Smt.s.kavitha, M.com, M.a., M.l.,

II-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

Prl District Court Ongole · Prakasham · Andhra Pradesh

SMT.S.KAVITHA, M.Com, M.A., M.L.,, II-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE, is posted at Prl District Court Ongole, Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,336 court orders on record since 2011. 8 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, PRC cases.

1,336

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/724/2010

C.C.K.R CHITS AND FINANCE PVT.LTD vs Ram Venkateswarlu Reddy

30 Apr 2012

In the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Present: Smt S.Kavitha, M.Com., M.A., L.L.M.,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Monday, this the 30 th day of April, 2012

Original Suit No. 724/2010

Between:

CCKR Chits and Finance Private Limited, Ongole, rep. by its Assistant Manager, Y. Ramana Reddy. …. Plaintiff.

And

1.Ram Venkateswarlu Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy, Hindu, aged about 29 years, employee, Kaleswari Lorry Transport, R/o. D.No. 5-152, Sali Veedhi, Stonehouse pet, Nellore town, Nellore District.

2. Vallapu Srinivasulu, S/o. Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 41 years, Attender, Town planning section, Nellore Municipal corporation, Nellore town, Nellore District.

3. Ellapu Venkaiah, S/o. Ankaiah, Hindu, aged about 41 years, fitter, coolie, Engineering Section Water Department, Nellore Municipal corporation, Nellore town, Nellore District.

4. Ram Subba Reddy, S/o. Subbaiah, Hindu, aged about 51 years, Rice Broker, R/o. Kaluvai village, post and Mandal, Nellore District.

5. Pachipala Mahalakshmi, W/o.late Pachipala Mastan Hindu, aged about 26 years, Attender, water section, Nellore Municipal corporation, Santhapet, Nellore town, Nellore District.

6.Pachipala Mounica, D/o. Late pachipala Mastan, aged about 8 years, being minor rep. by her mother Pachipala Mahalakshmi i.e. 5th defendant.

2 7.Pachipala Mahi Priya, D/o. Late Pachipala Mastan, Hindu, aged about 3 years, being minor rep. by her mother Pachipala Mahalakshmi i.e. 5th defendant as a guardian.

( Sri P. Pavan Kumar advocate is appointed as court guardian for D6 and D7 as per orders in I.A. 2671/10 dt. 22-9-2011). …. Defendants.

This suit coming on 23-4-2012 this day for disposal before me in the presence of Sri P.V.Srinivasa Gupta and K.R.Thimothi Paul advocates for plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 remained exparte, and of Sri P.

Pavan Kumar advocate for D6 and D7 and upon perusing the material available 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 //

The plaintiff Chit Fund Company filed this suit against the defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs.32,031/- basing on the foot of chit transaction and for costs.

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

The plaintiff company is registered with the registrar of companies on 20-1-1993. The plaintiff is running chits in their regular course of business. In the year 2008 they started a chit group NCSR 2 .

They are having bye-laws and get the chit registered and also obtained commencement certificate.

3.On 30-7-2008 the first defendant joined as a member in the suit chit by entering into chit agreement with the plaintiff company and his ticket No is 22 in NCSR 2 group. Duration of chit is 25 months and value of chit is Rs. 50,000/- and each installment is Rs.2,000/-. The 1st defendant participated in second auction held on 10-9-2008 and he is successful prized bidder and the bid amount is Rs.15,000/-. The 1st defendant agreed to forgo the bid amount and to receive the price on 3 amount of Rs.35,000/- it was duly confirmed by the plaintiff and the future dues are Rs.46,000/- towards guarantee for the payment of future installments the 1st defendant brought the defendants 2 to 4 and husband of 5th defendant who is the father of 6th and 7th defendants by name Pachhipala Mastan as his guarantors.

4.On 9-3-2009 the 1st defendant received Rs. 15,890/- by way of account payee cheque bearing No. 527015 belongs to Syndicate

Bank, Nellore branch and the amount of Rs.19,110/- has been adjusted towards part payment of suit chit, document charges and his another chit due under receipt No. 6071 and 6072. The defendants 1 to 4 and husband of 5th defendant executed joint promissory note dt. 9-3-2009 infavour of plaintiff in Ongole promising to repay the future installments with interest at 18% p.a. either to the plaintiffs firm or to their order on demand. The 1st defendant got executed a receipt of voucher in evidence of receipt of prized amount by way of cheque and receipts.

Defendants 2 to 4 and the husband of 5th defendant executed agreement of guarantee infavour of plaintiff in Ongole and agreeing to stood as guarantors of 1st defendant for prompt payment of all the future installments due by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff.

5.The 1st defendant paid upto 11 installments in full and part payment of Rs.802/- in 12th installment thereafter he committed default in paying the installments to the plaintiff for which the plaintiff got issued a registered lawyer notice to the defendants 1 to 4 and husband of 5th defendant on 6-8-2010. The 2nd defendant received said notice and the defendant 1,3 and 4 returned the notices as well as notices sent to the husband of 5th defendant by name Pachipala Mastan was returned with endorsement that he died for which the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt. 22-11-2010 to the LR’s of late Pachipala Mastan i.e. D5 to D7 as well as copy of lawyer notice dt. 22-11-2010 was also sent under certificate of post to defendants 1 to 4. After the death of Pachipala 4 Mastan the LR’s said Pachipala Mastan i.e. defendants 5 to 7 step into the shoes of late Pachipala Mastan because they received death benefits and other estate of late Pachipala Mastan, all the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. Pachipala Mastan died intestate, now the property of Pachipala Mastan is in possession of defendants 5 to

7. Hence this suit.

6.Defendants 6 and 7 filed written statement denying the allegations of plaint and the brief averments of said written statement are as follows:-

The defendant paid up to 12 installments and remaining installments were not paid by the defendant. The plaintiff did not deduct the commission amount from defendants debt amount. The plaintiff company has been conducting chit auction and also every month bidders are getting some commission amount but that amount did not deduct from their bid amount. The 2nd and 3rd defendants are

Government employees and they are getting salaries every month, so the plaintiff can recover the debt amount from the 2nd and 3rd defendants. Intentionally the plaintiff company impleaded defendants 6 and 7.

Defendants 1 to 5 remained exparte.

7.Basing on the pleadings the following issues have been settled for trial.

(1) Whether the chit agreement is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

(2) Whether the plaintiff company is entitled for recovery of suit amount?

(3) To what relief?

8.The Assistant Manager of Plaintiff Company was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A22 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff company. Defendants 6 and 7 reported no evidence.

