S. Prathima PJCJ

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: KADIRI

Present: Miss. S. Prathima, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri

Friday, the 10 th day of January, 2025

C.C.No.237 of 2017

Between:

The state:

Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadiri Town P.S. (Cr.No.177 of 2014) … Complainant.

and

C.Athik Ali, aged 22 years S/O C.Asif Ali

R/O Valisab road, Kadiri town, C/O Room No.29

Municipal Vegetable market, Kadiri town.

… Accused.

This case is coming on 02.01.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri Patan Jaffer Khan, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadiri Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.177 of 2014 of Kadiri Town

Police Station for the offence punishable Under Section 332, 353 of

Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows;

On 09.06.2014 at about 9.30 p.m at Jamiya Mosque, Kadiri town wherein accused 1) Athuik Ali 2) Patan Yusuf and some others of 2 Kadiritown attacked the complainant G. Baba Fakrtuddin @ Babu who was working as Home Guard No.25 in Kadiri Urban P.S. while he was on duty to observe what was going in the mosque as without to give permission for speech of one Anjarsha moulana of Bangalore with hands and legs and caused internal injuries. Basing on the complaint ofL.W.1, the complainant G. Baba Fakruddin @ Babu, the present case is registered against the accused. During the course of investigation,

L.W.5 Sub Inspector of police, Kadiri town P.s. examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and drawn of the scene of offence. L.W.6 took further investigation into the case and visited the scene of offence. On 09.06.2014 at 9.30 pm there was speech of Anjarsha of Bangalore in Jamiya mosque but permission was not given to the said speech. On the instructions of the S.I of police, Kadiri town P.S. L.W.1 went to Jamiya for observing the speech of Anjarsha and for not occurring any untoward incidents and the said Anjarsha returned without giving speech due to permission is not granted. While L.W.1 was standing up, his cell phone fell and he was talking his cell phone, Athik Ali and some others surrounded and caught hold of him by stating that he was taking photos and beat him with hands and legs. While L.W.1 was discharging his legitimate duties, A.1 Athik Ali attacked on the L.W.1, assaulted him by beating him. . So the charge sheet is filed against he accused Athik Ali only. If future traced the said alleged accused A.2 Yusuf, supplementary charge sheet will be filed against him. . So the charge sheet is field against the accused Athik Ali only. On 20.12.2016

Accused Athik Ali was arrested and sent him to judicial custody for remand. Hence the accused is liable to be punished U/sec.332, 353 IPC.

3. This court took cognizance of the case against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.332, 353 IPC.

4. After appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for which he denied the same. After hearing both sides and on perusal of record, a charge 3 U/sec.332, 353 IPC was framed against accused. The same was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus the case was posted for trial.

6. To establish the case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6 and accused has not chosen to lead evidence on his side.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code for which he denied the incriminating evidence spoken against him appearing in the evidence of PWs.1 to 6. However no defence evidence was adduced.

8. Heard on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is that whether the

prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt or not?

10. The learned A.P.P. submitted that the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and there is sufficient evidence to convict the accused and hence the accused is liable for punishment as per Law.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the evidence of the prosecution is not trust worthy and no reliance can be placed on their evidence and there is no base for conviction and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

12. This court perused the depositions and other relevant records placed by the prosecution.

13. PW1 is the de facto complainant and victim who gave report/Ex.P1 against the accused before the I.O/L.W.5. P.W.1 deposed that on 09.06.2014 at about 8.00 p.m he went to the police station. At about 8.30 p.m. L.W.5 instructed him to ensure the safety at Jamia Masjid while Anjarsha preaches. At about 9.00 p.m he went to the Jamia

Masjid in Kadiri, he was discharging his duty at the Jamia masjid, while he was sitting there as the preaching did not commence, there was some galata going on in Jamia masjid when he tried to get up, then his mobile 4 phone fell on the ground and he tried to pick up the phone by bending down. The accused beat him with hands and legs by assuming that he was taking photographs with his mobile. L.W.2 came over there and rescued him from the hands of the accused. Later he went to police station and informed the incident to L.W.5 and gave report Ex.P.1

14. During the course of cross examination of P.W.1, he stated that. He did not receive any written orders from L.W.5 but he received his oral orders. He did not obtain permission from the priest of the said masjid. He went to some private hospital for treatment. He does not remember the name of the doctor to whom he approached.

15. P.W.2 to P.W.4 deposed that they do not know anything about the case facts and they all turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.

16. P.W.5 S. Abdul Rahiman, who worked as S.I of police, Kadiri town P.S,. deposed that on 10.06.2014 at about 1.00 a.m while he was present in the police station, P.W.1 came to the police station and gave written complaint. Basing on the complaint, he registered a case in Cr.No.177 of 2014 for the offence U/sec.332 r/w 34 IPC. He examined the P.W.1 and recorded his statement. He proceeded to the scene of offence at Jamiya Masjid and drawn the rough sketch Ex.P.6. He handed over the CD file to L.W.6 for further investigation.

17. P.W.6 G.Gopaludu S.I of police, Kadiri town P.S. deposed that on 25.10.2016 he received the CD file from P.W.5 for further investigation.

During the course of investigation on 20.12.2016 he arrested the accused and sent him for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. He identified the accused present in the court hall.

5

18. Though P.W.2 to P.W.4 were examined by the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor U/Sec.157 Of Indian Evidence Act, but nothing was elicited from their mouth as all of them resailed from their earlier statements did not support the case of the prosecution.

19. The learned counsel for the accused has strenuously argued that there is no incriminating evidence against the accused and P.W.2 to

P.W.4 turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. Except the evidence of P.w.1 Home Guard who gave report to P.W.5 about the incident relating to Jamia Masjid, P.W.5 and P.W.6 who are Investigating Officers in this case, there is no material witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. In the absence of material evidence, the evidence of P.W.1, P.w.5 and P.w.6 who are Home Guard and Investigating officers has no value.

20.Coming to the appreciation of the material on record, P.W.1 says that incident was occurred on 09.06.2014 at 8.00 p.m. when he went to Jamia Masjid in Kadiri and while he was discharging his duty at Jamia masid, preaching is not commenced there was some galata was going on in Jamia masid and when he tried to get up his mobile phone fell on the ground and he tried to pick up the phone by bending down. The accused beat him with hands and legs by assuming that he was taking photographs with his mobile. but the Ex.P.1 was presented before the P.W.5 on 10.06.2014. Regarding the delay in submitting Ex.P.1 complaint before the police, is not explained by the prosecution.

21. When coming to the causing of hurt and assault by the Accused on P.W1, there is no corroboration between the evidence of prosecution witnesses. P.W.2 to 4 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

6

22. The law is well settled that the prosecution has to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and the material contradictions and omissions are the fatal to the prosecution case.

23. As the prosecution failed to put forth any other material evidence regarding the suggestions under which the alleged incident occurred wherein the accused causing grievous hurt and assault, it is highly difficult and not safe to convict the accused for the charges. Thus for the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Hence the benefit of doubt is given to accused.

24. In the light of the above discussion, prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges framed against him.

Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

25. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 332, 353 of IPC and he is acquitted U/sec. 248 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six

months as required U/sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property

if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 10 th day of January, 2025.

Sd/-S.Prathima,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kadiri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1: G. Babu, Home Guard -None- PW2: K.Samiulla.

7 PW3: Shaik Inayuthulla

PW4: M.Jabiulla.

PW5: S.Abdul Rahiman, S.I of police.

P.W.6: G. Gopaluru, S.I of police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution: For Defence:

-NIL-

Ex.P1 – Report. Ex.P2 – Sec.161 Cr.P.C,. statement of P.W.2. Ex.P3 – Sec.161 Cr.P.C,. statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P4 - Sec.161 Cr.P.C,. statement of P.W.4. Ex.P5 – FIR

Ex.P.6- Rough Sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

For prosecution: For Defence:

-NIL- -NIL-

,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kadiri.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri

Date of

OffenceReportApprehensiReleased CommenceClose of Sentence on of on bailment of trial Accusedtrial 01.03.202418.12.24 10.01.2025 09.06.201410.06.201420.12.201628.12.2016

Judgment in C.C.No.237 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Kadiri.

Complainant :: The Sub Inspector of Police, Kadiri Town Police Station. Cr.No:177 of 2014

Name of the Age Father’s (or) ReligionResidence Accused Husband’s Name

C. Athik Ali22 yrsC. Asif AliMuslimR/o Valisab road, Kadiri town C/O RoomNo. 29, Municipal vegetable market, Kadiri town.

Offence :-U/s 332, 353 IPC

Finding :-Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/s 332, 353 of IPC and he is acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail

bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required

U/sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be

destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kadiri.

9

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

KADIRI

Present: Miss. S. Prathima,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri

Friday, the 17 th day of January, 2025

Calendar Case No.15 of 2017

Between:-

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Nallacheruvu Police Station. ... Complainant.

And

Mudevath Anand Naik, age 20 years, S/O M.Sreenivasulu Naik,

Seshaiahgari palli village, ODC Mandal, Driver two wheeler,

HondaShine bearing No. AP02 BB 6491.

... Accused.

This case is coming on 10.01.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant, and of Sri P.C. Bhyrava Prasadu, Sri M.Praveen Kumar and Sri K. Gangadhar,

Advocates for Accused, having heard both sides, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, and this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Nallacheruvu Police Station, filed Charge

Sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.38 of 2016 of Nallacheruvu Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 338, 304 (A) of IPC.

2

2. The case of the prosecution as per the Charge-Sheet is that, on 10.04.2016 at about 4.00 p.m the deceased along with L.W.1 set out on the motor cycle of L.W.1 at Nallacheruvu village i.e., Apachi two wheeler bearing

No. AP02 AM-9509 to attend festival at Kadapalavandlapalli village at about 4.00 p.m and left. On the way while they are going on NH-42 road near old railway station one two wheeler Honda shine bearing No. AP02 BB6491 and its driver drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed at curve road lost control over it and dashed against the opposite coming two wheeler of L.W.1 in which both vehicles fell on the road along with riders, both vehicles fully damaged. Three persons received bleeding injuries along with accused and another person i.e., G. Vemanarayana i.e., deceased who seated as a pillion rider in the vehicle of L.W.1 received severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot. Three injured persons were shifted to

Government Area Hospital, Kediri for treatment. Later the deceased was also shifted to Mortuary room Government Area hospital, Kediri. Basing on the complaint of L.W.1 Neelolla Vemanarayana, the present case is registered in the above crime number for the above said offence. During the course of investigation, accused was arrested on 29.04.2016 and he voluntarily confessed that he is the accused and driver of two wheeler Honda Shine bearing No. AP02 BB 6491 at the time of commission of the offence. L.W.11 the Medical officer Government Area hospital, Kediri who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased would appear have been died due to shock and hemorrhage. L.W.12 Motor Vehicle

Inspector, Kediri examined the accident vehicle and opined that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. Thus, the accused committed an offence liable to be punished under Section 338, 304 (A) of IPC. Hence, the charge.

3. Cognizance is taken against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 338, 304 (A) of IPC.

3

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents furnished on accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. Thereafter the accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C for which, he denied the same. After hearing the both sides and on perusal of record, the accusation against the accused for the offence under Section 338, 304 (A) of IPC was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.

6. The prosecution in support of its case, has examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and on behalf of the accused, none were examined and no documents were marked.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material available in the evidence of witnesses adduced by prosecution, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for consideration is:-

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilty of the accused

for the offence punishable under section 338, 304 (A) of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt or not?”

10. The learned Asst Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and there is sufficient evidence to base conviction and as such, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is liable for punishment as per law.

11. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the eye witnesses and other witnesses turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and their 4 evidence is no way helpful and not trustworthy and no reliance can be placed on their evidence and there is no base for conviction of the accused and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

12. This court perused the depositions and other relevant records placed by the prosecution.

13. PW1 is the brother of deceased who gave report/Ex.P1 against the accused before the Investigating Officer. P.W.1 to P.W.8 deposed that they do not know anything about the case facts and they all turned hostile.

14. Though P.W.1 to P.W.8 were cross examined by the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor, nothing was elicited from their mouth as all of them resailed from their earlier statements did not support the case of the prosecution.

15. P.W.9 V. Venkataramana, Head Constable, Nallacheruvu P.S. deposed that on 10.04.2016 at about 5.15 a.m while he was present in the OP of Kadiri

Government Area hospital, he received information about the injuries of one patient then he went to the ward and recorded the statement of Nelolla

Vemanarayana/P.W.1. Witness identified the statement of P.W.1 recorded by him. He forwarded Ex.P.9 to SHO Nallacheruvu Police station.

16. The learned counsel for the accused has strenuously argued that there is no incriminating evidence against the accused and P.W.1 to P.W.8 turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. Except the evidence of P.w.9 who is Head Constable in this case, received the information about the injuries of one patient on 10.04.2016 then he went to ward and recorded the statement of Nelolla Vemanarayana/P.W.1. There is no material witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. In the absence of 5 material evidence, the evidence of medical officer or Investigating officer has no value. In the light of the above discussion, prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges framed against him. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.338, 304 (A) IPC and accused is acquitted U/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand in force for a period of six months as required U/sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17th day of January, 2025.

Sd/- S. Prathima,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kadiri.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Complainant : For Defence :

P.W.1: Neelolla Vemanarayana - None -

P.W.2: B. Venkataramana Naik.

P.W.3: G.Sujatha

P.W.4: G. Punyavathi

P.W.5: S. Lakshminarasappa

P.W.6: Jinka Sivaiah.

P.W.7: C. Narasimhulu.

P.W.8: Chinna Anjineyulu.

P.W.9: V. Venkataramana, Head Constable.

6

Documents marked for Complainant :

Ex.P.1 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1

Ex.P.2 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P.3 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P.4 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P.5 - Inquest report.

Ex.P.6 Inquest report.

Ex.P.7 Inquest report.

Ex.P.8 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8

Ex.P.9 Statement of P.W1

Documents marked for Defence:

-NIL-

M.OS. MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

-NIL-

M.OS. MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

JMFC/KDR.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU

Calendar cases tried by the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri Date of

Offence Report ApprehensioReleased CommencClose of Sentence n of Accused on bail e-ment of trial trial 17.01.2025 10.04.2016 10.04.2016 10.04.2016 10.04.2016 08.02.2023 08.01.2025

Judgment in C.C.No.15 of 2017 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri.

Complainant : Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallacheruvu Police Station.

Cr.No. 38 of 2016

Name of the Age Father’s Name Religion Mandal

Accused Seshaiahgari palli village, ODC Mudevath Anand 20 M.Sreenivasulu, Hindu Mandal., Naik, years Naik, Mudigubba

Offence :-U/s 338, 304 A IPC

Finding :-Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence :- In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.338, 304 (A) IPC and accused is acquitted U/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand in force for a period of six months as required U/sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kadiri.

Submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

8

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KADIRI

Present: Ms. S. Prathima, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri

Friday, the 17 th day of January, 2025

Calendar Case No.498 of 2020

Between:

The Sub Inspector of Police, N.P. Kunta P.S.

... Complainant.

V/s.

Bhukya Prameelamma, age 25 years W/O B. Rvi Naik,

Nallaguttapalli thanda village, N.P. Kunta mandal.

... Accused.

This case is coming on 17.01.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri

R.Dasaratha, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub Inspector of police, N.P. Kunta Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.8 of 2020 for the offence punishable under section 7(a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

2. The case of the prosecution alleged against the accused in the charge sheet is as follows;

On 01.03.2020 at 10.00 a.m while L.W.3 was present in the police station received credible information about selling of I.D. arrack at

Nallaguttapalli thanda N.P. Kunta mandal where the accuse was found in 2 possession of one green colour plastic can containing 10 liters of I.D.

arrack. On seeing the police, accused tried to skull away from the spot but he was caught hold. On interrogation, she revealed her particulars. L.W.3 arrested the accused and seized the said contraband. Then L.W.3 has drawn sample of I.D. arrack from the said can in one 180 ml Bottle and sent the same to FSL Chittor for chemical analysis. Basing on the police proceedings, the present case is registered in the above crime number for the above said offences. During the course of investigation, samples of liquor bottle was sent for chemical analysis Lab, Chittor for opinion and analysis report and the chemical examiner opined that the sample are illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

Thus, accused committed an offence punishable U/Sec.7 (a) r/w 8 (e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act. Hence, the charge.

3. This court took cognizance of case for the offence punishable

U/Sec.7 (a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 Criminal

Procedure code.

5. Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C, by explaining the accusation leveled against her in the charge sheet for which she denied.

Charge for the offence U/Sec.7 (a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act had been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language for which, she denied the same and claimed to be tried for the offence.

6. The prosecution failed to produce the L.W.1 to L.W.3 witnesses

before the court though adjournments are given. Hence prosecution

evidence is closed and posted for arguments.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now the point for consideration is that “Whether the

prosecution has established the guilty of the accused for the offence

3

punishable U/Sec.7 (a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond all

reasonable doubt or not ?”

9. Point:-

The matter was coming for trial since 01–12–2022, and summons were issued to LW1 to LW3. But the prosecution failed to serve summons and produce witnesses in this case since then.

10. On 31 -12-2024, this court passed an order as follows:

“ accused present. LW.1 to 3 called absent. The prosecution is directed to produce witnesses or next judgment without fail, failing, which next steps will follow. Call on 08–01–2025.”

11. Again on 08–01–2025, the prosecution failed to produce witnesses despite conditional orders and hence the prosecution evidence was closed, and the matter was posted for arguments.

12. At this point, it is pertinent to mention that there is no representation on behalf of SHO, NP Kunta since long time despite several instructions.

13. At request of the prosecution, the matter was adjourned twice at the stage of arguments. On 17-01-2025, leaned APP orally submitted that the SHO, NP Kunta did not turn up to provide necessary CD files to even to file reopen petition despite several requests.

14. In spite of sufficient opportunities and conditions order, the prosecution failed to produce witnesses. In the absence of prosecution evidence, the accused is entitled acquittal.

4

15. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accused is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required U/sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17th day of January, 2025.

Sd/- S. Prathima,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kadiri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

None -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

M.Os. MARKED ON PROSECUTION SIDE

Nil.

M.Os. MARKED ON DEFENCE SIDE

-NIL-

J.M.F.C.

5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri Date of

OffenceReportApprehen- Released Commence-Close of Sentence sion of on bailment of trialtrial Accused 01.03.2020 - 08.01.202517.01.2025 01.03.202001.03.2020 01.03.2020

Judgment in C.C.No.498 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri. Complainant :: S.I of Police N.P. Kunta P.S. Cr.No: 498/2020 Name of the Age Father’s (or) Religion Residence Accused Husband’s Name

Bhukya 25 yrsW/O B.Ravi NaikHinduNallaguttapalli Thanda village, N.P. Kunta mandal. Prameelamma

Offence :-U/Sec. 7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act.

Finding :-Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accused is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required U/sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kadiri. Submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

OS.No.627 of 2019 1 PJCJ, Kadiri

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: KADIRI

Present: Ms. S. Prathima, Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Friday, the 10 th day of January, 2025

Original Suit No.627 of 2019

Between:

State Bank of India, incorporated under State Bank of

India Act, 1955 having Central office in Bombay having their branches at various places and amoungst Kadiri i.e., State Bank of India (ADB) represented by its Chief

Manager, State Bank of India (ADB),Kadiri.

…Plaintiff.

AND

1.Kotte Ramana Reddy S/O K. VBenkata reddy, aged about 36 years,

2.Kotte Gowtham Reddy S/O K.Ramana Redy agd about 17 years, minor by guardian and father Kotte Ramana Reddy, the defendant

No.1.

Both are Hindus, agriculturists, residing at Kammaguttapalle h/o

Gowkanapalli post, N.P.Kunta mandal., Anantapuramu Dsitrict.

…Defendant.

The suit came before me on 03.01.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Mahamathulla Reddy, advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants having remained ex-parte the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and this court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

1.The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for grant of preliminary decree for recovery of suit amount of Rs.4,15,460/- interest at 11.5% p.a from the date of suit till the date of redemption under Or.

34 Rule 11 of CPC and thereafter at 6 % p.a under Sec.34 of CPC by sale

OS.No.627 of 2019 2 PJCJ, Kadiri

of hypothecation as shown in the plaint schedule and in case of sale proceeds are not sufficient to meet the balance of suit amount personally and for costs.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that, the defendant No.1 and on behalf of his minor son D2 for the benefit of all and as manager of the joint family approached the plaintiff bank on 05.02.2010 for financial assistance to the tune of Rs.1,89,000/- for the purpose of raising Mango orchard as under term loan. The D.1 agreed to abide all the terms and conditions of the loan executed by hypothecation agreement on 18.0.2010 in favor of the plaintiff bank agreeing to repay the loan with interest at 0.25% below the SBI advance rate raising and falling therewith with a minimum of 11.5% p.a with yearly rests to the said Rs.1,89,000/- in 7 yearly installments commencing from March 2015 . D.1 for himself and on behalf the minor D.2 as their guardian and father executed a simple registered mortgage deed Dt. 12.04.2010 and the plaintiff bank sanction the said loan of Rs.1,89,000/- under loan Ac.No.31395222751 and D.1 availed the loan. The defendants failed to repay the loan amount and became defaulters. The defendants did not discharge of repaying of loan amount despite repeated demands of the plaintiff bank including the legal notice Dt.21.08.2019. Hence the suit.

3.The defendants set ex-parte

4.During the course of trail, on behalf of the plaintiff bank

V.Ramakrishna, Deputy Manager filed his chief examination affidavit and was examined as PW.1 and exhibit A.1 to A7 are got marked. Heard counsel for the plaintiff.

5.Heard counsel for the plaintiff

OS.No.627 of 2019 3 PJCJ, Kadiri

6. Now the point for consideration is that, “Whether the plaintiff bank is

entitled the relief to recover the suit amount from the defendants as

prayed for?”

7. POINT:-

The counsel for the plaintiff bank argued in line with the pleadings and its supporting documents.

8. This court perused the plaint, exhibits and other relevant documents available on record.

9. Despite of several conditional orders, written statement is not filed by the defendants. Hence the defendants set exparte. So the defendants did not choose to appear before the court and contest the case. The plaintiff bank adduced both oral and documentary evidence to prove its case. The evidence of the plaintiff is unchallenged. Suit claim proved.

10. In view of the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with documents relied upon by the plaintiff, this court is of the considered view that the plaintiff bank is entitled to the relief as prayed for.

11 . In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants. The preliminary decree passed for a sum of Rs.4,15,460/- (Four lakh fifteen thousand four hundred and sixty only) with future interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,89,000/- ( Rupees One lakh eighty nine thousand only) from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. Time for redemption is three months.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and Pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 10th day of January, 2025.

Sd/- S.Prathima,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADIRI

OS.No.627 of 2019 4 PJCJ, Kadiri

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1: V. Ramakrishna, Deputy Manager,

FOR DEFENDANTS: None.

DOCUMENT MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1: Application of the defendant No.1 submitted to the plaintiff/bank seeking a loan of Rs.1,89,000/- Dt. 05.02.2010.

Ex.A.2: Deed of hypothecation executed by the defendant No.1 in favor of theplaitniff/bank for Rs.1,89,000/- Dt. 18.05.2020.

Ex.A.3: Registered simple morotogage deed executed by the defendants in favor of the plaitnff bank for Rs.1,89,000/- as a collateral security Dt. 12.04.2010.

Ex.A.4: Sanction letter issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendant Dt. 18.05.2010.

Ex.A.5: Digitalcopy of statement generated from the bank and attested by the Manatger Dt. 20.08.2019.

Ex.A.6: Officer copy of the registered lawyers notice issued to the defendants Dt. 21.08.2019.

Ex.A.7: Postal acknowledgment.

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL.

P.J.C.J.

In the Court of :Prl. Junior Civil Judge

Case No. :EP/0000059/2024 Kaluva Ramana Reddy Vs Yarragundla Eswar Reddy

Date : 25-04-2025

Business: Counsel for the DHr filed a memo stating that the DHr seeking property attachment and the sale of the same. The JDr gave assurance to the DHr to settle the matter within one month before the elders. The DHr is reserving his right to file another EP against the JDr for recovery of the decretal debt. The DHr is compelled to not press the E.P and prays to dismissed the E.P petition. Memo is recorded. As such, E.P petition is dismissed as not pressed. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED Disposal Date: 25-04-2025 Prl. Junior Civil Judge