Smt S.Komalavalli

Excise Court, Ongole.

CC No.220 of 2025

Page No.1 APPR0A0003782025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, EXCISE COURT :: ONGOLE

Present: Smt. S.Komalavalli,

Special Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Excise court, Ongole.

Thursday, this the 14th day May 2026

C.C. No. 220 of 2025

Between: The Inspector of Police Prohibition & Excise Station, Ongole.

... Complainant

And

1. Gaddam Narasimha, S/o. Narayana, aged 35 years, R/o. Rajapanagal Road, Ongole

2. Konduri Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o. Ramulu, 42 years, R/o. Jaggarajupalem village, Marripudi Mandal, presently R/o. NGO Colony Road, Ongole

3. Konduri Kumar Raja, S/o. Mallikarjuna Rao, aged 21 years, R/o. Jaggarajupalem village, Marripudi Mandal, presently R/o. NGO Colony Road, Ongle

4. Vaka Subba Reddy, S/o. Singa Reddy, aged 38 years, R/o. NGO Colony, Ongole

5. Konda Suresh, S/o. Krishna Murthy, aged 45 years, N/o Gareebnagar, Atmakur, Kurnool District, R/o. Sonia Gandhi Nagar, Ongole … Accused

This case presented before me on this day for hearing, in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri A.V.Ramakrishna, Advocate for A1, Sri. G.Nagi Reddy, Advocate for A2 to A4, and of Sri.B.Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for A5, having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

Excise Court, Ongole.

CC No.220 of 2025

Page No.2

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Ongole filed charge she et in Cr.No.73/2021 alleging that the accused has committed the offence under section 34(A) of AP Excise

Act.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present case briefly stated are as follows:-

On 16-09-2021 on receipt of credible information about illegal sale of non duty paid liquor, LW10 - Sk.

Samimullah, Inspector of Police, JD Team, SEB Ongole secured the presence of PW1 and LW2 - P. Nagarjuna, Working as Ward

Administrative Secretary and Volunteer of Vengamukkalapalem village and along with the mediators and his staff L.W.3 to 9 -

M.C. Venkateswarlu, Constable, P. Khaja Khan, Head Constable,

K. Kishore, SPO, JD Team, Sk. Shakeel, SPO, JD Team, Ongole,

Sd. Muneer Ahmmad, Sub-Inspector of Police Intelligence Team,

SEB, Ongole and G.Suresh, Sub- Inspector of Police, JD Team,

SEB, Ongole and M. Sunil Babu, Sub-Inspector of Polcie, JD Team,

SEB, Ongole proceeded to a house in Mother Theresa Colony, 1st lane which leads to Vengamukalapalem village and found

A2 and A3 were sitting in a Bolero maxi Truck and A1, A4 and A5 were sitting on their two wheelers. On suspicion, LW10 enquired the identity particulars of accused 1 to 5, and they stated that

A2 was bringing liquor bottles in his Bolero vehicle from

Telangana State whenever he goes to Hyderabad and giving them to his son A3 and also to A1, A4 and A5 for selling at higher price and they used to keep the said liquor bottles at the house of A1's mother and gathering at that house for distribution of liquor bottles.

Excise Court, Ongole.

CC No.220 of 2025

Page No.3

3.In pursuance of confession of A1 to A5, LW10 searched the Suzuki Access vehicle of A1 and found 2 white colour card board boxes kept at boot space of the vehicle containing 24 - 750 ml Mansion House XO brandy bottles in each box (total 48 boxes) and found they are in possession of liquor bottles. They also found 2 white colour card board boxes an one black colour canvass bag kept at the space of motor cycle of A2 and found 22 - 750 ml Mansion House XO Brandy bottles in the first card board box and 22 - 750 ml Mansion House XO Brandy bottles in 2nd card board each box (Total 46 bottles) and 5 - 750 ml Royal Stag Whisky bottles, 2 - 750 ml Blender's Pride Select

Premium Whisky bottles (total 7 bottles) in black canvass bag in the possession of A2. They further found 1 white colour cad board box kept at the boot space of Suzuki Access vehicle of A4 containing 13 - 750 ml Mansion House XO Brandy bottles and 3 - 180 ml Royal Stag Blended Whisky bottles (Total 16 bottles) .

They also found one cardboard box at the boot space of Honda

Activa Vehicle of A5 containing 15 - 750 ml Mansion House XO

Brandy bottles in the said box.

4.Accused failed to produce any license or permit to possess the liquor bottles in more than the prescribed quantity and for sale. In pursuance of the confession of accused 1 to 5,

LW10 seized the contraband under cover of Ex.P1 mediator report, since the accused was in possession of liquor bottles in more than prescribed quantity without any license or permit.

Thereafter he had drawn one bottle from each variety of bottles from each card board box and canvass bag seized from A1 to

A5 , for chemical analysis, by affixing identity slips containing the

Excise Court, Ongole.

CC No.220 of 2025

Page No.4 signatures of himself and accused on the sample bottles as per procedure. Later LW10 arrested the accused, brought the sample bottles along with seized liquor bottles and accused to the SEB

Station, Ongole and handed over to PW3, the Inspector of SEB

Station, Ongole.

5.On the basis of Ex.P1 mediator report, PW3 registered a case in Cr.No.73/2021, U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, issued

Ex.P2 FIR, and sent the accused to Court for judicial remand.

Later PW3 sent the sample bottles to the chemical examiner for analysis purpose and received analysis report Ex.P3 from the chemical examiner that the sample bottle is Indian made liquor.

Later she sent proposals for confiscation of remaining seized liquor bottles to the Deputy Commissioner of Special

Enforcement Bureau, Nellore, and after receipt of proceedings, she destroyed the remaining seized liquor bottles, concluded the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

6.Cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence u/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents, as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., were furnished to the accused.

7.Accused 1 to 5 are examined under Section 239 of

Cr.P.C., for which they denied the offence. Charge framed under

Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Excise Court, Ongole.

CC No.220 of 2025

Page No.5

8.Out of the 11 witnesses cited, in order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to 3 got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of L.W2 - P. Nagarjuna, L.Ws. 3 to 7 - M.C.

Venkateswarlu, Constable, P. Khaja Khan, Head Constable, K.

Kishore, SPO, JD Team, Sk. Shakeel, SPO, JD Team, Ongole, Sd.

Muneer Ahmmad, Sub-Inspector of Police Intelligence Team, SEB,

Ongole and L.Ws. 9 and 10 M. Sunil Babu, Sub-Inspector of

Polcie, JD Team, SEB, Ongole and Sk. Samimullah, Inspector of

Police, JD Team, SEB Ongole to avoid repetition.

9.Accused are examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they stated that entire incriminating evidence appearing against them is false and reported no defence evidence.

10.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

11.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of

the accused for the offence u/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act , beyond all reasonable doubt?

12.POINT: -

The case of the prosecution is - accused are found in possession of more than prescribed quantity of liquor bottles for sale at higher price without any license or permit. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

Excise Court, Ongole.

CC No.220 of 2025

Page No.6

13.PW2 – Sub-Inspector of SEB, JD Team Ongole, who is one of the raiding party member along with complainant LW10 -

Sk. Samimullah, Inspector of Police, JD Team, SEB Ongole deposed reiterating the contents of Charge Sheet that the accused were found possessed of liquor bottles in more than prescribed quantity without any license or permit, as such, the contraband found in the possession of accused was seized under cover of Ex.P1 Mediator Report in the presence of mediators PW1 and LW2 after drawing samples by following the prescribed procedure, and based on the mediator report under Ex.P1, arrested the accused and brought the accused along with seized contraband and sample bottles to SEB Station, Ongole and handed over to PW3.

14.PW3, the Inspector of Police, SEB Station, Ongole deposed with regard to registration of case based on Ex.P1 mediator report, issuing Ex.P2, FIR, sending the accused 1 to 5 for judicial remand, samples to the chemical examiner, receipt of

Exs.P3 analysis report that the samples are Indian made Liquor and destruction of remaining seized liquor bottles under cover of

Ex.P5 mediatornama as per Ex.P4 proceedings of Deputy

Commissioner of Special Enforcement Bureau, Nellore and also filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/s 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

15.The evidence of PW2 is also corroborated by the evidence of PW1, the Administrative Secretary of

Vengamukkalapalem village , who also deposed that on 16-9- 2021 he along with LW2, proceeded to 1st lane of Mothera

Excise Court, Ongole.

CC No.220 of 2025

Page No.7 Therasa Colony behind the church in Vengamukkalapalem village, found A1 to A5 in possession of liquor bottles in huge quantity without any licence or permit and accused confessed that A2 was bringing the liquor bottles from Telangana state whenever he goes to Hyderabad and giving them to A1 to A5 for resale at higher price to earn profits.

16.Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution has proved its case by examining P.W.2, and by marking Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 that accused are found in possession of liquor bottles in more than prescribed quantity without any license or permit. Hence accused are liable for punishment for the offence u/s 34(a) of AP Excise Act. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused contended that in this case, the complainant, who lead the raiding party to the scene of offence by securing mediators was not examined by the prosecution, which is fatal to the prosecution. Further, LW10, did not follow the procedure u/s 100(4) Cr.P.C., while secure P.W1 and LW2 and they were not served any notices in writing to act as mediators.

Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be taken into consideration. He further argued that except the confession statement of accused, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused that they are in possession and selling the liquor bottles, which is not admissible in view of Section 24 of Indian

Evidence Act. Hence, the accused are entitled to acquittal.

17.In view of contentions of accused, the evidence of

P.Ws. 1 and 2 is to be scrutinized carefully. It is elicited from the evidence of PW1 that Commissioner of Ongole municipality is

Excise Court, Ongole.

CC No.220 of 2025

Page No.8 their higher official, but he did not give any written or oral permission to their higher officials before he proceeded to the scene of offence and that he did not mention in their movement register that he is accompanied the SEB police to the scene of offence. He further admitted that scene of offence is surrounded by residential houses, but excise police did not examine any of them in his presence; that one of the constables scribed Ex.P1 at the scene of offence by the side of road and that Ex.P1 does not show that there is lighting facility on the road at scene of offence to prepare Ex.P1. He further admitted that SEB police did not give any notice in writing to him to act as mediator and his nature of duties are levying taxes and collection of taxes and his office timings are 10 am to 5 pm and that he is a native of

Chirala and daily he used to come to Vengamukkaapalem from

Chirala. He further admitted that the JD Team SEB, Ongole office is situated in Santhapet, Ongole. In between the scene of offence and the office of JD Team Ongole, there is Collectorate and RDO Office and VROs are also available in

Vengamukkalapaem village. It is also elicited from the evidence of PW1 that the SEB police, Ongole did not show him the identity proofs of A1 to A5.

18. It is also elicited from the evidence of PW2 that he does not know whether LW10 served notices in writing to PW1 and LW2 to act as mediators; that they did not follow the procedure u/s 165 Cr.P.C., to conduct search, that they did not secure any document to show that the said house belongs to A1, so also relating to the seized vehicles to connect the accused with those vehicles, that they did not obtain the signatures of

Excise Court, Ongole.

CC No.220 of 2025

Page No.9 accused on each and every page of mediator report, though it is mandatory; that the names of mediators are not found in 1st page of Ex.P1 mediator report; that they did not mention in Ex.P1 that there is electricity facility near the scene of offence and that there are Sachilavalayam in the locality of office of JD Team,

SEB Ongole, but he does not know whether LW10 tried to secure mediators from the said Sachilivalayam .

19.The search as contemplated by Section 100 of Cr.P.C., shall be made in the presence of two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in S. Baba Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2009(4) APLJ 57 HC that “Before making a search the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon 2 or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or any other locality if no such inhabitants of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.”

20.In this case, the above evidence of P.W1 and PW2 clearly shows that the scene of offence is a busy locality, but,

LW10 did not try to secure them to act as mediators and no notices were served to PW1 also u/s 100(4) Cr.P.C., and no specific reason was mentioned in Ex.P1 mediator report as to why they secured PW1 and LW2 from Vengamukkalapalem

Sachivalayam, even though they have prior intimation. Further perusal of Ex.p1 also shows that the names of mediators are not

Excise Court, Ongole.

CC No.220 of 2025

Page No.10 mentioned in Ex.P1 before commencing the report. It all gives creates a doubt about seizure of contraband and preparing

Ex.p1 at the scene of offence itself, when there is no lighting facility at 8-00 am at the time of its preparation at the scene of offence. At the first instance Pw1 also did not state that he put signature in Ex.P1 at the scene of offence itself.

21.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for accused, the confession statement of accused covered in Ex.P1 mediator report is not relevant as per Sections 24 and 25 of

Indian Evidence Act, and therefore, inadmissible in evidence.

Practically there is no independent evidence to show that accused were selling liquor bottles having possessed them in more than prescribed quantity without any license or permit. In view of the above discussion, the evidence of PW1 is also not believable. Therefore, it creates adverse inference against the prosecution version and seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of accused. To prove the seizure and also no photographs were taken at the time of seizure of contraband. No

GD entry was produced by prosecution to prove the incident. As a matter of fact, the case of the accused is one of total denial.

When that be the case, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that accused were in possession of the liquor bottles in more than prescribed quantity without any license or permit for selling them at higher price without any license or permit, but practically, there is no evidence in that regard. PW2 did not mention the names of GROs from where the accused purchased the liquor bottles, and she is the complainant and investigating officer in this case. The evidence of P.W.2 is so mechanical on

Excise Court, Ongole.

CC No.220 of 2025

Page No.11 one side without complying any provisions of law.

22.Admittedly, the guilt of the accused is to be proved by prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. But all the above discussion creates a doubt about the occurrence of incident and seizure of contraband from the possession of accused, as contended by the learned counsel for accused. Hence, this Court is coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused of the offence beyond all reasonable doubt, with which they are charged and accordingly he is entitled to benefit of doubt. The point is answered accordingly against the prosecution.

23.In the result, the accused No.1 to 5 found not guilty of the offence u/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, and accordingly, they acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and of their sureties, if any, shall remain in force for a period of 6 months. The unmarked unspent portion in sample liquor bottles shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- S.Komavalli,

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Excise Court, Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution For Defence PW1 : D.Sankar -Nil - PW2 : G.Suresh PW3 : B.Latha

Excise Court, Ongole.

CC No.220 of 2025

Page No.12

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution Ex.P1 : Mediator report Ex.P2 : First Information Report Ex.P3 : Chemical analysis report Ex.P4 : Attested copy of Proceedings of Deputy Commissioner Ex.P5 : Attested coy of mediators report

For Defence:- -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/- S.Komavalli,

Spl. JMFC, Excise Court, Ongole.

// True copy //

Spl. JUMFC, Excise Court, Ongole.

Excise Court, Ongole.

CC No.220 of 2025

Page No.13 APPR0A0003782025

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, EXCISE COURT :: ONGOLE.

Present: Smt. S.Komalavalli, Special Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Excise court, Ongole.

Thursday, this the 14th day May 2026

C.C. No. 220 of 2025

Between: The Inspector of Police Prohibition & Excise Station, Ongole.

... Complainant

And

1. Gaddam Narasimha, S/o. Narayana, aged 35 years, R/o. Rajapanagal Road, Ongole

2. Konduri Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o. Ramulu, 42 years, R/o. Jaggarajupalem village, Marripudi Mandal, presently R/o. NGO Colony Road, Ongole

3. Konduri Kumar Raja, S/o. Mallikarjuna Rao, aged 21 years, R/o. Jaggarajupalem village, Marripudi Mandal, presently R/o. NGO Colony Road, Ongle

4. Vaka Subba Reddy, S/o. Singa Reddy, aged 38 years, R/o. NGO Colony, Ongole

5. Konda Suresh, S/o. Krishna Murthy, aged 45 years, N/o Gareebnagar, Atmakur, Kurnool District, R/o. Sonia Gandhi Nagar, Ongole. … Accused

Excise Court, Ongole.