9.Heard both sides.

10.Issue No.1:- To prove the case of the plaintiff the Assistant

Manager of plaintiff company was examined as PW.1. PW.1 in his chief affidavit reiterated the contents of plaint. During the course of cross examination PW.1 denied a suggestion that defendants 6 and 7 are not liable to pay any amount. Further PW.1 denied a suggestion that the plaintiff company calculated the interest wrongly. Further PW.1 denied a suggestion that the plaintiff Chit Fund Company has not deducted the commission. Further PW.1 denied a suggestion that the defendants6 and 7 are minors and they are no way related to this suit.

11.Exs.A1 to A22 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff company.

Ex.A1 is the notarized copy of certificate of incorporation dt. 20-1- 1993, Ex.A2 is the notarized copy of resolution dt. 25-8-2005, Ex.A3 is the notarized copy of Bye-law dt. 8-7-2008, Ex.A4 is the notarized copy of certificate of registration of Form-II dt. 8-7-2008, Ex.A5 is the notarized copy of commencement certificate Form No.III ddt. 27-8-2008,

Ex.A6 is the chit agreement dt. 20-7-2008, Ex.A7 is the Joint promissory note dt. 9-3-2009, Ex.A8 is the Voucher dt. 9-3-2009, Ex.A9 is the receipt

dt. 9-3-2009, Ex.A10 is the agreement of guarantee dt. 9-3-2009, Ex.A11

is the office copy of lawyer notice dt. 6-8-2010, Ex.A12 is the returned cover from D1 dt.10-8-2010, Ex.A13 is the acknowledgment from D2 dt.

7-8-2010, Ex.A14 is the returned cover from D3 dt.17-8-2010, Ex.15 is the returned cover from D4 dt. 10-8-2010, Ex.A16 is the returned cover addressed to P.Mastan dt. 7-8-2010, Ex.A17 is the office copy of lawyer notice dt. 22-11-2010, Ex.A18 is the returned cover from D5 dt. 1-12- 2010, Ex.A19 is the returned cover from D6 dt. 1-12-2010, Ex.A20 is the returned cover form D7 dt. 1-12-2010, Ex.A21 is the postal receipts under certificate of posting, Ex.A22 is the account copy dt. 11-12-2010.

12.As per Ex.A6 the 1st defendant executed chit agreement infavour of the plaintiff company for chit amount of

Rs.50,000/- payable in 25 installments and each installment is Rs.2000/- and chit No. NCSR 2/22 was allotted to the 1st defendant. As per Ex.A7 defendants 1 to 4 and late Pachipala Mastan were executed promissory note infavour of plaintiff company for Rs.46,000/-. As per Exs.A8 and A9 the 1st defendant executed voucher and receipt for Rs. 50,000/- infavour of plaintiff company. As per Ex.A10 the defendants 2 to 4 and late

Pachipala Mastan executed agreement of guarantee infavour of plaintiff company.

13.From Ex.A10 it is clear that the defendants 2 to 4 and late Pachipala Mastan executed agreement of guarantee infavour of plaintiff company for due payment by the 1st defendant, and their liability is joint and several as a successful bidder. So the defendants 2 to 4 and late Pachipala Mastan are liable jointly and severally as successful bidder i.e 1st defendant. As per Ex.A11 the plaintiff company issued legal notice to the defendants 1 to 4 and late Pachipala Mastan.

As per Ex.A22 the balance amount payable by the 1st defendant is

Rs.32,031/- . The plaintiff company by examining PW.1 and with Exs.A1 to A22 is able to prove that the suit documents are true, valid and binding on the defendants. Accordingly issue No.1 is answered infavour of the plaintiff company and as against the defendants.

14.Issue No.2:- In view of findings given on issue No.1 this issue No.2 is answered accordingly infavour of the plaintiff company by holding that the plaintiff company is entitled for recovery of suit amount.

15.Issue No.3:- In the result, suit is decreed against the defendants 1 to 4 and against the estate of late Pachipala Mastan which is in the hands of D5 to D7 with costs for Rs.32,031/- with 7 subsequent interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of realization on Rs. 27,198/-.

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 30thday of April, 2012).

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ONGOLE.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined.

For Plaintiff: PW.1/ Y.Ramana reddy For Defendants 6 and 7: None Documents marked For Plaintiff: Ex.A1/ notarized copy of certificate of incorporation dt. 20-1-1993, Ex.A2/notarized copy of resolution dt. 25-8-2005, Ex.A3/ notarized copy of Bye-law dt. 8-7-2008, Ex.A4 /notarized copy of certificate of registration Form-II dt. 8-7-2008, Ex.A5 /notarized copy of commencement certificate Form No.III ddt. 27- 8-2008, Ex.A6 /chit agreement dt. 20-7-2008, Ex.A7 /Joint promissory note dt. 9-3-2009, Ex.A8 /Voucher dt. 9-3-2009, Ex.A9 /receipt dt. 9-3-2009, Ex.A10/ agreement of guarantee dt. 9-3-2009, Ex.A11 /office copy of lawyer notice dt. 6-8-2010, Ex.A12 /returned cover from D1 dt.10-8-2010, Ex.A13 /acknowledgment from D2 dt. 7-8-2010, Ex.A14 /returned cover from D3 dt.17-8-2010, Ex.15/ returned cover from D4 dt. 10-8-2010, Ex.A16 /returned cover addressed to P.Mastan dt. 7-8-2010, Ex.A17 /office copy of lawyer notice dt. 22-11-2010, Ex.A18 /returned cover from D5 dt. 1-12-2010, Ex.A19 /returned cover from D6 dt. 1-12-2010, Ex.A20 /returned cover form D7 dt. 1-12-2010, Ex.A21 /postal receipts under certificate of posting, Ex.A22 /account copy dt. 11-12-2010. For Defendants : Nil

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

In the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Present: Smt S.Kavitha, M.Com., M.A., L.L.M.,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Monday, this the 30 th day of April, 2012

Original Suit No. 724/2010

Between:

CCKR Chits and Finance Private Limited, Ongole, rep. by its Assistant Manager, Y. Ramana Reddy. …. Plaintiff.

And

1.Ram Venkateswarlu Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy, Hindu, aged about 29 years, employee, Kaleswari Lorry Transport, R/o. D.No. 5-152, Sali Veedhi, Stonehouse pet, Nellore town, Nellore District.

