Rallabandi Santhi Latha

1CC.No. 70/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM - ADDL.JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT MADHIRA.

Dated this the 24th day of April, 2025

Present: Smt. R.Santhilatha, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Acts - cum - V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Khammam FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Madhira

CC No. 70 OF 2024

Between: State through represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Excise Wyra

….....Complainant

AND Banoth Parvathi, W/o Mothiya, Age: 52 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Narayya Banjara village of Thallada Mandal, Khammam District.

......Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 23.04.2025 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri T.Venkat Rao; Advocate for the accused; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of 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. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Proh. & Excise, Wyra filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.7A R/W Sec. 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition

Act, 1995 in COR.No.56/2023 of Proh.& Excise Station, Madhira.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge sheet are that on 01.09.2023 at 06.40 PM, on credible information LW.3/R.Kireeti ,SI of Police, Proh.

& Excise, Wyra along with staff proceeded to outskirts of Siripuram village of Madhira

Mandal, Khammam District for conducting raids, there they secured the presence of two mediators LW.1/Jarpula Venkateswarlu and LW.2/Dharmasothu Nagendrababu, during the raids detected a case of illegal possession/sale of ID Liquor ie., 03 litres in (03) plastic bottles each one litre ( 3x1 = 3 litres). Then, the raid party seized the contra band 2CC.No. 70/2024 under cover of panchanama in the presence of said mediators. On the strength of the panchanama LW.3, registered a case in COR.No.56/2023, dated 01.09.2023, U/s.7A r/w

Sec. 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 and took up the investigation.

3.During the investigation, the drawn samples were sent for chemical analysis to

Regional Laboratory for Proh. & Excise at Warangal. The chemical examiner for Proh. &

Excise at Warangal who analyzed the sample opined that the sample was Illicit Distilled

Liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health, vide letter CE. No.

1022/2023, Dt: 06.09.2023, Sl.No. 7969. The seized property was produced before the

Deputy Commissioner of Proh. and Excise, Khammam and the same was confiscated by the respected authority through Proc. in Cr.No.75/2015/P&Ex/A2, dt: 18.12.2023 and in compliance with the orders issued thereof, the I.D Liquor was destroyed on 22.12.2023 in the presence of Assistant Proh.& Excise, Superintendent, Khammam under cover of panchanama. After the completion of investigation the LW-3 laid charge sheet

before the court.

4.This court took the cognizance for offence U/s.7A R/W Sec. 8(e) of Telangana

Prohibition Act, 1995 and on appearance of accused the case copies were furnished to her as contemplated U/s.207 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (herein after referred as

Cr.P.C in brevity).

5. The accused was examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C and on considering the material on record and upon hearing, a charge for the offence U/s.7A R/W Sec. 8(e) of Telangana

Prohibition Act, 1995 was framed, read over and explained to her in Telugu for which she denied the charges leveled against her and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case proceeded for trial.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. PW.1 is the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama.

3CC.No. 70/2024

L.W.1 is given up by the learned APPO. PW.2 is the investigating officer, who laid down the charge sheet.

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating evidence found against him, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the arguments from both sides. Perused the evidence on record.

9.Now, The point for determination of this court is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence Act U/s. 7A r/w Sec. 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995?”

POINT: In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution has to establish that the accused was in possession of I.D liquor and to earn illegal money in view of the prohibition imposed by the Government.

10. The evidence available on record is the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 . To establish the said fact, the prosecution placed the reliance on the ocular evidence of

PW.1 and PW.2 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. PW.1 is the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanamas. PW.2 is investigating officer.

11.Now let us examine whether the prosecution was able to prove the case with the aid of PW.1 and PW.2.

12.Scanning the evidence on record it transpires that the evidence is of PW.1 and

PW.2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. PW.1 is the Panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama. He deposed that he is the resident of the Narayya Banjara of Thallada

Mandal. In the year 2023 the accused confessed before him when the excise officials seized three bottles of ID liquor from the possession of accused. The accused confessed

before him that she is eking her livelihood by selling the ID liquor. The excise officials

4CC.No. 70/2024 opened the seized bottles and they smelled the aroma and found it to be pungent and later he also smelled the aroma and foundit to be ID liquor (SARA). About three samples were drawn into bottles from the seized liquor in his presence and panchanama was conducted and later he signed on the panchanama after reading over the contents of the panchanama ie.,. Ex.P1 and is scribed by the excise officials.

During the cross-examination of the PW1, he testified that, in the year 2023 the excise officials called him while he was walking on the road towards his grocery store at Narayya Banjara. About 5 to 6 excise officials were present in the van when they called him. When he called by the officials LW1 was also present along with him.

By the time reached the spot the excise officials were present and on seeing their presence he went to the spot. PW1 stated that he does not know who exactly scribed the Ex.P1. The police scribed the matter on Ex.P1 and he does not know on whose narration it was scribed. He was called by the excise officials in the evening hours at about 06:00 to 06:30 PM. He was not tutored by any one to depose as witness. He does not in good terms with the accused and they does not talk. He negated few general suggestions posed by counsel of accused.

13. The prosecution choose to examine the PW.2/R.Kireeti, who is one of the

Investigating Officer in this case, in his examination in chief, he deposed that, on 01.09.2023 at about 06:40 PM, on credible information he along with staff of Excise station Wyra proceeded to conduct raids at Narayya Banjara Village Thallada Mandal.

There they secured the presence of LW1 and PW1. While the raids were being conducted the accused was found accused holding a white plastic bag and roaming in a suspicious manner and the same was observed by the raid party. Then the raid party stopped the accused and searched her bag and he found three plastic bottles each consisting of one 5CC.No. 70/2024 liter of ID liquor, total 3 liters of ID liquor. Later the accused confessed before the PW1 and LW1 and a panchanama (Ex.P1) was recorded. From the seized ID liquor 2X180 ml of samples were drawn so as to send them for chemical analysis. Based on the strength of panchanama he issued the COR.No. 56/2023 dated 01.09.2023 which is marked as Ex.P2. PW1 issued section 41A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. After that he sent the seized samples to the RCL, Warangal and received the Analysis report vide C.E.

No. 1022/2023 bearing Sl.No.7969 pertaining to this case dated 06.09.2023 and it is marked as Ex.P3. (Subject to objection as it is an attested copy). The seized property was produced before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Khammam and the same was confiscated by the authority through proceeding Cr.No. 75/2015/P&Ex/A2

dated 18.12.2023. The ID liquor vide Sl.No.3 was destroyed on 22.12.2023 on the

destruction proceedings issued by Deputy Commissioner, P&E vide proceedings dated 18.12.2023. Ex.P4 is the destruction proceedings (Subject to objection as it is an attested copy). The seized ID liquor in this case is mentioned in Sl.No.1 in the Ex.P4.

The seized ID liquor vide Sl.No.3 was destroyed under the cover of panchanama on 22.12.2023. Ex.P5 is the destruction panchanama. (Subject to objection as it is an attested copy). On completion of the investigation he laid down the chargesheet against the accused before this court for the offence under section 7A read with 8(e) of

Telangana Prohibition Act 1995.

During the cross examination of PW.2, he testified that he along with four constables went for conducting raids and their names are Seetharam, Ravi,

Nagendramma, Nageswar Rao. On the day of conducting the raids he registered only this case. PW2 secured the presence LW1 and PW1 at the outskirts of Narayya Banjara

Village. He did not ask them to board their official jeep and they walked. He did not 6CC.No. 70/2024 mention the direction at Narayya Banjara village where he secured the presence of PW1 and LW1. Ex.P1 is scribed by him. He scribed the Ex.P1 on his own. He did not mention the details of the official vehicle which was used for their transportation on the date of conducting of raids. He did not mention the boundaries of the spot where the alleged contraband/ID liquor was seized. PW2 admitted that the Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 are attested copies which are signed by him. PW2 admitted that he is the detecting officer and he is the seizure officer and he registered the case. He negated few general suggestions posed by counsel of accused.

14.The prosecution has to establish the seizure of the illicit contra band from the possession of the accused from the evidence of PW1 and PW2. Unless the seizure of the illicit contraband from the possession of the accused is established, the guilt of the accused is not proved, as there is no cogent and reliable evidence to believe the version of the PW.2. There is no sufficient material to bring home the guilt of the accused.

15.Having gone through the documents on record Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 reveals that

PW.2/Investigating Officer seized the alleged Illicit I.D liquor of 03 litres from the possession of accused and the same was destroyed after drawing samples. The prohibited

ID liquor which said to be seized from the possession of accused is not established with the aid of PW.1, the crucial confession and seizure witnesses. Therefore, the material available on record is not enough to come to the conclusion that the accused was the possessor of the prohibited ID liquor. In addition to that the investigating officer did not comply the mandatory provision and requirement U/s.100 (4) of Cr.P.C. In these circumstances it is highly unsafe for rely on the testimony of PW.2 in the absence of corroboration from independence source. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal on benefit of doubt.

7CC.No. 70/2024

16. The evidence of investigation officer who is the complainant cannot be given much credible and the accused persons are entitled for such benefit of doubt as laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Poduturi Satyam Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh; 2000 SCC online AP 922; 2000(1) ALT(Cri) 66.

17.Thus, the evidence brought on record and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have not established the offence and are also not conclusive in nature as the circumstances are not pointing towards the accused. Hence, in the absence of the credible cogent evidence, the evidence available here does not make out a primafacie case against accused, leave alone proving the case against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt.

18. Since circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt of the accused is to be drawn are not established and the contention of the prosecution that the alleged offence must have been committed by accused cannot be accepted.

19. On careful consideration of entire evidence of PW.1 and PW2 coupled with

Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 this court opines that the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of the accused for the charged offence U/s.7A R/W Sec. 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Hence, the point is answered accordingly.

20. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.7A

R/W Sec. 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 as such she is acquitted U/s.248 (1) of

Cr.P.C for the offence U/s.7A R/W Sec. 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995. The accused is set at liberty in this case. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Any 8CC.No. 70/2024 unmarked property or any property seized by the agency of prosecution shall be destroyed by following the due procedure laid down Under the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973.

Typed on my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of April, 2025

FAC. ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

MADHIRA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1: D.Nagendra Babu - Nil - PW.2: R.Kireeti, Investigating Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution: Ex.P1: is signature on the confession panchanama Ex.P2: is COR Ex.P3: is sample analysis report provided by the RCL, Warangal Ex.P4: is destruction proceedings Ex.P5: is destruction panchanama

Defence: - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

--Nil--

FAC. ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

MADHIRA.

1 CC.No. 122/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM - ADDL.JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT MADHIRA.

Dated this the 16th day of April, 2025

Present: Smt. R.Santhilatha, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Acts - cum - V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Khammam FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Madeira

CC.No. 122/2020

Between: State through represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Wyra

.... Complainant

And

Brahmarasi Kiran, S/o Ramaiah, Age: 27 years, Occ: Mason, R/o Rebbavaram village of Wyra Mandal, Khammam District

......Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 02.04.2025 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri D.Jagan Mohan Rao, Advocate for the accused; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of 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. The Sub Inspector of Police, Wyra Police Station filed a charge sheet in Crime

No.255/2019 against accused for the offences punishable Under sections 454, 380 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as IPC 1860).

2. The case of the prosecution in nut shell is stated below:

On 23.11.2019 at 17:45 hours, the informant/LW1/Gunti Venkateswarlu, came to police station and lodged a Telugu written petition at Police Station Wyra, stating that “on 22.11.2019 at morning 10:00 hours he and his wife LW2/Gunti Jayamma and his son

LW3/Gunti Ramakrishna went to their field by closing the door of their house and kept the bolt. After completion of their work they came back to the house on the same day 2 CC.No. 122/2020 in the evening hours at 05:00 hours and by opening the doors, they observed that the door of the Almarah was opened, they checked the almarah with doubt. Then they did not found his wife’s two ropes Gold Nanthadu weighing 30 grams worth of Rs. 60,000/- and cash of Rs.1500/- in the almarah and one Jil black color cell phone worth of

Rs.1000/-. Then they observed that the missing items are stolen by unknown offenders, gained entry into the house by opening the bolt of the doors and committed the theft and decamped with stolen booty. Finally, he requested to take necessary action against the accused person.

3. On receipt of the above petition from informant, the LW8/T.Naresh, SI of police,

PS Wyra, registered a case in crime number 255/2019, for the offence under sections 454, 380 of Indian Penal Code 1860, and transmitted the First Information Report (FIR) to all concerned.

4. During the course of investigation, the LW8 examined the LW.1 and recorded his statement in part-II of the case diary in detail. Later visited the scene of offence at

Rebbavaram village of Wyra and secured the mediators LW.4/B.Naresh and

LW.5/S.Ramakrishna and drew the rough sketch of the scene of offence and drafted crime detail form (CDF) in the presence of mediators and later examined and recorded the statements of LW2 and LW3 in part II case dairy. Subsequently, the SI of police (LW.9/V.Suresh) took up further investigation from LW8 and verified the investigation done by him and found it to be on correct lines and continued further investigation of the case.

5. On 07.12.2019 at 0730 hours on reliable information the LW.8 along with his staff proceeded to Rebbavaram village and conducted vehicle check, then they 3 CC.No. 122/2020 apprehended the accused and arrested the accused and the accused was interrogated

before the mediators LW6/Thota Nageswara Rao and LW7/Thumu Sudhakar and on

interrogation he revealed his name and he used to attend petty works but the amounts was not sufficient to his personal needs and he addicted to bad vices and decided to commit property offences to earn the money easily and enjoying his life lavishly.

6. On 05.01.2020 as per the orders of the Hon’ble Court, the LW9 handed over the case property to this Court and registered a case and accused was produced before this court in Cr.No. 255/2019, U/Sec 454, 380 of IPC 1860 for judicial remand.

7. After completion of investigation, LW-9 /Investigating officer, filed charge sheet against accused person. Summons were served upon the accused and on his appearance, the case copies were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure 1973 (Herein after referred to as Cr.P.C)

8. The accused was examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/S’s.

454,380 of IPC 1860 against the accused, and charge under section 240 of Cr.P.C framed against the accused for the offences under section’s 454 and 380 of IPC 1860, were read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language (Telugu) for which, the accused denied his involvement in the crime, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the informant/LW1/Gunti Venkateswarlu as PW1, LW2/PW2/ Gunti Jayamma and

LW3/PW3/Gunti Ramakrishna are arraigned as the circumstantial witmesses, LW6/PW4/

Siliveru Ramakrishna and LW4/PW8/Brahmarasi Naresh are arraigned as the panch witness for the CDF, LW7/PW5/Thumu Sudhakar and LW6/PW6/Thota Nageswara Rao are arraigned as the Panch witnesses for the confession cum seizure panchanama. The 4 CC.No. 122/2020

LW8/PW7/T.Naresh is the investigating officer. This court closed the evidence of LW.9.

Prosecution evidence is closed.

10. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating evidence found against him, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

11. Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

12. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused for the offeces punishable Under Section 454, 380 of

IPC, with which they were charged. If so, whether the accused

is liable for punishment of the same ?”

13. To prove the alleged offence U/secs. 454, 380 of IPC 1860, the prosecution has to establish the essential ingredients of the said offence are as follows;

Ingredients of offence:

The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 454 are as follows:

(1) The accused did lurking house trespass (2) It was done in order to commit theft.

In a case of offence U/S 380 IPC, prosecution has to prove the following ingredients: (I) Accused removed movable property;

(ii) He removed the property out of the possession of another person without his consent;

(iii) He did so with a dishonest intention and;

(iv) The property was removed from the building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or for the custody of the property.

14.POINT:

To prove its case against the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.8 and M.O.1 marked. P.W.1 testified that 5 years ago he along with LW2 went to their fields to cultivate the land and they did not lock their 5 CC.No. 122/2020 house and when they returned to their house by 5.00 PM they found that the almarah was broke open and gold Nuptial thread was missing and Rs. 1500/- and a mobile phone worth of Rs. 1200/- was missing later he went to police station and lodged a report in

P.S.Wyra. Ex.P1 petition is marked through P.W.1. during cross examination PW1 deposed that he is not eye witness to the incident and further deposed that his mother was present at the house at the time of incident.

15.PW2 is wife of PW1 and PW3 is son of PW1. They deposed with the same lines of

PW1. During cross-examination nothing elicited against their version.

16. PW4 to PW6 and PW8 are panch witnesses for the Scene of offence pan- chanama and seizure panchanama and they deposed that they do not witnesses the inci- dent and they do not know the facts of the case further deposed that Police obtained sig- nature on a white paper. PW4 to PW6 and PW8 also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination by the learned APP their sig- natures on CDF and confession cum seizure panchanama are marked as Exs.P2 to P4 and

P8.

17. PW7 deposed that on 23.11.2019 at 1745 hours he received Ex.P1/Petition from

PW1 basing on the same he registered the case in crime No. 255/2019 for the offence un- der section 454, 380 of IPC and issued FIR under exhibit P5 later he went to the scene of offence on the same day and conducted scene of offence panchanama in presence of

PW4 and PW8 later on 7.12.2019 he along with staff proceeded to the Rebbavaram Vil- lage and conducted search operation and upon searching vehicle and found the accused roaming in a suspicious manner and cased and nabbed him and also secured PW5 and 6 CC.No. 122/2020

PW6 and accused confessed about the commission of the offence in presence of PW5 and

PW6 and recovered MO1 - Two level gold chain from the possession of accused in pres- ence of PW5 and PW6 under cover of panchnama under Ex.P7.

18. In the present case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 who are the ma- terial witnesses but nothing was deposed by them with regard to the commission of theft by the accused. More over PW1 to 3 are not eye witness to the incidence and PW4 to

PW6 and PW8 turned hostile. The learned APP examined them under Sec 154 Indian Ev- idence Act, but nothing was elicited from them against the accused that the accused committed theft of MO1 .

19.At this juncture the learned defence counsel submitted a decision reported in 1994(2) ALD (Crl.) 69 (A.P.) Bothsaraju Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, the

Hon’ble High Court held that – Where recovery of stolen articles from the accused was

not proved by the independent evidence and punch witness turned hostile and no motive was made out against the hostile witnesses that they are interested in the accused, conviction cannot be sustained on the evidence of sole Police Officers, without corroboration by the disinterested witnesses.”

20. As seen from the above decision, it is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. In this case, Pws.4 to 6 and PW8 alleged mediators for the CDF and arrest of the accused, seizure of the property are turned hostile and there is no direct witness to the alleged offence of theft and there is no independent witness to prove the alleged seizure of the property except the evidence of PW7, who is investigating officer in this case. So, the evidence of PW.7 can be doubted with regard to the arrest of the accused and seizure of the property from the possession of the accused and seized the articles from the possession of the accused.

7 CC.No. 122/2020

21.So in the above circumstances I am of the opinion that the the above cited the de- cision is squarely applicable to the facts of present case. Hence in view of my above fore- going discussion the prosecution miserably failed to prove the seizure of the stolen prop- erty from the possession of the accused and theft of articles from the possession of MO.1 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 454 and 380 of IPC.

22.Hence, there is no legal evidence in this case to punish the accused. Hence, the benefit of doubt extended to the accused.

23. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 454, 380 of IPC 1860 and acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. 1973. The accused person is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused shall stand discharged after expiry of six months as contemplated U/sec 437A Cr.P.C. Any unmarked property or any property seized by the agency of prosecution shall be disposed off by following the due procedure as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Typed to dictation to Stenographer Grade-III on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of April, 2025.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Madhira.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence: Nil. PW.1: G.Venkateswarlu PW2: G.Jayamma PW3: G.Ramakrishna PW4: S.Ramakrishna PW5: T.Sudhakar PW6: T.Nageswara Rao PW7: T.Naresh PW8: B.Naresh 8 CC.No. 122/2020

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution: Ex.P1: is the report/petition Ex.P2: is the signature of PW4 on Crime Detail Form Ex.P3: is the signature of PW5 on Confession cum Seizure panchanama Ex.P4: is the signature of PW6 on Confession cum Seizure panchanama Ex.P5: is the FIR Ex.P6: is the CDF Ex.P7: is the Confession cum recovery panchanama Ex.P8: is the signature of PW8 on CDF

Defence: -Nil-

Material Objects:

1. Two level Gold Nanthadu weighing 30 grams worth of Rs. 60,000/-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Madhira.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE MADHIRA.

Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2025.

Present: Smt. R.Santhilatha, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Acts - cum - V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Khammam FAC.Prl. Junior Civil Judge – cum - Prl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Madhira.

E.P.No. 18/2024

Between: M/s Jagannath Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. Madhira Branch, Rep by its Manager/Foreman, Tummala Ravi Kumar, S/o Pandu Ranga Rao, Age: 50 years, R/o Vijayawada -1 ….Petitioner/Award Holder

And

1. Kandhimalla Rajanikanth, S/o Venkateswarlu, Age: 35 years, R/o D.No. 2-72, Gosaveedu village of Gampalagudem Mandal, Krishna District

2. Kandhimalla Pitchaiah, S/o Venkateswarlu, Age: 40 years, C/o SR Educational Academy, Siddartha Nagar, D.No. 60-4-2, First Lane, Siddhartha College Back side, Vijayawada-10

3. Bodepudi Yugandhar Babu, S/o Nageswara Rao, Age: 38 years, R/o D.No. FF-1, Venkateswara Nivas, PRS Street, Penamaluru Post and Mandal, Krishna District

4. Kandhimalla Radhika, W/o Pitchaiah, Age: 33 years, C/o SR Educataional Academy, Siddartha Nagar, D.No. 60-4-2, First Lane, Siddhartha College Back side, Vijayawada-10 …..J.Dr’s/Respondents.

This petition coming before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sri. Kavuri Ramesh, Advocate for Award holder and Sri D.Subramanyam, Advocate for the J.Dr’s; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court passed the following:

O R D E R

1.This is an application filed by the Award Holder/D.Hr. U/order 21 R. 21, 54, 64 and 66 C.P.C to issue notice to J.Dr, attach the petition schedule property and to put the same for sale under Sec. 64 to 66 C.P.C.

2.The brief averments of the affidavit accompanying the petition are that the Deputy

Registrar of Chits passed an Award on 23.06.2023 infavour of Award holder/D.Hr and against the Judgment debtor for a sum of Rs. 7,80,970/- together with interest @12% p.a. on an amount of Rs. 6,30,000/- from the date of Award to till the date fo realization. The D.Hr further submits taht J.Dr. No.1 possessed and owned the immovable property shown the in the schedule property and he is trying to alienate the EP Schedule property and Inspite of several demands and request of the D.Hr, to the JDR to discharge the Award amount, he did not pay the said amount and has been postponing the same on one pretext or other. Hence petition.

3.Per contra, the J.Dr filed the counter by denying the petition averments and submitted that D.Hr obtained Ex-Parte award against the J.Dr No.1 and 2 and award passed by the Arbitrator is arbitrary and further contends that J.Dr is not having any movable or immovable properties and he ois not having any sufficient means and capacity to discharge the award amount and further contends that J.Dr. No.1 discharged installments amount. The

J.Dr further contends that the schedule property was already mortgaged with the Union Bank of India, Yerrupalem and the J.Dr No. 1 has no right to alienate the petition schedule property.

4.No evidence was adduced on both sides and no documents were marked.

5.Heard both the learned counsels for D.Hr and the J.Drs perused the material available on record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the D. Hr is entitled to proceed for execution of decree?

7.It is the main contention of the D.Hr that the Arbitration Award was passed in favour of D.Hr on 23.06.2023 inspite of several demands and requests to the J.Dr, to discharge the

Award amount, they did not pay the said amount and has been postponing the same.

8.Per contra, the contention of the J.Dr is that the EP schedule property was already mortgaged to Union Bank of India and the J.Dr No.1 is not having any interest over the schedule property. To substantiate the contention of the JDR, the J.Dr filed EC of shedule property along with counter. On perusal of EC filed along with counter it reveals that charge was created infavour of Union Bank of India over the property in survey No. 342/ ఠ to an extent of Ac. 2.0400 guntas and in survey No. 341/ఇ/2 to an extent of Ac. 02.2800. On perusal of EC it shows the transaction date as 28.11.2021.

9.The D.Hr filed a memo along with EC of the schedule property which shows there are no encumberances over the EP schedule property. The D.Hr filed EC which was obtained from the Sub- Registrar Madhira where the J.Dr filed copy of the EC and there is no authentication from where the said EC was obtained. More over if really the J.Dr mortagaged the EP schedule proeprty to Union Bank of India certainly the JDR would be in possession of document to substantiate the same. Non-filing of document though in a possession of J.Dr, the court can draw adverse inference against the J.Dr. The J.Dr can also file any document from the Union Bank of India to show that the EP schedule property mortgaged to the said bank. No proper documents filed by the J.Dr to prove his contentions. Under these circumstances the contention of the J.Dr is found no merits. Thus, this point accordingly in favour of the D.Hr. and against the J.Dr. Therefore, it is just and proper to issue Rule 54 attachment warrant to attach the petition Schedule property.

10.In the result, the petition is allowed attach the E.P.Schedule property meanwhile issue

R.54 notice to J.Dr on process by 11.05.2025.

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer Grade-III on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of April, 2025.

FAC.Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Madhira.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

Nil

FAC.Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Madhira.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE MADHIRA.

Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2025.

Present: Smt. R.Santhilatha, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Acts - cum - V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Khammam FAC.Prl. Junior Civil Judge – cum - Prl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Madhira.

E.P.No. 17/2024

Between: M/s Jagannath Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. Madhira Branch, Rep by its Manager/Foreman, Tummala Ravi Kumar, S/o Pandu Ranga Rao, Age: 50 years, R/o Vijayawada -1 ….Petitioner/Award Holder

And

1. Kandhimalla Venkateswarlu, S/o Pitchaiah, Age: 50 years, R/o D.No. 12-4, Gosaveedu village of Gampalagudem Mandal, Krishna District

2. Kandhimalla Pitchaiah, S/o Venkateswarlu, Age: 40 years, C/o SR Educataional Academy, Siddartha Nagar, D.No. 60-4-2, First Lane, Siddhartha College Back side, Vijayawada-10

3. Kandhimalla Radhika, W/o Pitchaiah, Age: 33 years, C/o SR Educataional Academy, Siddartha Nagar, D.No. 60-4-2, First Lane, Siddhartha College Back side, Vijayawada-10 …..J.Dr’s/Respondents.

This petition coming before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sri. Kavuri Ramesh, Advocate for Award holder and Sri D.Subramanyam, Advocate for the J.Dr’s; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court passed the following:

O R D E R

1.This is an application filed by the Award Holder/D.Hr. U/order 21 R. 21, 54 C.P.C to issue notice to J.Dr, attach the petition schedule property and to put the same for sale under

Sec. 64 to 66 C.P.C.

2.The brief averments of the affidavit accompanying the petition are that the Deputy

Registrar of Chits passed an Award on 23.06.2023 infavour of Award holder/D.Hr and against the Judgment debtor for a sum of Rs. 5,54,200/- together with interest @12% p.a. on an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- from the date of Award to till the date fo realization. The D.Hr further submits that J.Dr. No.1 possessed and owned the immovable property shown in the schedule property and he is trying to alienate the EP Schedule property and Inspite of several demands and request of the D.Hr, to the JDR to discharge the Award amount, he did not pay the said amount and has been postponing the same on one pretext or other. Hence petition.

3.Per contra, the J.Dr filed the counter by denying the petition averments and submitted that D.Hr obtained Ex-Parte award against the J.Dr No.1 and 2 and award passed by the Arbitrator is arbitrary and further contends that J.Dr is not having any movable or immovable properties and he is not having any sufficient means and capacity to discharge the award amount and further contends that J.Dr. No.1 discharged installments amount. The

J.Dr further contends that the schedule property was already mortgaged with the Union Bank of India, Yerrupalem and the J.Dr No. 1 has no right to alienate the petition schedule property.

4.No evidence was adduced on both sides and no documents were marked.

5.Heard both the learned counsels for D.Hr and the J.Drs perused the material available on record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the D. Hr is entitled to proceed for execution of decree?

7.It is the main contention of the D.Hr that the Arbitration Award was passed in favour of D.Hr on 23.06.2023 inspite of several demands and requests to the J.Dr, to discharge the

Award amount, they did not pay the said amount and has been postponing the same.

8.Per contra, the contention of the J.Dr is that the EP schedule property was already mortgaged to Union Bank of India and the J.Dr No.1 is not having any interest over the schedule property. To substantiate the contention of the JDR, the J.Dr filed EC of shedule property along with counter. On perusal of EC filed along with counter it reveals that charge was created infavour of Union Bank of India over the property in survey No. 342/ఔ to an extent of Ac. 1.0300 guntas and in survey No. 338/AA to an extent of Ac. 2.1200. On perusal of EC it shows the transaction date as 26.09.2022.

9.The D.Hr filed a memo along with EC of the schedule property which shows there are no encumberances over the EP schedule property. The D.Hr filed EC which was obtained from the Sub- Registrar Madhira where the J.Dr filed copy of the EC and there is no authentication from where the said EC was obtained. More over if really the J.Dr mortagaged the EP schedule proeprty to Union Bank of India certainly the JDR would be in possession of document to substantiate the same. Non-filing of document though in a possession of J.Dr, the court can draw adverse inference against the J.Dr. The J.Dr can also file any document from the Union Bank of India to show that the EP schedule property mortgaged to the said bank. No proper documents filed by the J.Dr to prove his contentions. Under these circumstances the contention of the J.Dr is found no merits. Thus, this point accordingly in favour of the D.Hr. and against the J.Dr. Therefore, it is just and proper to issue Rule 54 attachment warrant to attach the petition Schedule property.

10.In the result, the petition is allowed attach the E.P.Schedule property meanwhile issue

R.54 notice to J.Dr on process by 11.05.2025.

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer Grade-III on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of April, 2025.

FAC.Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Madhira.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

Nil

FAC.Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Madhira.

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira

AT MADHIRA ,KHAMMAM

(Presided Over by RALLABANDI SANTHI LATHA)

CC/261/2025

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): SHO Bonakal Through Police Station Officer Bonakal 117, Bonakal Madhira Circle Igp, Warangal Region Khammam

MADHIRA KHAMMAM

SHO Bonakal VERSUS : Venkateswarlu Abbanapuri Age: 63 Occupation : 00Jayanagar Colony,Ballepalli,Jayanagar Colony,Khammam Urban,KHAMMAM,TELANGANA 2:Jayamma Abbanapuri Age: 52 Occupation : 00Jayanagar Colony Ballepalli Jayanagar Colony Khammam Urban

KHAMMAM

TELANGANA

3:Gangabhavani Abbanapuri Age: 31 Occupation : 00Jayanagar Colony Ballepalli Jayanagar Colony

Khammam Urban

KHAMMAM

TELANGANA

4:Kousalya Abboju Age: 75 Occupation : 00Medidadapally Medidapalli Medidadapally Thirumalayapalem

KHAMMAM

TELANGANA

5:Kalyani Anugoju Age: 44 Occupation : 00Dornakal Dornakal Dornakal Dornakal

MAHABUBABAD

TELANGAN

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 26-04-2025)

The LW1/Informant/Injured called present and accused called present.The LW1 voluntarily reported compromise.The calendar case is taken on file against accused for the of fences under 448, 294(b),323,506 of IPC 1860.The LW1 reported that she is ready to compromise the case with the accused and filed an application U/s 320 of Cr.P.C 1973 was moved. The prosecution altered the section from 324 to 323 of IPC 1860.The learned APPO withdrawn offenses U/s 294(b) of IPC 1860. The LW1 moved an application to compound the offenses U/s 448,323,506 of IPC . The plea of the LW1 is accepted and the case is compounded.AS per Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C the accused is acquitted. Any unmarked property or property seized , by the agency of the prosecution shall be disposed off by following the due procedure of law as contemplated Under the code of criminal procedure 1973. This case is disposed as compromise.

(RALLABANDI SANTHI LATHA)

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Madhira