CC No.220 of 2025

Page No.14 Charges under section(s) : Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Date of occurrence:16-09-2021 Date of report:16-09-2021 Date of appearance:29-04-2025 Date of commencement of trial:18-11-2025 Date of closure of trial:13-05-2026 Date of hearing :13-05-2026 Date of Judgment:14-05-2026

Plea of the Accused :Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Result of the Case: In the result, the accused No.1 to 5 found not guilty of the offence u/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, and accordingly, they acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and of their sureties, if any, shall remain in force for a period of 6 months. The unmarked unspent portion in sample liquor bottles shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Explanation for the delay :The case was taken on file on 29-01-2025. On 29-04-2026 copies furnished to A1 to A5. On 26-05-2025 A1 to A5 were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C., charge U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, framed against A1 to A5, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the offence and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 3 were examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were marked. After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on 13-04-2026 by examining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence in question form, in Telugu, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence, and heard arguments. Judgment

pronounced (VSJ) on 14-05-2026. Hence, the delay.

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Ongole. Copy Submitted to The Hon’ble I-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Copy to: The Superintendent, Proh. & Excise, Ongole.

Excise Court, Ongole.

CC No.220 of 2025

Page No.15 // True copy //

Spl. JMFC, Excise Court, Ongole.

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.2816 of 2022 Page 1

APPR0A0129302022

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, EXCISE COURT :: ONGOLE.

Present: Smt. S.Komalavalli, Special Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Excise Court, Ongole.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

C.C. No. 2816 of 2022

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Chimakurthy police station. ... Complainant

And

Mogilisetty Ramanjaneyulu S/o Brahmaiah, 30 years, R/o NSP colony, Chimakurthy town. … Accused Yarrabolu Yedukondalu S/o Kotireddy, 28 years, R/o Nagambotlapalem village, Thalluru mandal. ...Deceased

This case came before me on 11-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and Sri. B.Balaji Singh, Advocate for the accused, and upon perusal of material on record 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, Chimakurthy police station, filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.160/2022 alleging that accused committed the offences punishable U/sec.304-A and 338 of IPC.

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.2816 of 2022 Page 2

2.The averments of the charge sheet in brief are as follows:-

Deceased is native of Nnagambotlapalem village,

Thalluru mandal. About 7 years ago his marriage was performed with PW1 and they blessed with a baby girl. He was working as a driver to the Government Ration vehicle. The deceased, accused,

LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy, LW8/Y.Mallaiah @ Srinu and PW2 are close friends. On 13-05-2022 the marriage of LW7/K.Venkateswara

Reddy took place. Therefore, the deceased, accused, PW2 and

LW8/Y.Mallaiah @ Srinu asked LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy, for party.

Thereupon on 10-06-2022 they went to Chimakurthy in a car bearing No.AP 39 DU 9333 (herein referred to as "crime vehicle") to pick up accused. At the request of accused to drive the car, the car was given to accused for driving the vehicle. From there, they were proceeding to RS Dhaba. While they are about to take “U” turn, all of a sudden a lorry came in opposite direction.

Therefore, the accused lost control over the car, and the car moved towards NSP canal and fell down in the canal. As a result, they all fell down and received injuries. All of them were shifted to

GGH, Ongole in 108 ambulance. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries at 11-35PM on that day.

LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy received fracture injury to his right thigh.

3.Based on the report given by LW1/Y.Kotireddy, the father of deceased, a case in Cr.No.160/2022 was registered by

PW10 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chimakurthy for the offence

U/sec.337 and 304-A IPC, issued First Information Report, and took

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.2816 of 2022 Page 3 up investigation. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared scene observation report in the presence of mediators and blood relatives and sent the dead body of deceased for postmortem examination. Later, on 30-06-2022 he examined PW2, LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy, LW8/Y.Mallaiah @

Srinu and recorded their statements. It is further submitted that the eye witnesses have clearly stated that accused was driving the crime vehicle i.e., car bearing No.AP 39 DU 9333 at the time of incident, but LW1 the father of deceased and relatives, unknowingly stated that the deceased himself drove the crime vehicle.

4.During the course of further investigation, on 02-07- 2022 PW10 served notice U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C., to the accused and sent the requisition to inspect the crime vehicle to Motor Vehicle

Inspector. After receipt of wound certificates of PW2,

LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy, and LW8/Y.Mallaiah @ Srinu that they received grievous injuries, he filed memo altering the section of law from 337 to 338 of IPC. After receipt of postmortem certificate and Motor Vehicle Inspector, report he completed the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences

U/sec.338 and 304-A of IPC.

5.Cognizance was taken against accused for the offence

U/sec. 304-A and 338 of IPC by this Court.

6.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated u/s.207 Cr.P.C.

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.2816 of 2022 Page 4

7.Accused is examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation for the offence U/sec.304-A and 338 of

IPC, in Telugu, for which accused denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

8.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined

PW1 to PW10, and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 to prove its case.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of

LW2/Y.Perireddy, LW4/Y.Pedda Kotireddy, LW5/G.Peramma,

LW6/Y.Srinivasa Reddy, LW11/K.Chinnaiah, LW12/S.Ramanareddy, and LW18/Ranga Reddy to avoid repetition of evidence. The evidence of LW1/Y.Kotireddy is closed by this court, based on the memo filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, Chimakurthy as he died. In spite of passing conditional order, the prosecution did not produce

LW8/Y.Mallaiah @ Srinu and LW17/K.Siva Prasad Raju . Hence their evidence is is closed by this Court. Thus, prosecution side evidence is closed.

9.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused is

examined U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C.. Accused denied the incriminating

material against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

10.During the course of cross-examination of PW1, Ex.D1 is marked by the accused.

11.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material on record.

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.2816 of 2022 Page 5

12.Now the points that arise for consideration are :-

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of

accused for the offence U/sec.304-A of IPC, beyond

all reasonable doubt”?

2. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of

accused for the offence U/sec.338 of IPC, beyond all

reasonable doubt”?

13. POINTS No.1 and 2 :-

Since these both points required same facts and evidence for discussion, to avoid repetition these points are answered together.

14.The case of the prosecution is - accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, due to which the crime vehicle went into NSP canal, and thereby the deceased, PW2, LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy, LW8/Y.Mallaiah @

Srinu received grievous injuries and shifted to hospital for treatment and on the same day of incident, the deceased succumbed to the injuries and PW2, LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy,

LW8/Y.Mallaiah @ Srinu received grievous injuries, and thereby accused is facing accusation for the offences U/sec.304-A and 338 of IPC.

15.To establish the offences U/sec.304-A and 338 of NI Act, the prosecution has to establish that;

a) the death of deceased and grievous injuries received by the injured;

b) that the accused is responsible for the death of deceased and injuries received by injured; and

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.2816 of 2022 Page 6

c) that due to rash and negligent act of A1, the deceased died.

Here in this case, the rash and negligent act of accused, as alleged by the prosecution is, driving of crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

16.To prove the death of deceased and grievous injuries received by PW2, LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy, LW8/Y.Mallaiah @

Srinu the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW7, PW9 and PW10.

17.PW1 has stated that on 10-06-2022 her husband i.e., deceased was coming to Ongole from Nagambotlapalem in a car along with accused PW2, LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy, and two others. At that time, accused was driving the car. When they reached near NSP canal at the outskirts of Chimakurthy, accused drove the vehicle at high speed, due to which, the car fell in the

NSP canal. Her husband and two other persons present in the car, received injuries and they were shifted to hospital in 108 ambulance. Sometime thereafter her husband died. At about 10- 00PM her brother in law received phone call about accident, and informed the same to her. Immediately, she came to Government hospital, Ongole, and by that time her husband died.

18.PW2, one of the injured eye witness deposed that about 2 years ago, on one day while himself, accused, deceased,

LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy, LW8/Y.Mallaiah @ Srinu were driving the car from Nagambotlapalem to Ongole and reached near

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.2816 of 2022 Page 7

Chimalamarri village at about 10-00AM, one lorry came in opposite direction. To escape from a dash from that lorry, the deceased turned the car to a side, due to which the said car fell into a side canal. He received injuries to his waist and lost his consciousness. Later, he was shifted to Venkataramana hospital, for treatment. He came to know that the deceased died on the spot after receiving injuries. Accused, LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy,

LW8/Y.Mallaiah @ Srinu also received injuries, but he does not know in which hospital they were shifted.

