Sri P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja

1

IN THE COURT OF ELECTION TRIBUNAL CUM JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT PONDURU

Present: Sri.P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja, Junior Civil Judge Rajam (FAC) Junior Civil Judge Ponduru

Friday, this the 31st day of March, 2023

E.O.P. 01 /2021

Between:

Nakka Hemalatha, W/o Prasada Rao, Hindu, aged about 36 years, resident of Geddakancharam Village and Post, D.No. 1-30, Main Street, G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District.

….Petitioner A N D

1. Panchireddi Lalithakumari,W/o. late Prabhakar, Hindu, aged about 46 years, resident of Geddakancharam village and Post, D.No. 1-31,Main Street, G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District.

2. S.Vani Kumari, Hindu, aged 36 years, Returning Officer Stage –II, Gedda Kancharam Panchayath Election, working as Degree College Lecturer, Government (Women) Degree College, Srikakulam Town and District.

3. The Mandal Praja Parishad Development Officer, G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District.

4. The District Panchayath Officer, Srikakulam near Anjaneya Theatre, Srikakulam Town and District.

5. The District Election Authority cum District Collector Srikakulam, Collector Office, Srikakulam Town and District.

6. The State of A.P. rep by its District Collector, Srikakulam District.

…. Respondents.

This petition is coming before me on 03.02.2023 for final hearing between Sri.Nakka Prasad Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri. K. Kondala Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and learned AGP for Respondents No.2 to 6 and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:

ORDER

1This petition is filed by the petitioner to declare that the declaration of 1st respondent as elected candidate for the post surpanch of Geddakanchram Panchayath as void and invalid and to declare the petitioner as elected candidate for the post of sarpanch of Geddkancharam 2 panchayathi with majority votes by calling for the ballot boxes and by recounting the same and also costs of the petition in the interests of justice.

2 The brief averments of the petition are that the petitioner and the 1st respondent were the contested candidates for the post of Sarpunch of Geddakancharam village gram panchayath and election was conducted on 21-02-2021 at MPUP School of Geddakancharam Village. It is submitted that 2nd respondent was appointed as returning officer and the respondents 3 to 6 are authorities for conducting elections of gram panchayath in G.Sigadam Mandal.

i) It is submitted that petitioner was allotted with symbol Cot and the 1st respondent was allotted with symbol Scissors to contest the elections and the election was commenced at 6.30a.m and went on till 3.30 p.m. and the counting process also took place on the same day and it started at 5.00 p.m. and continued upto to 12.00 p.m. mid night on account of interference of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palakonda who tried to unsurp the duties of 2nd respondent.

ii) It is submitted that total votes polled are 2263 out of 2510 votes and returning officer announced petitioner got 1080 votes and declared 1st respondent got 1084 votes . It is submitted that petitioner or her agents are not allowed to pursue invalid votes of 89, 9 votes of NOTA and missing one vote. It is further submitted that petitioner infact got 50 votes polled with

Swastik Rubber Stamp but they were suppressed by the returning officer under the influence of

DSP, Palakonda.

iii) It is submitted by the petitioner that 2263 votes were polled for the post of sarpunch and 2nd respondent who conducted counting process without following the procedure as per rule 34 and 35 of A.P. Panchayathi Raj Act illegally rejected 89 valid ballot votes as invalid votes and by considering 1084 votes casted in favour of 1st respondent declared the 1st respondent as elected for the post of Sarpunch by issuing certificate of election . It is further contended by the petitioner that the in the polled votes of 1st respondent i.e. 1084, 70 votes are not correct votes but they were included in the votes casted in favour of 1st respondent under due influence of DSP, Palakonda who was particular to make the petitioner as defeated candidate.

iv) It is submitted by the petitioner that on prior date of election at 7.30 p.m., DSP Palakonda visited the village and called her husband and counting agent and warned with dire 3 consequences with a view to open rowdy sheet if any objections were raised in process of election and counting. It is further alleged that DSP, Palakonda with her subordinates and with weapons entered into election premises and counting agents were beaten by a lathi .

During the tussle, DSP, Palakonda the directed her subordinates to took the petitioner and her counting agents to be necked into police jeep.

v) It is further alleged that petitioner gave a written representation to the returning officer with a request of counting of recounting of all votes polled including 89 invalid votes and 9 NOTA votes. But the said representation was refused by the returning officer as per the instructions of

DSP, Palakonda. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent without following the procedure by violating the rule 34 and 35 of A.P. Panchayath Raj (Conduct of Election Rules, 2006) rejected 50 valid votes casted in favour of petitioner and they were falsely included in the casted votes of the 1st respondent to facilitate the 1st respondent as elected candidate for

Geddakancharam Gram Panchayath. Hence the petition.

3. Respondent No.1 filed his counter and having admitted the facts that he and the petitioner were the contested candidates for the post of Sarpunch of Geddakancharam Village and he was allotted with symbol Scissor and the petitioner also allotted with the symbol Cot denied the other allegations specified in the petition. Respondent No. 3 also filed his counter and same was adopted by respondent No. 2, 4 to 6 wherein they categorically denied material allegation mentioned in the petition.

4. During course of enquiry, petitioner herself examined as P.W. 1 and got examined P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. On the other hand on behalf of respondents R1 to R5 were were examined and got marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R6.

5. Points for consideration are

i) Whether the petitioner is able to allege and substantiate in acceptable measure by means of evidence that a prima facie case of a high degree of probability existed for the recount of votes?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for.

6.POINT:

4

The Salutary rule is that preservation of the secrecy of the ballot is a sacrosanct

principal which cannot be lightly or hastily broken unless there is a prima facie genuine need

for it.

Honourable Apex Court in P.K.K. Shamsudden Vs K.A.M.Mappilli Mohindeen and

others reported in 1989 AIR 640 discussed that :

1. The right of a defeated candidate to assail the validity of an election result and seek recounting of votes has to be subject to the basic principle that the secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct in a democracy and hence unless the affected candidate is able to allege and substantiate in acceptable measure by means of evidence that a prima facie case of a high degree of probability existed for the recount of votes being ordered by the Election Tribunal in the interests of justice, a Tribunal or court should not order the recount of votes.

2. The salutary rule is that the preservation of the secrecy of the ballot is a sacrosanct principle which cannot he lightly or hastily broken unless there is prima facie genuine need for it.

3. The jurisdiction for an order for examination of ballot papers and recount of votes is not to be derived from high sight and by the result of the recount of votes. On the contrary, the justification for an order of recount of votes should be provided by the material placed by an election petitioner on the threshold before an order for recount of votes is actually made.

