Sri.p.venkateswarlu

1 DVC.63/2015,

Dt:19.03.2020

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: P.Venkateswarulu, 

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravarm.

Thursday, the 19th day of March, 2020

D.V.C.No.63/2015

BETWEEN:

1. Amaji Begum @ Akhila, W/o Ahmad Ali Khan, Muslim, Age 39 years, Housewife presently residing at D.No.9­9­11, Innamuri Veedhi, Rajahmundry.

2. Muntaz Begum, D/o Ahmad Ali Khan, Muslim, Age 16 years, presently residing at D.No.9­9­11, Innamuri Veedhi, Rajahmundry.

3. Meer Khadar Ali Khan, S/o Ahmad Ali Khan, Muslim, Age 15 years, presently residing at D.No.9­9­11, Innamuri Veedhi, Rajahmundry.….Complainants (The complainants 2 and 3 are being minors rep., by their mother 1st complainant) AND

1. Meer Ahmad Ali Khan, S/o Meer Idreesh Ali Khan, Muslim, Age 40 years, Business, H.No.84/3, Annarjiguda, Rajeev Gruhakalpa Colony, Ghatkesar, Hyderabad.

2. Pappu Lakshmi, W/o Meer Idreesh Ali Khan, Muslim, Age 35 years, H.No.84/3, Annarjiguda, Rajeev Gruhakalpa Colony, Ghatkesar, Hyderabad.

3. Meer Idreesh Ali Khan, S/o Bahadur Ali, Retired Govt.Employee, Muslim, Age 62 years, Business, H.No.84/3, Annarjiguda, Rajeev Gruhakalpa Colony, Ghatkesar, Hyderabad. ….RESPONDENTS

This case coming on 11.03.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Manzoor Mohiddin, advocate for the petitioners and Sri S.N.Murthy, Advocate for 1st Respondent and R2 and R3 remained exparte and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

//O R D E R//

This is an application filed under section 12 r/w sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as follows. 

2 DVC.63/2015,

Dt:19.03.2020

2. The 1st respondent is the husband of the 1st petitioner, 2nd respondent is the 2nd wife of the 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent is the father of the 1st respondent. Her marriage with the 1st respondent took place on 14­9­1998 at

N.G.O. Home, Head Post Office Street, Tanuku, West Godavari District according to the Muslim Caste Customs and Rites. She was affected with polio and at the time of marriage, her parents presented Rs.25,000/­ to the 1st respondent and 3 sovereigns of gold articles and Rs.50,000/­ house hold articles towards Dahej.

The 1st respondent used to run business at Korukonda and they lived in a rented house of the 2nd respondent’s father at Korukonda for three years and they lead marital life happily for six months only and thereafter the 1st respondent used to pester her for additional dowry by stating that he married handicapped lady and if he had married another girl, he would have got five lakhs dowry. Unable to bear the harassment, her father and brothers gave Rs.1,00,000/­ to the 1st respondent. When she went to her parents house for delivery of 2nd complainant, the 1st respondent developed illegal intimacy with the 2nd respondent. On 20­10­ 1999, the 2nd complainant born and after delivery she went to Korukonda. The 1st respondent used to beat her indiscriminately without any reason and used to harass her for amount. The 3rd complainant born on 30­12­2000. Then she came to know the illegal intimacy and when she asked R1 about the same, the 1st respondent used to beat her as if a beast stating that she could not fulfill his demands. The 1st respondent eloped with the 2nd respondent to Hyderabad and they did not return for four months. Having no other alternative, she along with her children went to her elder sister’s house at Rajahmundry and on 24­10­ 2005, she reported the matter to the I Town Police Station, Rajahmundry about the harassment of the 1st respondent. After counseling, the 1st respondent lived with her for few days and exceeded the harassment and used to beat her indiscriminately. The 1st respondent stated that he started Hotel Business at

Hyderabad and taken her and children to Hyderabad. The real colour of the 1st respondent revealed when she went to Hyderabad. The 1st respondent stated that the 2nd respondent provided capital for his business and she would stay along with them, for which, she objected, on that the 1st respondent beat her with a sandal on her face indiscriminately and threatened her stating that he would pronounce Talaq to her. R3 also supported the version of R1. Later, she came to know that the 3rd respondent performed marriage of R1 with R2 and brought her to her house. The respondents 1 to 3 started harassing her either to bring amount for his business and to get divorce. R2 used to abuse 2nd and 3rd complainant and did not provide food and medicines to them. The respondents necked her out and her children and presently they are residing with her sister.

3 DVC.63/2015,

Dt:19.03.2020

On 27­9­2015, the respondents 1 to 3 came to her sister’s house demanded Rs.2 lakhs and asked to sign on printed papers, but she denied the same. On which, the 3rd respondent threatened her with dire consequences stating that they would send Talaq Nama to her. The petitioners need RS.15,000/­ for their livelihood and for the education of the petitioners 2 and 3. The 1st respondent is hale and healthy leading luxurious life in the eye of general public totally deserted and neglected them and intentionally failed to look after their welfare with the active support of the respondents 2 and 3 and he is having own business and getting Rs.25,000/­ per month. The 3rd respondent is having ancestral house property worth of Rs.40 lakhs at Rajahmundry and the 1st respondent is having a share on it. Hence, prayed the following reliefs viz., 1)

Protection Order 2) Residence Order 3) Maintenance of Rs.15,000/­ per month

4) Compensation of Rs.15 lakhs. 

3.The DVC has been registered against R1 to R3 and notices were served against R1 to R3. R2 and R3 failed to appear before this court, hence they were set exparte. 

4.In the counter filed by the R1, all the allegations made in the application are denied, however, the marriage between petitioner and the 1st respondent is admitted. The 3rd respondent is a Scholar of the Holy book Quran and struggling hard to eradicate the evils of dowry system from the Muslim

Community and she is 80 years old and honest reformer of the Muslim

Community. The 1st petitioner is his nearest relative and she was handicapped woman and on the request of the parents and brothers of the 1st petitioner he married her without taking any dowry or any other articles from her parents.

After the marriage, the 1st respondent lead marital life with the 1st petitioner at

Lalacheruvu for six months. At that time, he was working as Imam of the

Mosque at Rajanagaram. The 3rd respondent never resided in the matrimonial house of the 1st petitioner and 1st respondent. During their stay at Lalacheruvu, the 1st petitioner used to insult the 1st respondent that he is not earning to fulfill her luxurious life. Later at the instigation of her brothers, he shifted his family to

Korukonda and the 1st petitioner and her brothers instigated the 1st respondent to do black magic work as her brothers doing the same and earning a lot. During their stay at Korukonda, the 1st petitioner used to invite the 2nd respondent to her house and used to take hand loans from her. During the year 2002, the 1st respondent shifted to Rajanagaram along with the 1st petitioner and started doing as Imam at Mosque. Later on the advice and encouragement of the 1st petitioner, the 1st respondent married the 2nd respondent as Muslim Personal 4 DVC.63/2015,

Dt:19.03.2020

Law permits 2nd marriage also. During their stay at Rajanagaram, the 1st petitioner used to illiterate the 1st respondent that he is not earning to fulfill her luxurious life. Later as the 1st respondent was unable to bear the harassment of the 1st petitioner he had shifted his family to Hyderabad and started working as painter and provided good education to petitioners 2 and 3. The 2nd respondent never stayed with the 1st petitioner and this respondent and she used to stay separately, but the 1st petitioner used to raise the unnecessary quarrels with 1st respondent and finally without any reason she went to their parent’s house and she forcibly took the petitioners 2 and 3. The respondent further submits that he is now working as a painter in daily wages and he is earing Rs.300/­ per day and the respondent looking the petitioner in a good manner and the respondent is ready to lead happy marital life. The petitioner is not entitled to get any maintenance, compensation and other reliefs and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.In support of her case, the petitioner examined herself as PW1 and got examined her brother­in­law as PW2 and got marked Ex.P.1. Respondent examined himself as RW1.