2. Vallapu Srinivasulu, S/o. Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 41 years, Attender, Town planning section, Nellore Municipal corporation, Nellore town, Nellore District.

3. Ellapu Venkaiah, S/o. Ankaiah, Hindu, aged about 41 years, fitter, coolie, Engineering Section Water Department, Nellore Municipal corporation, Nellore town, Nellore District.

4. Ram Subba Reddy, S/o. Subbaiah, Hindu, aged about 51 years, Rice Broker, R/o. Kaluvai village, post and Mandal, Nellore District.

5. Pachipala Mahalakshmi, W/o.late Pachipala Mastan Hindu, aged about 26 years, Attender, water section, Nellore Municipal corporation, Santhapet, Nellore town, Nellore District. 6.Pachipala Mounica, D/o. Late pachipala Mastan, aged about 8 years, being minor rep. by her mother Pachipala Mahalakshmi i.e. 5th defendant. 7.Pachipala Mahi Priya, D/o. Late Pachipala Mastan, Hindu, aged about 3 years, being minor rep. by her mother Pachipala Mahalakshmi i.e. 5th defendant as a guardian.

( Sri P. Pavan Kumar advocate is appointed as court guardian for D6 and D7 as per orders in I.A. 2671/10 dt. 22-9-2011). …. Defendants.

The plaintiff Chit Fund Company filed this suit against the defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs.32,031/- basing on the foot of chit transaction and for costs.

Plaint presented on 13-12-2010 and filed on 15-12-2010

Cause of Action:-Cause of action for the suit arose on 30-07-2008 when the 1st defendant joined as a member in the suit Chit by executing a chit agreement , that later on 10-09-2008 when the 1st defendant participated in 2nd auction and became a prized bidder, that later on 9-3- 2009 the 1st defendant received the prize amount after execution voucher and receipt by him (D1) in Ongole, D1 to D4 and late Pachipala

Mastan executed joint promissory note as well as agreement of guarantee executed by D2 to D4 and late Pachipala Mastan in favour of the plaintiff in Ongole, that D1 paid up to 11 installments in full and part payment in 12th installment that later he committed default, that on 6-8-2010 when the plaintiff got issued a registered lawyer notice to the defendants 1 to 4and husband of the 5th defendant, the 2nd defendant received the notice, the defendants 1,3 and 4 returned the notices and the notice of Pachipala Mastan returned with an endorsement as he died, for which the plaintiff got issued registered lawyer notice dt. 22- 11-2010 to D5 to D7 a copy of it was also sent under certificate of posting to D1 to D4. D5 to D7 refused to receive the lawyer notice, D1 to D4 and late Pachipala Mastan executed demand promissory note in

Ongole and within the jurisdiction of this Honurable Court.

VALUATION:The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs. 32,031/- on which a court fee of Rs.1906/- is paid under Sec.20 of the A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

(1) that the defendants 1 to 4jointly and severally do pay to the plaintiff company and defendants 5 to 7 from the out of the estate of deceased Pachipala Masthan, which is lying in the hands of defendants 5 to 7 do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.32,031/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit i.e. 13-12-2010 till the date of realization on Rs.27,198/-; and (2) that the defendants 1 to 7 do also pay like wise to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 7308/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court this 30th day of April, 2012. PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For defendant Rs. Rs. Stamp on Vakalath: 2-00 Stamp on Plaint: 1906-00 CM and FC not filed by Stamp on process: 550-00 the defendant. Type charges : 50-00 Advocate fee: 2300-00 Publication charges : 1500-00 Court guardian advocate fee : 1000-00 ------------- Total Rs. 7308-00 -------------

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

NOTE:The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents, which are marked have to be taken back by the parties concerned within the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

CC/300844/2005 Acquitted

SI of Police I-Town PS Ongole vs A2 Shaik Rahamatulah

14 Feb 2014

Calendar and Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: ONGOLE

C.C.No. 844 of 2005

Complainant:State: Sub Inspector of Police, Ongole I town police station.

Description of the Accused1.Shaik Shabber, S/o.Khajavali, Muslim, aged 23 years, resident of Guntur. (case against A1 was split up and numbered as CC.517/2007).

2.Shaik Rahamthulla, S/o.Chinna Bamman Saheb, 22 years, Muslim, Gollapalem, Doravari Satram Mandal, Nellore District.

3.Shaik Razack, S/o.Mahaboob Basha, 21 years, Muslim, Sullurupeta, Nellore District.

Offence:Sec. 420 r/w 34 of IPC

Plea of Accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or Order:In the result, A2 and A3 found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec. 420 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, A2 and A3 are acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. A2 and A3 are set at liberty forthwith in this case. The bail bonds of A2 and A3 shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. No property order is passed with regard to M.O.1 to M.O.5 as split up case against A1 in C.C.No.517/2007 is pending.

DATE OF

Offence:15-10-2003

Complaint:15-10-2003

Apprehension of Accused:17-10-2003

Released on bail:05-11-2003

Commencement of trial:22-11-2012

Closure of trial:11-02-2014

Judgment:14-02-2014

Explanation for the delay: The Sub Inspector of Police, Ongole I town police station filed chargesheet against A1 to A3 for the offence under Sec.420 of IPC in ...2

Cr.No.241/2003 of Ongole I town Police Station. On 26.09.2007 the case against A1 was split up and numbered as C.C. No.517/2007. On 11.06.2008 the A2 and A3 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C, examination and charges under Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to them in telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 22.11.2012, PW1 was examined in chief and Ex.P1 is marked. On 27.02.2013 and on 20.12.2012, PW1 cross examined . On 28.01.2013, PW2 examined in chief. On 27.02.2013, PW2 cross examined. On 12.06.2013, the evidence of LW4 is closed. On 01.07.2013, PW3 is examined and Ex.P2 is marked. On 15.07.2013,

PW4 is examined and Ex.P3 is marked. On 29.07.2013, PW5 is examined and Ex.P4 is marked. On 24.12.2013, PW6 is examined and Ex.P5 is marked. On 13.01.2014, PW7 is examined and Ex.P6 to P8 and MOs1 to 5 are marked. On 17.01.2014, the prosecution side evidence was closed and the case is posted for Sec.313 Cr.P.C examination call on 20.01.2014. On 10.02.2014, A2 and A3 are examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, they denied the incriminating evidence spelt out by the prosecution witnesses, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence side evidence was closed. On 11.02.2014, heard arguments of both parties. On 14.02.2014, the Judgment was

pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

J.M.F.C, Special Mobile Court, Ongole FAC: II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Ongole.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble 1st Addl. Dist & Sess. Judge, Ongole. Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam Dist., // true copy //

JMFC, SMC

FAC: II AJMFC, Ongole ...3

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ONGOLE.