4. An order or recount or votes must stand or fall on the nature of the averments made and the evidence adduced before the order of recount is made and not from the results emanating from the recount of votes.

7. It is averred by the petitioner in the petition that the process of counting of votes in the school started at 5-00 p.m. and continued up to 12.00 p.m. mid night on account of interference by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palakonda who tried to unsurp the duties of returning officer . On evaluating evidence of P.W. 1 , during her cross examination by R2 to R6, P.W. 1 deposed that on 21.02.2021 after polling she went to her home at around 3.30 p.m. and further deposed that she went to counting place in between 11.00 to 12.00 p.m. During the cross examination of P.W.1 by R1 she categorically admitted that by the time of completion of election counting she was present at her house and further admitted 5 that as she was present at her home she do not know how the election counting took place.

The evidence of P.W. 1 establishes the fact that P.W.1 was not present between 5.00 to 11.00 p.m. when the counting process started at 5.00 p.m. and it categorically shows that she did not witness the counting process which took place between 5.00 to 11.00 p.m.

8. The contention of the petitioner is that petitioner or her agents are not allowed to pursue the invalid 89 votes, 9 votes of NOTA and one missing vote and further alleged that infact she has got 50 votes polled with Swastik Rubber stamp but they were suppressed by the returning officer under the influence of DSP, Palakonda. It is also alleged by the petitioner that returning officer illegally rejected 89 valid ballot paper votes as invalid votes and further contended that in the polled votes of 1st respondent i.e. 1084 , 70 votes are not correct votes and they were included in the votes casted in favour of 1st respondent under due influence of DSP, Palakonda.

9. On evaluating evidence of P.W. 1 in her cross examination by R.W.1 she deposed that her agents and opponent agents will be sitting divided by barricades and upon showing votes to them the same will be kept in the ballot papers and in case of any objections with regard to votes they will be kept aside. She further deposed that the votes will be divided basing on the election symbol and they will be wrapped separately. She is also deposed that in the presence of her husband they verified the election process and total polled votes are 2263 out of which votes for symbol Cot is 1080 and for the symbol scissors 1084 and 9 votes were for NOTA and disqualified votes are 89. The evidence of P.W. 2 who is the counting agent of P.W. 1 is very important and crucial . During cross examination of P.W.2 by Sri learned AGP he categorically deposed that on 21.02.2021 at evening 6.00 p.m. he went to counting place as a counting agent along with other agents and deposed that as per his knowledge, every work was done properly. During cross examination of P.W. 2 by R1 he categorically admitted that no disturbance took place while he was acting as counting agent.

He also deposed that he have knowledge about the counting process and he testified that for every 25 votes it will be wrapped and separated in a bundal and further testified that election officer will show each and every vote to them and incase of any objections the disputed votes were separated. P.W.2 in his cross examination further admitted that as per Form 26 6 and Form 32 the election process went smoothly and further admitted the fact that the returning officer gave a declaration to the 1st respondent in the presence of petitioner, her counting agents and also in the presence of counting agents of opposite party.

10. It is not the case of the petitioner that the counting of votes took place in the absence of counting agents. P.W.2 who is the counting agent for P.W. 1 categorically admitted that the counting process took place peacefully. Moreover P.W.1 in her cross examination categorically admitted that since she was present at her home and she do not know how the counting process took place goes to show that allegations that the returning officer did not permit to pursue invalid votes of 89, 9 votes of NOTA and missing one vote and the allegation that returning officer illegally rejected 89 valid ballot votes as invalid votes and the allegation that returning officer that in the polled votes of 1st respondent i.e. 1085 in which 70 votes are not correct votes and they were included in the votes casted in favour of 1st respondent under due influence of DSP,Palakonda is untenable .

11. The other contention of the petitioner is one day prior to election at 7.30 p.m. DSP,

Palakonda visited the village and called her husband and counting agents and warned with dire consequences with a view to open rowdy sheet if any objections were raised in the process of election counting. It is also further alleged that DSP, Palakonda with his subordinates with his weapons entered into election premises and the counting agents were beaten with lati. When it is the specific allegation that DSP, Palakonda one day prior to election warned petitioner husband and her counting agents, petitioner ought to have taken immediate steps by informing the acts of DSP, Palakonda to higher officials but petitioner failed to take any steps on that day. Moreover P.W. 1 in her cross examination categorically admitted that DSP madam did not do any man handling against her which goes to show that the allegations made against DSP, Palakonda are untenable.

12. It is further contended by the petitioner that she gave written representation to the returning officer for recounting of all votes polled including 89 invalid votes and 9 NOTA votes, but the same was refused by the returning officer as per the direction of DSP,

Palakonda. Refuting the contention of the petitioner, the 1st respondent contended that no written representation was given to the returning officer on 21.02.2021. On evaluating 7 evidence of R.W. 4 who is returning officer in her evidence deposed that no one gave any petition to her to conduct recounting. During cross examination of R.W.1 by petitioner she deposed that they did re verification by counting bundle wise and after re verification she put her signature on the result sheet as she did not receive any requisition to conduct re counting . She further deposed that she waited for 15 minutes whether any requisition may be filed for recounting and further testified that as she did not received any requisition for recounting for 15 minutes thereafter she declared the results. On evaluating the evidence of P.W.1 in her cross examination he deposed that her agents demanded for recounting of votes and her agents gave written compliant to the election officer. P.W. 1 did not produce any copy of complaint given by the agents to the election officer seeking recounting.

Further, Perusal of Ex.P.2 shows that there are no signatures of the counting agents which casts serious doubt with regard to giving of written application to the returning officer seeking recounting on 21.02.2021.

13. It is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the counter averments of the 1st respondent and 3rd respondent are contradictory as the 1st respondent averred that on representation of petitioner, counting was done and the five votes majority to the 1st respondent after completion of counting was reduced to four votes and in the counter of officials it was averred that petitioner did not gave scope for recounting which casts a doubt whether recounting took place or not and how the majority of five votes were reduced to four. The evidence of R.W. 4 shows that she did only re verification but not recounting and only upon reverification of the votes the result was announced. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that evidence of R.W. 4 is silent on what is meant by re verification and further contended that there is no rule to conduct reverification .

14. Now the question posed before the court is that whether the act of returning officer performing re verification is valid or not. At this juncture it is pertient to refer Rule 56 of

Andhra Pradesh Panchayath Raj (Conduct of Election Rules,2006).