6.Heard.

7.Now the points for consideration are:­

1.Whether there is any domestic relationship between the 1st petitioner and the respondents?

2.Whether the 1st petitioner suffered domestic violence in the hands of the respondents?

3.Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

4.To what relief?

10. POINT NO. 1:

Section 2(f) of the Act defines Domestic Relationship. As per it, domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.

Firstly, the petitioner has to prove that she lived with the respondents in a shared household, in order to prove domestic violence against the respondents.

5 DVC.63/2015,

Dt:19.03.2020

With regard to this aspect, the petitioner as PW1 stated that her marriage was performed with R1 on 14­09­1998 at N.G.O. Home, Head Post Office Street,

Tanuku. The 1st respondent used to run business at Korukonda and herself and her husband lived in a rented house of the 2nd respondent’s father at Korukonda for three years and they lead marital life happily for six months only. The respondent as RW1 deposed that the 1st petitioner is his nearest relative and she was handicapped woman. On the request of her parents and brothers, he married her without taking any dowry or any other articles from her parents.

After the marriage, he lead marital life with the petitioner at Lalacheruvu for six months. Later at the instigation of the petitioner and her brothers, he shifted his family to Korukonda. Though there is differences in place of residence, both the petitioner and 1st respondent categorically stated that they resided together for six monthly happily.

11.From the above discussion, it can be held that the petitioner and 1st respondent are wife and husband and they lived together in a shared household.

Hence, domestic relationship is proved in between them. Let us see whether there exists domestic relationship between the 1st petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. PW1 stated that the 1st respondent developed illegal intimacy with 2nd respondent and eloped with her to Hyderabad and returned after four months.

The 1st respondent stated to her that he started Hotel Business at Hyderabad and took her and her children to Hyderabad. The 1st respondent stated that 2nd respondent provided capital for her business and she would stay along with them, for which she objected. On that, the 1st respondent beat her. The 3rd respondent also came to Hyderabad and instigated 1st respondent to pronounce

Talaq to the 1st petitioner. She came to know that the 3rd respondent performed marriage of the R1 with R2 and brought to her house. The respondents 1 to 3 started harassing her either to bring amount for business or to get divorce. The respondents 1 to 3 necked her out and her children from their house and having no other option, she came to Rajahmundry and presently residing with her sister. 

12. The RW1 has stated that the respondents 2 and 3 never resided in the matrimonial house of the petitioner. The petitioner and 1st respondent were lived separately. During their stay at Korukonda, the 1st petitioner used to invite the 2nd respondent to her house and used to take hand loans from her. Later on the advise and encouragement and willing of the 1st petitioner, he married the 2nd respondent as Muslim Personal Law permits 2nd marriage also. But the 2nd respondent never stayed with the petitioner and R1 and she used to stay 6 DVC.63/2015,

Dt:19.03.2020

separately and the petitioner used to raise unnecessary quarrels with him and finally without any reason she went to her parent’s house and also forcibly took the children from Mother­Sa without his knowledge.

13.From the above versions of the PW1 and RW1, it can be held that except making bald allegations against 3rd respondent and 2nd respondent, the petitioner failed to prove that she lived with the 2nd and 3rd respondents under one roof. The 2nd respondent being the fellow wife how she will be permitted to live under one roof with the 1st petitioner. No woman will agree to live under one roof with her husband’s 2nd wife. Therefore, the contention of domestic violence by the 2nd respondent against the 1st petitioner does not arise. With regard to R3,

PW1 stated that R3 came to Hyderabad and instigated the R1 to pronounce talaq to her. But nowhere she clearly stated that R3 lived with them for any particular period. However, there might be some wordy altercations between those women but it does not amount to domestic violence as they did not live together under one roof. The point No.1 is accordingly answered.

14. POINT NO.2:

Section 3 of the act defines Domestic violence, which includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal abuse, emotional abuse and economic abuse meted out by the aggrieved person in the hands of respondents.

The petitioner approached this court by making allegations of Domestic violence against the respondents and also seeking various reliefs under the Act.

Hence, as per section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, the initial burden lies on the petitioner to prove that she has meted out domestic violence in the hands of respondents and thereby she is entitled for the reliefs prayed for.

15.With regard to this aspect, PW1 stated that at the time of marriage, her parents presented Rs.25,000/­ to the 1st respondent and adorned with 3 sovereigns of gold articles and Rs.50,000/­ worth household articles. Thereafter the 1st respondent used to pester her for additional dowry by stating that he married handicapped lady and if he had married other girl, he would have got five lakhs dowry. The 1st respondent developed illegal intimacy with the 2nd respondent. Whenever she asked about the same, the 1st respondent used to beat her indiscriminately. Later, the 1st respondent eloped with her to Hyderabad and did not return for four months. Later, he got married the 2nd respondent at the instigation of 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent used to harass her for amount and torture her without any reason. Unable to bear the harassment, she along with her children went to sister’s house. On 24­10­2005, she gave report to the I Town Police Station, Rajahmundry and settle the matter and the 7 DVC.63/2015,

Dt:19.03.2020

respondents executed a settlement deed and taken her and children to

Rajanagaram and 1st respondent lived with her for few days and exceeded his harassment and used to beat her indiscriminately. The 1st respondent took her and her children to Hyderabad stating that he started hotel business. The real colour of the 1st respondent revealed when she went to Hyderabad. The 1st respondent stated that the 2nd respondent provided capital for his business and she would stay along with the them. For which, she objected, on which, the 1st respondent beat her with a sandal on her face indiscriminately and threatened her stating that he would pronounce Talaq to her. The 3rd respondent came to

Hyderabad and supported the 1st respondent and instigated him to pronounce

Talaq to her. The respondents 1 to 3 started harassing her either to bring amount for business or to get divorce. The 2nd respondent used to abuse the complainants 2 and 3 and did not provide food and medicine to them. Unable to bear the torture, she had attempted to commit suicide. The respondents necked her out and her children from their house and having no other option, she came to Rajahmundry to her sister’s house. On 27­9­2015, the respondents 1 to 3 came to her sister’s house and demanded Rs.2 lakhs.

16.In support of her evidence, PW2 who is the brother­in­law of the PW1 stated in the same lines as that of PW1. He further stated that the 1st respondent irritated and abused the 1st petitioner and demanded for Rs.2 lakhs and asked the petitioner to sign on the printed papers. At that time, the PW2 interfered and asked about the high handed behaviour, then the 3rd respondent threatened them by stating that she would not allow the 1st petitioner until she sign on the papers and provide the amount and threatened with dire consequences by stating that they would send Talaq Nama to the 1st petitioner.

17.Per contra, the 1st respondent as RW1 stated that he married the 1st petitioner without taking any dowry. The petitioner used to raise unnecessary quarrels with her and used to insult him by saying that he is not earning to fulfill her luxurious life. Later on the advise and encouragement of the 1st petitioner, he married 2nd respondent. Unable to bear the harassment of the petitioner, he had shifted his family to Hyderabad and started working as a Painter and provided good education to his children. But the petitioner used to raise quarrels and went to her parent’s house along with children. At the instigation of her brothers, she filed false case against him on the file of V Addl.Judl.First Class Magistrate Court, Rajahmundry in

CC 291/2015 and it was ended as acquittal. During his cross examination, he

stated that he got married Pappu Lakshmi (R2) after her conversion to Muslim but no permission was taken from Wakf Board. He and the petitioner have been residing separately since five years. He admitted that he did not give any single rupee to the 8 DVC.63/2015,

Dt:19.03.2020

petitioner and her children for their maintenance. He also admitted that PW1 gave report against him at I Town Police Station, Rajahmundry.

