the Lw.1 that at Vinayaka Net Center downloading of blue films on the chips, the Lw.1 along with his staff proceeded to the internet center and in the presence of panch witnesses Lw.1 had checked the CPU and found sex vedios and on enquiry the accused confessed to have committed the said offence.

Basing on the report given by complainant, S.I of police,

P.S.Mahabubabad Town, registered a case in crime no.86/2017 for the offences U/Secs.420,292 of IPC, sec.67, 67(A) of I.T Act, against the accused person and after completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

2.This court took the cognizance for the offences punishable

U/Secs.420,292 of IPC, sec.67, 67(A) of I.T Act against the accused and issued summons to accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents are furnished to him as contemplated u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

3. The accused is examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for which accused denied the charge sheet allegations, thereafter charges are made against the accused for the offences punishable U/Secs.420,292 of IPC, sec.67, 67(A) of

I.T Act and the same were read over and explained to the accused in his vernacular language for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 C.C.No.226 of 2020 Date.01.08.2024

4. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined Pws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.11 during the course of trial.

5. After closing the evidence on prosecution side, the accused is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence made against him in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence. None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused person.

6. Heard the learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused and also perused the documents available on record.

7. Now the point arises for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of

the accused for the offences punishable U/Secs.420,292 of IPC,

sec.67, 67(A) of I.T Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

8. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had relied upon the evidence of the Pw.1 who is the complainant, Pw.2 who is the police personnel, Pws.3 to 5 who are the circumstantial witnesses, Pw.6 who is the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama, Pws.7 and 8 who are the panch witnesses for CDF, Pws.9 and 10 who are the

Investigation officers. The Exhibits marked through prosecution during the course of trial are that Ex.P1 is the confession and seizure panchanama, Ex.P2 is the Report, Ex.P3 is the sec.161 cr.p.c statement of

Pw.3, Ex.P4 is the sec.161 cr.p.c statement of Pw.4, Ex.P5 is the sec.161 cr.p.c statement of Pw.5, Ex.P6 is the signature of Pw.6 on confession and seizure panchanama, Ex.P7 is the signature of Pw.7 on CDF, Ex.P8 is the 4 C.C.No.226 of 2020 Date.01.08.2024 signature of Pw.8 on CDF, Ex.P9 is the FIR, Ex.P10 is the CDF, Ex.P11 is the FSL Analysis report. Mo.1 is the one monitor, one keyboard, one mouse, one CPU.

POINT:

9. To prove its case, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Pws.1 to 10.

i. The Pws.3 to 5 who are the circumstantial witnesses had deposed in one voice that they do not know any facts of the case. The Pw.6 who is the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama and the Pws.7 and 8 who are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama had deposed in one voice they do not know any facts of the case and police had obtained their signatures on some written papers at police station and they do not know for what purpose they have obtained their signatures and they neither acted as panch witnesses for any of the panchanamas respectively nor they seized any property from the possession of accused nor drawn rough sketch in their presence respectively.

ii. The Pw.1 who is the complainant and Pw.2 who is police personnel who assisted the Pw.1 in conducting alleged confession and seizure panchanama and the investigation officer who is examined as Pw.9 had deposed in one voice that in Exs.P1 and P2 and also in sec.161 cr.p.c statement the name of a person by name Katla Venkanna is reflecting and there is no whisper as to the name of accused. The other investigation officer who is examined as Pw.10 himself admits that he filed no documents or receipts before this court showing Mo.1 belongs to accused and he neither re-examined or re-recorded 5 C.C.No.226 of 2020 Date.01.08.2024 the statements of witnesses. Further the Pws.9 and 10 did not file any elec- tronic record to show that the accused herein had downloaded the obscene vedios by using Mo.1. The evidence of Pws.9 and 10 who are the Investigation officers is routine and in causal manner which render no help to the case of prosecution as they explained various stages of investigation in a chronological way.

iii. No ingredients of the charged offences would attract to the present case on hand and the evidence available on record is hardly sufficent to prove the guilt of the accused person in commission of alleged offences.When there is serious anticipation as to the offences committed by the accused persons, no conviction can be recorded by considering the unreliable evidence of prosecution witnesses.

iv. At the event of trial, there is no incriminating material available as against the accused except the official witnesses i.e., the complainant and the police personnel who assisted the complainant and the investigation officers. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, it is found that there is no proof on record to show that the accused person herein had downloaded obscene vedios in his internet centre. Added to this non of the independent witnesses who were examined as panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama and confession-cum-recovery panchanama and circumstantial witnesses had supported the case of prosecution and they themselves turned hostile which is fatal to the case of prosecution.

6 C.C.No.226 of 2020 Date.01.08.2024

10. It is settled law that in criminal cases, the guilt of accused should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a reasonable man with ordinary prudence can have. There should be no doubt whether the accused is guilty or not. If there is slightest doubt, no matter how small it is, the benefit will go to the accused. At this juncture, this court relies upon the decision of Hon’ble

Apex court in BHAGAT RAM (VS.) STATE OF PUNJAB (AIR 1954 SC 621) in which it was held that “where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances, the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the guilt of accused beyond any reasonable doubt.

In the above facts and circumstances and on considering the evidence on record, it can be safely concluded that the inconsistent evidence led by prosecution does not create any faith in the mind of court with regard to alleged commission of offences by the accused person for the offences punishableU/Secs.420,292 of IPC, sec.67, 67(A) of I.T Act , as such, accused person is acquitted and he is set at liberty.

Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution and in favour accused.

7 C.C.No.226 of 2020 Date.01.08.2024 11. IN THE RESULT: The accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.420,292 of IPC, sec.67, 67(A) of I.T Act and accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today u/Sec.437-A of

Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., one Krystal company CPU, one Sunglow

Monitor, one Enter company Keyboard, one Black color Mouse which is given to the safe custody of police, Mahabubabad Town shall be returned to its original owner on due identification and acknowledgment after lapse of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation, by my Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 01stday of August, 2024).

Sd/-

Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

MAHABUBABAD

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:

For Prosecution:

P.W.1: B.Rana Prathap, complainant

P.W.2: T.Rekya Naik, police personnel

P.W.3: K.Venkanna, circumstantial witness

P.W.4: M.Raghu, circumstantial witness

P.W.5: Mohd.Jani, circumstantial witness

P.W.6: K.Venkanna, panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama

P.W.7: D.Subba Rao, Panch for CDF

P.W.8: P.Buchi Rama Rao, Panch for CDF

P.W.9: S.A.Jabbar, Investigation officer

P.W.10: S.Ravi Kumar, Investigation officer

For Defence:

--None-- 8 C.C.No.226 of 2020 Date.01.08.2024

Documents marked:

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the confession and seizure panchanama,

Ex.P2 is the Report,

Ex.P3 is the sec.161 cr.p.c statement of Pw.3,

Ex.P4 is the sec.161 cr.p.c statement of Pw.4,

Ex.P5 is the sec.161 cr.p.c statement of Pw.5,

Ex.P6 is the signature of Pw.6 on confession and seizure panchanama, Ex.P7 is the signature of Pw.7 on CDF,

Ex.P8 is the signature of Pw.8 on CDF,

Ex.P9 is the FIR,

Ex.P10 is the CDF,

Ex.P11 is the FSL Analysis report.

For Defence:

-Nil-

Material objects marked:

Mo.1 is the one monitor, one keyboard, one mouse, one CPU

Sd/-

Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

MAHABUBABAD.