Rule 56 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayath Raj (Conduct of Election

Rules,2006) enumerates the returning officer shall, before he commences to count the votes, readout the provisions of Section 217 of the Act to such person as may be present and 8 shall then count and check all ballot boxes placed for counting of votes and satisfy himself that all such ballot boxes contain the ballot papers which are to be counted as such place have been received and accounted for.

Bare reading of above provision, it is clear that the word “satisfy himself” gives discretion to the returning officer to do re-verification to satisfy himself that all such ballot votes has been accounted for. Hence the act of returning officer in re verifying the votes is not contrary to the law.

15. It is also raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that R.W.4 in her evidence deposed that at the time of counting galata took place and the C.I. was also present and opened fire to control galata and further contended that R.W. 4 in her evidence deposed that her counting staff took her from the counting room at the time of galata and the District

Collector on seeing the web casting stopped the counting process when galata took place which shows that R.W. 4 did not do the election counting process as per procedure. At the time of conducting election counting the entire environment will be intense and there is every likelihood of heated arguments among the candidates and their followers. Had there been a grave disturbance due to galata petitioner definitely ought to have mentioned in the petition or in her chief affidavit about the galata but those facts were not mentioned which shows that the galata is not of such nature which casts serious doubt with regard to conducting election counting process. The evidence of P.W2 who is the counting agent for

P.W.1 categorically stated in cross examination that the entire election counting process went smoothly .

In Ram Sewak Yadav V. Hussin Kamil Kidwai & Ors (1964) 6 SCR 238 , Honourable

Apex court has set out the circumstances when an order for inspection of ballot papers can be ordered in the following terms:

“ An order for inspection may not be granted as a matter of course; having regard to the insistence upon the secrecy of the ballot papers, the court would be justified in granting an order for inspection provided two conditions are fulfilled:

(i) That the petition for setting aside an election contains an adequate statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of his case; and 9

(ii) The tribunal is prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties inspection of the ballot papers is necessary.

But an order for inspection of ballot papers cannot be g ranted to support vague pleas made in the petition not supported by material facts or to fish out evidence to support such pleas. The case of the petitioner must be set out with precision supported by averments of material facts. To establish a case so pleaded an order for inspection may undoubtedly, if the interest of justice require, be granted. But a mere allegation that the petitioner suspects or believes that there has been an improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes will not be sufficient to support an order for inspection. “

16. On evaluating the evidence of both sides and considering the submissions and keeping in view the decisions discussed above, this court considers that there is no such compulsive nature as could have made this tribunal reach a prima facie justification that there are adequate justification for recovery of ballot being breach. Accordingly points are answered against the petitioner.

17. In the result, petition is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 31 st day of March, 2023.

Junior Civil Judge, Rajam. (FAC)Junior Civil Judge, Ponduru

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTS:

P.W.1: Nakka Hemalatha R.W.1 Suravajjhala Srinivasulu

P.W.2: Panchireddy BalajiR.W.2 Panchireddy Lalitha Kumari (1st Respondent)

R.W.3:G.Srinivasa Rao

R.W.4:S.Vani Kumari(Returning Officer)

R.W.5:Donka Savarayya

DOCUMENTS MARKED

10

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.P.1 Original Deposit Receipt No. 27, dt. 10.02.2021.

Ex.P.2 Original Recounting Representation to the Returning Officer,

dated:21.02.2021 and the same is refused.

Ex.P.3 Original Recounting Representation to the District Collector, dated: 24.02.2021.

Ex.P.4 Original Recounting Representation to the Respondents 2 & 3 with Postal Receipts, dated: 24.02.2021.

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.R.1 Returning Officer Declaration Form in the of 1st respondent, on 21.02.2021 as a sarpunch.

Ex.R2 Identity Card issued in the name of the 1st respondent as sarpunch.

Ex.R3 The District Panchyath Resource Centre, Srikakulam issued recognized paper to the name of 1st respondent for the purpose of conducting training.

Ex.R4 General Body Meeting Resolution copies, dated: 28.06.2021, 11.12.2021,24.03.2022.

Ex.R5 Notice issued by the Returning Officer in the name of 1st respondent to conduct Vice President election on 15.03.2021.

Ex.R6 Memo No. 2109/CPR/SWM COVID/2021, dt.24.05.2021 for establishment of village isolation centers.

Junior Civil Judge, Rajam. (FAC)Junior Civil Judge, Ponduru

Date of Presentation: 01-03-2021 Date of Filing:01-03-2021 11

IN THE COURT OF ELECTION TRIBUNAL CUM JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE AT PONDURU

Present: Sri.P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja, Junior Civil Judge Rajam (FAC) Junior Civil Judge Ponduru

Friday, this the 31st day of March, 2023

E.O.P. 01 /2021

Between:

Nakka Hemalatha, W/o Prasada Rao, Hindu, aged about 36 years, resident of Geddakancharam Village and Post, D.No. 1-30, Main Street, G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District.

….Petitioner A N D

1. Panchireddi Lalithakumari,W/o. late Prabhakar, Hindu, aged about 46 years, resident of Geddakancharam village and Post, D.No. 1-31,Main Street, G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District.

2. S.Vani Kumari, Hindu, aged 36 years, Returning Officer Stage –II, Gedda Kancharam Panchayath Election, working as Degree College Lecturer, Government (Women) Degree College, Srikakulam Town and District.

3. The Mandal Praja Parishad Development Officer, G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District.

4. The District Panchayath Officer, Srikakulam near Anjaneya Theatre, Srikakulam Town and District.

5. The District Election Authority cum District Collector Srikakulam, Collector Office, Srikakulam Town and District.

6. The State of A.P. rep by its District Collector, Srikakulam District.

…. Respondents.

This petition is filed by the petitioner to declare that the declaration of 1st respondent as elected candidate for the post sarpunch of Geddakanchram Panchayath as void and invalid and to declare the petitioner as elected candidate for the post of sarpunch of Geddkancharam panchayathi with majority votes by calling for the ballot boxes and by recounting the same and also costs of the petition in the interests of justice.

12

A Fixed court fee of Rs. 50/-is paid under article II (Vii) of A.P. Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 and Rs.100/- towards administration charges deposited by way of challan.

This petition is coming before me on 03.02.2023 for final hearing between Sri.Nakka Prasad Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri.K.Kondala Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents No.2 to 6 and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court doth order Decree as follows:

1. that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed; 

2. that there be no costs. 

Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 31st day of March, 2023.

Election Tribunal –Cum- Junior Civil Judge, Rajam. (FAC) Election Tribunal Cum Junior Civil Judge, Ponduru.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

No costs memo filed on either side.

Certified that the decree is Properly prepared,

Superintendent. Election Tribunal –Cum- Junior Civil Judge, Rajam. (FAC) Election Tribunal -Cum -Junior Civil Judge, Ponduru.

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) AT RAJAM

Present: Sri.P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja,

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Rajam

Wednesday, this the 12 th day of February, 2025.

O.S.41/2023

Between:

Chongali Kanchiyya, S/o Late Asirayya, aged 48 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at D.No8-18, Bodduru village in Santhakaviti Mandal in Srikakulam District now in Vizianagaram District. … Plaintiff

AND

Nethala Rajababu, S/o late Pydinaidu, aged 33 years, Hindu, Business, residing at D.No.3-5, Bodduru village in Santhakaviti Mandal Srikakulam district now in Vizianagaram District presently residing at Yegarlapalli veedhi, Sachivalayam road, Near Kanaka Durgamma Temple, Tadepalli Gudem, West Godavari District. … Defendant

This case is coming before me on 07.02.2025 for final hearing between Sri I.Sreeramulu Naidu Advocate for the Plaintiff and Defendant having been called absent was set exparte as per the order dated 20.12.2024 and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff to pass a preliminary decree against the defendant in his favor for a sum of Rs.2,55,607/- and for future interest @ 18% per annum within the stipulated time failing which the plaintiff be entitled to apply for final decree for sale of the plaint schedule mortgaged property and in case sale proceeds are not sufficient to discharge the decree debt by passing a personal decree against the defendant for realization of balance amount due and also for the costs of the suit.

2

2.The case of the plaintiff in brief is that:

Defendant is having wet land and he is the absolute owner of the property in

Survey Number 289-9 with an extent of Ac.0-40 cents at Bodduru village. It is submitted that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 8-6-2020 from the plaintiff for the purpose of family expenses and agreed to repay the said amount with interest at 18% per annum payable either to plaintiff or his order and executed

Registered simple mortgage deed in favor of plaintiff on 08-06-2020 by mortgaging the suit schedule property. It is submitted that defendant agreed to pay the interest in monthly rests but the defendant failed to pay the same. Subsequently when plaintiff made several demands to the defendant to repay the amount due under mortgage deed but the defendant did not pay any amount due under the said mortgage deed and postponed the same on some pretext or other. Ultimately when plaintiff got issued legal notice dated: 13-02-2023 demanding the defendant to repay the mortgage money with interest, the defendant did not receive the notice and did not pay any amount. Hence this suit.

3.Defendant remained exparte.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and got examined P.Ws 2 and PW3 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4.

5.The point for consideration is – “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Preliminary Decree as prayed for” ?

6. To establish his case, the Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked

Ex.A1 to A4 on his behalf and also got examined P.Ws.2 and PW3 who are the attesters of the Registered Mortgage Deed dated:08-06-2020. The evidence of P.W.1, which clearly show that defendant borrowed an amount of 2,00,000/- from the 3 plaintiff on 08.06.2020 and executed Ex.A1/Registered Mortgage Deed dated 08-06- 2020 over schedule property for the due repayment of the amount borrowed by him.

P.Ws2 and P.W.3 who are the attestors of the Registered Mortgage Deed dated: 08- 06-2020 corroborated the version of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 are that defendant is the owner of the wet land in Survey Number 289/9 with an extent of

Ac.0.40 cents at Bodduru village and defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from Plaintiff on 08-06-2020 for the purpose of family expenses and executed a simple Registered Mortgage Deed in favor of the plaintiff. In the present case, the defendant remained exparte. On perusal of the unchallenged evidence of P.W.1 to

P.W.3 and Exs.A1to Ex.A4 it is quite clear that defendant borrowed an amount of 2,00,000/- and executed Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff agreeing to the terms and conditions therein. Plaintiff also proved Ex.A1 by examining himself and also P.Ws 2 and P.W.3 who stood as attesters for the Registered Mortgage Deed dated: 08-06- 2020. Thus, plaintiff proved the suit claim, as such, he is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

7. In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs in favor of plaintiff against the defendant for an amount of Rs. 2,55,607/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty five thousand and six hundred seven only) with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization on the principal sum of 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs only). Three months time is granted for redemption.

Typed to my dictation by Typist directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 12 th day of February, 2025.

Sd/-Sri P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1: Chogali Kanchayya, P.W.2: Davala Satyababu, P.W.3: Valluru Mukundarao,

FOR DEFENDANT: exparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: Original mortgage deed, dt:08-06-2020 for Rs.2,00,000/- executed by D1 in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2: Office copy of the legal notice, dt:13.02.2023 issued by plaintiff through his counsel to the defendant.

Ex.A3: Postal receipt.

Ex.A4: Postal return cover.

FOR DEFENDANT: - -NIL-

Sd/-Sri P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Rajam 5

Date of Presentation: 10.03.2023 Date of Filing: 01.04.2023

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) AT RAJAM

Present: Sri.P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja,

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Rajam

Wednesday, this the 12 th day of February, 2025.

O.S.41/2023

Between:

Chongali Kanchiyya, S/o Late Asirayya, aged 48 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at D.No8-18, Bodduru village in Santhakaviti Mandal in Srikakulam District now in Vizianagaram District. … Plaintiff

AND

Nethala Rajababu, S/o late Pydinaidu, aged 33 years, Hindu, Business, residing at D.No.3-5, Bodduru village in Santhakaviti Mandal Srikakulam district now in Vizianagaram District presently residing at Yegarlapalli veedhi, Sachivalayam road, Near Kanaka Durgamma Temple, Tadepalli Gudem, West Godavari District. … Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintiff to pass a preliminary decree against the defendant in his favor for a sum of Rs.2,55,607/- and for future interest @ 18% per annum within the stipulated time failing which the plaintiff be entitled to apply for final decree for sale of the plaint schedule mortgaged property and in case sale proceeds are not sufficient to discharge the decree debt by passing a personal decree against the defendant for realization of balance amount due and also for the costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.2,55,607/- Court fee of 5,026 is paid under Section 31(9) r/w section 20) Article 1(c) of Schedule 1 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act, 1956.

This case is coming before me on 07.02.2025 for final hearing between Sri I.Sreeramulu Naidu Advocate for the Plaintiff and Defendant having been called absent was set exparte as per the order dated 20.12.2024 and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and preliminary decree as follows:

6

It is hereby declared that the amount due to the plaintiff on the mortgage mentioned in the plaint calculated upto this day i.e., 12th day of February, 2025 is the sum of Rs. Rs.2,55,607/- the sum of Rs.44,733 for interest @ 12% per annum on the

principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till the date of

decree and thereafter 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization of the sum of Rs.Nil for costs, charges and expenses (other than the costs of the suit) properly incurred by the plaintiff in respect of the mortgage security, together with interest thereon and the sum of Rs.10,843/- for costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff, making in all the sum of Rs.3,11,183/- (Rupees three Lakhs eleven thousand one hundred and eighty three only).

2.And it is hereby ordered and decreed as follows:-

i) that the defendant do pay into the court on or before 12th day of May, 2025 or any later date to which time for payment may be extended by the court, the said sum of Rs.3,11,183/- (Rupees three Lakhs eleven thousand one hundred and eighty three only).

ii)that, on such payment and on payment thereafter before such date as the court may fix of such amount as the court may adjudge in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses may be payable under Rule 10, together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under Rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the first schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaintiff shall bring into court all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property in the plaint mentioned and all such documents shall be delivered over to the defendant or such persons as he appoints, and the plaintiff shall, if so required, recovery of such retransfer the said property to the defendant free from the said mortgage and clear of and from all incumbrances created by the plaintiff or any person claiming under him, or any person under whom he claims shall, if so required, deliver up to the defendant quiet and peaceful possession of the said property; iii)and it is hereby further ordered and decreed that, in default payment as aforesaid, the plaintiff may apply to the court for final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property, and on such application being made, the mortgaged property or a sufficient part thereof shall be directed to be sold, and for the purpose of such sale the plaintiff shall produce before the court or such officer as it appoints all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property; iv)and it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realized by such sale shall be paid into court and shall be duly applicable after deduction there from of the purposes of the sale payment of the amount payable to the plaintiff under this decree and under any further orders that may be passed in this suit and in payment of any amount which the court may be adjudged due to the plaintiff in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under Rule 10, together with such subsequent interest as may be payable 7 under Rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the first schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that the balance, if any, shall be paid to the defendant or other persons entitled to the same;

v) and it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the mortgage realized by such sale shall not be sufficient for the payment in full of the amount payable to the plaintiff as aforesaid, the plaintiff shall be at liberty (where such remedy is to him under the terms of mortgage and is not barred by any law for the time being in force) to apply for a personal decree against the defendant for the amount of the balance, and as they may have occasion, and on such application or otherwise the court may give such directions as it thinks fit.

Time for redemption is 3(Three) months.

(Copy of plaint schedule is hereto attached).

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 12th day of February, 2025.

Civil Judge(Junior Division)

Rajam

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS:

For Plaintiff: For defendant: C.F on Vakalat: Rs. 3.00 No cost memo filed C,F on Plaint Rs. 5,026.00 Stamp on process: Rs. 80.00 Paper publication:Rs.1,350.00 Advocate fee Rs.4,684.00 ------------------ Costs allowed: Rs.10,843.00 -------------------

Certified that the decree is properly drafted

Superintendent

Sd/-Sri P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Rajam.

8

1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT RAJAM

Present: Sri.P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja,

Junior Civil Judge

Rajam

Wednesday, this the 5 th day of February, 2025

O.S. 22/2024

Between:

Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, Santhakaviti represented by its Branch Manager, at present Alavilli Bangarraju, S/o late Ramulu, aged 47 years, resident of Santhakaviti Village, Santhakaviti Mandal, Srikakulam District., now Vizianagaram District. ….Plaintiff A N D

Buridi Eswaramma, W/o Polinaidu, aged 82 years, Hindu, Cultivation and housewife, resident of Vasudevapatnam village, Santhakaviti Post and Mandal, Vizianagaram District., erstwhile Srikakulam District. ….Defendant

This case is coming before me on 04.02.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Rama Murthy, Sri R.Vijaya Kumar and Smt.B.V.Kalyani Advocates for the Plaintiff and Defendants having been called absent was set exparte as per the order

dated 11.12.2024 and upon hearing of counsel for the petitioner and having stood over

for consideration till this day, the court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants, for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,48,301/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand three hundred and one only) .

2.The case of the plaintiff in brief is that:

The plaintiff is A.P.Grameena Vikas Bank, Santhakaviti incorporated under

RRB Act of 1975 and the Branch was established in the year 1976. A.P. Grameena 2

Vikas Bank has been running banking business throughout three districts in Andhra

Pradesh State, having it’s Head office at Hanumakonda, Warangaal District, previously the name of the Bank was known as Sri Viskha Grammena Bank and the name of the banks now changed to A.P.Grameena Vikas Bank since 2006. The

Regional Office of the Bank is at Parvathipuram.

i) It is submitted by the plaintiff bank that the defendant is resident of

Vasudevapatnam village, Santhakaviti mandal and she is the borrower and an agriculturist. She approached the plaintiff’s bank for grant of Kisan Credit Card loan and also made application dt.29.06.2018. On that application, plaintiff’s bank sanctioned a loan limit of Rs.1,26,000/- for the purpose of KCC-CUM-SB-Non-GSS basing on the security of her lands situated at Vasudevapatnam village, Santhakaviti

Mandal with an extent Ac.3.25cents by way of security of loan borrowed by the defendant and the defendant executed necessary security documents and loan agreement for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. The defendant agreed to pay the loan amount with an interest at the rate of 14% per annum. In spite of several demands, the defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiff under the loan account.

ii) It is submitted by the plaintiff that the plaintiff bank issued notice,

dt:10.08.2023 to the defendant with directions availing the benefit of reduced interest

from 14% to 7% and to get new loan, if the defendant pays within the period given by the bank. The defendant received the notice and did not pay the debt due to the plaintiff bank. It is submitted that the defendant willfully failed to avail the benefits 3 offered by the government and failed to comply the conditions and violated the same willfully inspite of several demands made by the officials of the plaintiff bank.

Subsequently, the defendant has executed necessary revival letter acknowledging the debt due to the plaintiff bank. It is submitted that the defendant is liable to pay the above loan outstanding amount to the plaintiff bank.

iii)It is submitted that the plaintiff bank got issued registered notice dt:03.09.2023 to the defendant demanding the payment of loan amount and the defendant having received the notice and did not pay any amount to the plaintiff bank. It is submitted that the defendant executed revival letter, dt:03.11.2020 acknowledging the dues of the loan account. It is submitted that the defendant, inspite of demands, did not pay any amount under the loan account to the plaintiff bank and the defendant is liable to pay the outstanding amount of the loan account to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 14%. It is submitted that the plaintiff bank got issued registered notice,

dt:08.08.2023 to the defendant demanding the payment of loan amount but the

defendant having received the notice and did not pay any amount to the plaintiff bank. Hence, the suit.