Present: M. Pradeep Kumar, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole FAC: II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.

Friday, this the fourteenth day of February, 2014

Calendar Case No. 844 of 2005

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Ongole I town police station.

...Complainant

1.Shaik Shabber, S/o.Khajavali, Muslim, aged 23 years, resident of Guntur. (case against A1 was split up and numbered as

CC.517/2007)

2.Shaik Rahamthulla, S/o.Chinna Bamman Saheb, 22 years, Muslim, Gollapalem, Doravari Satram Mandal, Nellore District.

3.Shaik Razack, S/o.Mahaboob Basha, 21 years, Muslim,

Sullurupeta, Nellore District....Accused

This Criminal case is coming on 11th day of February, 2014 for hearing

before me in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/ Complainant and of

Sri K. Siva Prasad, Advocate Accused and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and upon hearing the 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. The Sub Inspector of Police, Ongole I town police station filed charge sheet against the A1 to A3 for the offence punishable under Sec.420 of

IPC relating to Cr.No.241/2003 of Ongole I town police station.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:-

A2 and A3 are blood relatives. A1 is resident of Guntur. A3 gave an amount of Rs.30,000/- to A1 for Rs.3,00,000/- counterfeit notes. On 14.10.2003, A2 went to the house of father of A3 and requested him to come to Guntur and then he went to Guntur and again went to Ongole. They stayed in Navabharat Lodge, Ongole ...4 and Harsha Lodge in Ongole. Thereafter on 14.10.2013, A1 handed over the sticks gunny bag to A2 and A3 containing wooden box and currency notes of Rs.50/- denomination and stated them that the currency is counterfeit notes about

Rs.3,00,000/-. A3 received the same at Naidupeta and collected the same. A2 again got into the bus along with Gunny bag containing wooden box in one RTC bus from

Markapur to Tirupathi. When the bus reached RTC bus stand, Singarayakonda, LW1 caught A2 along with sticks bag and produced A2 before the Singarayakonda Police station. On 16.10.2003, LW2/G.Malakondaiah, PC 844 and LW3/A.Ramesh Babu, PC 1822 produced one person and F.I.R. LW9/M. Malakondaiah, A.S.I., arrested A2 on 17.10.2013. A1 and a3 were absconding from the date of offence. Hence, chargesheet.

3. This case was taken on file for the offence under Sec.420 of IPC against A1 to A3. The case against A1 was split up and it was numbered as CC 517/2007 on 26.09.2007. Now this case is only against A2 and A3. After appearance of A2 and A3, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

4. A2 and A3 were examined under Sec.239, Cr.P.C and charges were framed for the offences under Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC against A2 and A3 and its contents were read over and explained to them in telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The Prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and Ex.P1 to P8 and

M.O.1 to M.O.5 were marked. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating evidence spelt out by the prosecution witnesses against them and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence side evidence was closed.

6. Heard arguments on both sides.

...5

7. Now the Point that arises for determination is

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of A2 and A3 for the offences under Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

8. The learned A.P.P. argued before this Court that the acts of A2 and

A3 is proved with the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW7 and Ex.P1 to P8 and M.O.1 to M.o.5. Hence, A2 and A3 are liable for conviction.

9. The learned counsel for A2 and A3 argued before this Court that A2 and A3 are innocent and never committed the alleged offence. He further argued that A2 and A3 are no way related to this case. He further argued that apart from the evidence of PW1 and PW7, no other prosecution witnesses deposed about the accusation of A2 and A3. He further argued that PW1 is not competent to arrest A2 and seize M.O.1 to M.O.5. He further argued that PW1 admitted in his cross examination that he did not enter the credible information received in the general diary of his police station and also he did not inform the credible information to his higher authorities and further he admitted in his cross examination that he did not prepare mediatornama to the seizure of M.O.1 to

M.O.5 and arrest of A2 in APSRTC bus stand. He further argued that the investigating officer PW7 admitted in his cross examination that he did not pack and seal the property after its seizure. He further argued that PW7 deposed in his cross examination that he did not examine the Manager of RTC bus stand of

Singarayakonda. He further argued that PW3 to PW6 were turned hostile and deposed against the case of prosecution. He further argued that the evidence of PW2 is not helpful to the case of prosecution for the accusation of A2 and A3 and moreover PW1 and PW7 are interested witnesses to the case of the prosecution. Hence, the evidence of PW1 and PW7 is not reliable as their evidence contains procedural latches. Hence, A2 and A3 are entitled for acquittal.

...6

10. Perused the record. Out of ten list of witnesses, the Prosecution has examined seven list of witnesses. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW3/A.Ramesh Babu, PC 1822 and LW10/J. Srinivasa Rao, S.I of

Police. This Court closed the evidence of LW4/S.Seetharamaiah as the police filed his death certificate and requested this Court to close his evidence. PW1 and PW2 are police constables. PW3 and PW5 are mediators. PW4 and PW6 are independent witnesses. PW7 is the Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is the report of

PW1. Ex.P2 and P4 are the signatures of PW3 and PW5 on the mediatornama respectively. Ex.P3 and P5 are Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of PW4 and PW6 respectively. Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 are First Information Reports in Cr.Nos.93/2003 of

Singarayakonda P.S., and 241/2003 of Ongole I town P.S respectively. Ex.P8 is the mediatornama. M.O.1 is the gunny sticks bag. M.O.2 is the 6 fifty rupees notes. M.O.3 is the wooden box. M.O.4 is the torn English news paper. M.O.5 is the torn brown sheets.

11. POINT: As this is a case under Sec.420 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the cheating of A2 and A3 and also has to prove that A2 and A3 has intention to cheat.

12. It is observed that PW1 deposed before this Court that he received credible information and immediately proceeded to APSRTC bus stand of

Singarayakonda and there he caught A2 and seized M.O.1 to M.O.5 and returned to police station along with the property and A2 and lodged (Ex.P1). PW1 admitted in his cross examination that he did not prepare mediatornama to that effect and seizure of M.O.1 to M.O.5 and arrest of A2 and also he did not mention the receiving of credible information in the general diary of his police station and also he did not inform about the information to his higher ...7 authorities. Hence, this Court observed that PW1 did not follow the procedural aspects. Hence, this Court opines that to believe the evidence of PW1, the prosecution has to examine some other witnesses for corroboration purpose. In this regard, this Court observed that the prosecution did not examine the

Manager of APSRTC bus stand of Singarayakonda or driver or conductor of the bus, in which the police arrested the accused. It is observed that PW7, who is the Investigating Officer admitted in his cross examination that he did not examine the manager of the APSRTC depot of Singarayakonda and also he did not examine the driver and conductor of the bus. Hence, this Court did not believe the evidence of PW1.

13. it is also observed that PW2 deposed before the Court that he handed over Ex.P6 (FIR) and M.O.1 to M.O.5 to the Station House Officer of

Ongole I town Police station. In this regard, PW7 deposed before the Court that he prepared Ex.P8 after seizure of M.O.1 to 5. Whereas, PW3 and PW5, who are mediators of Ex.P8 deposed before this Court that at the request of police, they affixed their signatures in the police station and they do not know the contents of Ex.P8. Hence, this Court opined that the prosecution failed to prove the contents of Ex.P8. Hence, this Court did not believe the contents of Ex.P8 and this Court is in doubt about the seizure of M.O.1 to M.O.5 by PW7. It is also observed that PW4 and PW6, who are independent witnesses deposed before this Court that they do not know anything about the facts of this case and thereby they were turned hostile. It is also observed that PW4 and PW6 denied the contents of Ex.P3 and Ex.P5, which are their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements, during their cross examination by the learned A.P.P. As PW4 and PW6 denied the contents of Ex.P3 and Ex.P5, this Court did not believe the contents of Ex.P3 and Ex.P5. Hence, Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 are not proved by the prosecution.

...8

14. Apart from the above contradictions and vague evidence of prosecution witnesses, this Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish whom A2 and A3 cheated and who was the victim of the alleged acts of

A2 and A3. Hence, this Court opined that PW7 did not investigate the case properly at all and this Court further opined that PW7 might have filed the chargesheet only for statistical purpose by washing his hands.

15. From the above discussion, this Court holds that the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A2 and A3 beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of A2 and A3. As such, A2 and A3 are entitled for acquittal.

16. In the result, A2 and A3 found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec. 420 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, A2 and A3 are acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. A2 and A3 are set at liberty forthwith in this case. The bail bonds of A2 and A3 shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. No property order is passed with regard to M.O.1 to M.O.5 as split up case against A1 in

C.C.No.517/2007 is pending.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court on this, the 14th day of February, 2014.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

J.M.F.C, Special Mobile Court, Ongole FAC: II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Ongole.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Defence PW.1:M. Venkateswarlu NONE PW.2:G. Malakondaiah PW.3:N.Surya Prakasa Rao ...9

PW.4:J. Nageswara Rao PW.5:K. Satyanarayana PW.6:V.Sivakumar PW7:M. Malakondaiah, ASI

Documents Marked

For Prosecution

Ex.P1Report given by PW1. Ex.P2Signature of PW3 on the mediatornama dt.15.05.2003. Ex.P3Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4. Ex.P4Signature of PW5 on the mediatornama. Ex.P5Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6. Ex.P6First Information Report in Cr.No.93/2003 of Singarayakonda P.S., Ex.P7First Information Report in Cr.No.241/2003 of Ongole I town police station. Ex.P8Mediatornama dt.15.10.2003. For defenceNIL

Material objects marked

M.O.1Gunny sticks bag M.O.26 fifty rupees notes M.O.3Wooden box M.O.4Torn English News Paper M.O.5Torn brown sheets

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

J.M.F.C, S.M.C,

FAC: II A.J.M.F.C, Ongole.

// true copy //

JMFC, SMC

FAC: II AJMFC, Ongole ...10

OS/334/2011

Navuri Aruna @ Naguri Aruna vs Garnepudi Vijayamma @ Kota Vijayamma

30 Apr 2012

In the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Present: Smt S.Kavitha, M.Com., M.A., L.L.M.,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Monday, this the 30 th day of April, 2012

Original Suit No. 334/2011

Between: Navuri Aruna, @ Naguri Aruna, W/o. Late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 45 years, R/o. Yedugundlapadu village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. …. Plaintiff.

And

Garnepudi Vijayamma, @ Kota Vijayamma, W/o. Mohanrao, Hindu, aged about 60 years, Government employee, Now she is doing cloth business, R/o. Yedugundlapadu village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. Prakasam District. …. Defendant.

This suit coming on 13-04-2012 this day for disposal before me in the presence of Sri Vudutha Ravi Kumar and Ganta Srinivasa Rao advocates for plaintiff and Sri. S.V.Mallikarjuna Rao advocate for defendant upon perusing the material available on record, upon hearing the arguments of both side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.96,090/- basing on the foot of 3 promissory notes and for costs.

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

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.35,000/- from the plaintiff on 10-5-2009 for her necessities and promised to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or her order on demand and on the same day executed a promissory note infavour of plaintiff with her own hand writing at Yedugundlapadu village.

3.Again the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff on 22-4-2010 for her necessities and executed a promissory note on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or her order on demand at Yedugundlapadu village.

4. Again the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the plaintiff on 17-12-2010 for her necessities and on the same day executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or her order on demand at Yedugundlapadu village.

5.Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant on 7-6-2011 and the same was served on the defendant on 9-6-2011. The defendant has given reply to the plaintiff on 27-6-2011 with all false allegations and did not pay any amount. Hence this suit.

6.The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations of plaint and brief averments of it are as follows:

The defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. One Immanial borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/- from the plaintiff and he paid Rs.4,000/- per month towards interest.

Subsequently in the month of May, 2009 said Immanial died due to ill- health. With the assurance of the defendant said debt given by the plaintiff to the said Immanial. After the death of Immanial the plaintiff created a scene before the dead body and put pressure on the defendant and obtained two promissory notes from the defendant coercively as against the debt due by Immanial of Rs.35,000/-. The plaintiff collected interest at Rs.10/- per Rs.100/- per month from

Immanial. Subsequently the plaintiff calculated interest and got the promissory notes by using coercive methods on every occasion. The 3 defendant had no need to borrow any amount from the plaintiff. The alleged promissory notes are obtained without any consideration. The defendant given reply with true facts. Inspite of reply notice the plaintiff filed this suit for wrongful gain.

7.Basing on the pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.

(1) Whether the suit promissory notes dt.10-5-2010, 22-4-2010, 7-12-2010 respectively are true, valid and binding on the defendant?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount?

(3) To what relief?

8.The Plaintiff got herself examined as PW.1 and supporting witness examined as PW.2 and Exs.A1 to A6 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On the other hand the defendant got herself examined as

DW.1 and no documents are marked on behalf of the defendant.

9.Heard both sides.

10.Issue No.1:- To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got herself examined as PW.1. PW.1 in her chief affidavit reiterated the contents of plaint. During the course of cross examination PW.1 deposed that the defendant borrowed amounts from her for 4 or 5 times.

Further PW.1 deposed that one Narasimha Rao was came at the time of execution of suit promissory notes at the instance of defendant. Further

PW.1 denied a suggestion that prior to the filing of the suit one G.Suresh put his signature in the suit promissory notes. Further PW.1 denied a suggestion that one Immanial borrowed amount from the plaintiff and he was died and the plaintiff demanded the defendant for the said amount borrowed by Immanial and due to fear the defendant put her signature in the suit promissory notes as the plaintiff threatened the defendant.

11.One G.Suresh who is one of the attestors of suit promissory notes was examined as PW.2. PW.2 in his chief affidavit stated that on 10-5-2009 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.35,000/- from the plaintiff for her necessities and executed a promissory note infavour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or her order on demand. Further stated that again the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff on 22-4- 2010 for her necessities and executed a promissory note infavour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or her order on demand. Further PW.2 stated that again the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the plaintiff on 17-12-2010 and executed a promissory note infavour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or her order on demand. During the course of cross examination

PW.2 deposed that in his presence the defendant received the amounts from the plaintiff under suit promissory notes. Further PW.2 denied a suggestion that K. Immanial borrowed amount from the plaintiff and the defendant stood as surety, so that the defendant put her signatures in the suit promissory notes.

12.Exs.A1 to A6 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff.

Ex.A1 is the promissory note dt. 10-5-2009 executed for

Rs.35,000/-, Ex.A2 is the promissory note dt. 22-4-2010 executed for

Rs.20,000/-, Ex.A3 is the promissory note dt. 17-12-2010 executed for

Rs.15,000/-, Ex.A4 is the office copy of legal notice issued by plaintiff to the defendant dt. 7-6-2011, Ex.A5 is the postal acknowledgement dt. 19- 6-2011, and Ex.A6 is the reply notice issued by the defendant to the counsel for plaintiff dt. 27-6-2011.

13.The defendant got herself examined as DW.1.DW.1 in her chief affidavit reiterated the contents of written statement. During the course of cross examination DW.1 deposed that herself scribed the suit 5 promissory notes and the signatures in 3 suit promissory notes belong to her. Further DW.1 deposed that in the suit promissory notes it was mentioned that she received the amount. Further DW.1 deposed that she can file a document which shows that one Immanial was died but she do not know the date of death of Immanial but he was died in the month of October or November. Further DW.1 deposed that she do not know the names of children of Immanial.

14.As per Exs.A1 to A3 the defendant by receiving the amounts from the plaintiff executed the Exs.A1 to A3 promissory notes. As per

Ex.A4 the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant calling upon the defendant to repay the said promissory note amounts to the plaintiff within week from the date of receipt of said notice. As per Ex.A6 the defendant issued reply notice to the counsel for plaintiff stating that no consideration was passed under suit promissory notes and the defendant put her signatures in the suit promissory note at the dead body of Immanial for the amount due by said Immanial to the plaintiff.

15.From the evidence of PW.2 it is clear that the defendant on different dates borrowed amounts from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory notes infavour of the plaintiff. The contention of defendant is that one Immanial borrowed from the plaintiff and on the assurance of defendant the plaintiff gave the said amount to Immanial and after the death of Immanial, the plaintiff created a scene at the dead body of Immanial and the defendant put her signatures in the suit promissory notes at the dead body of said Immanial, and no consideration was passed in the suit promissory notes. But no material is placed before the Court in support of contention of defendant. On the other hand the plaintiff by examining herself as PW.1 and one of the attestors of suit promissory notes as PW.2 is able to prove that the defendant by receiving the suit promissory note amounts from the plaintiff executed the suit promissory notes infavour of the plaintiff.

16.In the above circumstances this court holds that the suit promissory notes dt.10-5-2009,22-4-2010 and 17-12-2010 respectively are true, valid and binding on the defendant. Accordingly issue No.1 is answered infvour of the plaintiff and as against the defendant.

17.Issue No.2:- In view of findings given on issue No.1 this issue No.2 is answered accordingly infavour of the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount.

18.Issue No.3:- In the result, suit is decreed against the defendant with costs for Rs.96,090 /- with subsequent interest at 6% p.a. from the date of suit to till the date of realization on Rs.70,000 /-.

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 30th day of April, 2012).

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ONGOLE.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined.

For Plaintiff:

PW.1/ Navuri Aruna @ Naguri Aruna

PW.2/ Guddapathala Suresh

For Defendants:

DW.1/ Garnepudi Vijayamma

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

ExA1/promissory note dt. 10-5-2009 for Rs.35,000/-, Ex.A2 is the promissory note dt. 22-4-2010 executed for Rs.20,000/-, Ex.A3 is the promissory note dt. 17-12-2010 executed for Rs.15,000/-, Ex.A4 is the office copy of legal notice issued by plaintiff to the defendant dt. 7-6-2011, Ex.A5 is the postal acknowledgement dt. 19-6-2011, and Ex.A6 is the reply notice issued by the defendant to the counsel for plaintiff dt. 27-6-2011. For Defendant: Nil.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE

In the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Present: Smt S.Kavitha, M.Com., M.A., L.L.M.,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Monday, this the 30 th day of April, 2012

Original Suit No. 334/2011

Between: Navuri Aruna, @ Naguri Aruna, W/o. Late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 45 years, R/o. Yedugundlapadu village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. …. Plaintiff.

And

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.96,090/- basing on the foot of 3 promissory notes and for costs.

Plaint presented on 12-7-2011 and filed on 12-7-2011.

Valuation and Court Fee:- The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.96,090/- on which a court fee of

Rs.5,448/- is paid under Sec.20 of the A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

(1)Promissory note dt.10-5-2009 for Rs.53,200/- on which a court fee of Rs.2466/- is paid Under Section 20 of APCF and

SV Act.

(2)Promissory note dt.22-4-2010 for Rs.25,850/- on which a court fee of Rs.1626/- is paid Under Section 20 of APCF and

SV Act.

(3)Promissory note dt.17-12-2010 for Rs.17,040/- on which a court fee of Rs.1236/- is paid Under Section 20 of APCF and

SV Act. Total court fee and jurisdiction value is Rs.96,090.

Total court fee is Rs.5448/-

Cause of Action:-Cause of action for the suit arose when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.35,000/- on 10-5-2009 and amount of

Rs.20,000/- on 22-4-2010 and an amount of Rs.15,000/- on 17-12-2010 8 from the plaintiff for her necessities, and promised to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. to the plaintiff or her order on demand, when the defendant executed above three promissory notes in favour of plaintiff time to time with her own hand writing when the plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge the debt amounts, when the plaintiff got issued legal notices to the defendant on 7-6-2011 when the defendant give reply to the plaintiff with all false allegations, the transaction took place at Yedugundlapadu village within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

1.that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.96,090/- with subsequent interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the suit i.e. on 12- 7-2011 till the date of realization on principal sum of Rs.70,000/- ; and 2.that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs. 9692/-towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 30th day of April, 2012.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ongole.

TABLE OF COSTS // //

For Plaintiff For defendant

Rs. Rs.

Stamp on Vakalath: 2-00 No CM & FC filed Stamp on Plaint: 5448-00 Stamp on process: 90-00 Type charges: 50-00 Advocate fee: 4100-00 (as claimed) Stamp on petition : 2-00 ------------- Total Rs. 9692-00 -------------

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ongole.

NOTE: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents, which are marked, have to be taken back by the parties concerned within the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

CC/300403/2010 Acquitted

SI of Police Chirala II-Town PS vs J1 Samudrala Bhagyaraj

13 Feb 2014

Calendar and Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE, JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD-

CUM-II ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ONGOLE.

C.C.No. 403 of 2010

Complainant:State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Chirala I town police station

Description of the Juveniles 1Samudrala Bhagyaraj, S/o.Davidu, 17 years, Yerukala by caste, Ujilipeta, Chirala 2Samudrala Pridhviraju @ Buddiraju, .S/o.Davidu, 13 years, Yerukala by caste, Ujilipeta, Chirala.

Offence:Sec.323, 324 and 509 of IPC

Plea of Accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or Order:In the result, Juveniles 1 and 2 in conflict with Law are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.323, 324 and 509 of IPC and accordingly, Juveniles 1 and 2 are acquitted under Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. Juveniles 1 and 2 in conflict with Law are set at liberty forthwith in the present case. The bonds of Juveniles 1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. No property order is passed as there is no property in this case.

DATE OF

Offence:04-11-2009

Complaint:04-11-2009

Apprehension of Juvenile:19-11-2009

Released on bail:19-11-2009

Commencement of trial:15.03.2013

Closure of trial:10-02-2014

Judgment:13-02-2014

Explanation for the delay: The Sub Inspector of Police, Chirala I town police station filed final report against the juveniles 1 and 2 in Cr.No.329/2009 under Sec.323, 324 and 509 r/w 34 of IPC. This case was taken on file against the juveniles 1 and 2 for the offence under Sec.323, 324 and 509 r/w 34 of IPC. On 18.11.2010 the juveniles 1 and 2 were examined under Sec.251 of Cr.P.C and the accusation under Sec.323, 324 and 509 2 r/w 34 of IPC were explained in telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 15.03.2013, PW1 and PW2 and Ex.P1 is marked. On 10.05.2013, PW3 and

PW4 and Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are marked. On 28.06.2013, PW5 and PW6 are examined and Ex.P4 to P8 are marked. On 27.12.2013, PW7 present and examined and on report prosecution side evidence was closed and the case is posted for Sec.313 Cr.P.C examination and 10.02.2014, heard the arguments of both parties. On 13.02.2014, the

Order was pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Ongole FAC: Prl. Magistrate, J.J.B-cum II A.J.M.F.C, Ongole.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble 1st Addl. Dist & Sess. Judge, Ongole. Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam Dist., // true copy //

J.F.C.M, S.M.C.,

FAC: II AJMFC, Ongole.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE, JUVENILE JUSTICE

BOARD-CUM-II ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ONGOLE.

Present: M. Pradeep Kumar, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole FAC: Prl. Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Ongole

Thursday, this the thirteenth day of February, 2014

Calendar Case No. 403 of 2010

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Chirala I town Police

Station...Complainant

1.Samudrala Bhagyaraj, S/o.Davidu, 17 years, Yerukala by caste, Ujilipeta, Chirala.

2.Samudrala Pridhviraju @ Buddiraju, S/o.Davidu, 13 years, ...Juvenile in Yerukala by caste, Ujilipeta, Chirala.Conflict with Law

This Criminal case is coming on 10th day of February, 2014 for hearing

before me in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/ Complainant and of

Sri K. Sankar Kumar, Advocate for Juveniles 1 and 2 in Conflict with Law; upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: // ORDER //

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Chirala I town police station filed final report against Juveniles 1 and 2 in Conflict with Law for the offences punishable under Sec.323, 324 and 509 r/w 34 of IPC relating to Cr.No.329 of 2009 of

Chirala I town police station.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:-

On 4th day of November, 2009 at about 2.30 PM, J1 and J2 were dancing in their house by putting high volume for their tape recorder and causing nuisance to the neighbours. Then, LW1/Kandila @ Palaparthi Bujji went to their house and questioned them to reduce the volume, for which J1 and J2 abused her in filthy language and J1 beat her with iron rod on her chest and waist and caused injuries. Then

J2 beat her with hands and legs and caused injuries. Hence, final report.

3. This case was taken on file for the offences under Secs.323, 324 and 509 of IPC against Juveniles 1 and 2. After appearance of Juveniles 1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 of

Cr.P.C. Juveniles 1 and 2 were examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C and the accusation under Secs.323, 324 and 509 of IPC were read over and explained to them in telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The Prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and Ex.P1 to P8 were marked. After closure of prosecution side evidence the Juveniles 1 and 2 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, and they denied the incriminating evidence deposed by prosecution witnesses and reported no oral evidence. Hence, defence side evidence was closed.

5. Heard arguments on both sides.

6. Now the Point that arises for determination is

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of Juveniles 1 and 2 in conflict with Law for the offences U/Sec.323, 324 and 509 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. The learned A.P.P Argued before the Board that Juveniles 1 and 2 are innocent and never committed the alleged offence. He further argued that due to rivalry between both parties, PW1 foisted this false case against the

Juveniles 1 and 2. He further argued that the independent witnesses PW3 and

PW4 were turned hostile and deposed against the case of prosecution. Hence,

Juveniles 1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal as only interested witnesses deposed infavour of prosecution.

8. Perused the record. Out of eight list of witnesses, the Prosecution has examined seven witnesses. PW1 and PW2 are injured. PW3 and PW4 are 5 independent witnesses. PW5 is the doctor. PW6 is the head constable, who recorded the statement (Ex.P1) and forwarded it to police station on the point of jurisdiction. PW7 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the case and investigated the case, arrested Juveniles 1 and 2 and filed final report. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of statement. Exs.P2 and P3 are the certified copies of

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of PW3 and PW4 respectively. Exs.P4 and P5 are the certified copies of wound certificates of PW1 and PW2 respectively. Ex.P6 is the certified copy of hospital intimation. Ex.P7 is the certified copy of First

Information report. Ex.P8 is the certified copy of rough sketch of the scene of offence.

9. POINT: As this is a case under Sec.323, 324 and 509 of IPC, the

Prosecution has to prove that Juveniles 1 and 2 beat PWs1 and 2 with iron rod and hands and legs and also abused PW1 in filthy language, which amounts to criminal intimidation.

10. On perusal of record, this Board observed that PW1 deposed

before the Board in her cross examination that Juveniles 1 and 2 were dancing in

their house by putting high volume and causing nuisance and then she went to there and asked J1 and J2 to reduce volume of the tape recorder, for which J1 and J2 abused her by stating that “LANJAA, GINJA” and J1 and J2 pushed her.

Then, J1 beat her with iron rod on her chest and waist and then J1 and J2 abused her in filthy language. On perusal of Ex.P1, which is a statement of PW1 before

PW6, this Board observed that PW1 stated to PW6 that she went to the house of

J1 and J2 and asked them to reduce volume of the tape recorder, for which J1 beat her with iron rod on her chest and waist and thereafter J1 and J2 abused her in filthy language. This Board observed from the evidence of PW1 and Ex.P1 that only J1 beat PW1 and both J1 and J2 abused PW1 in filthy language. This 6

Board observed that the evidence of PW1 is silent with regard to the act of beating of J2.

11. This Board observed that PW2 deposed before this board in her chief examination that J1 and J2 beat PW1 with iron rod on her chest and waist and J1 and J2 abused PW1. PW2 further deposed before the Board in her chief examination that one Koteswara rao and Nagendramma beat with their hands on her nose and received bleeding injury. Hence, from the evidence of PW2, this

Board observed that the Injury of PW2 is not caused by either J1 or J2 as she was deposed before the Board that some Koteswara Rao and Nagendramma beat her with hands and legs on her nose. On comparing the evidence of PW1 and

PW2, this Board observed that PW1 deposed before the Board that J1 beat her with iron rod whereas PW2 deposed before this Board that J1 and J2 beat PW1 with iron rod. Hence, this Board observed that the above contradiction between the evidence of PW1 and PW2.

12. This Board observed from the evidence of PW5, who deposed

before this Board in his chief examination that he treated PW1 and PW2 and

found injuries and issued Ex.P4 and P5 wound certificates. It is also observed that PW5 admitted in his cross examination that injury mentioned in Ex.P4 and

P5 are likely possible if any person falls on rough surface. From the evidence of

PW1, PW2 and PW5, this Board believed the injuries of PW1 and PW2. But from the contradiction discussed above between the evidence of PW1 and PW2, this

Board cannot believe that PW1 and PW2 are suffered injuries in the hands of J1 and J2. Hence, this Board opined that some corroboration is required to prove the acts of J1 and J2 against PW1 and PW2.

13. In this regard, the prosecution examined PW3 and PW4, who are independent witnesses. This Board observed that PW3 and PW4, who are direct 7 witnesses deposed before the Board in their chief examinations that they do not know about the facts of this case and police did not examine them. Thereafter

PW3 and PW4 were turned hostile and denied the suggestions put by the learned APP in their cross examinations that they stated to the police as in Ex.P2 and P3, which are their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements respectively. This Board did not believe the contents of Ex.P2 and P3 as its deponents i.e., PW3 and PW4 denied its contents. Therefore Ex.P2 and P3 are not proved by the prosecution.

14. It is observed that PW7 deposed before the Board in his chief examination that he examined the scene and prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence (Ex.P8). On perusal of Ex.P8, this Board observed that the scene of offence is on the road whereas PW1 deposed before the Board that the incident took place in the house of J1 and J2. Hence, the evidence of PW7 is contradicting with the evidence of PW1 with the regard to the place of incident.

15. As per the prosecution case, J1 beat PW1 with iron rod. But this

Board observed that the prosecution is silent with regard to the seizure of the alleged iron rod with which PW1 sustained injuries. Hence, this Board opined that the material object i.e., iron rod is crucial for the prosecution case. PW7 in his chief and cross examinations did not explain any reasons for not seizing of the material object by him.

16. From the above discussion, this Board opined that the Prosecution failed to prove the occurrence of alleged incident and overt acts of J1 and J2 beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should go infavour of

Juveniles 1 and 2. As such, Juveniles 1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal.

17. In the result, Juveniles 1 and 2 in conflict with Law are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.323, 324 and 509 of IPC and 8 accordingly, Juveniles 1 and 2 are acquitted under Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C.

Juveniles 1 and 2 in conflict with Law are set at liberty forthwith in the present case. The bonds of Juveniles 1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. No property order is passed as there is no property in this case.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Board on this, the 13th day of February, 2014.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Ongole FAC: Prl. Magistrate, J.J.B-cum II A.J.M.F.C, Ongole. Signature of the Member:

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // Witnesses Examined For Prosecution For Defence PW.1:Kandila @ Palaparthi bujjiNONE PW.2:Kandila Anaruryamma PW.3:Katta kripavardhana Rao PW.4:Darla Singaiah PW.5:Dr.N. Suresh Kumar PW.6:V. Bhaskara Rao, HC 980 PW.7:Md. Firoz Documents Marked For Prosecution

Ex.P1Certified copy of statement of PW1 Ex.P2Certified copy of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P3Certified copy of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P4Wound certificate of PW1 Ex.P5Wound certificate of PW2 Ex.P6Certified copy of Hospital Intimation Ex.P7Certified copy of First Information Report Ex.P8Certified copy of rough sketch of the scene of offence

For defence NIL Material objects marked NIL

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

J.M.F.C, S.M.C, Ongole FAC: P.M.JJB-CUM-II AJMFC, Ongole // true copy //