Ms. Penumala Gopika Naga Sravya

CC. No.3291 of 2019, dt.26.04.2024

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE–CUM–JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT KHAMMAM.

Friday, this the 26th day of April, 2024

Present: P.Gopika Naga Sravya, Prl. Junior Civil Judge–Cum– Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Khammam.

CC. No.3291 of 2019

Between:- The State of Telangana, through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thirumalayapalem Police Station. … Complainant.

And

A1 – Mondithoka Veeraiah S/o Thirupaiah, 46 years, Dairy form, R/o Nagulancha Village of Chinthakani Mandal, Now at Krushibhavan area, Khammam.

A2 – Mondithoka Yesobu S/o Thirupaiah, 31 years, R/o H.No.4-161, Nagulancha Village of Chinthakani Mandal, Now at Bogamkunta Bazaar, Khammam.

... Accused/A1 and A2

-*- This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.V.Narasaiah, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri G.Dileep Kumar, Counsel for the accused/A1 and A2, upon having perused the evidence adduced on either side, exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

01.The State of Telangana through the Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S Thirumalayapalem filed charge sheet in Cr. No.6/2019 for the offences punishable

U/Secs.356 and 379 of Indian Penal Code against the accused/A1 and A2.

02. The brief facts of prosecution case are that:-

i) On 06.01.2019 at 1100 hours, the complainant/LW.1/Guguloth Bharathi came to police station and lodged report stating that on 06.01.2019 in the morning at about 1100 hours, she went to her agriculture field by walk for doing agricultural works, meanwhile two persons came on motor cycle in back side of the complainant and followed her on the back and snatched away her 3 tulas gold pusthelathadu worth of

Rs.75,000/- and fled away to Dammaigudem side on their motor cycle. So, she filed

CC. No.3291 of 2019, dt.26.04.2024

2 complaint to take necessary action.

ii) On receipt of the complaint lodged by LW.1/Gugulothu Bharathi,

LW.11/A.Indrasena Reddy, Sub-Inspector of police, Thirumalayapalem P.S, registered a case in Cr. No.6/2019 for the offences U/Secs.356 and 379 of Indian Penal Code, issue

F.I.R and investigated into the matter. During the course of investigation,

LW.11/A.Indrasena Reddy examined and recorded the statement of LW.1/Gugulothu

Bharathi. Later, Lw.11/A.Indrasena Reddy visited the scene of offence i.e., near Berolu

Sub Station near Dammaigudem Village, drew the rough sketch and prepared crime details form in the presence of mediators i.e., LW.6/Thati Upender Reddy and

LW.7/Maddikuntla Rami Reddy, secured the presence of witnesses i.e., Lw.3/Gugulothu

Lalya and LW.4/Gugulothu Bhavani, examined and recorded their statements.

On 12.02.2019 at 1000 hours, upon reliable information, LW.10/V.Venkatarao, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Khammam Rural Police Station and along with his staff rushed to

Warangal X road and apprehended two persons under suspicious circumstances and on interrogation they confessed this crime and other (43) crimes and immediately

LW.10/V.Venkatarao secured the presence of mediators i.e., LW.8/Ch.Thirupathi Rao and LW.9/P.Seshu Kumar, Village Revenue Officers and recorded the confession statement of accused/A1 and A2 and seized Gold pusthela thadu from the possession of accused/A1 in this crime under the cover of panchanama. On 09.03.2019,

LW.11/A.Indrasena Reddy produced the accused/A1 and A2 on P.T warrant from District

Jail, Khammam and remanded them to judicial custody in this crime. On 17.08.2019, the Hon’ble II Addl. JFCM, Khammam conducted test identification parade in District

Jail, Khammam by LW.1/Guguloth Bharathi. After completion of entire investigation,

LW.11/A.Indrasena Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the

CC. No.3291 of 2019, dt.26.04.2024

3 accused/A1 and A2 for the offences punishable U/Secs.356 and 379 IPC.

03.Cognizance was taken by the then Presiding officer for the offences punishable u/secs.356 and 379 of Indian Penal Code against accused.

04. On appearance of accused/A1 and A2, copies of documents have been furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207 Criminal procedure code. A1 and A2 were examined U/Sec.239 Criminal procedure code and charges framed for the offences

U/Secs.356 and 379 of Indian Penal Code, were read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.6 and exhibited documents P.1 to P.5 as indicated in the appendix of evidence .

06. In this case, the prosecution has not examined LW.9/P.Seshu Kumar, panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama as he reported died and death certificate filed, hence the evidence of LW.9/P.Seshu Kumar is closed. Further the prosecution has not examined LW.4/Gugulothu Bhavani and LW.5/Gugulothu

Ravinder Naik, Circumstantial witnesses, LW.6/Thati Upendar Reddy, panch witness for

CDF panchanama and LW.10/V.Venkatrao, Sub-Inspector of Police. The learned APP has given up the above said witnesses.

07. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused/A1 and A2 are examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating material available against them in the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence on their behalf.

08. Now the point for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused/A1

and A2 for the offences punishable u/secs.356 and 379 of Indian Penal

Code beyond all reasonable doubts”?

CC. No.3291 of 2019, dt.26.04.2024

4

09. In order to bring home guilt of accused/A1 and A2, prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. Of these, PW.1/LW.1 is the defacto-complainant and victim,

PW.2/LW.2 and PW.3/LW.3 are circumstantial witnesses, PW.4/LW.7, panch witness for CDF panchanama, Pw.5/Lw.8, panch witness for confession-cum-recovery panchanama and PW.6/LW.11 is investigating officer.

10. Heard both sides and perused entire evidence on record.

11. To prove the offence under sections 356 and 379 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that i) The accused/A1 and A2 used criminal force on PW.1 in attempting to commit theft of gold pusthelathadu and ii) The accused/A1 and A2 snatched away the gold pusthelathadu from the possession of PW.1.

12. Now from the evidence on record:

i) PW.1/LW.1/Gugulothu Bharathi, defacto-complainant deposed in her chief- examination that Lw.2/Guguloth Balya is her husband. Lw.3/Gugulothu Lalya is her brother-in-law, Lw.4/Gugulothu Bhavani is her co-sister and

Lw.5/Gugulothu Ravinder Naik is brother-in-law's son. Further PW.1 deposed that at about 4 years back, she was proceeding to the fi eld and for taking the lunch to her husband at about 11.30 AM and at around current sub-station at that time two persons came on bike from the back side of her and beat her with the hand on her head as such she has bend her head and then forcefully snatched her Pusthala Thadu of 3 Thulas of gold and the value of the gold is about Rs.75,000/- at that time. The alleged incident took place at 11.30 AM and she has given the police complaint at around 2.00 P.M. Ex.P1 is the report. She identifi ed the signature on Ex.P1. Police examined and recorded her statement. She

CC. No.3291 of 2019, dt.26.04.2024

5 obtained the above said Pusthala Thadu from the Court and learned APP has confronted the item and witness identifi ed the same MO1 is Pusthala

Thadu of 3 Thulas of Gold. She identifi ed A1 and A2 in the opencourt.

ii) In cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, PW.1 stated that time taken for incident is 2 minutes and the accused wore helmet. PW.1 denied the suggestion that accused is no where reliance to the present case and she is deposing at the instance of police offi cials regarding the identifi cation of accused. PW.1 stated that police called her to police station at Prabath Talkies and also shown accused at the crime police station.

iii) Further the prosecution examined PW.2/LW.2/Guguloth Balya, husband of PW.1 and circumstantial witness deposed in his chief- examination that PW.1 is his wife. About 3 ½ to 4 years back, while he was at his fi eld, his wife is bringing the food for him from the house to the fi led and she reached at around current sub-station and the distance between substation and his fi eld is a road gap, he heard the screaming of his wife, as such he went to the scene of off ence by the time he reached the scene of off ence and stated that two persons came on bike and snatched the gold Pustahala Thadu at about 3 Thulas and also beat her.

The value of the gold at that time is Rs.75,000/-. Pw1 also stated that

Identifi cation marks from the accused. Police examined and recorded his statement. During the course of cross-examination, PW.2 stated that he reached the scene of off ence at around 10.30 A.M to 11.00 A.M and the accused wearing the masks at the time of alleged incident. Further PW.2

CC. No.3291 of 2019, dt.26.04.2024

6 stated that by the time, he reached the scene of off ence none were present. PW.2 denied the suggestion that PW.1 did not stated any identifi cation marks of accused and he is deposing for the fi rst time in the open court and he is deposing at the instance of police offi cials.

iv)Further the prosecution examined PW.3/LW.3/in his chief- examination deposed that PW.1 is his sister-in-law and Pw.2 is his brother and LW.4 is his wife. He knew LW.5/Gugulothu Ravinder Naik. Further

PW.3 deposed that at about 3 years back at around 11.00 A.M, while he is proceeding from his house to fi eld along with his wife and the current substation, PW.1 was screaming loudly and also crying there, he questioned her then she stated that some unknown persons has snatched her Pusthela Thadu which is of 3 thulas of gold and some two persons came on the bike and snatched the above said gold. Police examined and recorded his statement. During the course of cross- examination, he is deposing false at the instance of PW.1 and police.

v) Further the prosecution examined PW.4/LW.7, panch witness for

CDF, in his chief-examination deposed that he knew LW.6/Thati Upendar

Reddy. Further PW.4 deposed that on 06.01.2019 police drew the rough sketch and prepared CDF panchanama in his presence and in the presence of LW.6/Thati Upendar Reddy at around 3.00 P.M in the case of gold theft.

The scene of off ence is sub station and road which leads to

Dammaigudem to Beerolu. Police had obtained his signature on

Ex.P2/Crime Details Form. During the course of cross-examination, PW.4 stated that there are fi elds around the scene of off ence and while he was

CC. No.3291 of 2019, dt.26.04.2024

7 cultivating the land and doing agricultural works, he was present at the scene of off ence. Ex.P2 was scribed by Sub-Inspector of Police. PW.4 denied the suggestion that he is deposing false at the instance of police offi cials and he did not go scene of off ence on the alleged date at the time of rough sketch.

vi) Further the prosecution examined PW.5/LW.8/Ch.Thirupathi Rao, panch witness for confession-cum-seizure panchanama deposed in his chief-examination that he knew Lw.9 and he died. He knew the accused/A1 and A2. Further PW.5 deposed that on 12.02.2019 at about 11.00 AM, he received a phone call from Revenue Inspector and asked him to come Warangal Cross Road, Khammam to conduct the Panchanaama and he reached there around 11.00 AM., there are some constables and S.l and I have posed questions at the instance of S.l and then they revealed that his name is M.Veeraiah and accused stated that he sustained losses in diary business, as such he committed theft to earn the amount and also posed questions to another person by name M.Yesobu who is the own brother of accused/Al and A2 confessed that accused used to help accused/Al and committed the theft. He does not remember the date of alleged incident and according to the confession of accused/Al is the rider of the vehicle bearing No.AP-16-BP 6052 and the vehicle is by name

CBZ and accused/A2 is the pillion rider of the bike and there are passing through Beerolu route at Current Substation, there found one victim who is going on the road alone then accused/A2 has snatched the chain i.e..

PUSTHALATHADU of victim. Then the police offi cials taken accused along

CC. No.3291 of 2019, dt.26.04.2024

8 with him to the room of accused at Bogumkunta Bazar Khammam and police has seized the bike and shirt. A part from their present crime, accused were involved in 44 Crimes and also confessed before him and also recovered gold ornaments from the possession of accused.

He identifi ed accused/A1 and A2 in the open court. Police obtained his signature on the panch slips and also on confession-cum-seizure panchanama. He identifi ed the signature on confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Police had recovered MO.1 from the possession of accused and also weighed before him.

vii) In cross-examination by the counsel for the accused, PW.5 stated that he studied degree. Further PW.5 stated that on the day of incident i.e., on 12.02.2019, he is working as V.R.O at Khammam Rural Mandal-II and he was on duty on the said date. Further PW.5 stated that on the day of incident, he went to duty at 9.00 A.M. Revenue Inspector is his superior offi cer. He received a phone call from Revenue Inspector at around 9.40 to 10.00 A.M, who told him to conduct panchanama at Warangal cross road in a case and he was at Ponnekal and the distance between Ponnekal to Warangal cross road is around 6 Kms. and take about 10-20 minutes. He reached Warangal Cross road by 11.00 A.M, but the time he reached the scene of off ence, he found police offi cials there and locals. Scene of off ence is 6 meters away from the Warangal X roads and it took 1 ½ hour for conducting panchanama. Police offi cials scribed the panchanama at the scene of off ence as confessed by A1 in his presence. Further PW.5 stated that he does not remember what he have deposed in the court

CC. No.3291 of 2019, dt.26.04.2024

9 regarding other crime for the accused in Jaggaiahpeta Court. Further

PW.5 stated that he made his signature about 17 times in confession panchanama along with him LW.9/P.Seshu Kumar also signed on it. After completion of panchanama, he along with police constables and

LW.9/P.Seshu Kumar went to Bogamkunta Bazaar, Khammam at about 2.00

P.M, he went on his bike. The time taken from scene of off ence to reach

Bogamkunta Bazaar is about 20 minutes, where the police offi cials seized a CBZ motorcycle which is black and red in colour. He does not remember its registration number and he made signatures there also. PW.5 denied the suggestion he was not called by the police offi cials for the confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Further PW.5 denied the suggestion that police offi cials did not obtain his signature at the scene of off ence and he is deposing false.

viii) Further as per the orders passed in Crl.M.P No.56/2024, PW.5 recalled for further chief-examination and marked Ex.P3 is marked portion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama, dt.12.02.2019 at 11.00

A.M. During the course of cross-examination, PW.5 admitted that in all the cases he is the confession-cum-seizure panch witness and he deposed in front of the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpeta vide CC No.165/2019. Further PW.5 admitted that prior he deposed in CC

No.165/2019 before the Hon’ble Court that police offi cials conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama at police station and obtained his signature. PW.5 added that it was told by him unknowingly. PW.5 denied the suggestion that police offi cials never conducted any confession-cum-

CC. No.3291 of 2019, dt.26.04.2024

10 seizure panchanama under Ex.P3 in his presence and obtained his signature at police station.

ix) Further the prosecution examined PW.6/LW.11, Investigating offi cer, in his chief-examination has narrated the chronological sequences of investigation done and the contents of charge sheet and through him

Ex.P4-Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama and Ex.P5-F.I.R, Dt.06.01.2019 are marked. During the course of cross-examination, PW.6 denied the suggestion that he did not conduct any proper investigation. Further

PW.6 denied the suggestion that he foisted a false case against accused/A1 and A2 for statistical purpose. Further PW.6 denied the suggestion that he conducted table investigation without following due procedure of law and he is deposing false.