3.As defendant did not turn up he was set ex-parte.

4.Plaintiff/Branch Manager of A.P.Grameena Vikas Bank, Santhakaviti himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A12.

5. Heard counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the point for determination is 4

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount with

subsequent interest as prayed for ?

P O I N T:

7.In order to establish the facts mentioned in the plaint, the PW1/Branch

Manager, A.P.Grtameena Vikas Bank, Santhakaviti himself deposed as P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly supports the averments of the plaint that the defendant approached plaintiff bank and made application on 29.06.2018 and on that application, plaintiff bank sanctioned loan amount of Rs.1,26,000/- basing on the security of her lands situated at Vasudevapatnam village with an extent of Ac.3.25cents and the defendant agreed to pay the loan amount with interest at 14% per annum and thereafter, inspite of demands defendant did not pay any amount and on 03.11.2020 defendant executed revival letter acknowledging the dues of the loan amount and later failed to pay any amount and then plaintiff issued registered notice on 08.08.2023 and defendant having received a notice, did not pay any amount to the plaintiff bank. To substantiate their contention, PW1 placed reliance upon Ex.A1: Loan Application from dated 29.06.2018 by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff’s bank, Ex.A2:

Scale of Finance BM and FO recommendation application, dt:29.06.2018, Ex.A3:

Loan Arrangement letter, dt:29.06.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff’s Bank, Ex.A4: Kisan Credit Card Application, dt:29.06.2018, Ex.A5:

Personal Accident insurance and crop insurance application, dt:29.06.2018, Ex.A6:

Loan Agreement application, dt:29.06.2018, Ex.A7: Revival letter, dated 03.11.2020 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank, Ex.A8: Affidavit given by 5 the applicant to the plaintiff bank, Ex.A9: Office copy of the Registered legal notice issued by the plaintiff through his advocate to the defendant, Ex.A10: Loan Account outstanding statement of the defendant issued by the plaintiff bank, Ex.A11: Postal receipt, Ex.A12: Postal acknowledgment(Track consignment).

8. The evidence of PW1, coupled with Exs.A1 to A12 categorically establish the contentions of the plaintiff and also the execution of Ex.A1. Therefore, the burden shifts on the defendant to disprove the case of plaintiff, but the defendant did not appear before the court to contest the case and she was set ex-parte. Thus the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A12 remains unchallenged. Hence, this

Court consider that it is a fit case to pass judgment and decree in favour of plaintiff.

Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of plaintiff against the defendant.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff-bank against the defendant for an amount of Rs.2,48,301/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Eight

Thousand three hundred and one only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, and 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the loan amount of Rs.1,26,000/-(Rupees

One Lakh Twenty six Thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-II, directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 5 th day of February, 2025.

Junior Civil Judge, Rajam 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Polisetti Ranjit Kumar Naidu,- NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.A1: Loan Application from dated 29.06.2018 by the - Nil – defendant in favour of the plaintiff’s bank.

Ex.A2: Scale of Finance BM and FO recommendation application, dt:29.06.2018.

Ex.A3: Loan Arrangement letter, dt:29.06.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff’s Bank.

Ex.A4: Kisan Credit Card Application, dt:29.06.2018.

Ex.A5: Personal Accident insurance and crop insurance application,

dt:29.06.2018.

Ex.A6: Loan Agreement application, dt:29.06.2018.

Ex.A7: Revival letter, dated 03.11.2020 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank.

Ex.A8: Affidavit given by the applicant to the plaintiff bank.

Ex.A9: Office copy of the Registered legal notice issued by the plaintiff through his advocate to the defendant.

Ex.A10: Loan Account outstanding statement of the defendant issued by the plaintiff bank.

Ex.A11: Postal receipt.

Ex.A12: Postal acknowledgment(Track consignment)

Sd/-Sri P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja

Junior Civil Judge, Rajam. //True copy// 7

Date of Presentation: 19.10.2023Date of Filing: 19.02.2024

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT RAJAM

Present: Sri.P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja,

Junior Civil Judge

Rajam

Wednesday, this the 5 th day of February, 2025

O.S. 22/2024

Between:

Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, Santhakaviti represented by its Branch Manager, at present Alavilli Bangarraju, S/o late Ramulu, aged 47 years, resident of Santhakaviti Village, Santhakaviti Mandal, Srikakulam District., now Vizianagaram District. ….Plaintiff A N D

Buridi Eswaramma, W/o Polinaidu, aged 82 years, Hindu, Cultivation and housewife, resident of Vasudevapatnam village, Santhakaviti Post and Mandal, Vizianagaram District., erstwhile Srikakulam District. ….Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants, for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,48,301/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand three hundred and one only) .

Value of the suit is Rs.2,48,301/-and the court fee of Rs.4,926/- is paid under

Article 1 Schedule 1 and section 20 of AP Court fee and Suit Valuation Act 1956.

This case is coming before me on 04.02.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Rama Murthy, Sri R.Vijaya Kumar and Smt.B.V.Kalyani Advocates for the Plaintiff and Defendants having been called absent was set exparte as per the order

dated 11.12.2024 and upon hearing of counsel for the petitioner and having stood over

for consideration till this day, this court doth order and DECREE as follows:-

i) that the suit be and same is here by decreed with costs in favour of plaintiffbank against the defendant for an amount of Rs.2,48,301/-(Rupees 8

Two Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand three hundred and one only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, and 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the loan amount of Rs.1,26,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Twenty six Thousand only).

ii) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.9,543/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Five hundred forty three only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this 5th day of February, 2025.

Junior Civil Judge, Rajam.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

Stamp on Vakalat:Rs. 3.00 No costs memo filed. Stamp on Plaint: Rs.4.926.00 Stamp on Process:Rs. 40.00 Advocate FeeRs.4,574. 00 ---------------- Costs allowed Rs. 9,543.00 -----------------

Certified that the decree is properly drafted

Superintendent

Sd/-Sri P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja

Junior Civil Judge, Rajam. //True copy// 9 10 11 12 13

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAM.

PRESENT: Sri.P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Rajam.

Tuesday, this the 11 th day of February, 2025.