18.By observing the above versions, it can be held that the 1st respondent harassed the petitioner by marring the 2nd respondent and without look after her welfare and the welfare of her children. However, the petitioner stated that the 2nd and 3rd respondents harassed her and demanded additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs or to give divorce, which is not believable as the petitioner’s brother married the sister of the 1st respondent and she admitted that her brother did not take any dowry from the respondents as they are nearest relatives. In such a case, the 1st respondent might also did not take any dowry from the parents of the petitioner, as they gave his sister to the brother of the petitioner. However, the 1st petitioner did not file any documentary proof to show that the respondents demanded additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs. The 2nd respondent being the 2nd wife of the 1st respondent has no authority or right to ask the first wife to bring amount from her parents house which is also not believable. Further, the petitioner herself stated that after going to Hyderabad she came to know about the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent marriage and as she is unable to bear the torture, she left the matrimonial home. No woman should live under one roof with her fellow wife. As such, the allegations made against the 2nd respondent who is the 2nd wife of the 1st respondent are not tenable. Further, at point.No.1, it was not proved that the 2nd and 3rd respondents lived together with the petitioner and 1st respondent under one roof. Therefore, the point of domestic violence by the 2nd and 3rd respondents does not arise. 

19.The above discussion leads me to conclude that the petitioner has proved that she has meted out domestic violence in the hands of the 1st respondent. This point is accordingly answered in favour of the 1st petitioner to some extent.

20. Point No.3:

Coming to the reliefs, the petitioner sought reliefs of 1) Protection Order 2) Residence Order 3) Maintenance of Rs.15,000/­ per month 4) Compensation of Rs.15 lakhs under D.V. Act.

21. As the domestic violence was proved against the 1st respondent, it is inevitable to grant protection order.

22.Coming to the monetary relief, the PW1 stated that the 1st respondent is getting RS.25,000/­ per month and the 3rd respondent is having ancestral house property worth of Rs.40 lakhs and R1 has got share in the said house property. PW1 admitted in her cross­examination that at the time of marriage, RW1 used to give Thayattulu at Korukonda and at Rajanagaram, he used to work as Imam. She also admitted that due to lack of income, the respondent shifted to Hyderabad for Painting work. The RW1 in his chief examination stated that he is working as 9 DVC.63/2015,

Dt:19.03.2020

painter on daily wages and gettingRs.300/­ per day and he is ready to accept the petitioner and his children and he will look after them well. During his cross examination, he admitted that he did not give single rupee to the petitioner and her children from the date of separation. He stated that he is doing painting work and he also admitted that he is having capacity to maintain two wives at a time. As the respondent himself admitted that he is working as painter, there is no dispute with regard to livelihood of the 1st respondent. But the petitioner did not file any documentary proof to show that the 3rd respondent is having ancestral house property and the R1 has got share in the said property. Though the petitioner vaguely stated that the respondent is getting Rs.25,000/­ per month, normally a painter can earn Rs.500/­ per day, on an average, he get Rs.15,000/­ per month. If 1/3rd out of such income is deducted towards the personal expenses of the 1st respondent, there remains Rs.10,000/­ per month in the hands of the 1st respondent. Further, the 1st respondent has to maintain his 2nd wife, this court in inclined to grant Rs.2,000/­ per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs.1,000/­ each to the petitioners 2 and 3, in total Rs.4,000/­ per month towards maintenance. Accordingly, this point is answered.

23. Coming to the relief of compensation under Domestic Violence Act, the petitioner seeks Rs.15,00,000/­ by way of compensation for the alleged metal torture etc., The counsel for the petitioner submitted that PW1 is entitled for compensation due to domestic violence meted out by her in the hands of the respondents. Though at point No.2, it was held that the petitioner has meted out domestic violence in the hands of 1st respondent, the 1st respondent stated that he is willing to lead marital life with the 1st petitioner and he will look after the welfare of his children, but the 1st petitioner did not intend to live marital life with him and also keeping in view of the income of the 1st respondent and his family circumstances, this court is not inclined to grant any compensation. This point is answered accordingly.

24. POINT No.4:

In view of the findings on points 1 to 3, this court is of the opinion that the petition is to be allowed in part.

In the result, the petition is partly allowed and the following reliefs are hereby granted in favor of the petitioner. 

(1)The 1st respondent shall not commit any act of domestic violence against the petitioners.

2)The 1st respondent shall pay Rs.2,000/­ (Rupees Two Thousand Only) per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs.1,000/­ each to the petitioners 2 10 DVC.63/2015,

Dt:19.03.2020

and 3 towards monthly maintenance on or before 10th of every succeeding month from the date of this order. 

(3) The case against Respondents Nos.2 and 3 is dismissed.

(4) The rest of petition claim is dismissed without costs.

 Office is directed to serve the copy of order on both parties at free of cost as per Sec. 24 of the act.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19th day of March, 2020.

Sd/­ VI Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

Appendix of Evidence

(Witnesses examined)

For Petitioner For Respondents:

PW.1: Amaji Begum @ AkhilaRW1: M.Ali Khan PW.2: Sk.Khadar Sharief

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioner For Respondents:

Ex.P1: Wedding card­Nil­

Sd/­ VI Addl. J.F.C.M., Rajamahendravaram.

1

CALENDAR

SUBMITTED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS COURT :: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM :: C.C. No.255/2016. Private Complainant filed U/Sec.138 of N.I. ACT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date of Offence:27.01.2016

Date of Complaint:11.03.2016

Apprehension of accused: ---

Released on bail: ---

Commencement of Trial:19.11.2018

Closure of trial:06.05.2019

Date of Order:27.06.2019

Complainant: Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Rajahmundry, Represented by its Office Assistant M. Venkateswara Rao, S/o Eswara Rao, Aged 29 Years, Innispeta, Rajahmundry.

Accused: Adapala Muni Banucharan, S/o Muni Krishna, Hindu, Aged 38 Years, Business, D.No.10-3-33, 10th Block, Kovvur, West Godavari District.

Finding:Found not Guilty.

Result :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, he is acquitted for the said offence

U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C.. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. to appear before the appellant court, if any appeal is preferred.

Remarks:Delay caused due to non production of witnesses

Sd/ P. Venkateswarlu

VI Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Rajamahendravaram.

Copy submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE :: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: SRI P. VENKATESWARLU,

VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Thursday, the 27th day of June, 2019.

C.C.No.255/2016.

BETWEEN:

Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Rajahmundry, Represented by its Office Assistant M. Venkateswara Rao, S/o Eswara Rao, Aged 29 Years, Innispeta, Rajahmundry.

...Complainant

And

Adapala Muni Banucharan, S/o Muni Krishna, Hindu, Aged 38 Years, Business, D.No.10-3-33, 10th Block, Kovvur, West Godavari District.

...Accused

This case coming up before me on 19.06.2019, for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.K.M.Sarma, learned counsel for the complainant and of Sri P. Rama Raju, Advocate counsel for accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The present complaint is filed by the complainant against the accused for the offense punishable under section-138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2.The brief facts of the complaint are as follows: -

The complainant submits that the accused approached the complainant company for a loan and entered into agreement bearing

No.RAJA2TF1307270006/2013 and as per the said agreement, executed pronote and other documents and accused obtained loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant company for the purpose of E.F.Loan (Business Loan). On 21.01.2016 the accused issued the cheque bearing No.000039, Dt.21.01.2016 for

Rs.1,60,000/- of Andhra Bank, Kovvuru in favour of the complainant company in his presence and the complainant presented the said cheque into its bank i.e. City

Union Bank Limited, Rajahmundry for collection but the cheque was dishonored 3 by the banker of the accused with a cheque return memo Dt.27.01.2016 with remarks of “Insufficient funds” and the same was informed to the complainant by his banker. The complainant got issued a registered legal notice, Dt.01.02.2016 demanding the accused to repay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, the accused received said notice on 09.02.2016, neither he gave any reply nor paid the cheque amount. Hence, the complaint.