13. It is settled principle in criminal law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence, notwithstanding on any weakness, in the defence of the accused and he is entitled to the benefi t of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.

14. From the entire evidence of PW.1 to PW.6, this court observed the following:-

PW.1 in his chief deposed that she identifi ed accused No.1 and 2 in the open court, whereas coming to her cross examination, she stated that the time taken for the incident is two minutes, by that time the accused was wearing helmet. P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the circumstantial witnesses

CC. No.3291 of 2019, dt.26.04.2024

11 to the incident deposed about their coming to know about the incident through P.W.1. Therefore, their evidence cannot be given much weightage. P.W.4, who is the panch for crime details form deposed about police visiting the scene of off ence and noting the descriptive particulars of the scene in the crime details form. Mere proving the crime details form will not fetch any benefi t to the case of prosecution to connect the accused with the crime. P.W.5 is the panch for confession and seizure panchanama deposed about the recovery of the stolen property under

M.O.1 in his presence. In his cross examination, P.W.5 admitted that in all the cases, he is the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama and he gave evidence in CC.No.165/2019 on the fi le of Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class Court, Jaggaiahpeta. Further, he also admitted

that confession panchanama was conducted in the police station and obtained his signature. Again witness volunteered that he stated unknowingly. Admittedly, P.W.5 is working as Junior Assistant and on the day of incident, he worked as V.R.O. at Khammam Rural Mandal-II and he studied up to degree. The entire version of P.W.5 appears to be dubitable for the reason that he is a stock witness to the case of prosecution. He himself deposed that he acted as panch for confession in many of the cases and also deposed evidence in CC. No.165/2019 on the fi le Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.5, who is a crucial witness for the very confession of the accused persons and seizure panchanama cannot be taken into consideration.

CC. No.3291 of 2019, dt.26.04.2024

12

15. In view of the above discussion and on perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no incriminating evidence brought on record against the accused/A1 and A2 by the prosecution to prove the commission of the alleged off ences beyond all reasonable doubts. Under these circumstances, this court is of the considered view that benefi t of doubt can be extended in favour of accused/A1 and A2.

16. In the result, the accused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the off ences punishable U/secs.356 and 379 of Indian Penal Code, accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused/A1 and A2 shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged after the expiry of six months as contemplated u/s.437-A Cr.P.C. The MO.1-Pusthela Thadu of 3 Thulas gold is already returned to PW.1/Guguloth Bharathi as per the orders passed by this court vide Crl.M.P No.177 of 2019, dt.16.09.2019 shall be made absolute after appeal period is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26 th day of April, 2024.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge–cum– Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE PW.1/LW.1-Guguloth Bharathi, Complainant and Victim -NIL-

PW.2/LW.2-Guguloth Balya, Circumstantial witness

PW.3/LW.3-Guguloth Lalya, Circumstantial witness

PW.4/LW.7-Maddikuntla Rami Reddy, Panch witness for CDF panchanama

PW.5/LW.8-Chinthagunta Thirupathi Rao, Panch witness for confession-cum- recovery panchanama PW.6/LW.11-A.Indrasena Reddy, Investigating Officer

CC. No.3291 of 2019, dt.26.04.2024

13

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE: Ex.P1 is the report -NIL-

Ex.P2 is Crime details Form along with rough sketch

Ex.P3 is Portion of Confession-cum-seizure panchanama,

dated 12.02.2019.

Ex.P4 is Confession-Cum-seizure panchanama

Ex.P5 is original of FIR, dt.06.01.2019

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1-Pusthelathadu of 3 thulas Gold

Prl. Junior Civil Judge–cum– Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Khammam.

CC. No.3291 of 2019, dt.26.04.2024

14

Calendar Extract

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM-JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT KHAMMAM.

CC. No.3291 of 2019

1. Name of the Police Station: Thirumalayapalem

2. FIR No: 6/2019

3. Offence : U/Secs.356 and 379 Indian Penal Code.

4. Name of the accused: A1 – Mondithoka Veeraiah S/o Thirupaiah, 46 years, Dairy form, R/o Nagulancha Village of Chinthakani Mandal, Now at Krushibhavan area, Khammam. A2 – Mondithoka Yesobu S/o Thirupaiah, 31 years, R/o H.No.4-161, Nagulancha Village of Chinthakani Mandal, Now at Bogamkunta Bazaar, Khammam.

5. Date of;

a) Offence: 06.01.2019

b)Complaint: 06.01.2019

c)Arrest : 09.03.2019

d)Released on bail: 27.05.2019

e)Commencement of Trial 30.08.2022

f)Close of Trial: 03.04.2024

g)Date of Judgment : 26.04.2024

6. IN THE RESULT,the accused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the off ences punishable U/Secs.356 and 379 of Indian Penal Code, accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused/A1 and A2 shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged after the expiry of six months as contemplated u/s.437-A Cr.P.C. The MO.1-Pusthela Thadu of 3 Thulas gold is already returned to PW.1/Guguloth Bharathi as per the orders passed by this court vide Crl.M.P No.177 of 2019, dt.16.09.2019 shall be made absolute after appeal period is over.

7. Explanation for delay: ---

Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Khammam.

Dis. No. , Dt:

To The Hon'ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Khammam.

1

CC No.393 of 2024, dt.26.04.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT KHAMMAM

\ Friday, this the 26th day of April, 2024 Present: Smt.P.Gopika Naga Sravya, Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judl.

Magistrate of Class,

Khammam.

CC. No.393 of 2024

(Old CC No.255 of 2022)

(Old CC No.973 of 2018)

(Old CC No.217 of 2015)

BETWEEN:- The State of Telangana, through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kamepally Police Station. . . .Complainant.

And

A1 – Banoth Bhadru S/o Pentu, 54 years, Jaggery Business, R/o Tekulathanda, H/o Basithanagar Village of Kamepally Mandal. A2 – Boda Mohan Lal S/o Shankar, 39 years, Jaggery business, R/o N.V Banjara, Khammam Urban Mandal. …Accused /A1 and A2 -*- This case is coming before me on 25.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.V.Narsaiah, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri T.Prabhakar, Advocate for the accused/A1 and A2; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments on both sides and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T::

01. The State of Telangana, through Sub-Inspector of Police, Kamepally Police

Station filed charge sheet in Cr. No.68/2014 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (e) of A.P Excise Act, 1968 against accused/A1 and for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(a) r/w Sec.8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Act, 1995 and 34 (e) of A.P Excise Act, 1968 against the accused/A2.