C.C.No.699/2024

Between:-

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of police,

Rajam Police station. ... Complainant

And

Veturu Appalaraju, S/o late Krishnamurthy, age 63 years, caste by vysya, Pentanagulavalsa village, G.Sigadam mandal, Occupation: Panshop ….Accused

This case came before me for final hearing on 07.02.2025 in the presence of the learned A.P.P for the State and Sri D.Kiran Babu learned Counsel for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the counsels on both sides, this Court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The accused was arraigned for the trial of offencepunishable under section 34(1) of A.P Excise Amendment Act, 2020 in Cr.No.31/2024 of Rajam P.S.

2. The Sub-Inspector of police, Rajam P.S filed charge sheet with the following allegations in brief:

On 19.01.2024 at about 15.30hrs., on receiving credible information, PW1 along with his staff went to V.R.Agraharam village junction, Rajam Mandal and noticed accused was going towards his village by carrying a bag on his hand. On seeing them, he tried to escape from that place. On suspicion, they caught him and when questioned the accused he revealed his identity and stated that he purchased 2 liquor bottles at Government wine shop at Rajam town and transporting to sell the same for monetary benefits. Upon verifying the bag they found 21 bottles of

HD Deluxe Hearts Desire Whisky 180ml. PW1 took one sample bottle for the purpose of chemical analysis. Then PW1 seized the property and arrested the accused under the cover of occurrence report. Basing on the mediators report,

PW1 registered a case in Cr.No.31/2024 under section 34(1) of A.P Excise

Amendment Act 2020. Later, after completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3.Considering the material on record, this court took cognizance of offence under section 34(1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act 2020, against the accused

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charge under section 34(1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act 2020 was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-3 and got marked M.O.1.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments.

3

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has made out the case against the accused for the offence Under Section 34(1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act 2020, beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

10. The evidence of P.W1 is that on 19.01.2021 at about 15.30hrs., on receiving credible information, he along with his staff went to V.R.Agraharam village junction and noticed one person carrying a bag and on seeing them he tried to ran away. PW1 deposed that upon verifying the bag they found 21 bottles of HD Deluxe Hearts Desire Whisky. PW1 deposed that he seized the property and drawn one bottle for chemical analysis and prepared occurrence report and arrested the accused.

11.The learned APP argued that PW.1 categorically deposed about the seizure of 21 bottles of HD Deluxe Hearts Desire Whisky liquor bottles from the possession of accused and his evidence coupled with Ex.P-1 to P3 and M.O.1 clearly establish the case of prosecution in all material aspects and prays to convict the accused. The learned counsel for the accused contended that P.W.1 is the police official and interested witness and seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of the accused is not proved by any independent evidence, the evidence of police officials lacks independent corroboration and prays to acquit the accused.

12.On going through the entire evidence available on record, it is evident that

PW.1 is police official. Since the time of incident as per the evidence of P.W.1 is 16.00hrs., there is every possibility of presence of public near the scene of 4 offence. The evidence of P.W.1 in his chief evidence, discloses that no summons or notice was issued to any person either at the scene of offence or in the village.

13.Here in this case, prosecution alleged that accused was found in possession of 21 bottles of HD Deluxe Hearts Desire Whisky. The evidence of

P.W.1 discloses that the scene of offence is busy locality. In the absence of any concrete evidence regarding the efforts made by the police officials to secure the independent mediators at the scene of offence, this court is bound to come to a conclusion that the police officials did not follow relevant provisions regarding the arrest of accused and seizure of Liquor bottles. In a judgment in between

S.Babu Saheb @ Babu VS State of A.P reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl) 32 (AP), the Hon'ble High Court held that ’when search is being conducted in a colony or at a place where there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants and they must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators which is mandate of Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. It was also held that the object of Sec.100 Cr.P.C is to ensure the confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted".

In a decision reported in 1990(1) CLR 69 between Roopchand VS State of

Haryana it was observed that such explanations that public persons refused to join the proceedings are unreliable.

In a decision reported in AIR 1995 SC 1930 between Pradeep Narayana

VS State of Maharastra, it was discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that 5 “Failure of police to join witnesses from the locality during search creates doubt about the fairness of investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused”.

14.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused illegally possessed 21 bottles of HD Deluxe Hearts Desire Whisky. On appraisal of evidence, PW.1 failed to specify the names of the persons whom they intend to secure mediators.

There is no independent evidence available on record to show that P.W1 seized the liquor bottles from the possession of accused. There is no concrete piece of evidence on record to come to a conclusion that the accused was in possession of liquor bottles at the scene of offence and he confessed commission of offence

before P.W.1 who is excise official. Further, the confession alleged to be made

by the accused before P.W1 and excise officials hit by Sec.25 of Indian

Evidence Act. In the absence of any independent evidence which supports the evidence of P.W.1, it can be safely said that the prosecution failed to prove its contention that the accused is in possession of liquor bottles at the scene of offence. Moreover, M.O.1 is easily available in the market.

15. Hence, from the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution on whom the burden lies to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts failed to prove the seizure of 21 bottles of HD Deluxe Hearts Desire

Whisky from the possession of accused and failed to prove that accused is in possession of liquor bottles without having any license. Hence, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act,2020 and he is acquitted under Section 6 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months U/Sec 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 i.e HD Deluxe Hearts Desire

Whisky sample bottle shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer directly on computer and corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11 th day of February, 2025.

Sd/-Sri P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Rajam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1. : Y.Ravi Kiran, SI of police, - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P-1: Occurrence Report, - Nil – Ex.P-2: Original F.I.R, Ex.P-3: Chemical Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

M.O.1: HD Deluxe Hearts Desire Whisky(sample bottle).

Sd/-Sri P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Rajam. //true copy// 7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Srikakulam

Calendar of Cases tried by JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, RAJAM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offenceReport of complaint Apprehension of Accused Release on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19.01.2024 19.01.2024 05.11.2024 Sec 41-A Cr.P.C notice. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11.12.2024 17.01.2025 11.02.2025 Due to non-production of witnesses ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment of Calendar Case No.699/2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rajam. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajam Police station, in Cr.No.31/2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion Calling Village ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Veturu Appalaraju, S/o late Krishnamurthy, age 63 years, caste by vysya, Pentanagulavalsa village, G.Sigadam mandal, Occupation: Panshop ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Offence:Under section 34(1) of A.P.Excise Amendment Act 2020.

imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant.

Finding:Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act,2020 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months U/Sec 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 i.e HD Deluxe Hearts Desire Whisky sample bottle shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Sri P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Rajam. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Srikakulam.//true copy//

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAM.