3.The complaint was taken on file for the offense under Sec.138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the complaint for the offense U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, having understood the same, he denied the offense and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, to substantiate his case, the complainant himself was examined as P.W.1 and got Exs.P.1 to P9 were marked.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating material stood against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and he himself was examined as D.W.1.

8.Now the point for determination is:

'Whether the prosecution proved that the accused has intentionally issued

Cheque to the complainant in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, knowing fully well that there are no sufficient funds in his account to honour the same and that the complainant issued mandatory legal notice and that the accused failed to 4 pay the cheque amount with statutory period and that the complaint is filed within the period of limitation, and therefore, the accused liable for punishment under section-138 N.I.Act, beyond all reasonable doubt' ?

9.To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the complainant needs to prove that :

a) Cheque that was issued by the accused presented for collection within the period of its validity.

b) That the cheque was dishonoured by the bank authorities for one of the reasons which attract the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881.

c) That the drawee issued notice under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 within the statutory period.

d) That the drawer received the said notice, but failed to make any payment covered by the dishonoured cheque within stipulated time as mentioned in section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

e) That the complaint was filed within the period of limitation in the court having jurisdiction.

f) A Prima facie proof that the cheque was issued in discharge of any legally enforceable subsisting debt.

“Section 138 NI Act - Components of offence under Section 138 are: (1) drawing of the cheque by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker, for payment to another person from out of that account for discharge in whole/part any debt or liability, (2) presentation of the charge by the payee or the holder in due course to the bank, (3) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawer bank for want of sufficient funds to the credit of the drawer or any arrangement with the 5 banker to pay the sum covered by the cheque, (4) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information by the payee from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, of the amount covered by the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.”

10.Therefore, if all the above ingredients are proved by the complainant, the presumption under section-139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 comes into play and the burden of proving the case shifts on to the accused and he/she has to rebut the presumption arises under section-139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in favour of the complainant.

11.The contention of learned counsel for complainant that the accused approached the complainant company for a loan and entered into agreement bearing No.RAJA2TF1307270006/2013 and as per the said agreement executed pronote and other documents and on that he obtained loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant's company for the purpose of business loan and he issued Ex.P1 cheque for Rs.1,60,000/- for discharge of up to date liability and the same was dishonoured due to 'funds insufficient' in the account of the accused and the complainant got issued statutory legal notice and the accused failed to pay any amount and therefore, the accused is liable for punishment.

12.In order to prove the case, the complainant himself was examined as P.W.1.

and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked on his behalf. P.W.1 filed his chief affidavit it by reiterating the same averments as in the complaint. During the course of cross examination he deposed that they have issued loan by way of cheque to the accused. He further deposed that the accused have paid 25 installments to the 6 total of Rs.2,77,000/- and odd. He further deposed that he did not file loan agreement which was entered by the accused. He denied the suggestions that his company not given loan of Rs.2,50,000/- and he was not present at the time of giving loan. Further denied that the accused have paid total installments and fabricating the remaining cheques which were obtained by his company at the time of granting loan. He further denied that he do not know anything about this case and deposing false.

13.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, it is well established that the accused obtained a loan from the complainant company and entered into a loan agreement bearing No.RAJA2TF1307270006/2013 and submitted a loan application and other relavent documents and obtained loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the complaint company and that for repayment of that loan he issued Ex.P1 is cheque for

Rs.1,60,000/- for discharge of upto date liability.

14.The complainant with his evidence and coupled with documentary evidence discharged his initial burden that the accused issued ExP1/Cheque in discharge of the amount due under loan obtained from the complaint company and the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of accused and also that he got issued statutory legal notice and the accused failed to pay the make payment of cheque amount within time. Now the burden shifts on to the accused.

15.The general rule of criminal law is that the burden is always on the prosecution. But the same rule is not applicable to the cases falling under Sec.138 of N.I.Act in view of statutory safeguard provided under Sec.139 of NI Act.

Section 139 NI Act reads as follows :- 7 “It shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability”.

16Therefore, from the above section, it is vivid that the statue confers presumption on the holder of the cheque that the cheque referred to in Section 138 is received by him in discharge of the whole or part of any debt or other liability and the burden that the cheque was not issued towards legally enforceable debt or other liability is on the accused. But if the defence of the accused is otherwise, the accused is expected to explain and establish with some cogent, believable and trustworthy evidence that the cheque has not been issued towards any debt or other liability.

17.In this case, the defence of the accused is that he had paid the total loan amount and he did not issue Ex.P1/cheque to the complainant company, and the complainant company obtained empty cheques at the time of giving loan and fabricated one of the cheque and filed this false case against him.

18.In order to disprove the case the accused himself was examined as D.W.1.

and no documents were marked on his behalf and he deposed he had paid entire loan amount by the month of May or June, 2015. He further deposed that the complainant company filed arbitration case vide in A.C.No.54/2016 on the file of

Sole Arbitration. He denied the suggestions that he have issued Ex.P1 cheque to discharge the part liability and he is giving false evidence to evade the loan amount.

19.To prove the case for the offence under Sec.138 of N.I. Act, the complainant needs to prove that the cheque shall be issued for legally enforcible debt. The complainant is under obligation to establish that the same is legally enforcible debt existence in between complainant and the accused and that the accused issued 8 cheque towards discharge of cheque legally enforcible debt or liability. It is also obligatory on part of the complainant to issue statutory legal notice to the accused within 30 days from the date of receiving information about the dishonour of cheque by mentioning the facts of the case and demanding the accused to pay cheque amount within 15 days.

20.On careful perusal of the evidence of on record and arguments of their counsels it appears that even if as per Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, when cheque is admittedly belongs to the accused, presumption is to be drawn about issuance of the cheque for legally dis-chargeable debt, when brings on record some evidence to show that the cheque is not issuance for payment of legally dis- chargeable debt the same is sufficient to rebut the presumption. Here in this case though accused admitted the cheque is in question is belongs to him by looking to complaint, evidence of P.W.1 and documents produced by the complainant it appears that no where it is stated about how the accused is liable to pay the amount mentioned in cheque i.e. complainant has not at all produced documents like loan agreement bearing No.RAJA2TF1307270006/2013 for Rs.2,50,000/- for the purpose of business which was entered by the accused and also promissory pronote which was executed by the accused in favour of the complainant as mentioned in complaint and also the complainant company did not furnish any information about the business of the accused. Moreover, the complainant failed to produce documents regarding amount due from the accused in respect of alleged issuance of cheque and there is no evidence available on record to show that as on the date mentioned in the cheque accused was liable to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque.

9

21.On the other side the crucial document which was filed by the complainant i.e. Ex.P5/statement of account relating to the loan account of the accused which is computer generated copy filed by the P.W.1 and it is generated in the complainant company and also it does not showing the due balance which was covered under

Ex.P1. The P.W.1 categorically admitted that he did not file any promissory note and other documents executed by the accused as mentioned in his chief-affidavit.

Even though, the Ex.P9 notarized copy of arbitration award filed by the P.W.1 but, on perusal of the same the balance due by the accused is not one and the same as covered under Ex.P1.

22.Therefore, even if the cheque in question is belongs to the accused and all the conditions of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act are complied by the complainant, since there is no evidence produced by the complainant about liability of the accused to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque. In the absence of requisite averments in complaint such as loan agreement bearing No.

RAJA2TF1307270006/2013 for Rs.2,00,000/- and pronote and other relevant documents, the offence against the accused could not be made out. Ex.P5 computer generated statement of account of accused was not tenable and acceptable as it is a computer generated copy from the complainant’s company.

23.In view of above aforesaid reasons the case of the complainant is utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused, hence the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.

24.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, he is acquitted for the said offence U/Sec.255(1) of

Cr.P.C.. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months 10

U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. to appear before the appellant court, if any appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation by my stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 27th day of June, 2019. Sd/ P. Venkateswarlu

VI ADDL. J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: P.W.1 : M. Venkateswara Rao. FOR DEFENCE: None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Original Cheque bearing No.000039, dt.21.01.2016 for Rs.1,60,000/- Ex.P2 : Original Cheque return memo Dt.27.01.2016. Ex.P3 : Office copy of Legal notice, dt.01.02.2016 Ex.P4 : Postal acknowledgment, Dt.09.02.2016. Ex.P5 : Computer copy of account copy pertaining to accused. Ex.P6 : Certified copy of Board resolution, Dt.22.06.2010 Ex.P7 : Certifiedcopyof authorization given to M. Venkateswara Rao Rajamahendravaram, Dt.25.10.2012. Ex.P8 : Cetified copy of certificate of Incorporation of complainant company. Ex.P9 : Notarized copy of award in A.R.C. No. 54/2016 passed against the accused, Dt. 30.03.2017 FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

Sd/ P. Venkateswarlu

VI ADDL. J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

1

CALENDAR

SUBMITTED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS COURT :: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM :: C.C. No.42/2016. Private Complainant filed U/Sec.138 of N.I. ACT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date of Offence: 19.10.2015.

Date of Complaint: 18.12.2015.

Apprehension of accused: ---

Released on bail: ---

Commencement of Trial: 23.02.2018.

Closure of trial: 13.06.2019.

Date of Order: 27.06.2019.

Complainant: Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Rajahmundry, Represented by its Office Assistant M.Venkateswara Rao, S/o Eswara Rao, Aged 29 Years, Rajahmundry.

Accused: Chundru Veerabhadra Rao, S/o Venkata Rao, Hindu, Aged 40 Years, Business, D.No.4-110, Sai Baba Temple Street, Vetlapalem, E.G.District.

Finding:Found not Guilty.

Result :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, he is acquitted for the said offence U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C.. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months

U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. to appear before the appellant court, if any appeal is preferred.

Remarks:Delay caused due to non production of witnesses

Sd/ P. Venkateswarlu

VI Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Rajamahendravaram.

Copy submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram 2

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE :: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: SRI P. VENKATESWARLU,

VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Thurssday, the 27th day of June, 2019.

C.C.No.42/2016.

BETWEEN:

Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Rajahmundry, Represented by its Office Assistant M. Venkateswara Rao, S/o Eswara Rao, Aged 29 Years, Innispeta, Rajahmundry.

...Complainant

And

Chundru Veerabhadra Rao, S/o Venkata Rao, Hindu, Aged 40 Years, Business, D.No.4-110, Sai Baba Temple Street, Vetlapalem, E.G.District.

...Accused

This case coming up before me on 20.06.2019, for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.K.M.Sarma, learned counsel for the complainant and of Sri P. Madan Mohan Rao, Advocate counsel for accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The present complaint is filed by the complainant against the accused for the offense punishable under section-138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2.The brief facts of the complaint are as follows: -

The complainant submits that the accused approached the complainant company for a loan and entered into agreement bearing

No.RAJA2TF1208300022/2012 and as per the said agreement, executed pronote and other documents and accused obtained loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from the complainant company. On 15.10.2015 the accused issued the cheque bearing

No.219399, Dt.15.10.2015 for Rs.7,40,000/- of State Bank of India, Vetlapalem,

E.G.District in favour of the complainant company in his presence and the complainant presented the said cheque on 16.10.2015 into its bank i.e. City Union

Bank Limited, Rajahmundry for collection but the cheque was dishonored by the 3 banker of the accused with a cheque return memo Dt.19.10.2015 with remarks of “Funds Insufficient” and the same was informed to the complainant by his banker.

The complainant got issued a registered legal notice, Dt.05.11.2015 demanding the accused to repay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, the accused received said notice on 12.11.2015, neither he gave any reply nor paid the cheque amount. Hence, the complaint.

3.The complaint was taken on file for the offense under Sec.138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C.. The sum and substance of the complaint for the offense U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, having understood the same, he denied the offense and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, to substantiate his case, the complainant himself was examined as P.W.1 and got Exs.P.1 to P8 were marked.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating material stood against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Now the point for determination is:

'Whether the prosecution proved that the accused has intentionally issued

Cheque to the complainant in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, knowing fully well that there are no sufficient funds in his account to honour the same and that the complainant issued mandatory legal notice and that the accused failed to 4 pay the cheque amount with statutory period and that the complaint is filed within the period of limitation, and therefore, the accused liable for punishment under section-138 N.I.Act, beyond all reasonable doubt' ?

9.To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the complainant needs to prove that :

a) Cheque that was issued by the accused presented for collection within the period of its validity.

b) That the cheque was dishonoured by the bank authorities for one of the reasons which attract the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881.

c) That the drawee issued notice under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 within the statutory period.

d) That the drawer received the said notice, but failed to make any payment covered by the dishonoured cheque within stipulated time as mentioned in section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

e) That the complaint was filed within the period of limitation in the court having jurisdiction.

f) A Prima facie proof that the cheque was issued in discharge of any legally enforceable subsisting debt.

“Section 138 NI Act - Components of offence under Section 138 are: (1) drawing of the cheque by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker, for payment to another person from out of that account for discharge in whole/part any debt or liability, (2) presentation of the charge by the payee or the holder in due course to the bank, (3) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawer bank for want of sufficient funds to the credit of the drawer or any arrangement with the 5 banker to pay the sum covered by the cheque, (4) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information by the payee from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, of the amount covered by the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.”

10.Therefore, if all the above ingredients are proved by the complainant, the presumption under section-139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 comes into play and the burden of proving the case shifts on to the accused and he/she has to rebut the presumption arises under section-139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in favour of the complainant.

11.The contention of learned counsel for complainant that the accused approached the complainant company for a loan and entered into agreement bearing No.RAJA2TF1208300022/2012 and as per the said agreement executed pronote and other documents and on that he obtained loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from the complainant's company for the purpose of business loan and he issued Ex.P1 cheque for Rs.7,40,000/- for discharge of up to date liability and the same was dishonoured due to 'Funds Insufficient' in the account of the accused and the complainant got issued statutory legal notice and the accused failed to pay any amount and therefore, the accused is liable for punishment.

12.In order to prove the case, the complainant himself was examined as P.W.1.

and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked on his behalf. P.W.1 filed his chief affidavit it by reiterating the same averments as in the complaint. During the course of cross examination he deposed that at the time of granting loan to the accused the complainant company obtained house property as security and after verifying the 6 said document they have issued loan to the accused. He further deposed that he do not know the details of the above property. He further deposed that the said property was in the name of the father of the accused. He further deposed that he did not file any document to show that the accused having business. He denied the suggestions that the writing in the Ex.P1 is different and the accused never obtained loan from their company and filed this false case agaisnt him to get wrongful gain from him. He further denied that they have filed this false case against the accused without following the procedure U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.

13.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, it is well established that the accused obtained a loan from the complainant company and entered into a loan agreement bearing No.RAJA2TF1208300022/2012 and submitted a loan application and other relavent documents and obtained loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from the complaint company and that for repayment of that loan he issued Ex.P1 is cheque for

Rs.7,40,000/- for discharge of upto date liability.

14.The complainant with his evidence and coupled with documentary evidence discharged his initial burden that the accused issued ExP1/Cheque in discharge of the amount due under loan obtained from the complaint company and the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of accused and also that he got issued statutory legal notice and the accused failed to pay the make payment of cheque amount within time. Now the burden shifts on to the accused.

15.The general rule of criminal law is that the burden is always on the prosecution. But the same rule is not applicable to the cases falling under Sec.138 of N.I.Act in view of statutory safeguard provided under Sec.139 of NI Act.

Section 139 NI Act reads as follows :- 7 “It shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability”.