19.PW3, working as VRO deposed that on 11-06-2022 at the request of Chimakurthy police, she went to bus stand area, which is at a distance of 2KM from Chimakurthy, and found one white colour shift Dezire car bearing No.AP 39 DU 9333 was present there, which fell into to a side drainage canal. In their presence police prepared scene observation report, and also took photos of the scene of offence and obtained the signatures of herself and LW11/K.Chennaiah. She further deposed that on the next day they went to RIMS hospital, Ongole, at the request of police, and in their presence police conducted Ex.P3 inquest report and during inquest they opined that the deceased died due to receiving of injuries in road accident.

20.PW4 Medical officer, deposed that on 10-01-2020 he examined LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy at KIMS hospital, Ongole, and found multiple abrasions over right side of the face, right foot, left elbow, right shaft femur fracture, and discharged him from hospital on 17-06-2022. At that time he was in stable condition. To that effect he issued wound certificate with the opinion that injury

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.2816 of 2022 Page 8 number No.1 is simple in nature and 2nd injury is grievous injury, and the said certificate is marked as Ex.P4.

21.PW5 deposed that on 10-06-2022 he examined PW2, in

Venkataramana hospital, Ongole, and found abrasion of 6 X 4 cm over left arm and complain back pain, and referred PW2 to MRI scan report, which shows that there is mid wedge compression with marrow edema seen at D10, D11, D12 vertebral bodies and stir hyper intense edema seen muscle injury at posterior left para spinal muscle planes at level of D12 to L-3, and to that effect he issued Ex.P5 wound certificate that the injuries are grievous in nature.

22.PW7, who is Radiologist at KIMS hospital, Ongole, deposed that on 12-06-2022 he issued CT scan report to

LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy, marked as Ex.P7 and as per his observations there is a fracture of femur bone.

23.PW9, another Radiologist deposed that on 25-06-2022 he took X-ray of PW2, AP lateral view of PW2 and observed that there is no significant abnormity in thoracic and issued Ex.P9 report.

24.PW6, the medical officer, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased stated that after receipt of requisition from

Station House Officer, Chimakurthy he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased and found external and internal injuries over the dead body of deceased and issued Ex.P6

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.2816 of 2022 Page 9 postmortem examination report with the opinion that the deceased died due to multiple injuries 12 to 24 hours prior to examination.

25.PW10 the investigating officer deposed on the lines of investigation made by him about registration of case after receipt of Ex.P10 complaint from PW1, visiting the scene of offence, preparing Ex.P12 rough sketch, Ex.P2 scene observation report, conducting Ex.P3 inquest report, examination of witnesses, receiving postmortem certificate and wound certificate of injured in this case, and filingcharge sheet.

26.As seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, prosecution could prove the death of deceased and receiving of siple and grievous injuries by PW2, LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy and LW8/Y.Mallaiah @ Srinu. In fact accused is not denying death of deceased and receiving of simple and grievous injuries by PW2,

LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy, LW8/Y.Mallaiah @ Srinu, but his contention is - at the time of incident, the deceased himself was driving the crime vehicle, but not himself, which was also deposed by PW2.

27.Admittedly, in this case, PW1, the wife of deceased is not an eye witness to the incident, and it is elicited from her evidence that she came to know about the accident through LW1, and denied that she stated before the police as in Ex.D1 that on 10-06-2022 at about 9-30PM when her husband along with his friends was going to Ongole to watch a movie the said accident took place. She further admitted that she filed MVOP which is pending. Except PW2 the other injured LW7/K.Venkateswara

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.2816 of 2022 Page 10

Reddy, LW8/Y.Mallaiah @ Srinu are not examined by prosecution, and their evidence is closed by this Court based on the memo filed by prosecution on 15-04-2026 that LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy went to other country and did not produce LW8/Y.Mallaiah @ Srinu in spite of passing conditional order.

28.The only eye witness PW2 categorically stated in his evidence that the deceased was driving the crime vehicle at the time of accident. He was declared as hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined him, but nothing could be elicited from his evidence, except marking his Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement that he stated before the police that the accused was driving the car at the time of accident and due to rash and negligent driving of accused, the said accident took place. PW3 also admitted in his evidence during inquest also they came to the conclusion that the crime vehicle was driven by the deceased himself, and he lost control over the car, due to which the car went into the side canal, and the same was also mentioned in Column No.15 of Ex.P3 inquest report.

29.PW8 Motor Vehicle Inspector, deposed that at the request of Chimakurthy police on 24-07-2022 he inspected the crime vehicle i.e., Maruthi Desire car bearing No.AP 39 DU 9333 and found damage to the front and back portion of car and doors wind shield and other glasses were broken. He further deposed that break system and tyres are satisfactory and the steering is working, and to that effect he issued Ex.P8 report that the accident is not occurred due to any mechanical defect. However, he admitted in his cross-examination that without conducting road test, he issued Ex.P8 report that the steering and break system

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.2816 of 2022 Page 11 and tyres are satisfactory, which creates a doubt to believe his testimony.

30.PW10 the investigating officer also admitted in his evidence that in Ex.P10 complaint given by LW1 also it is mentioned that the crime vehicle was driven by the deceased himself at the time of accident, and the same was also mentioned in Column No.15 of Ex.P3 inquest report. PW1 also stated the same

before him as in Ex.D1 that the crime vehicle was driven by her

deceased husband at the time of accident.

31.From the above discussion it clearly shows that at the first instance till the examination of LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy,

LW8/Y.Mallaiah @ Srinu, who are injured eye witnesses, by PW10, the entire record of the prosecution shows that the deceased himself drove the crime vehicle at the time of accident in a rash andnegligentmanner.However,afterexamining

LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy, LW8/Y.Mallaiah @ Srinu only the accused was shown as driver of crime vehicle at the time of incident. Admittedly, in Ex.P11 FIR also the name of deceased was shown as accused in Column No.7. However, the prosecution failed to examine LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy, LW8/Y.Mallaiah @ Srinu to corroborate their case as developed by them subsequently. On the other hand, PW2 who is also one of the injured eye witnesses and present along with deceased, LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy,

LW8/Y.Mallaiah @ Srinu in the crime vehicle at the time of incident, has categorically stated that the deceased himself was driving the crime vehicle at the time of incident. Except marking his Sec.161

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.2816 of 2022 Page 12

Cr.P.C., statement nothing useful could be elicited by the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor during his cross-examination.

32.Even if it is presumed for a moment that accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, nothing is placed

before this Court to prove the rash and negligent driving of crime

vehicle at the time of accident, except the evidence of PW2, which is contrary to the prosecution case. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence except the prosecution case that accused is driving the crime vehicle at the time of incident in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the deceased died and PW2,

LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy, LW8/Y.Mallaiah @ Srinu received grievous injuries, it is not safe to convict the accused simply based on the evidence of PW1, the wife of deceased and PW10 investigating officer. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Points No.1 and 2 are answered against the prosecution.

33.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences

U/sec. 304-A and 338 of IPC, and accordingly, he is acquitted

U/sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said offences. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six(6) months under section 437-A Cr.P.C. No case property is produced in this case, as such no order is passed.

Dictated to the Stenographer of this Court, transcribed by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- S.Komalavalli,

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Ongole.

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.2816 of 2022 Page 13

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For ProsecutionFor Defence PW.1 : Y.Veeravani-Nil- PW.2 : R.Srinu PW.3 : K.Vijayalakshmi PW.4 : G.Suresh Babu PW.5 : Suman PW.6 : S.Ramesh Babu PW.7 : K.Ajay Krishna PW.8 : Ch.Karthik Pawan Kumar PW.9 : T.Moses Ezra PW.10: V.Anjaneyulu

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution Ex.P1 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2 Ex.P2 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3 Ex.P3 : Inquest report. Ex.P4 : Wound certificate of LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy Ex.P5 : Wound certificate of PW2 Ex.P6 : Postmortem certificate Ex.P7 : Medical report of LW7/K.Venkateswara Reddy Ex.P8 : Motor Vehicle Inspector report Ex.P9 : Medical report of PW2 Ex.P10: Statement of PW1 Ex.P11: First Information Report Ex.P12: Rough sketch

For Defence : Ex.D1 : Contradictory portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2.

Sd/- S.Komalavalli,

Spl. JMFC, Excise Court, Ongole. // True Copy //

Spl. JMFC, Excise Court, Ongole.

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.2816 of 2022 Page 14

APPR0A0129302022

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, EXCISE COURT :: ONGOLE.

Present: Smt. S.Komalavalli, Special Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Excise Court, Ongole.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

C.C. No. 2816 of 2022

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Chimakurthy police station. ... Complainant

And

Mogilisetty Ramanjaneyulu S/o Brahmaiah, 30 years, R/o NSP colony, Chimakurthy town. … Accused

Charges under section(s) : Sec. 304-A and 338 of IPC

Date of occurrence:10-06-2022 Date of report:11-06-2022 Date of appearance:--- Date of commencement of trial :04-02-2025 Date of closure of trial:04-05-2026 Date of hearing :11-05-2026 Date of Judgment:15-05-2026

Result of the Case: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences U/sec. 304-A and 338 of IPC, and accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.2816 of 2022 Page 15 offences. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six(6) months under section 437-A Cr.P.C. No case property is produced in this case, as such no order is passed.

Explanation for the delay : The case was taken on file on 29-12- 2022. On 13-02-2023 copies furnished to accused. On 12-10-2026 accused was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C, accusation U/Sec. 304-A and 338 of IPC were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution, PW1 to PW10 were examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and

Ex.D1 were marked. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C on 04-05-2026 and reported no defence evidence, and posted for arguments. On 11-05-2026 heard arguments on both sides, and posted for judgment. On 15-05- 2026 judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- S.Komalavalli,

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Ongole.

Copy Submitted to The Hon’ble I-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Copy to The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam at Ongole.

// True Copy //

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Ongole.

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.1027 of 2022, Page 1

APPR0A0098262022

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, EXCISE COURT :: ONGOLE.

Present: Smt. S.Komalavalli, Special Judicial Magistrate of I-Class Excise court, Ongole.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

C.C. No. 1027 of 2022

Between: State, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Inkollu police station. ... Complainant

And

1. Pallapolu Venkatesh, S/o. Venkata Subba Rao, aged 25 years, Balija, Pandillapalli Village, Vetapalem Mandal.

2. Pallapolu Ananda Babu, S/o. Venkata Subba Rao, 27 years, Balija, Pandillapalli Village, Vetapalem Mandal. … Accused

This case is presented before me on 11-05-2026 for further final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri L.Koteswara Rao, Advocate for the Accused No.1 and 2, and upon perusal of material on record 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, Inkollu police station, laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.115/2021 alleging that accused committed offences U/sec. 379 IPC and u/s 21(1) of Mines,

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.1027 of 2022, Page 2

Mineral Development and Regulation Act, 1957 and U/Sec. 3 of

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984.

2. The averments of the charge sheet in brief are as follows:

A1 and A2 are own brothers and residents of

Pandillapalli village of Vetapalem Mandal and A2 is having a tractor bearing No AP 07 TC 8363 and truck bearing No. AP 07 TC 8364. A2 went to that tractor as driver. Due to heavy demand of sand on 15-5-2021 afternoon A1 and A2 took tractor to government lands beyond railway track and committed theft of sand in government lands filled the same in tractor. A2 told to A1 to take the sand in the tractor to InKollu village and sell the sand at higher price and A1 is going to Inkollu village. At about 4-00 pm when A1 reached Krishna Canal near Thimmasamudram, he found police personnel an ran away from that place by leaving the tractor and informed to A2, since the sand was committed theft and A1 has no permission to transport the sand.

3. On reliable information PW4 - the Head Constable of

Inkollu police station secured the mediator's L.Ws. 1 and 2, noticed the said sand tractor and seized the same under cover of police proceedings and based on the police proceedings, a case in

Cr.No.115/2021 was registered u/s 379 of IPC and u/s 21(2) of

MMDR Act 1957 and u/s 3 of PDPP Act, issued FIR and took-up investigation. While so on 16-5-2021 A1 and A2 came to Inkollu police station and surrendered before the police. They were

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.1027 of 2022, Page 3 examined by them and they admitted their guilt in the presence of mediators, PW3 and LW4 - T. Satish. The confession of accused was recorded under cover of mediatornama and seized the vehicle documents and driving license and released the accused after serving notice u/s 41-A CrPC. Thereafter the seized sand was auctioned and as per the procedure and remitted the auctioned amount to the Government by LW6 - the sub-Inspector of Police and filed charge sheet against the accused under above sections of law.

4.This Court took cognizance against the accused for the offences U/sec.379 IPC.

5.On appearance of accused before the court, copies of all documents as contemplated u/s.207 Cr.P.C., are furnished to them.

6.Accused were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C.. Accused denied

the offences. Charge U/sec. 379 was framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.7. Learned APP given up the evidence of

LW4 - T. Satish to avoid repetition of evidence.

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.1027 of 2022, Page 4

8.A1 and A2 were examined u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material appearing against them from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

10. Now the points that arose for the consideration are :-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/sec.379 of IPC?

11.POINT No.1:-

According to the prosecution, A2, the owner of tractor and trailor bearing Nos. AP 07 TC 8363 and AP 07 TC 8364 respectively and A1, the driver of the tractor, committed theft of sand from government land without any permission and while transporting the said sand, it was seized by Inkollu police and thereby A1 and A2 are facing accusation for the offence u/s 379

IPC.

12.To establish the offence u/s 379 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the sand belongs to Government; that the said sand was taken from the possession of government by the accused without knowledge of government. To prove the same, the prosecution has examined P.ws. 1 to 5, out of whom, PWs. 1 and 2

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.1027 of 2022, Page 5 are the constables, who accompanied PW4- the investigating officer to the scene of offence for seizure of tractor and trailor containing the sand, alleged to have been committed theft. P.W3 is mediator for alleged confession of A1 and A2 that they committed theft of sand from government land. PW4 and PW5 ar investigating officers.

13.Unfolding the case of prosecution, PW1 and PW2 deposed in one tone that on 15-5-2021 at about 3-00 pm on recept of credible information by PW4 about illegal transport of sand in Thimmasamudram village, they along with PW4 went to

Thimmasamudram village. When they reached Krishna canal, they found a tractor was proceeding from Pandillapalli village towards

Thimmasamudram. On seeing them, the driver stopped the tractor and skulked away from that place PW4 verified the tractor and found sand in that tractor. PW4 seized the said vehicle by preparing police proceedings marked as Ex.P1, in which they have signed. Later PW4 sent a requisition to the Motor Vehicles

Inspector to know the details of vehicle.

14. PW3, one of the mediators for alleged confession of A1 and A2 deposed that police did not enquire any person in their presence. No body confessed about commission of any offence in his presence. He signed on some papers at the request of police, but he does not know the contents therein. Except identifying his signature in mediators report dt.16-5-2021, he pleaded ignorance of contents of said report. He was declared as hostile by learned

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.1027 of 2022, Page 6

APP and cross-examined him with the permission of this court stating that he is resiling from his previous version, but nothing useful could be elicited from his mouth in favour of prosecution.

15.PW4, the Head Constable of Inkollu police station has deposed that on 15-5-2021 at about 3-30 pm while he was in the police station, he received credible information about illegal transportation of sand and along with his staff, P.ws. 1 and 2 proceeded to that place near Krishna Canal in Thimmasamudram village, where they found one tractor bearing No. AP -07 TC 8363 along with trolley bearing No. AP 07 TC 8364 was coming from

Pandillapalli towards Thimmasamudram with sand load. On seeing the police, the driver of tractor ran away by leaving the tractor.

Later he has seized the tractor and trolley along with sand under cover of Ex.P1 police proceedings and brought the seized tractor along with trolley and sand. Later based on Ex.P1 police proceedings, he registered a case in Cr.No.151/2021 for the offence u/s 379 of IPC and u/s 21(2) of MMDR Act and u/s 3 of PDPP

Act, issued Ex.P3 FIR.

16.PW4 further deposed that on 16-5-2021 at about 10.30 am while he was present at the police station, the owner and driver of seized tractor, A.1 and A2 came to the police station.

Then he secured PW3 and LW4 to act as mediators and in their presence, on enquiry A1 and A2 confessed that A2 is owner of the seized tractor and A1 is his brother and directed A1 to load the sand near Railway track in Vetapalem for sale in higher price in

Inkollu. Accordingly A1 went to Vetapalem and after loading them

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.1027 of 2022, Page 7 while he was returning near Thimmasamudram on seeing the police A2 ran away. The said confession of A1 and A2 was reduced into writing as a mediator report by PW4 and served notices to A1 and A2 u/s 41-A CrPC and handed over CD filed to LW6 for further investigation in this case.

17.PW5, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Inkollu deposed that on 18-8-2021, he received CD file from PW4 and addressed a letter to Tahsildar, NG Padu to conduct auction of seized sand. As per orders of Tahsildar, NG padu under Ex.P4, he has auctioned the seized sand on 21-12-2021, prepared Ex.P5 auction proceedings and deposited the auction amount to the Government under Ex.P6 challan for Rs.2,000/-. Later he completed the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.

18.From the above evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5, except the evidence of P.W4, the investigating officer that A1 and A2 confessed that they committed theft of sand from government land in Vetapalem, no other oral or documentary evidence is placed

before this court by the prosecution. PW3, one of the mediators

for the alleged confession of A1 and A2 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Even otherwise, the alleged confession of A1 and A2 before PW3 in the custody of police is inadmissible in evidence.

19.It is elicited from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that they did not try to secure any person at InKollu to act as mediators

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.1027 of 2022, Page 8 and also from Thimmasumdram village i.e. the revenue officials or

Sachivalaym staff. Except themselves, no other person was present at the time of seizure of vehicle. They have not taken any photos of scene of offence. and the driver ran away by seeing them from a distance of 200 metres and they tried to catch him, but they could not. PW1 and PW2 further stated that they do not know from where the sand was being transported and whether it is official or unofficial transporting. PW1 further stated he does not know whether any GD entry was made before proceeding to the scene of offence and he was not examined by PW4. However, Pw2 stated that he was examined by PW4 at 4-00 pm and they have seized the tractor at 4-30 pm. PW2 and PW4 admitted that they did not affix any identity slips on the tractor with their signatures.

PW4 further admitted that the name of accused is shown as unknown tractor driver and the name of driver was not mentioned in Ex.P3 FIR. PW4 further admitted that he is the complainant and investigating officer in this case; that he did not give any information to the officers of Mines Department about seizure of sand in this case and he did not try to investigate, whether the seized sand was committed theft from government land or private land. PW5, the Sub-Inspector of police, who conducted auction of seized sand also deposed that he did not investigate and file any document to show that seized sand was committed theft from

Government land.

20.As seen from the above evidence of PW1 to 5, they did not file any document before this court to prove their contention

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.1027 of 2022, Page 9 that A2 is owner of seized tractor and trailor and A1 is its driver, even though they alleged to have verified and seized the crime vehicle records when A1and A2 surrendered before them on the next day of alleged seizure on 15-5-2021. PW1 stated that PW4 sent requisition to Motor Vehicles Inspector to furnish the ownership details of seized tractor, which was not at all deposed by PW4. In such scenario, in the absence of any document filed by prosecution, it is not safe to prove that A1 was driver and A2 is owner of seized tractor at the time of incident.

21.Further to prove that government sand was seized, which was taken away by accused without permission or knowledge of government, prosecution did not fie any document or record or did not examine any person in Vetapalem, from where

A1 and A2 alleged to have dug the sand and being transported unauthorizedly. As admitted by PWs.2 and 4, no photos were also taken at the time of alleged seizure of sand. In such scenario, the evidence of PW2 that he was examined by PW4 at 4-00 pm even

before alleged seizure creates a doubt. Further, the prosecution

did not follow the procedure u/s 100(4) Cr.P.C., at the time of alleged seizure of sand. Ex.P1 police proceedings does not disclose that PW4 tried to secure mediators but he could not secure them, as such he choose to prepare police proceedings.

Admittedly in this case PW4 is the investigating officer and complainant. This certainly reflects the credibility of the investigation done in the matter. The prosecution cannot rely upon the evidence of P.W.4 solely..Hence, the benefit of this procedural irregularity is given to the accused. (Podduturi Satyam Reddy

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.1027 of 2022, Page 10

Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor,

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 2001 (A1) ALT (Cri.) 66)

22.Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, which is cogent and convincing to the satisfaction of this court, placed by prosecution that the seized tractor belongs to A1 and A2 and in the absence of any GD entry made and produced before this court, in view of the evidence of PW2 that he was examined even

before seizure of sand, and non-taking of photos and following the

procedure u/s 100(4) Cr.P.C., it creates a doubt in the mind of this court whether the accused were really committed theft of sand and transporting the same without any permission. The cardinal principle in the criminal trial is prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. However in this case, except the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4, who are police officials, there is no corroboration to their evidence from any independent witness of the locality and their evidence is also not believable and acceptable in view of the above discussion. Therefore, this court is coming to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/s 379 IPC and thereby accused is entitled to acquittal. The point is answered against the prosecution.

23.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offence U/s 379 of IPC, and accordingly, they are acquitted under

Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and of their sureties, if any, shall remain in force for a period of 6 months. The unmarked case property i.e., tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 07 TC

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.1027 of 2022, Page 11 8363 and AP 07 TC 8364 was already given to its registered owner as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.172/2021, dt.07-06-2021, shall holds good after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- S.Komalavalli,

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Ongole.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For ProsecutionFor Defence PW.1 : K.Hari Chandra Naik -Nil- PW.2 : G.Anji Babu PW.3 : U.Satyanarayana PW.4 : V.Koteswara Rao PW.5 : N.C.Prasad Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution Ex.P1 : Police proceedings. Ex.P2 : Signature of PW3 on mediatornama Ex.P3 : First Information report Ex.P4 : Letter from the Tahsildar, dt.03-12-2021 Ex.P5 : Auction proceedings, dt.21-12-2021 Ex.P6 : Challan for Rs.2,000/-, dt.21-12-2021 Ex.P7 : Rough sketch For Defence : - Nil -

Sd/- S.Komalavalli,

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Ongole. // True copy //

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Ongole.

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.1027 of 2022, Page 12

APPR0A0098262022

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, EXCISE COURT :: ONGOLE.

Present: Smt. S.Komalavalli, Special Judicial Magistrate of I-Class Excise court, Ongole.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

C.C. No. 1027 of 2022

Between: State, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Inkollu police station. ... Complainant

And

1. Pallapolu Venkatesh, S/o. Venkata Subba Rao, aged 25 years, Balija, Pandillapalli Village, Vetapalem Mandal.

2. Pallapolu Ananda Babu, S/o. Venkata Subba Rao, 27 years, Balija, Pandillapalli Village, Vetapalem Mandal. … Accused

Charges under section(s) : Sec. 379 of IPC Date of occurrence:15-05-2021 Date of report:15-05-2021 Date of appearance:--- Date of commencement of trial :29-02-2024 Date of closure of trial:27-04-2026 Date of hearing :11-05-2026 Date of Judgment:15-05-2026

Excise Court, Ongole. CC.No.1027 of 2022, Page 13

Result of the Case: In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offence U/s 379 of IPC, and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and of their sureties, if any, shall remain in force for a period of 6 months. The unmarked case property i.e., tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 07 TC 8363 and AP 07 TC 8364 was already given to its registered owner as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.172/2021, dt.07-06-2021, shall holds good after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for the delay : The case was taken on file on 01-07- 2022. On 18-11-2022, copies furnished to A1 and A2. On 27-01- 2023 A1 and A2 were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C, charge U/s.379 IPC has been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 5 were examined, Exs.P1 to Ex/P7 were marked. After closure of the prosecution evidence, on 27-04-2026 A1 and A2 were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence, in question form, in Telugu, for which they denied. Heard arguments on 11-05-2026 and judgment pronounced in open court on 15-05-2026. Hence the delay.

Sd/- S.Komalavalli,

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Ongole.

Copy Submitted to The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole

Copy to The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam at Ongole. // True Copy //

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Ongole.

Spl. J.M.F.C., Excise Court, O.S.No.144/2020 FAC III-A.J.C.J. Court, Ongole.1 Dt.13-11-2024.

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION) :: ONGOLE.

Present: Smt. S. Komalavalli, Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Ongole. FAC III-Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ongole.

Wednesday, this the 13th day of November, 2024.

O.S.No.144 of 2020

Between:

Damacherla Venkata Subbayya, S/o. Kondayya, Hindu, aged 73 years, R/o. Tangutur Village, Post and Mandal, Prakasam District.…Plaintiff.

And

Tammineni Narasimha Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, Hindu, Aged 30 years, Business, R/o. Ravuri Somaiah Nagar, Tangutur Village, Post and Mandal, Prakasam District.…Defendant.

This suit came before me for final hearing on 07-11-2024 in the presence of Sri I. Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri B. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the defendant, and upon perusing the material, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1)This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.6,73,927/- being the balance amount due on a promissory note dt.17-09-2014 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/- agreeing to repay the

Spl. J.M.F.C., Excise Court, O.S.No.144/2020 FAC III-A.J.C.J. Court, Ongole.2 Dt.13-11-2024.

said amount with interest at 24% p.a., for subsequent interest and for costs.

2)The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows :

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 17-09-2014 for his business purpose and executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the same day agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Subsequently, defendant made a part payment of

Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff on repeated demands made by the plaintiff to repay the amount and endorsed the same on the back side of the promissory note on 05-09-2017 and thereby acknowledged the debt.

Later, defendant failed to repay balance amount due by him under the above said promissory note to the plaintiff inspite of repeated demands and requests made by him. On 25-01-2020 plaintiff also issued a registered legal notice to the defendant demanding to pay the balance amount due by him under the above said promissory note. Defendant received the said notice and issued reply on 05-02-2020 with false averments and did not pay the amount due under the above said promissory note. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit.

Spl. J.M.F.C., Excise Court, O.S.No.144/2020 FAC III-A.J.C.J. Court, Ongole.3 Dt.13-11-2024.

3)Defendant filed written statement denying the averments of plaint and submitted that on 20-02-2019 defendant paid entire amount due under the suit promissory note with interest to the plaintiff at his house in the presence of witnesses and requested the plaintiff to return the promissory note. Plaintiff stated that the promissory note was misplaced and he will return the same within four days. After four days, again, when the defendant approached the plaintiff to return the promissory note, plaintiff informed that he could not trace the suit promissory note and will return the same soon after it will be found and also replied to the defendant aggressively. It is further submitted that there is no amount due by the defendant to the plaintiff and the suit is filed by the plaintiff for wrongful gain and to harass the defendant.

There are no grounds to allow the claim of the plaintiff and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4)Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the defendant made a part payment of

Rs.10,000/- on 05-09-2017 and made endorsement on

the suit promissory note as mentioned in the plaint?

Spl. J.M.F.C., Excise Court, O.S.No.144/2020 FAC III-A.J.C.J. Court, Ongole.4 Dt.13-11-2024.

2. Whether the defendant discharged entire suit promissory note on 20-02-2019 as alleged in the written statement?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?

4. If so, to what relief?

5)During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3.

Defendant did not choose to examine any witness on his behalf inspite of giving sufficient time and passing conditional orders. Hence the evidence of defendant is treated as NIL and closed by this court.

6)Heard the counsel for plaintiff. Defendant also did not come forward for arguments inspite of passing conditional order. Hence, the arguments of defendant are treated as heard.

7)ISSUE NOS.2 AND 3 :-

Since both these issues are interrelated to each other and requires same facts and evidence for discussion, to avoid repetition these two issues are answered together.

Spl. J.M.F.C., Excise Court, O.S.No.144/2020 FAC III-A.J.C.J. Court, Ongole.5 Dt.13-11-2024.

8)Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and deposed reiterating his contentions that having borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from him on 17-09-2014, defendant executed a promissory note in his favour on the same day, marked as Ex.P1, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% p.a, either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and subsequently on his repeated demands, defendant also paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 05-09-2017 towards part payment of the amount due by him under the above said promissory note and endorsed the same on the backside of suit promissory note and thereby acknowledged the debt due by him under Ex.A1 promissory note. PW.1 further deposed that defendant failed to repay the balance amount due by him under the above said promissory note inspite of his several demands and requests.

Hence, he issued a registered legal notice to the defendant on 25-01- 2020 demanding the defendant to pay the amount due by him under the suit promissory note. The office copy of the registered legal notice is marked as Ex.A3. Inspite of receipt of the said legal notice, defendant did not pay the amount, but issued a reply notice on 05-02-2020, which is marked as Ex.A3 with false averments.

Spl. J.M.F.C., Excise Court, O.S.No.144/2020 FAC III-A.J.C.J. Court, Ongole.6 Dt.13-11-2024.

9) The contention of the defendant as seen from his written statement is, he repaid the entire amount to the plaintiff on 20-02-2019 in the presence of witnesses, but plaintiff did not return the promissory note stating that it was misplaced and will return the same within four days. Again, after four days when he approached the plaintiff to return the promissory note, plaintiff did not return the promissory note and gave reply aggressively. Therefore, from the contentions of the defendant, defendant is not denying the execution of suit promissory note, but he took the plea of discharge of the amount under the said promissory note. Therefore, the burden is on the defendant to prove his plea of discharge of the debt due by him under Ex.A1 suit promissory note. However, defendant did not come forward to adduce any evidence on his behalf to prove his contention.

10)Quite contrary to his pleadings in his written statement he suggested to PW.1 during cross-examination that since the plaintiff could not produce the attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note and since the plaintiff did not pay the amount under Ex.A1 promissory note to the defendant, the suit promissory note Ex.A1 is not a valid document. As seen from the Ex.A1 promissory note it was self-scribed by the defendant himself in

Spl. J.M.F.C., Excise Court, O.S.No.144/2020 FAC III-A.J.C.J. Court, Ongole.7 Dt.13-11-2024.

English language and PW.1 also categorically stated that the defendant himself scribed Ex.A1 promissory note in English language and also affixed two signatures at the Revenue stamp and one signature as a scribe of the Ex.A1 promissory note and the wife of defendant namely

Hima Bindu signed as attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note. Defendant did not deny the same by giving any suggestion that Hima Bindu is not his wife and she never signed as attestor to Ex.A1. Therefore, as rightly contented by the plaintiff, he could not produce the attestor of Ex.A1, who is none other than the wife of defendant and the defendant himself scribed the Ex.A1 promissory note.

11) It is pertinent to note that the defendant did not state in whose presence and at what place he paid the amount due by him under the said promissory note to the plaintiff and he did not try to examine any of those witnesses on his behalf to prove his contention. Even, as seen from Ex.A3 reply notice it is nothing but replica of the pleadings of the defendant in his written statement and in that notice also defendant did not mention the names of witnesses in whose presence he repaid the amount due by him to the plaintiff. Defendant is admittedly an educated person and he himself scribed Ex.A1 in English language. In that

Spl. J.M.F.C., Excise Court, O.S.No.144/2020 FAC III-A.J.C.J. Court, Ongole.8 Dt.13-11-2024.

scenario what prevented the defendant to issue any legal notice to the defendant, even before issuing Ex.A2 legal notice by plaintiff, demanding the plaintiff to return the promissory note to him after discharge of the amount due by him on 20-02-2019 itself and also to give any police complaint against the plaintiff for misusing Ex.A1 promissory note by plaintiff even after discharge of the entire amount due by him. There is no explanation from the defendant in that regard. No ordinary prudent person will keep quite without taking any action against a person, after payment of huge amount due by him under any Negotiable Instruments, when that person did not return the instrument after receipt of the amount. Therefore, this court is not accepting the said contention of the defendant, which is not believable from the perception of an ordinary common person. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the defendant failed to prove his contentions even by preponderance of probabilities and thereby failed to disprove the case of plaintiff with regard to the amount due by him under the suit promissory note.

Hence, this court is coming to the conclusion that plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit amount as prayed for. Hence, issue No.3 is answered in favour of plaintiff and issue No.2 is answered against the defendant.

Spl. J.M.F.C., Excise Court, O.S.No.144/2020 FAC III-A.J.C.J. Court, Ongole.9 Dt.13-11-2024.

12)ISSUE NO.1:

The contention of the plaintiff as seen from his pleadings is defendant paid Rs.10,000/- on 05-09-2017 and endorsed the same on the backside of the promissory note and acknowledged the debt. As seen from the record, this suit is filed on 18-02-2020 i.e., within limitation period from the date of said part payment of Rs.10,000/- on 05-09-2017. Defendant is not denying, with any specific contention that the said part payment endorsement is not true and suit is barred by limitation. In fact, his contention is he repaid the entire amount to the plaintiff on 20-02-2019. Therefore, this court is coming to the conclusion that, having paid Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff on 05-09-2017 and endorsed the same on the backside of suit promissory note, defendant also admitted the said part payment endorsement. This issue No.1 is also answered in favour of plaintiff.

13)ISSUE NO.4

In view of the above discussion on issues No.1 to 3, the suit is to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

Spl. J.M.F.C., Excise Court, O.S.No.144/2020 FAC III-A.J.C.J. Court, Ongole.10 Dt.13-11-2024.

14)In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.6,73,927/- in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and with future interest at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,90,000/-.

Dictated by me to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13th day of November, 2024.

Sd/-S. Komalavalli,

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Ongole FAC III-Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :-FOR DEFENDANT:-

P.W.1- Damacherla Venkata SubbayyaNIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :-

Ex.A-1:- Dt.17-09-2014, Original promissory note with part payment endorsement dated 05-09-2017.

Ex.A-2:- Office copy of lawyer notice with postal acknowledgment.

Ex.A-3 :- Reply notice, dated 05-02-2020.

Spl. J.M.F.C., Excise Court, O.S.No.144/2020 FAC III-A.J.C.J. Court, Ongole.11 Dt.13-11-2024.

FOR DEFENDANT :- NIL

Sd/-S. Komalavalli,

Spl. J.M.F.C,

FAC III AJCJ,

ONGOLE.

III-AJCJ -1- O.S.No.979/2023 Dt.11-11-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION) :: ONGOLE.

Present: Smt. S. Komalavalli, Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Ongole, FAC III-Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ongole.

Monday, this the 11th day of November, 2024.

O.S.No.979 of 2023

Between:

State Bank of India, Bazar Branch, Railway Station Road, Ongole, Rep. by Branch Manager cum Principal Officer.…Plaintiff.

And

Tanguturi Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Chimipraiah, Proprietor of Sumanth Oil Traders, Aged 48 years, Hindu, Business, Shop No.113, Surya Complex, Opp. TDP Office, Old Guntur Road, Ongole, R/o. D.No.1-1-15, Mamidipalem, Ward No.19, Ongole.…Defendant.

This suit came before me for final hearing on 11-11-2024 in the presence of Sri M. Raghava Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte, and upon perusing the material, on hearing the counsel for plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank seeking recovery of

Rs.5,45,131/- pleading that on the application made by defendant to the plaintiff bank on 02-09-2022 for sanction of cash credit Mudra loan, the plaintiff bank sanctioned an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to defendant and

III-AJCJ -2- O.S.No.979/2023 Dt.11-11-2024 disbursed the loan amount to the defendant on 22-09-2022 under loan account No.41293336789. Defendant executed loan agreement in favour of plaintiff Bank on the same day and agreed to repay the loan amount with interest at 10.80% p.a. repayable in 60 equal monthly installments. Defendant agreed to pay penal interest of 2%, in case of default of payment of installments. Defendant committed series of defaults of the terms and conditions and failed to pay monthly installments of Rs.8,333/- for repayment of loan availed by him. He is due an amount of Rs.5,45,131/- as on 12-10-2023 as per the account of defendant maintained by plaintiff bank. It is further submitted that the defendant did not pay the remaining installments as per the repayment schedule in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff bank including issuance of notice on 24-05-2023 and 23-08-2023 by plaintiff bank and also issuance of legal notice by the plaintiff bank on 01-06- 2023, which was returned. Hence the plaintiff bank filed this suit.

2.Defendant appeared through his counsel after receipt of summons from the court. However, he did not file written statement within stipulated period. Hence, defendant was set exparte.

3. On behalf of the plaintiff, its Branch Manager is examined as

PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A9.

III-AJCJ -3- O.S.No.979/2023 Dt.11-11-2024

4.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

5.Now the point for consideration is whether plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

Point:

6.The Branch Manager of plaintiff Bank, having GPA in his favour, examined as PW1, deposed reiterating the averments of the plaint and stated that on the application made by defendant on 02-09- 2022, marked as Ex.A1, the plaintiff bank sanctioned an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant under cash credit Mudra loan. Defendant executed an arrangement letter and loan agreement with standard terms and conditions, on 22-09-2022 in favour of plaintiff bank, agreeing to repay the amount in installments with interest at 10.80%. in 60 equal monthly installments, marked as Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 respectively. PW1 further deposed that defendant did not pay the installments as agreed by him in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff bank issued notice to the defendant on 24-05-2023 and 23-08- 2023 marked as Ex.A4 and the defendant got it returned the Ex.A4 notice on 01-09-2023, marked as Ex.A5. PW.1 further deposed that they

III-AJCJ -4- O.S.No.979/2023 Dt.11-11-2024 issued a legal notice on 01-06-2023 marked as Ex.A6 and the same was returned, marked as Ex.A7 and the defendant did not repay the amount to the plaintiff bank. PW1 further deposed that as per the statement of account, marked as Ex.A9, as on 12-10-2023 defendant due an amount of Rs.5,45,131/- to the plaintiff bank.

7. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A9 clearly proves the claim of the plaintiff that having received the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- sanctioned by the plaintiff bank under Mudra loan, defendant executed

Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 arrangement letter and loan agreement in favour of plaintiff bank agreeing to repay the same with interest at 10.80% agreeing to repay the said amount in 60 equal monthly installments but he committed series of default in payment of monthly installments to the plaintiff bank in spite of several demands made by plaintiff including issuance of Ex.A3 notice and Ex.A6 legal notice, and as on 12-10-2023, as per the Ex.A9 statement of loan account of defendant, defendant due an amount of Rs.5,45,131/-, but he did not pay the amount.

8.There is no rebuttal evidence from defendant’s side to deny

Ex.A1 to A9 and the oral evidence of PW1, even though he appeared

before the court through his advocate after receipt of summons and did

not file any written statement denying the contentions of the plaintiff.

III-AJCJ -5- O.S.No.979/2023 Dt.11-11-2024

Hence the evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A9 proves the sanction of Mudra loan to the defendant and execution of Ex.A3 loan agreement in favour of plaintiff bank agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 10.80% p.a. and subsequent default in payment of installments by defendant in spite several requests and demands made by the bank including issuance of legal notice by plaintiff bank, remained unrebutted. Therefore, the oral evidence of PW1, corroborated by Ex.A1 to A9 is sufficient to prove the contentions of plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff proved the suit claim and entitled for recovery of suit amount thus claimed. The point is answered accordingly.

9.In the result the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for Rs.5,45,131/- with interest at 12% p.a.

from the date of suit till the date of decree and with further interest at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11th day of November, 2024.

Sd/- S. Komalavalli,

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Ongole, FAC. III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ongole.

III-AJCJ -6- O.S.No.979/2023 Dt.11-11-2024

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :-FOR DEFENDANT:- EXPARTE

P.W.1 – Vudithe Rama Nayak

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :- Ex.A1 : Loan application, dt.02-09-2022. Ex.A2 : Arrangement letter, dt.22-09-2022. Ex.A3 : Loan agreement, dt.22-09-2022. Ex.A4 : Office copy of notice issued by plaintiff, dt.24-05-2023. Ex.A5 : Returned postal cover of defendant dt.01-09-2023 for the notice issued on 23-08-2023. Ex.A6 : Office copy of legal notice issued by plaintiff to the defendant ,

dt. 01-06-2023.

Ex.A7 : Postal returned cover of defendant of his office address, dt. 03- 06-2023. Ex.A8 : Postal acknowledgment of defendant, dt.04-06-2023. Ex.A9 : Account copy, dt.12-10-2023.

FOR DEFENDANT:- EXPARTE

Sd/- S. Komalavalli,

Spl. J.M.F.C.,

FAC III A.J.C.J.,

Ongole.