02.The case of prosecution in a nut shell is as follows:-

i) On 27.04.2014 at 1000 hours, upon reliable information, LW.11/G.Ravinder,

Sub-Inspector of Police along with his staff proceeded to Tekulathanda Village of

Kamepally Mandal and conducting raids at the surrounding of the houses in the village. At that time the accused saw the police and fled away from his house. On that 2

CC No.393 of 2024, dt.26.04.2024

the police party searched his house and found 50 Kgs. Black jaggery and 10 Kgs. Alum.

Immediately, LW.11/G.Ravinder secured two mediators i.e., LW.1/Bhukya Kishan and

LW.2/Jajiri Anantharamulu and in their presence seized said contraband under a cover of panchanama and samples were drawn from seized jaggery and alum for forwarding the same to chemical laboratory, Warangal for analysis and report.

Having returned to police station at 1100 hours on 27.04.2014, registered a suo-moto case in Cr. No.68/2014, U/Sec.34 (e) of A.P Excise Act, 1968, issued F.I.R and sent the copies to all the concerned and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.11/G.Ravinder, S.I of police examined LW.7/M.Sukdev Naik and

LW.8/D.Bharath, Police constables and recorded their statements and later drew the rough sketch and prepared crime details form in the presence of mediators i.e.,

LW.1/Bhukya Kishan and LW.2/Jajiri Anantharamulu. On 03.06.2014 at 11.30 hours,

LW.11/G.Ravinder along with his staff proceeded to Tekulathanda and apprehended the accused/A1 and on interrogation he admitted the guilt of offence and accused/A1 confessed that since long he purchased the black jaggery and alum from accused/A2 and he sold the same to manufacturers of I.D liquor and recorded confession statement of accused/A1 and recovered the said contraband under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators i.e., LW.3/Banoth Bharath Kumar and

LW.4/Tejavath Veeranna.

ii) On 18.07.2014 at 0800 hours, LW.9/V.Venkataiah, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police along with staff proceeded to N.V Banjara Village of Raghunadhapalem Mandal and apprehended the accused/A2 and searched the house of accused/A2 and found 5 liters of I.D liquor, 10 Kgs. Black jaggery and 02 Kgs. Alum. Immediately, LW.9/V.Venkataiah,

ASI of Police secured the presence of mediators i.e.,LW.5/Jarpala Ramlal and

LW.6/Boda Shankar and recorded the confession statement of accused/A2 in the 3

CC No.393 of 2024, dt.26.04.2024

presence of said mediators and seized the said contraband under cover of panchanama and forwarded the samples for chemical analysis and report.

LW.10/K.Sridevi, Government Chemical Examiner tested the seized I.D liquor, black jaggery and alum samples and opined that these are raw materials in the manufacure of the I.D liquor. After receipt of chemical analysis report and after completion of entire investigation, LW.11/G.Ravinder, Investigating Officer filed chargesheet against the accused/A1 and A2.

03. Cognizance was taken by the then Presiding Officer for the offence punishable under Section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Act and Sec.34 (e) of A.P Excise Act against the accused/A1 and A2.

04.On appearance of accused/A1 and A2, copies of documents have been furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Criminal procedure code.

The accused/A1 and A2 were examined U/Sec.239 Criminal procedure code and charges framed under Sections 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Act and 34 (e) of A.P

Excise Act, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05. To prove the guilt of the accused/A1 and A2, the prosecution examined witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.8 and exhibited documents P.1 to P8 are marked as indicated in appendix of evidence.

06. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused/A1 and A2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating oral and documentary evidence against them and reported no defence.

07. Now the point for determination is: -

“Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused/A1

and A2 for the offence 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Act and 34 (e) of

A.P Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubts”?

4

CC No.393 of 2024, dt.26.04.2024

POINT:-

08. To prove the offences, the prosecution has to bring on record that the accused/A1 and A2 purchased the black jaggery and alum illegally to sale the same to manufacturers of I.D liquor.

09. In order to bring home guilt of accused/A1 and A2, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Of these, PW.1/LW.1, panch witness for CDF panchanama and confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1, PW.2/LW.3 and PW.3/LW.4, panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchanama of A1, PW.4/LW.5 and PW.5/LW.6, panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama of A2, PW.6/LW.8, Police constable, PW.7/LW.9, 2nd Investigating Officer and PW.8/LW.11, Investigating Officer.

i) On perusal of the evidence of PW.1/LW.1, panch witness for CDF panchanama and confession and recovery panchanama of A1 deposed in his chief-examination that he knew LW.2/J.Anantharamulu, who is no more at present. He knew the accused.

Police Kamepally did not seized any Jaggary and alum from the possession of accused/A1 in his presence and also police did not conducted any scene of offence panchanama in his presence. At about 6 years back, police obtained his signature on white papers at his village, while he is proceeding there. Ex.P1 is the signature on panchanama. PW.1 completely resiled from his earlier statement about conducting of confession-cum-seizure panchanama and CDF Panchanama, thereby failing to support the prosecution case in toto. The learned A.P.P. cross-examined PW.1, but nothing useful has been elicited against the accused/A1 about conducting of confession-cum- seizure panchanama and CDF panchanama in his presence.

ii) Further the prosecution examined PW.2/LW.3 and PW.3/LW.4, panch witnesses for confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1. They deposed that they know the accused/A1 and do not know the accused/A2 and the police Kamepally did not 5

CC No.393 of 2024, dt.26.04.2024

conduct any confession-cum-seizure panchanama in their presence and did not seize any joggery from the possession of A1. Police obtained their signatures on white papers. Exs.P3 and P4 are their signatures on Confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1 respectively. PW.2 and PW.3 completely resiled from their earlier statements about conducting of confession-cum-seizure panchanama, thereby failing to support the prosecution case in toto. The learned A.P.P. cross-examined PW.2 and PW.3, but nothing useful has been elicited against the accused/A1 about conducting of confession-cum-seizure panchanama in their presence.

iii) Further the prosecution examined PW.4/LW.5 and PW.5/LW.6, panch witnesses for confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A2. They deposed that they know the accused/A2 and do not know the accused/A1 and the police Kamepally did not conduct any confession-cum-seizure panchanama in their presence and did not seize any joggery from the possession of A2. Police obtained their signatures on white papers. Exs.P5 and P6 are their signatures on Confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A2 respectively. PW.4 and PW.5 completely resiled from their earlier statements about conducting of confession-cum-seizure panchanama, thereby failing to support the prosecution case in toto. The learned A.P.P. cross-examined PW.4 and PW.5, but nothing useful has been elicited against the accused/A2 about conducting of confession-cum-seizure panchanama in their presence.

iv)Further the prosecution examined PW.6/LW.8 in his chief-examination deposed that previously he worked as police constable in Kamepally Police Station from 01.03.2023 to 20.05.2016. At present he is working as police constable, P.S Enkoor from December, 2016. Further PW.6 deposed that on 27.04.2014 at about 10.00 AM, he along with LW.7/M.Sukdev Nayak, Lw11/G.Ravindar/S.I of

Police, P.S Kamepally went to Tekulathanda Village, Basith Nagar for 6

CC No.393 of 2024, dt.26.04.2024

conducting vehicle checking. While conducting raids for illegal manufacturing of ID Liquour, on seeing them one Banoth bhadru fl ed away from the scene of off ence. Immediately, they fi nd out the above said person and disclosed his identity as Banoth Bhadru through neighbor of the village. Immediately, LW11/G.Ravinder/S.I of Police secured the two mediators i.e, Pw.1 and LW.2/J.Anantharamulu and searched in the house of said Banoth Bhadru and they found 10 Kgs. of Alum and black

Jaggery. Then they seized 10 Kgs of Alum and Black Jaggery from the house of Banoth Bhadru. Thereafter, they came to the police station along with seized property and handed over to SHO. He have seen Banoth

Bhadru who ran away from the scene of off ence. He identifi ed accused/A1 in the court hall. Lw.11/G.Ravinder/S.I of Police examined and recorded his statement. No representation from the counsel for accused .

Hence, cross-examination of PW.6 is treated as nil.

v) Further the prosecution examined LW.9/PW.7, in his chief has narrated the chronological sequences of investigation and in cross- examination he denied the suggestion that he never conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused/A2 before the mediators i.e., PW.4 and PW.5 and the accused/A2 is nothing to do the off ence and through him Ex.P7 is marked.

vi) Further the prosecution examined PW.8/LW.11, Investigating Officer, in his chief has narrated the chronological sequences of investigation and the contents of chargesheet and in cross-examination he denied the suggestions and through him

Ex.P8 is marked.

7

CC No.393 of 2024, dt.26.04.2024

10.On perusal of entire evidence of PW.1 to PW.8, this Court finds that:

As per the evidence of PW.7/V.Venkataiah, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, he conducted confession and seizure panchanama of accused/A2 in the presence of mediators i.e., PW.4 and PW.5 and seized the contraband from the possession of accused/A2. As per the evidence of PW.8/LW.11/G.Ravinder, Investigating Officer, he conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused/A1 and CDF panchanama in the presence of mediators i.e., Pws.1 to 3 and seized the contraband from the possession of accused/A1. So, the said mediators are crucial to prove the prosecution case in whose presence the police seized contraband. But, Pws.1 to 5, who are panch witnesses for confession-cum-seizure panchanamas of accused/A1 and A2 and CDF panchanama did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile.

11. It is settled principle in criminal law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence, notwithstanding on any weakness, in the defence of the accused and the accused/A1 and A2 are entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.

12.In view of the above discussion, it is clear that except police officials none other supported the prosecution case and the mediators i.e., PW.1/LW.1, PW.2/LW.3,

PW.3/LW.4, PW.4/LW.5 and PW.5/LW.6, in whose presence PW.7/LW.9 and Pw.8/LW.11 conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanamas and CDF panchanama did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. As such, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused/A1 and A2 for the offence under Sections 7 (A) r/w 8

(e) of A.P Prohibition Act and 34 (e) of A.P Excise Act.

8

CC No.393 of 2024, dt.26.04.2024

13. IN THE RESULT, the accused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Act and 34 (e) of A.P Excise

Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code.

The bail bonds of the accused/A1 and A2 shall stand cancelled and the sureties if any shall be discharged after the expiry of six months as contemplated

U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

Typed to my dictation on the computer by the Stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26 th day of April, 2024.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE: PW.1/LW.1-Bhukya Kishan, Panch witness for CDF Panchanama PW.2/LW.3-Banoth Bharath Kumar, Panch witness for Confession-Cum-Seizure panchanama of A1 PW.3/LW.4-Tejavath Veeranna, Panch witness for confession- cum-seizure panchanama of A1 PW.4/LW.5-Jarpala Ramlal, Panch witness for confession- cum-seizure panchanama of A2 PW.5/LW.6-Boda Shankar, Panch witness for confession- cum-seizure panchanama of A2 PW.6/LW.8-D.Bharath, Police Constable PW.7/LW.9-V.Venkataiah, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police PW.8/LW.11-G.Ravinder, Investigating Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 is signature of PW.1 on CDF panchanama -NIL-

Ex.P2 is signature of PW.2 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1 Ex.P3 is signature of PW.3 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1 9

CC No.393 of 2024, dt.26.04.2024

Ex.P4 is signature of PW.4 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A2

Ex.P5 is signature of PW.5 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A2

Ex.P6 is Confession-Cum-Seizure Panchanama of A1

Ex.P7 is confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A2

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge–Cum– Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Khammam.

Calendar Extract

10

CC No.393 of 2024, dt.26.04.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM-JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT KHAMMAM.

CC. No.393 of 2024

(Old CC No.255 of 2022)

(Old CC No.973 of 2018)

(Old CC No.217 of 2015)

1. Name of the Police Station: Kamepally

2. FIR No.: 68 of 2024

3. Offence U/Sec.: U/Sec.7 (a) r/w Sec.8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Act, 1995 and 34 (e) of A.P Excise Act, 1968.

4. Name of the accused :

A1 – Banoth Bhadru S/o Pentu, 54 years, Jaggery Business, R/o Tekulathanda, H/o Basithanagar Village of Kamepally Mandal. A2 – Boda Mohan Lal S/o Shankar, 39 years, Jaggery business, R/o N.V Banjara, Khammam Urban Mandal.

5. Date of;

a) Offence: 27.04.2014

b)Complaint: 27.04.2014

c)Arrest : A1 on 03.06.2014 and A2 on 18.07.2014

d)Released on bail: A1 on 03.06.2014 and A2 on 18.07.2014

e)Commencement of Trial 18.12.2023

f)Close of Trial: 18.04.2024

g)Date of Judgment : 26.04.2024

6. IN THE RESULT, the accused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Act and 34 (e) of A.P Excise Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused/A1 and A2 shall stand cancelled and the sureties if any shall be discharged after the expiry of six months as contemplated U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

7. Explanation for delay: ---

Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Khammam. Dis. No. , Dt.

To The Hon'ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Khammam.

1

O.S No.603 of 2018, dt.25.04.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT KHAMMAM

Thursday, this the 25th day of April, 2024

Present : Smt.P.Gopika Naga Sravya, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Khammam.

O.S No.603 of 2018

Between:- Banoth Rupla S/o Chandya, Age: 50 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o H.No.4-47, Lingaram thanda Village, Gattusingaram Post, Kusumanchi Mandal, Khammam District. …Plaintiff

And

Vadthiya Veerya S/o Pakira, Age: 48 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Lingaram thanda Village, Gattusingaram Post, Kusumanchi Mandal, Khammam District. …Defendant

***

This suit is coming before me on 23.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.V.Narendra Swaroop, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Smt.D.Kalyani, Advocate for Defendant; upon perusing the material papers available on record, upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration; till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff under Order VII, Rule 1 and 2 r/w

Sec.26 of Civil Procedure Code for recovery of suit amount of

Rs.84,480/- (Rupees Eighty four thousand four hundred and eighty only) with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that;

i) It is submitted by the plaintiff that he and defendant are well acquainted with each other. Out of such acquaintance, the defendant 2

O.S No.603 of 2018, dt.25.04.2024

approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty five thousand only) from the plaintiff on 04.09.2015 to meet his family and urgent necessities and after receiving the said consideration, the defendant executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

Later the plaintiff approached the defendant and made many demands for the repayment of the due amount, but the defendant postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Vexed with the attitude of defendant, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 25.10.2017 to the defendant and the same was served upon the defendant, but in vain. Hence, the suit.