16.Therefore, from the above section, it is vivid that the statue confers presumption on the holder of the cheque that the cheque referred to in Section 138 is received by him in discharge of the whole or part of any debt or other liability and the burden that the cheque was not issued towards legally enforceable debt or other liability is on the accused. But if the defence of the accused is otherwise, the accused is expected to explain and establish with some cogent, believable and trustworthy evidence that the cheque has not been issued towards any debt or other liability.

17.In this case, the defence of the accused is that he did not enter any loan agreement and that he did not obtain loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from the complainant company for business purpose and filed this false case against him.

18.To prove the case for the offence under Sec.138 of N.I. Act, the complainant needs to prove that the cheque shall be issued for legally enforcible debt. The complainant is under obligation to establish that the same is legally enforcible debt existence in between complainant and the accused and that the accused issued cheque towards discharge of cheque legally enforcible debt or liability. It is also obligatory on part of the complainant to issue statutory legal notice to the accused within 30 days from the date of receiving information about the dishonour of cheque by mentioning the facts of the case and demanding the accused to pay cheque amount within 15 days.

19.On careful perusal of the evidence of on record and arguments of their counsels it appears that even if as per Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, when cheque is admittedly belongs to the accused, presumption is to be drawn about 8 issuance of the cheque for legally dis-chargeable debt, when brings on record some evidence to show that the cheque is not issuance for payment of legally dis- chargeable debt the same is sufficient to rebut the presumption. Here in this case though accused admitted the cheque is in question is belongs to him by looking to complaint, evidence of P.W.1 and documents produced by the complainant it appears that no where it is stated about how the accused is liable to pay the amount mentioned in cheque i.e. complainant has not at all produced documents like loan agreement bearing No.RAJA2TF1208300022/2012 for Rs.6,00,000/- for the purpose of business which was entered by the accused and also promissory pronote which was executed by the accused in favour of the complainant as mentioned in complaint and also the complainant company did not furnish any information about the business of the accused. Moreover, the complainant failed to produce documents regarding amount due from the accused in respect of alleged issuance of cheque and there is no evidence available on record to show that as on the date mentioned in the cheque accused was liable to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque.

20.On the other side the crucial document which was filed by the complainant i.e. Ex.P5/statement of account relating to the loan account of the accused is a computer generated copy and which was generated in the company itself and the

Ex.P5 does not showing the balance due by the accused as mentioned in the

Ex.P1. So, the Ex.P5 is not at all acceptable. On perusal of record shows that the

P.W.1 failed to produce the relevant documents i.e. the loan agreement and promissory note and other documents executed by the accused as mentioned in his chief-affidavit. As susggested the P.W.1 that the complainant company has filed the arbitration case against the accused and the same was dismissed. But, the 9

P.W.1 deposed that he do not remember whether the case was filed or not against accused. If, it is true he would have at least tried to file the same before this court and to show that the accused had obtained a loan from his company.

21.Therefore, even if the cheque in question is belongs to the accused and all the conditions of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act are complied by the complainant, since there is no evidence produced by the complainant about liability of the accused to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque. In the absence of requisite averments in complaint such as loan agreement bearing No.

RAJA2TF1208300022/2012 for Rs.6,00,000/- and pronote and other relevant documents, the offence against the accused could not be made out. Ex.P5 computer generated statement of account of accused was not tenable and does not acceptable as it is a computer generated copy from the complainant’s company.

22.In view of above aforesaid reasons the case of the complainant is utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused, hence the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.

23.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, he is acquitted for the said offence U/Sec.255(1) of

Cr.P.C.. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months

U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. to appear before the appellant court, if any appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation by my stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 27th day of June, 2019. Sd/ P. Venkateswarlu

VI ADDL. J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: P.W.1 : M. Venkateswara Rao.

10

FOR DEFENCE: None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Cheque bearing No.219399, dt.15.10.2015 for Rs.6,00,000/-. Ex.P2 : Cheque return memo Dt.19.10.2015.. Ex.P3 : Office copy of Lawer's notice, dt.05.11.2015. Ex.P4 : Postal acknowledgment, Dt.12.11.2015. Ex.P5 : Statement account relating to the loan account of accused. Ex.P6 : Certified copy of board resolution, Dt.22.06.2010. Ex.P7 : Certified copy of authorization given to P.W.1. Ex.P8 : Certified copy of certificate of incorporation of complainant company. FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

Sd/ P. Venkateswarlu

VI ADDL. J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

1

CALENDAR

SUBMITTED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS COURT :: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM :: C.C. No.252/2016. Private Complainant filed U/Sec.138 of N.I. ACT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date of Offence:27.01.2016

Date of Complaint:11.03.2016

Apprehension of accused: ---

Released on bail: ---

Commencement of Trial:27.02.2018

Closure of trial:03.06.2019

Date of Order:27.06.2019

Complainant: Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Rajahmundry, Represented by its Office Assistant M. Venkateswara Rao, S/o Eswara Rao, Aged 29 Years, Innispeta, Rajahmundry.

Accused: Balireddy Siva Sridhar, S/o Ganga Raju, Hindu, Aged 38 Years, Business, D.No.5-47, Mallepalli, Gandepalli Mandal, E.G.District.

Finding:Found not Guilty.

Result :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, he is acquitted for the said offence

U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C.. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. to appear before the appellant court, if any appeal is preferred.

Remarks:Delay caused due to non production of witnesses

Sd/ P. Venkateswarlu

VI Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Rajamahendravaram.

Copy submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram 2

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE :: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: SRI P. VENKATESWARLU,

VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Thursday, the 27th day of June, 2019.

C.C.No.252/2016.

BETWEEN:

Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Rajahmundry, Represented by its Office Assistant M. Venkateswara Rao, S/o Eswara Rao, Aged 29 Years, Innispeta, Rajahmundry.

...Complainant

And

Balireddy Siva Sridhar, S/o Ganga Raju, Hindu, Aged 38 Years, Business, D.No.5- 47, Mallepalli, Gandepalli Mandal, E.G.District.

...Accused

This case coming up before me on 19.06.2019, for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.K.M.Sarma, learned counsel for the complainant and of Sri S.V. Dharma Rao, Advocate counsel for accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The present complaint is filed by the complainant against the accused for the offense punishable under section-138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2.The brief facts of the complaint are as follows: -

The complainant submits that the accused approached the complainant company for a loan and entered into agreement bearing

No.RAJA2TF1311300001/2013 and as per the said agreement, executed pronote and other documents and accused obtained loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant company for the purpose of E.F.Loan (Business Loan). On 24.02.2016 the accused issued the cheque bearing No.596587, Dt.21.01.2016 for

Rs.1,40,000/- of Axis Bank Ltd., Rajahmundry in favour of the complainant company in his presence and the complainant presented the said cheque into its bank i.e. City Union Bank Limited, Rajahmundry for collection but the cheque 3 was dishonored by the banker of the accused with a cheque return memo

Dt.27.01.2016 with remarks of “Funds Insufficient” and the same was informed to the complainant by his banker. The complainant got issued a registered legal notice, Dt.01.02.2016 demanding the accused to repay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, the accused received said notice on 11.02.2016, neither he gave any reply nor paid the cheque amount. Hence, the complaint.

3.The complaint was taken on file for the offense under Sec.138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the complaint for the offense U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, having understood the same, he denied the offense and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, to substantiate his case, the complainant himself was examined as P.W.1 and got Exs.P.1 to P8 were marked.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating material stood against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Now the point for determination is:

'Whether the prosecution proved that the accused has intentionally issued

Cheque to the complainant in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, knowing fully well that there are no sufficient funds in his account to honour the same and 4 that the complainant issued mandatory legal notice and that the accused failed to pay the cheque amount with statutory period and that the complaint is filed within the period of limitation, and therefore, the accused liable for punishment under section-138 N.I.Act, beyond all reasonable doubt' ?

9.To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the complainant needs to prove that :

a) Cheque that was issued by the accused presented for collection within the period of its validity.

b) That the cheque was dishonoured by the bank authorities for one of the reasons which attract the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881.

c) That the drawee issued notice under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 within the statutory period.

d) That the drawer received the said notice, but failed to make any payment covered by the dishonoured cheque within stipulated time as mentioned in section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

e) That the complaint was filed within the period of limitation in the court having jurisdiction.

f) A Prima facie proof that the cheque was issued in discharge of any legally enforceable subsisting debt.

“Section 138 NI Act - Components of offence under Section 138 are: (1) drawing of the cheque by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker, for payment to another person from out of that account for discharge in whole/part any debt or liability, (2) presentation of the charge by the payee or the holder in due course to the bank, (3) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawer bank for 5 want of sufficient funds to the credit of the drawer or any arrangement with the banker to pay the sum covered by the cheque, (4) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information by the payee from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, of the amount covered by the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.”

10.Therefore, if all the above ingredients are proved by the complainant, the presumption under section-139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 comes into play and the burden of proving the case shifts on to the accused and he/she has to rebut the presumption arises under section-139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in favour of the complainant.

11.The contention of learned counsel for complainant that the accused approached the complainant company for a loan and entered into agreement bearing No.RAJA2TF1311300001/2013 and as per the said agreement executed pronote and other documents and on that he obtained loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant's company for the purpose of business loan and he issued Ex.P1 cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- for discharge of up to date liability and the same was dishonoured due to 'insufficient funds' in the account of the accused and the complainant got issued statutory legal notice and the accused failed to pay any amount and therefore, the accused is liable for punishment.

12.In order to prove the case, the complainant himself was examined as P.W.1.

and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked on his behalf. P.W.1 filed his chief affidavit it by reiterating the same averments as in the complaint. During the course of cross examination he deposed that he have look after the legal issues of his company 6 and in the year 2013 the accused obtained business loan for Rs.2,00,000/- and he further deposed that the accused have given 36 filled cheques for payment of installments. He further deposed that he has filed the Ex.P5 account copy pertaining to the particulars of payment of accused. He further deposed that the

Ex.P5 does not contains the particulars of dishonors cheques which were issued by the accused. He further deposed that the Ex.P1 contain the stamp of Sri Ram City

Union Finance Limited in first column. He denied the suggestions that even after paying the all installments, his company filed this false case by fabricating one of the cheque which was issued by the accused for EMIs by the time of obtaining loan to get wrongful gain from him.

13.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, it is well established that the accused obtained a loan from the complainant company and entered into a loan agreement bearing No.RAJA2TF1307270006/2013 and submitted a loan application and other relavent documents and obtained loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complaint company and that for repayment of that loan he issued Ex.P1 is cheque for

Rs.1,40,000/- for discharge of upto date liability.

14.The complainant with his evidence and coupled with documentary evidence discharged his initial burden that the accused issued ExP1/Cheque in discharge of the amount due under loan obtained from the complaint company and the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of accused and also that he got issued statutory legal notice and the accused failed to pay the make payment of cheque amount within time. Now the burden shifts on to the accused.

7

15.The general rule of criminal law is that the burden is always on the prosecution. But the same rule is not applicable to the cases falling under Sec.138 of N.I.Act in view of statutory safeguard provided under Sec.139 of NI Act.

Section 139 NI Act reads as follows :- “It shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability”.

16.Therefore, from the above section, it is vivid that the statue confers presumption on the holder of the cheque that the cheque referred to in Section 138 is received by him in discharge of the whole or part of any debt or other liability and the burden that the cheque was not issued towards legally enforceable debt or other liability is on the accused. But if the defence of the accused is otherwise, the accused is expected to explain and establish with some cogent, believable and trustworthy evidence that the cheque has not been issued towards any debt or other liability.

17.In this case, the defence of the accused is that he has paid all installments and the complainant company filed this false case by fabricating one of the cheque given by the accused for payment of installments at the time of obtaining loan.

18.To prove the case for the offence under Sec.138 of N.I. Act, the complainant needs to prove that the cheque shall be issued for legally enforcible debt. The complainant is under obligation to establish that the same is legally enforcible debt existence in between complainant and the accused and that the accused issued cheque towards discharge of cheque legally enforcible debt or liability. It is also obligatory on part of the complainant to issue statutory legal notice to the accused within 30 days from the date of receiving information about the dishonour of 8 cheque by mentioning the facts of the case and demanding the accused to pay cheque amount within 15 days.

19.On careful perusal of the evidence of on record and arguments of their counsels it appears that even if as per Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, when cheque is admittedly belongs to the accused, presumption is to be drawn about issuance of the cheque for legally dis-chargeable debt, when brings on record some evidence to show that the cheque is not issuance for payment of legally dis- chargeable debt the same is sufficient to rebut the presumption. Here in this case though accused admitted the cheque is in question is belongs to him by looking to complaint, evidence of P.W.1 and documents produced by the complainant it appears that no where it is stated about how the accused is liable to pay the amount mentioned in cheque i.e. complainant has not at all produced documents like loan agreement bearing No.RAJA2TF1307270006/2013 for Rs.2,00,000/- for the purpose of business which was entered by the accused and also promissory pronote which was executed by the accused in favour of the complainant as mentioned in complaint and also the complainant company did not furnish any information about the business of the accused. Moreover, the complainant failed to produce documents regarding amount due from the accused in respect of alleged issuance of cheque and there is no evidence available on record to show that as on the date mentioned in the cheque accused was liable to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque.

20.On the other side the crucial document which was filed by the complainant i.e. Ex.P5/statement of account relating to the loan account of the accused which is a computer generated copy and it is generated in the complainant company itself.

To support the version of P.W.1, he did not filed any other document to show that 9 the accused have due the balance and to disprove the contention of the accused that he has paid all installments.

21.Therefore, even if the cheque in question is belongs to the accused and all the conditions of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act are complied by the complainant, since there is no evidence produced by the complainant about liability of the accused to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque. In the absence of requisite averments in complaint such as loan agreement bearing No.

RAJA2TF1307270006/2013 for Rs.2,00,000/- and pronote and other relevant documents, the offence against the accused could not be made out. Ex.P5 computer generated statement of account of accused was not tenable and acceptable as it is a computer generated copy from the complainant’s company.

22.In view of above aforesaid reasons the case of the complainant is utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused, hence the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.

23.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, he is acquitted for the said offence U/Sec.255(1) of

Cr.P.C.. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months

U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. to appear before the appellant court, if any appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation by my stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 27th day of June, 2019. Sd/ P. Venkateswarlu

VI ADDL. J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: P.W.1 : M. Venkateswara Rao. FOR DEFENCE: None 10

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Original Cheque bearing No.596587, dt.21.01.2016 for Rs.1,40,000/- Ex.P2 : Original Cheque return memo Dt.27.01.2016. Ex.P3 : Office copy of Legal notice, dt.01.02.2016 Ex.P4 : Postal acknowledgment, Dt.11.02.2016. Ex.P5 : Computer copy of account copy pertaining to accused. Ex.P6 : Certified copy of Board resolution, Dt.22.06.2010 Ex.P7 : Certifiedcopyof authorization given to M. Venkateswara Rao Rajamahendravaram, Dt.21.08.2013. Ex.P8 : Cetified copy of certificate of Incorporation of complainant company. FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

Sd/ P. Venkateswarlu

VI ADDL. J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

1 Judgment in CC 28/2020, Dt:19.03.2020

CALENDER CASES TRIED BY THE VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS 

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM 

C.C.No.28/2020

Crime No. 32/2018 of Korukonda P & E Police Station.

Date of Offence:27­01­2018 Complaint :27­01­2018 Apprehension of accused :27­01­2018 Release on bail :29­01­2018 Commencement of trial :05­03­2020 Close of trial :05­03­2020 Sentence or order:19­03­2020 Reasons for delay : Due to non­production of witnesses.

Name of the complainant : State Prohibition & Excise Inspector, P & E Police Station, Korukonda Name of the accused: Addala Anjaneyulu, S/o Bhaskara Rao, Age 31 years, SC Mala, R/o Muggala Village, Seethanagaram Mandal.

Offence: U/s. 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act

Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty

Finding: Not guilty

SENTENCE: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and he is acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled and M.Os.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

VI ADDL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

Rajamahendravaram.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram for favour of information.

2 Judgment in CC 28/2020, Dt:19.03.2020

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS;

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM 

Present: Sri P. Venkateswarlu, VI Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class 

Thursday, 19thday of March, 2020

C.C.No.28/2020

Between: State Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Prohibition & Excise Station, Korukonda … Complainant. AND Chitikina Satyanarayana, S/o Sri Rama Murthy, Age 42 years, Caste Gowda, R/o Mallavaram Village, Gokavaram Mandal. … Accused.

This case has come before me on 12.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, counsel for prosecution and Sri K.Dilip Kumar, Advocate for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has made the following :­

J U D G M E N T

The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Korukonda filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act in Cr. No.32/2018.

2. The brief averments of the Charge­Sheet are that :

a) On 27­01­2018, at about 9­30 A.M., PW.1 Inspector of Prohibition and Excise station Korukonda along with staff conducted patrolling raids for Prohibition Offences in Mallavaram Village of Gokavaram Mandal. Whey they reached near Bapanamma Temple Road Margin found the accused carrying a bag. On seeing the raid party, the accused tried to escape. On suspicion, staff stopped the accused and questioned him about the contents of the bag. Then accused revealed that it contains Indian made liquor bottles. Then PW.1 deputed LW.2 Md.Rahamathulla,Head Constable, Prohibition and Excise Station, Korukonda to secure the mediators but in vain. Then PW.1 examined the bag, found eight (8) 999 Powar Star Fine Whisky bottles and four (4) Director Special Fine Whisky bottles, Indian made liquor bottles without Heals. On questioning the accused revealed his identity and stated that he purchased the above bottles from Gokavaram Wine Shops for selling the same at higher price. Then PW.1 informed the accused that buying the said liquor bottles without any bill and selling them without any license is an offence under the A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act. Then PW.1 arrested the accused, seized the property and drawn one bottle from 3 Judgment in CC 28/2020, Dt:19.03.2020 each brand for sending to Chemical Analysis and affixed identity slips duly signed by PW.1, LW.2 and obtained thumb impression of accused. PW.1 returned to Station and registered a case in Cr. No.32/2018, U/Sec. 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition and Excise Act, 1968 and sent the accused to the Hon’ble Court for judicial custody. Later the accused was released on bail. 

b) P.W.1 sent the sample bottle to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada and the Chemical Examiner examined the sample and issued a Laboratory Analysis report

dt:2.4.2018 in which he opined that the samples are Indian Made liquor. The

remaining property was confiscated to the state and was destroyed as per orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. This case was taken cognizance for the offence under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968against the accused.

4. Copies furnished to Accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. Charge under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act was framed, read over and explained to him and he denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trail, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P­1 to P­3 and MO1 and MO2. The learned APP given up LWs.2 and 3.

6. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating material was read over and explained to him in Telugu, but he denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence. The accused has not adduced either oral or documentary evidence

7. Thereafter heard the arguments of Learned A.P.P and counsel for the accused.

8.The point for determination ism that :

“Whether the Prosecution has established the guilt of accused for the

offence U/Sec. 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act beyond all reasonable

doubts”? 

9. POINT:­

According to the evidence of P.W.1 by name E.Ravi Kumar who deposed that, on 27­01­2018 at about 9­30 AM, on reliable information he along with his staff proceeded to Gandhi Statue Centre, Mallavaram Village of Gokavaram Mandal for patrolling, where they found the accused with one bag in his right hand, on seeing them he tried to ran way, then they apprehended the said person. On enquiry, he disclosed his name as Chitikina Satyanarayana. On questioning him, he disclosed that he was in possession of liquor bottles which were kept in the said bag. Later he sentone of his staff member for securing mediators, and he went to village, but no 4 Judgment in CC 28/2020, Dt:19.03.2020 one came forward to act as mediator. Then, in the presence of staff he verified the said bag and found eight (8) 999 Power Star Fine Whisky bottles and four (4) Director Special Fine Whisky bottles and the said bottles are not having adhesive labels.

10.On questioning, he voluntarily confessed that he purchased the same from unknown person at the outskirts of the Gokavaram Village for the purpose of selling the same at higher price. Then he informed that possession and selling of Indian Made liquor without license is an offence. He arrested the accused and seized liquor bottles, out of which, he had taken sample from each variety for the purpose of sending the same for Chemical Analysis and got drafted the special report. Then he signed on identity slips and obtained signature of the accused person and affixed on sample bottles and seized liquor bottles. He himself drafted special report under Ex.P.1 in the presence of their staff. He identified the accused in the court hall. Thereafter he brought the accused person along with seized property to the Prohibition and Excise station, Korukonda and he handed over the accused along with seized property to the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Korukonda. Basing on the special report he registered the case in Cr. No.32/2018 for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of AP Prohibition Act 1995 and issued FIR. Ex.P2 is the FIR issued by him. He produced the accused before the court for judicial remand. Later he sent the sample bottle to the Chemical Examiner for chemical analysis. M.Os.1 and 2 are sample bottles. He received the analysis report from chemical examiner, he opined that the sample containing Indian made liquor. Ex.P3 is C.E. Report. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused.

11. The Investigation Officer who is conducting search and seizure has to follow the procedure prescribed under section 100 of Cr.P.C. According to Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C the P.W.1 has to follow certain procedure while conducting the search. The P.W.1 has to secure two local inhabitants and if the local inhabitants are not willing to act as mediators then the P.W.1 has to secure the persons from other locality. The P.W.1 has to issue a written notice to the local inhabitants by calling them to act as witnesses or mediators. But, in the present case P.W.1 did not follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C.

12. According to Section 100 (7) of Cr.P.C., the P.W.1 has to prepare a list of seized articles and shall hand it over to the accused. But, in the present case, the P.W.1 has not followed that procedure, which is mandatory.

13.In a Judgment reported in Babu Saheb @ Babu, S. v. State of A.P.2010 (1)

ALT (Crl.) 32 (A.P). , it was decided that it is necessary to take independent respectable local mediators. The ratio in this Judgment is that the investigation officer has to secure independent respectable local mediators. In this Judgment the P.W.1 is Prohibition and Excise Inspector, and no efforts were made to secure local mediators.

5 Judgment in CC 28/2020, Dt:19.03.2020

14. Moreover, the analyst who examined the samples is not cited as a witness and not examined as a witness. So, mere marking of analyst report will not substantiate the case of prosecution.

15. In the present case also there are no independent mediators and the facts in the present case and the above cited Judgment are similar in nature and as such the ratio of the said Judgment is applicable to the present case.

16. Under the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the non securing of local mediators and no efforts were made by the P.W.1 is raising a reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt is always available to the accused and as such the evidence of prosecution witnesses raising a reasonable doubt about the seizure of intoxicants from the possession of accused.

17.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and he is acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled and M.Os.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 19th day of March, 2020. Sd/­ P.Venkateswarlu

VI ADDL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence : Nil P.W.1: E.Ravi Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Special report. Ex.P2: First Information Report in Cr. No. 90/2018 Ex.P3: C.E. Report, Dt:2.4.2018 For defense : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : 999 Power Star Fine Whisky bottle 180 ml. M.O.2 : Director Special Fine Whisky bottle 180 ml. Sd/­

VI AJFCM.