PRESENT: Sri.P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Rajam.

Tuesday, this the 11 th day of February, 2025.

C.C.No.695/2024

Between:-

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of police,

Rajam Police station. ... Complainant

And

Garbhapu Ravi, s/o late Jorge, age 38 years, caste by Madiga, Locherla village, Therlam Mandal, Occupation: Auto Driver. ….Accused

This case came before me for final hearing on 07.02.2025 in the presence of the learned A.P.P for the State and Sri Y.Ashok Kumar learned Counsel for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the counsels on both sides, this Court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The accused was arraigned for the trial of offencepunishable under section 34(1) of A.P Excise Amendment Act, 2020 in Cr.No.21/2024 of Rajam

P.S.

2. The Sub-Inspector of police, Rajam P.S filed charge sheet with the following allegations in brief:

On 13.01.2024 at about 17.30hrs., on receiving credible information, PW1 along with his staff went to Vastrapuri colony junction and noticed accused was going towards his village by carrying a bag on his hand. On seeing them, the 2 said tried to escape from that place. On suspicion, they caught him and when questioned the accused he revealed his identity and stated that he purchased liquor bottles at Government wine shop at Rajam town and transporting and to sell the same for monetary benefits. Upon verifying the bag they found 14 bottles of Royal Right Grain whisky 180ml. PW1 took one sample bottle for the purpose of chemical analysis. Then PW1 seized the property and arrested the accused under the cover of occurrence report. Basing on the mediators report,

PW1 registered a case in Cr.No.21/2024 under section 34(1) of A.P Excise

Amendment Act 2020. Later, after completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3.Considering the material on record, this court took cognizance of offence under section 34(1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act 2020, against the accused

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charge under section 34(1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act 2020 was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-3 and got marked M.O.1.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances that are appearing 3 in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has made out the case against the accused for the offence Under Section 34(1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act 2020, beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

10. The evidence of P.W1 is that on 13.01.2024 at about 17.30hrs., on receiving credible information, he along with his staff went to Vastrapuri colony junction and noticed one person carrying a urea bag and on seeing them he tried to ran away. PW1 deposed that upon verifying the bag they found 14 bottles of

Royal Raid Grain Whisky. PW1 deposed that he seized the property and drawn one bottle for chemical analysis and prepared occurrence report and arrested the accused.

11.The learned APP argued that PW.1 categorically deposed about the seizure of 14 bottles of Royal Right Grain Whisky liquor bottles from the possession of accused and his evidence coupled with Ex.P-1 to P3 and M.O.1 clearly establish the case of prosecution in all material aspects and prays to convict the accused.

The learned counsel for the accused contended that P.W.1 is the police official and interested witness and seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of the accused is not proved by any independent evidence, the evidence of police officials lacks independent corroboration and prays to acquit the accused.

4

12.On going through the entire evidence available on record, it is evident that

PW.1 is Excise official. Since the time of incident as per the evidence of P.W.1 is 5.30P.M, there is every possibility of presence of public near the scene of offence. The evidence of P.W.1 in his chief evidence, discloses that no summons or notice was issued to any person either at the scene of offence or in the village.

13.Here in this case, prosecution alleged that accused was found in possession of 14 bottles of Royal Right Grain Whisky. The evidence of P.W.1 discloses that the scene of offence is busy locality. In the absence of any concrete evidence regarding the efforts made by the police officials to secure the independent mediators at the scene of offence, this court is bound to come to a conclusion that the police officials did not follow relevant provisions regarding the arrest of accused and seizure of Liquor bottles. In a judgment in between

S.Babu Saheb @ Babu VS State of A.P reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl) 32 (AP), the Hon'ble High Court held that ’when search is being conducted in a colony or at a place where there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants and they must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators which is mandate of Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. It was also held that the object of Sec.100 Cr.P.C is to ensure the confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted".

5

In a decision reported in 1990(1) CLR 69 between Roopchand VS State of

Haryana it was observed that such explanations that public persons refused to join the proceedings are unreliable.

In a decision reported in AIR 1995 SC 1930 between Pradeep Narayana

VS State of Maharastra, it was discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “Failure of police to join witnesses from the locality during search creates doubt about the fairness of investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused”.

14.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused illegally possessed 14 bottles of Royal Right Grain Whisky. On appraisal of evidence, PW.1 failed to specify the names of the persons whom they intend to secure mediators. There is no independent evidence available on record to show that P.W1 seized the liquor bottles from the possession of accused. There is no concrete piece of evidence on record to come to a conclusion that the accused was in possession of liquor bottles at the scene of offence and he confessed commission of offence before

P.W.1 who is excise official. Further, the confession alleged to be made by the accused before P.W1 and excise officials hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act.

In the absence of any independent evidence which supports the evidence of

P.W.1, it can be safely said that the prosecution failed to prove its contention that the accused is in possession of liquor bottles at the scene of offence. Moreover,

M.O.1 is easily available in the market.

15. Hence, from the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution on whom the burden lies to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable 6 doubts failed to prove the seizure of 14 bottles of Royal Right Grain Whisky from the possession of accused and failed to prove that accused is in possession of liquor bottles without having any license. Hence, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act,2020 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months U/Sec 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 i.e Royal Right Grain Whisky sample bottle shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer directly on computer and corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11 th day of February, 2025.

Sd/-Sri P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Rajam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1. : Y.Ravi Kiran, SI of police, - None - EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P-1: Occurrence Report, - Nil – Ex.P-2: Original F.I.R, Ex.P-3: Chemical Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

M.O.1: Royal Right Grain Whisky (sample bottle).

Sd/-Sri P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Rajam.

//true copy// 7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Srikakulam

Calendar of Cases tried by JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, RAJAM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offenceReport of complaint Apprehension of Accused Release on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13.01.2024 13.01.2024 07.11.2024 Sec 41-A Cr.P.C notice. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11.12.2024 19.01.2025 11.02.2025 Due to non-production of witnesses ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment of Calendar Case No.695/2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rajam. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajam Police station, in Cr.No.21/2024 of ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion Calling Village ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Garbhapu Ravi, s/o late Jorge, age 38 years, caste by Madiga, Locherla village, Therlam Mandal, Occupation: Auto Driver. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Offence:Under section 34(1) of A.P.Excise Amendment Act 2020.

imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant.

Finding:Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act,2020 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months U/Sec 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 i.e Royal Raid Grain Whisky sample bottle shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Sri P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Rajam. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Srikakulam.//True copy//