3. After numbering the suit, summons were issued to the defendant. On 28.01.2019, Sri.Pamba Venkaiah, Advocate filed

Vakalath on behalf of defendant and the learned counsel for the defendant filed written statement by denying all the material allegations of the plaint. Further the defendant submitted that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and infact the defendant never borrowed any amounts from the plaintiff at any point of time, as such the question of execution of alleged promissory note infavour of the plaintiff does not arise. Further it is submitted by the defendant that he is an agriculturist and having sufficient means to 3

O.S No.603 of 2018, dt.25.04.2024

meet his necessities, as such there is no necessity arose for the defendant to borrow such amount from the plaintiff. Further it is submitted by the defendant that the date on the alleged promissory note was altered by the plaintiff and if it is observed it is clearly reflecting as 04.09.2014, but the plaintiff altered it as 04.09.2015, which is alsoevidentfromthe date of one of the attestors, who mentioned the date as 04.09.2014 at witness coloumn.

Further it is submitted by the defendant that in order to get the limitation to file the suit, the plantiff altered the year on the alleged promissory note. Infact neither on 04.09.2014 nor 04.09.2015 the defendant borrowed any amounts from the plaintiff. Further it is submitted by the defendant that infact the suit promissory note is created document with the active collusion of attestors and scribe shown in the promissory note. Further the defenant submitted that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated document for the purpose of this case with an intention to extract money from the defendant and further there is no cause of action arose as shown by the plaintiff and it is invented and created for the purpose of filing the suit and also the suit is barred by limitation and finally prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4

O.S No.603 of 2018, dt.25.04.2024

4. In view of pleadings of both parties, the following issues are framed by my predecessor for trail.

Issue No: 1Whether the suit promissory note, dated 04.09.2015 for Rs.55,000/- is true, valid and supported by consideration and binding on the defendant?

Issue No: 2Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.84,480/- from the defendant?

Issue No: 3To what relief?

5. In order to prove the suit claim before this court, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4 i.e., Ex.A1-

Original Promissory note executed by the defendant infavour of plaintiff for Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty five thousand only), dt.04.09.2015, Ex.A2-Office copy of legal notice, dt.25.10.2017,

Ex.A3-Postal Receipt, dt.28.10.2017 and Ex.A4-Reply Notice issued to the counsel for plaintiff, dt.31.10.2017. Further on behalf of the plaintiff, one of the attestors by name Vaditya Rama Murthy is examined as PW.2 and further another attestor by name Banoth

Bhadru is examined as PW.3.

On behalf of the defendant, he himself examined as DW.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

5

O.S No.603 of 2018, dt.25.04.2024

6. Heard both sides. Perused the plaint, written statement and evidence adduced on both sides and the material available on record.

ISSUES NO.1 and 2:- As both these issues are interrelated they are discussed together.

[7. It is the case of the plaintiff that he and defendant are well acquainted with each other. Out of such acquaintance, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.55,000/- (Rupees fifty five thousand only) on 04.09.2015 from the plaintiff to meet his necessities and after receipt of the said consideration, the defendant had executed a promissory note in his favour by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum either to him or to his order on demand.

Later plaintiff made several demands for repayment of the borrowed amount under the promissory note with accrued interest thereon, but the defendant postponed the same on one pretext or the other.

Finally, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 25.10.2017 demanding the defendant to repay the said debt along with interest from the date of receipt of the notice. Though the defendant acknowledged the same, but he failed to repay the debt amount.

Hence, the suit.

8. In order to prove the case of plaintiff, he filed his chief- affidavit, examined as PW.1, reiterated the averments mentioned in 6

O.S No.603 of 2018, dt.25.04.2024

the plaint and got marked Exs.A1 to A4 i.e.,Ex.A1-Original Promissory note executed by the defendant infavour of plaintiff for Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty five thousand only), dt.04.09.2015, Ex.A2-Office copy of legal notice, dt.25.10.2017, Ex.A3-Postal Receipt, dt.28.10.2017 and

Ex.A4-Reply Notice issued to the counsel for plaintiff, dt.31.10.2017.

During the course of cross-examination, PW.1 stated that he is doing agriculture. Defendant belongs to the same village and attending agricultural works. In between 10.00 to 10.30 A.M, Ex.A1 was executed. One Bhadru and Rammurthy are attestors of Ex.A1.

Both my son and the son of defendant are stood as attestors.

First attestor signed infront of him and also mentioned the date.

PW.1 denied the suggestion that the date mentioned in Ex.A1 and under the signature of first attestor is different on that this suit is not maintainable. His son i.e., Kishan working as a police constable.

PW.1 denied the suggestion that his son and himself created fake promissory note and filed this suit as such defendant is no way connected to this case and deposing false. PW.1 has lend money to the defendant which is consideration of sale of crop.

9.Further on behalf of the plaintiff, one of the attestors by name

Vaditya Rama Murthy is examined as PW.2. As per his evidence the transaction took place on 04.09.2015 in his presence and he is one of the attestors to the promissory note under Ex.A1. During the course 7

O.S No.603 of 2018, dt.25.04.2024

of cross-examination, PW.2 stated that he was present at the time of execution of alleged promissory note in his village and one

Seetharamulu and Mangu used to write promissory note. PW.2 admitted that the date column of pronote is 2015 and the date which was present on the underneath the signature of witness is of 2014.

PW.2 stated that the plaintiff is his brother-in-law. PW.2 denied the suggestion that the scribe of promissory note is son of plaintiff and the son of plaintiff has affixed and attested the promissory note.

Further PW.2 denied the suggestion that the promissory note is time bare date and he is deposing false and had created and altered the fabricated promissory note for the purpose of this case.

10.Further on behalf of the plaintiff, another attestor by name

Banoth Bhadru is examined as PW.3. As per his evidence the transaction took place on 04.09.2015 in his presence and he is one of the attestors to the promissory note under Ex.A1. During the course of cross-examination, PW.3 stated that he has seen that plaintiff had given an amount in the year 2014. PW.3 denied the suggestion that he is deposing false.

11. The specific contention of defendant is that the plaintiff forged and fabricated the document for the purpose of the suit with an intention to extract money from him. Further it is the contention of the defendant is that the alleged promissory note was altered as 8

O.S No.603 of 2018, dt.25.04.2024

04.09.2015 and one of the attestors mentioned the date as 04.09.2014 at witness coloumn. Infact neither on 04.09.2014 nor 04.09.2015 the defendant borrowed any amounts from the plaintiff and finally prayed to dismiss the suit.

11. In order to prove the said contentions of defendant, he filed his chief-affidavit, examined as DW.1. He reiterated the averments mentioned in the written statement filed by him. During the course of cross-examination, DW.1 stated that he knew PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3.

DW.1 admitted that his son opened pesticides shop and closed the shop as he ended in debts. DW.1 denied the suggestion that he requested the PW.1 in the presence of PW.2 and PW.3 at a panchayath stating that he cannot pay the whole amount due on

Ex.A1 and told them that he can pay only Rs.30,000/-. Further DW.1 denied the suggestion that he borrowed an amount of Rs.55,000/- agreeing to repay the same at the rate of 18% per annum from PW.1.

Further DW.1 denied the suggestion that in order to evade the payment of Rs.55,000/- from PW.1, he is deposing false.

12. As per the evidence of PW.1, defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.55,000/- on 04.09.2015 for his necessities and after receipt of the same, the defendant had executed a promissory note, dt.04.09.2015 for Rs.55,000/- under Ex.A1. Subsequently, the defendant failed to repay the same with interest and he filed suit 9

O.S No.603 of 2018, dt.25.04.2024

against the defendant for recovery of suit amount of Rs.84,480/-.

13. Further as per the evidence of PW.2, who is attestor to the promissory note under Ex.A1, the transaction took place between

PW.1 and DW.1 in his presence and in the presence of B.Bhadru on 04.09.2015. But in the cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that the date which was present on the underneath the signature of witness is of 2014. Further PW.2 admitted that the date column of promissory note is 2015.

14. Further as per the evidence of PW.3, who is another attestor to the promissory note under Ex.A1, the transaction took place between

PW.1 and DW.1 in his presence and in the presence of PW.2 on 04.09.2015. But in the cross-examination, PW.3 stated that he has seen the plaintiff had given an amount in the year 2014.

15. As per the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, the transaction took place on 04.09.2015. But in the cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that the date which was present on the underneath the signature of witness is of 2014 and PW.3 stated that PW.1 gave amount in the year 2014.

On perusal of Ex.A1 shows that one of the attestors signed in the promissory note on 04.09.2014. So, it creates doubt that when the transaction took place on 04.09.2015, how the attestor signed on 04.09.2014 in Ex.A1. Actually in any promissory notes, 10

O.S No.603 of 2018, dt.25.04.2024

on which date the transaction took place, on the same date the attestors will be signed on the promissory notes. But in Ex.A1 there is variation about the transaction date and one of the attestors signature date. So, this court agree with the version of defendant that Ex.A1-Promissory note is forged and fabricated one for the purpose of filing the suit as an after thought.

16. In view of the above discussion, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant by fabricating Ex.A1.

Accordingly, issues No.1 and 2 are answered infavour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

ISSUE No.3:-

17.In view of my findings in issues No.1 and 2, issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

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

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of April, 2024.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff: Defendant: PW.1 : Banoth Rupla DW.1-Vadithya Veerya

PW.2 : Vaditya Rama Murthy

PW.3 : Banoth Bhadru 11

O.S No.603 of 2018, dt.25.04.2024

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

Plaintiff: Ex.A1-Original Promissory note executed by the defendant infavour of plaintiff for Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty five thousand only), dt.04.09.2015

Ex.A2-Office copy of legal notice, dt.25.10.2017

Ex.A3-Postal Receipt, dt.28.10.2017

Ex.A4-Reply Notice issued to the counsel for plaintiff, dt.31.10.2017

Defendant :

-NIL-

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

1

O.S No.19 of 2019, dt.24.04.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT KHAMMAM

Wednesday, this the 24th day of April, 2024

Present : Smt.P.Gopika Naga Sravya, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Khammam.

O.S No.19 of 2019

Between:- Thatikonda Sanathana Chary S/o Kanakaiah, Age: 46 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Bachodu Village, Thirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam District. …Plaintiff

And

Prathapani Gangadhar S/o Sree Ramulu, Age: 55 years, Occu: Business, R/o H.No.4-2-311/34/8/B, Srinivas Nagar, Teachers Colony, Khammam City and District. …Defendant

***

This suit is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.A.Qayyum, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri K.Ravindra Swamy, Advocate for Defendant; upon perusing the material papers available on record, upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration; till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff under Order VII, Rule 1 and 2 r/w Sec.26 of Civil Procedure Code for recovery of suit amount of

Rs.2,11,666/- (Rupees Two lakhs eleven thousand six hundred and sixty six only) with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that;

i) It is submitted by the plaintiff that he and the defendant are well acquainted with each other. Out of such acquaintance, the defendant 2

O.S No.19 of 2019, dt.24.04.2024

approached the plaintiff at his residence at Bachodu Village of

Thirumalayapalem and borrowed an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees

One lakh twenty five thousand only) on 08.03.2016 to meet his business necessities and after receiving the said consideration, the defendant executed a demand promissory note infavour of the plaintiff on the same day, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

Subsequently the defendant paid an amount of Rs.16,500/- towards interest to the plaintiff and again took the said amount of Rs.16,500/- on the same day and endorsed the same on the reverse of the said promissory note. Later the plaintiff made several oral demands for repayment of the said amount along with interest, but the defendant postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the defendant got issued legal notice on 25.07.2017 stating that he has obtained an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from the plaintiff and that he cleared the due on 09.03.2016 and called up on the plaintiff to return the so called pronote. Then the plaintiff got issued reply notice, dt.05.08.2017 to the defendant and to his advocate and the same was received by his advocate on 07.08.2017, but the defendant neither paid the amount nor gave any rejoinder to the said reply notice, dt.05.08.2017. Hence, the suit.

3

O.S No.19 of 2019, dt.24.04.2024

3. The learned counsel for the defendant filed written statement by denying all the material allegations of the plaint. Further the defendant submitted that he paid three (3) transactions to the plaintiff i.e., Rs.1,10,000/- towards promissory note amount,

Rs.1,00,000/- at Laxmi Vilas Bank and Rs.15,000/- transfer from

Andhra Bank to the plaintiff, in total Rs.2,25,000/-. Further the defendant submitted that the plaintiff on 23.07.2017 based on hidden promissory note, he filed suit vide O.S No.19 of 2019 and thereafter panchayath was held. Further the defendant submitted that on 15.10.2017, the plaintiff has taken away the motor cycle bearing No.AP-20P-9950 of defendant, due to which he gave complaint before Thirumalayapalem Police Station against the plaintiff, then the S.I of Police took the motor cycle from the plaintiff and returned it to defendant. Further it is submitted that the promissory note transaction is forged and concocted to grab the amount through legal process from him and finally prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. In view of pleadings of both parties, the following issues are framed by my predecessor for settlement of trial.

Issue No: 1Whether the suit promissory note, dated 08.03.2016 is true, valid and binding upon the defendant or not?

4

O.S No.19 of 2019, dt.24.04.2024

Issue No: 2Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount of Rs.2,11,666/-?

Issue No.3To what relief?

5. In order to prove the suit claim before this court, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4 i.e., Ex.A1-

Original Promissory note executed by the defendant infavour of plaintiff for Rs.1,25,000/-, dt.08.03.2016, Ex.A2-Office copy of legal notice got issued by the defendant, dt.25.07.2017, Ex.A3-Reply notice, dt.05.08.2017 and Ex.A4-Postal receipt, dt.05.08.2017.

Though ample of opportunities were given, conditional orders passed and costs imposed to cross-examine Pw.1, but the learned counsel for defendant did not turn up to cross-examine the Pw.1, hence the cross-examination of Pw.1 is treated as nil. Further on behalf of plaintiff, the attestor No.1 of suit promissory note by name

T.Sathyanarayana Chary filed his chief affidavit as PW.2. Though several opportunities were given to PW.2 to appear before the court for cross-examination of defendant, but he failed to appear before the court, hence the evidence of PW.2 is eschewed on 07.12.2023.

Further on the same day, on behalf of plaintiff, another attester by name T.Dharma Chary is examined as PW.2.

Thereafter opportunities given to adduce the evidence on behalf of defendant side, but the defendant failed to adduce his evidence.

5

O.S No.19 of 2019, dt.24.04.2024

As such, on behalf of the defendant, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

6. Heard. Perused the plaint, written statement and evidence adduced on behalf of plaintiff and the material available on record.

ISSUESs NO.1 and 2:- As these both issues are interrelated with each other they are discussed together.

7. It is the case of the plaintiff that he and defendant are well ac- quainted with each other. Out of such acquaintance, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One lakh twenty five thousand only) from the plaintiff on 08.03.2016 to meet his business necessities and executed a promissory note infavour of the plaintiff on the same day, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Subsequently, the defendant paid an amount of Rs.16,500/- towards interest and again took an amount of Rs.16,500/- on the same day and endorsed the same on the reverse of the said promissory note. Later plaintiff made demands for repayment of the said amount with interest, but the defendant postponed the same on one pretext or the other and got issued legal notice by the defendant on 25.07.2017 stating that the defendant obtained loan from plaintiff on 27.02.2015 and cleared the due with interest on 09.03.2016 and called upon to return the 6

O.S No.19 of 2019, dt.24.04.2024

promissory note. Thereafter, the plaintiff got issued reply notice on 05.08.2017, which was received by the advocate of defendant on 07.08.2017, but the defendant neither paid the amount nor gave any reply and that he filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of suit amount.

8. In order to prove the case of plaintiff, he filed his chief-affi- davit, examined as PW.1, reiterated the averments mentioned in the plaint and got marked the documents i.e., Exs.A1 to A4.

The oral evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A4 clearly estab- lishes that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from the plaintiff on 08.03.2016 and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in- favour of plaintiff and agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to him or to his order on demand. To prove the same, on behalf of the plaintiff, T.Dharma Chary, who is one of the attestors to the suit promissory note is examined as PW.2.

His evidence is corroborated with the evidence of PW.1. Though sev- eral opportunities were given for cross-examination of P.W.1, but as the defendant did not turn up, the cross-examination of Pw.1 is treated as nil. Though PW.2 is cross-examined at length, but nothing elicited in the cross-examination of PW.2 infavour of the defendant.

Hence, the plaintiff discharged his initial burden of proving the suit transaction under Ex.A1, then the burden shifts to the defendant to 7

O.S No.19 of 2019, dt.24.04.2024

disprove the case of the plaintiff.

9.The defendant specifically contended that he paid

Rs.2,25,000/- to the plaintiff in 3 transactions, but the plaintiff on 23.07.2017 demanded amount based on hidden promissory note and filed this suit falsely, and that the promissory note transaction is a forged one and concocted to grab the amount through legal process and finally prayed to dismiss the suit.

10. In order to prove the contentions of defendant, he filed only written statement by denying the contents of plaint. Though he has taken the main plea of forgery and fabrication, but he failed to take steps to send the Ex.A1 promissory note to the handwriting expert for comparison and report to establish that the signature on Ex.A1 does not belongs to him. Further though several opportunities were given to the defendant, passing of conditional orders and imposing costs, for cross-examination of PW.1 and to adduce the evidence on his behalf, but he did not turn up for cross-examination of PW.1 and no evidence adduced on behalf of defendant. So, the said contentions not considered by this court as he failed to prove the same. Hence, the plaintiff has established his case by adducing oral and documentary evidence of Pws.1, 2 and Exs.A1 to A4. Accordingly, issues No.1 and 2 are answered infavour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

8

O.S No.19 of 2019, dt.24.04.2024

ISSUE No.3:-

11. In view of my findings in issues No.1 and 2, issue No.3 is answered infavour of plaintiff.

In the result, the suit is decreed without costs infavour of plaintiff and against the defendant for a suit claim of Rs.2,11,666/- (Rupees Two lakhs eleven thousand six hundred and sixty six only) with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization, on principal amount of

Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand only).

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

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of April, 2024.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW.1 : T.Sanathana Chary -None- PW.2 : T.Satyanarayana Chary (Eschewed) PW.2 : T.Dharma Chary

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

Plaintiff: Ex.A1– Original Promissory Note executed by the defendant infavour of plaintiff for Rs.1,25,000/-, dt.08.03.2016.

Ex.A2 – Office copy of legal notice got issued by the defendant, dt.25.07.2017 9

O.S No.19 of 2019, dt.24.04.2024

Ex.A3 – Reply Notice, dt.05.08.2017

Ex.A4 – Postal Receipt, dt.05.08.2017

Defendant :- -NIL-

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

TSKH030049832018

Presented on : 28-12-2018 Registered on : 31-12-2018 Decided on : 29-04-2024 Duration : 5 years, 4 months, 1 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Khammam AT KHAMMAM URBAN ,KHAMMAM Presided Over by SMT. DEEPA KASARAGADDA

EP/100128/2018

Exhibit No.:

: M/s.Shriram Chits Private Limited, Khammam-I Branch Age: 41 Occupation : Address: M/s.Shriram Chits Private Limited, Khammam-I Branch

VERSUS : Mrs.Gade Rama Age: 0 Occupation : Address: H.no.5-2-248/E/5, Mustafa Nagar, Khammam 2:Gade Ramesh Age: 0 Occupation : S/o.Anjaiah Occ-SGT Giddavarigudem Resident of H.No.8-1-224/1 Khanapuram Khammam.

3:Sale Sudhakar Age: 0 Occupation : S/o.Vedanayakam Occ-SGT O/O.PS.Dondapadu Mellacheruvu Mandal Suryapeta District. Resident of H.No.3-91/1 Nayanagar Kodada Nalgonda District.

4:Myla Prem Shyam Kumar Age: 0 Occupation : S/o.John Peter Occ-Head M.P.P.S. Master Jaggaiahpeta Krishna District Resident of H.NO.11-254 Jaggaiahpeta Krishna District.

5:Malisetti Srinivasa Rao Age: 0 Occupation : S/o.Balaiah Occ-Computer faculty Star Spoken English institute Khammam Resident of H.No.5-2-248/E/5 Mustafa Nagar Khammam ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : SUDHAKAR RAO DANDA Advocate for : appearing for Mrs.Gade Rama: Advocate , , , appearing for 2, 3, 4, 5 respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 29-04-2024 )

ORDER

D.Hr. and his counsel present. The learned counsel for D.Hr. filed full satisfaction memo stating that the matter was settled outside of the court by the D.Hr. and the J.Dr. No.3 approached the D.Hr. and paid the settled amount and the same is recorded. Hence, the E.P is dismissed as not pressed.

Date : 29-04-2024 (SMT. DEEPA KASARAGADDA)

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam

KHAMMAM

URBAN ,KHAMMAM

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(SMT. DEEPA

KASARAGADDA)

{JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME}

KHAMMAM

URBAN ,KHAMMAM

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS