Kum. S. Jyothi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: ALUR.

Present:-Smt S.Jyothi

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Alur.

Monday this the 11th day of April, 2022.

C.C. No.97 of 2018

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Aspari Police Station.

...Complainant

Vs

1. Kuruva Narasimhulu, age 35 years, S/o Chinna Mallappa, Yerrakota village, Yemmiganur (M).

2. Golla Veeresh, age 36 years, S/o Kesavaiah, R/o Kairuppala village, Aspari (M).

3. Golla Ravindra, age 33 years, S/o Kesavaiah, R/o Kairuppala village, Aspari (M).

...Accused

This case is coming on 04.04.2022 for final hearing before me and upon perusing the entire material available on record and upon hearing the arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and of Sri K.Ravi and Sri

K.Vijaya Bhaskar, advocates for the accused No.1 to 3 and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Aspari PS. filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 in Crime No.05 of 2018 of Aspari Police Station, for the offences punishable under section 3(e) of Prevention of Damage of Public

Property Act with the following allegations:-

2.The case of the prosecution as set out in the charge- sheet in brief is as follows: The accused No.1 is resident of Yerrakota village of Yemmiganur mandal, A2 and A3 are residents of Kairuppala village of Aspari mandal. The complainant by name K.Basavamma/Pw.1 who is resident of Kairuppala village Aspari mandal, Pw.2 and 3 are the son and father of Pw.1. The complainant running cable network since 20 years. Prior to this complaint in the year 2016 the complainant took the connection from 2 Yerrakota Sri Lakshminarasimha Cable Net work and running the cable by paying the amount. At present, the Government had sanctioned AP Fiber

Grid OLT connection, on knowing the same the accused was disconnected the dish link of the complainant and took the connection to another person who is residing the same village. On 13.01.2018 at about 6.30 AM in

Kairuppala village of Aspari mandal, wherein the accused No.1 to 3 were damaged the AP Fiber Grid connection belongs to the complainant, keeping the old grudges mind.

3.Basing on the complaint of Pw.1, Pw.7 S.I. of Police registered a case in Cr.No.05/2018 for the offence U/sec.3(E) of PDPP Act against the accused No.1 to 3. After completion of investigation, Pw.7 arrested the accused No.1 to 3 and send them for judicial remand. Hence, the charge.

4.This case was taken cognizance for the offence under U/sec.3(E) of PDPP Act and issued summons to the accused No.1 to 3.

5.On appearance of accused before this court, copies of document furnished and when he was examined under Sec.239 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C’) about the substance of allegations leveled in the charge-sheet, accused denied the same and hence a charge

U/sec.3(E) of PDPP Act was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of prosecution, Pws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P10 and M.O.1 were got marked.

7.After the closure of prosecution evidence, accused No.1 to 3 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.PC. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied and further stated that they did not commit any offence and they were implicated in a false case. Accused No.1 and 2 did not choose to examine any defence witnesses nor marked any documents.

3

8.Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now, the point that arise for determination are as follows :-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish that Accused No.1 to 3 committed an offence punishable U/sec.3(E) of PDPP Act beyond the reasonable doubts ?

10.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined

PW1 to PW8 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P10 and also M.O.1.

11.The stand of the accused is of total denial.

12.POINT :

PW1 is the defacto-complainant-victim. But, she categorically deposed that she installed cable connection to the television from the shop of the accused A1 and agreed to pay Rs.800/- per month. Afterwards Government sanctioned OLT Fiber connection to her office. Later A1 to A3 disconnected the cable wire connections upto 20 to 25 poles from Agraharam to kairuppala village through which she gets the signals to her office . In cross-examination she admitted that she did not know A1 to A3 and she did not know the contents of the report.

13.PW2 who is the son of PW1 also categorically deposed that he did not know the accused and the facts of the case. PW3 to PW6 deposed that they did not know the accused and the facts of the case, the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor has declared them as hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the Court. PW2 to PW6 denied that they stated

before the police, as in Ex.P2 to Ex.P6 i.e., their respective statements

recorded under section 161(3) of Criminal Procedure Code. Nothing was elicited from their evidence which helps the prosecution to prove the material allegations leveled against them. PW7 deposed that on 17.01.2018 he received Ex.P-1 complaint from Pw.1, based on which he registered a case 4 in Cr.No.5/2018 U/sec.3(E) of PDPP Act and examined Pws.1 and 2. Further he stated that, he visited the scene of offence at Kairuppala village, there he observed the scene and drafted Ex.P-8 and P-9 and prepared Ex.P7 seizure panchanama. In cross-examination he admitted that PW1 came to know about the incident through M.Lakshmanna. He admitted that as per record the incident occurred on 13.01.2018 but the report was lodged on 17.01.2018 and no reasons were mentioned for the delay in lodging the case. It is the contention of learned counsel for accused that, the alleged incident took place on 13.01.2018, but the report was lodged by Pw.1 on 17.01.2018. Therefore, he would contend that there is a delay in lodging of

F.I.R., further no reason were assigned for such delay by the Investigating

Officer nor by Pw.1. Therefore, if really the the alleged incident had taken place on 13.01.2018, what prevented Pw.1 from lodging the case immediately after the incident. Therefore, the delay in preferring complaint against accused No.1 to 3 create serious doubts and non explanation of reasons for such delay is fatal to the case of prosecution. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for accused is sustainable. Further, Pw.1 herself in her evidence admitted that, she did not know the facts of the case and she did not know contents of the report.

14.In such facts and circumstances,Court finds no convincing material to hold that accused A1 to A3 caused mischief. Therefore, the Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 3(E) of Prevention of Damage to Public

Property. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

15.In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 3(E) of Prevention of Damage to Public

Property. Therefore, the accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code for the said offences and they are set at liberty.

5 The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of

Criminal Procedure Code. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 11th day of April, 2022.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Alur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Defence :

P.W-1: Basavamma-None- P.W-2: Sai Narendra P.W-3: Hariharappa P.W-4: Devaraju P.W-5: Mallaiah P.W-6: Yerriswamy P.W-7: P.Shankaraiah, S.I. of Police. P.W-8: Y.Vijaya Kumar, S.I. of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P-1: Report of Pw.1. Ex.P-2: 161, Cr.P.C. statement of P.W-2. Ex.P-3: 161, Cr.P.C. statement of P.W-3. Ex.P-4: 161, Cr.P.C. statement of P.W-4. Ex.P-5: 161, Cr.P.C. statement of P.W-5. Ex.P-6: 161, Cr.P.C. statement of P.W-6. Ex.P-7: Confession and seizure panchanama. Ex.P-8: Rough sketch of scene 1. Ex.P-9: Rough sketch of scene 2.

For Defence : -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS Marked

M.O.1: APFSL STERLITE-G657A, 2FIADSS2017-1703 cable wire.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Alur.

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

ALUR CALENDAR CASE NO.97/2018 1Date of offence17.01.2018 2Date of complaint 3Date of apprehension of accused No.118.01.2018 30.01.2018 Date of apprehension of A2 and A3 4Date of release on bail of accused No.118.01.2018 30.01.2018 Date of release on bail of accused No.2 and 3 5Date of commencement of trial25.10.2021 6Date of close of trial30.03.2022 7Date of Judgment 11.04.2022 ComplainantState represented by the Sub Inspector of Aspari Police Station. Accused1. Kuruva Narasimhulu, age 35 years, S/o Chinna Mallappa, Yerrakota village, Yemmiganur (M).

2. Golla Veeresh, age 36 years, S/o Kesavaiah, R/o Kairuppala village, Aspari (M).

3. Golla Ravindra, age 33 years, S/o Kesavaiah, R/o Kairuppala village, Aspari (M).

Offence Prevention of Damage to Public Property. Section of LawU/Secs. 3(E) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property. FindingAccused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty. Sentence or In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty order for the offence punishable under section 3(E) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property. Therefore, the accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code for the said offences and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ALUR.

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief-Judicial Magistrate-cum-

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

Kurnool.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALUR.

Present : Smt.S.Jyothi Junior Civil Judge, Alur.

Tuesday this the 12th day of April, 2022

O.S.No.145/2021

Between :

Bandari Bajarappa…. Plaintif

And

1. Bandari Ramudu

2. Bandari Babu… Defendants

This suit is coming on 01.04.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Ramanjineyulu and Sri H.Anjanappa, Advocates for the plaintif and the defendants were remained exparte and after hearing the counsel for the plaintif, this court delivered the following :-

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintif against the defendants for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintif is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since 2018. He further submitted that, recognizing his possession the Revenue Authorities issued patta in the name of the plaintif. The plaintif further submitted that, since from the date of issuance of house site patta the plaintif is in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property without any interruption from anybody. He further submitted that, he got permission from the Gram 2

Panchayath Secretary for construction of house and he also got electricity connection service bearing No.8112104005935 from

Electricity Department. Therefore, the plaintif got title over the plaint schedule property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till today. On 30.11.2021 the defendants No.1 and 2 are entered into the plaint schedule property with rowdy elements and tried to dispossess the plaintif from the plaint schedule property. The defendants are nothing to do with the plaint schedule property, there were diferences in between the plaintif and defendants with regard to panchayath elections. Further submitted that, the defendants are created fictitious documents and making hectic eforts with the

Revenue Authorities by entering their names in the Revenue Records by deleting the name of the plaintif from the Revenue Records and the defendants manage the Revenue Authorities with the help of ruling party. Hence, the plaintif constrained to file this suit for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants.

4.Summons were issued to the defendants to appear before the Court and contest the suit. Defendants did not file any written statement and they were set exparte. Hence, the defendants were set to exparte.

5.On behalf of the plaintif, the plaintif himself examined as

Pw.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 are marked. Since no further evidence is reported, the plaintif evidence is closed.

6.Heard the counsel for the plaintif.

7.Now the point for determination is:-

1. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of

permanent injunction as prayed for ?

3

2. To what relief ?

8.The plaintif himself examined as PW.1 and got marked

Exs.A1 to A4 documents. The averments of Chief Affidavit of the PW.1 are in the lines of plaint. The description of Ex.A1 to A4 documents are as follows.

1. Ex.A1 House site patta issued in favour of the plaintif by the

Tahsildar, Alur Dt:28.10.2021.

2. Ex.A2 Electricity bill bearing No.8112104005935 issued in favour of the plaintif by electricity department, Alur.

3. Ex.A3 Attested copy of house construction proceedings issued in favour of the plaintif by the Secretary, Gram panchayath, Alur.

4. Ex.A-4 Building photos along with C.D.

09.Since the defendants were remained exparte, the evidence of Pw.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 remained un-challenged and un-rebutted.

10.Point No.2:-

To What relief ?

The suit is instituted for grant of permanent injunction. It is the burden of the plaintif to establish his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The evidence of plaintif himself examined as Pw.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 documents are the available evidence to prove the stand of the plaintif. Perused the Exs.A1 to A4 documents. All these prima facie proved the stand of the plaintif. These documents supporting the contention of the plaintif that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Since the defendant remained exparte the evidence of Pw.1 and Exs.A1 to Ex.A4 documents remained un-challenged and un-rebutted. Therefore, this court hold that the plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment as on the date 4 of filing of the suit and he is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants.

11.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs; by granting permanent injunction, restraining the defendants and their men not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictation to the stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 12th day of April, 2022.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For plaintif : For defendants:

P.W-1: Bandari Bajarappa -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintifs:

Ex.A1: House site patta issued in favour of the plaintif by the Tahsildar, Alur Dt:28.10.2021.

Ex.A2: Electricity bill bearing No.8112104005935 issued in favour of the plaintif by electricity department, Alur.

Ex.A3: Attested copy of house construction proceedings issued in favour of the plaintif by the Secretary, Gram panchayath, Alur.

Ex.A4: Building photos along with C.D.

For Defendants:-Nil-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALUR.

Present : Smt.S.Jyothi, Junior Civil Judge,Alur.

Tuesday this the 12th day of April, 2022.

O.S.No.122/2018

Between :

C.Basamma … Plaintif

And

T.Mallikarjuna … Defendant

This suit is coming on 8.04.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Siddappa, Advocate for the plaintif and the defendant set exparte and after hearing the counsel for the plaintif, this court delivered the following :-

JUDGMENT

1. This suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendant to recover an amount of Rs.18,040/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand and Forty only) with interest at 24% per annum and for costs of the suit.

2. The plaint averments in brief are as follows :

Suit to recover a sum of Rs.18,040/- being the principal and interest due under a promissory note dated 13.07.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif towards his borrowed amount of

Rs.14,000/-(Rupees Fourfteen Thousand only) and agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif, the defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintif. On 11.09.2018 the plaintif got issued a legal notice to the defendant to repay the suit amount, but the defendant did not pay any amount. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant set exparte to the suit proceedings. Exparte evidence of the plaintif PW1 recorded. Exs.A-1 to A3 are marked.

4.Heard the counsel for the plaintif.

2

5.Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount?

2. To what relief?

6.POINT NO.1 :- The case of the plaintif based on the promissory note which was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif on 13.07.2017 for an amount of Rs.14,000/-(Rupees Fourteen Thousand only) and executed pronote and agreeing to repay at 24% pa on payment. In spite of oral demands made by the plaintif, defendant did not choose to repay the borrowed amount either principal or interest. On 11.09.2019 the plaintif got issued a legal notice to the defendant. Exparte evidence of plaintif/ PW1 recorded suit promissory note is marked as Ex.A1 and defendant signed across revenue stamp affixed on the promissory note, Ex.A2 office copy of legal notice Dt:11.9.2018 and Ex.A3 postal receipt. The evidence of PW1 shows that the defendant borrowed Ex.A1 pronote amount for his family necessities. The unchallenged testimony of the plaintif shows that the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount along with interest from the defendant. Hence, the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly point No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintif.

7.POINT NO.2:- In view of the findings on point No.1, the suit of the plaintif is liable to be decreed.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintif and plaintif is entitled for an amount of Rs.18,040/- from defendant with interest on principal amount from the date of suit till the date of decree at the rate of 12% p.a. and from the date of decree till the date of realization at the rate of 6% p.a. on principal amount of Rs.14,000/- with promissory note to the plaintif.

Typed to my Dictation to the Stenographer typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court this the 12th day of April, 2022.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALUR.

3

APPENDIpX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif : For Defendant:

P.W-1: C.Basamma-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintif :

Ex.A-1: Original promissory note dated 13.07.2017 for Rs.14,000/-.

Ex.A-2: Office copy of legal notice Dt:11.9.2018.

Ex.A-3: Postal receipt.

For Defendant :-Nil-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALUR.

Present : Smt.S.Jyothi, Junior Civil Judge,Alur.

Wednesday this the 13th day of April, 2022.

O.S.No.17/2020

Between :

A.Vishnumurthy … Plaintif

And

S.Devendra Kumar … Defendant

This suit is coming on 11.04.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Ravi and Sri K.Vijaya Bhaskar, Advocates for the plaintif and the defendant set exparte and after hearing the counsel for the plaintif, this court delivered the following :-

JUDGMENT

1. This suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendant to recover an amount of Rs.2,15,340/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifteen thousand three hundred and forty only) with interest at 24% per annum and for costs of the suit.

2. The plaint averments in brief are as follows :

Suit to recover a sum of Rs.2,15,340/- being the principal and interest due under a promissory note dated 10.03.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif towards his borrowed amount of

Rs.1,84,000/-(Rupees one lakh eighty Four Thousand only) and agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. On 01.11.2019 the defendant made part payment of Rs.1,00,000/- towards interest and the same was endorsed on the back of the promissory note. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif, the defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintif. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant was set exparte to the suit proceedings. Exparte evidence of the plaintif PW1 recorded. Ex.A-1 is marked.

2

4.Heard the counsel for the plaintif.

5.Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount?

2. To what relief?

6.POINT NO.1 :- The case of the plaintif based on the promissory note which was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif on 10.03.2017 for an amount of Rs.1,84,000/- and executed pronote and agreeing to repay the amount at the rate of 24% pa. On 01.11.2019 the defendant made part payment of Rs.1,00,000/- towards interest and the same was endorsed on the back side of the promissory note. In spite of oral demands made by the plaintif, defendant did not choose to repay the borrowed amount. Exparte evidence of plaintif/PW1 recorded suit promissory note is marked as Ex.A1 and defendant signed across revenue stamp affixed on the promissory note. The evidence of PW1 shows that the defendant borrowed Ex.A1 pronote amount for his family necessities. The unchallenged testimony of the plaintif shows that the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount along with interest from the defendant. Hence, the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly point

No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintif.

7.POINT NO.2:- In view of the findings on point No.1, the suit of the plaintif is liable to be decreed.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintif and plaintif is entitled for an amount of Rs.2,15,340/- from defendant with interest on principal amount from the date of suit till the date of decree at the rate of 12% p.a. and from the date of decree till the date of realization at the rate of 6% p.a. on principal amount of Rs.1,84,000/- with promissory note to the plaintif.

Typed to my Dictation to the Stenographer typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court this the 13th day of April, 2022.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALUR.

3

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif : For Defendant:

P.W-1: A.Vishnumurthy-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintif :

Ex.A-1: Original promissory note dated 10.03.2017 for Rs.1,84,000/-.

For Defendant :-Nil-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALUR.

4

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALUR.

Present: - SMT S.JYOTHI, Junior Civil Judge, Alur.

This the 11th day of April, 2021.

E.P.28/2019 IN O.S.92/2018

P.Linga Reddy, S/o P.Yella Reddy, Hindu, aged about 52 years, Agriculturist, R/o Nagaradona village,

Chippagiri Mandalam, Kurnool District. .... Petitioner/D.Hr.

Vs.

K.Usenappa, S/o Pottanetti Ranganna, aged about 46 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Ramadurgam village, Chippagiri mandal, Kurnool District. …Respondent/J.Dr.

This petition coming on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri. K.Ravi and Sri K.Vijaya Bhaskar, advocate for the petitioner/D.Hr. and the respondent/J.Dr. remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/D.Hr. against the Respondent/

J.Dr. Under Order 21 rules 37 and 38 of CPC issue order for arrest of J.Dr. And commit him to civil prison till the realisation of the E.P. amount towards the E.P. amount in full satisfaction in the ends of justice.

2.Full satisfaction memo filed. Full satisfaction recorded, E.P. is termited.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11 th day of April, 2021.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

None

Exhibits marked -Nil-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALUR