Sri S.Srinivas

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Chirala

Senior Civil Judge, Chirala (Taluka) · Prakasham · Andhra Pradesh

Sri S.Srinivas, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Chirala, is posted at Senior Civil Judge, Chirala (Taluka), Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2,446 court orders on record since 2017. 25 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, MC cases.

2,446

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/92/2012

Gandu Yasodha vs Avula Mala Kondaiah

05 Oct 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHIRALA

Present: Sri S. Srinivas,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala,

FAC. Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Friday, this the 5th day of October, 2018.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.92 of 2012 Between:

Gandu Yasodha W/o Venkateswarlu @ Guravaiah, Hindu, aged about 35 years, House wife, R/o Railway Station Road, Pandillapalli,

Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District. ... Plaintiff.

And

Avula Mala Kondaiah S/o Venkateswarlu, aged about 58 years, Hindu, Retired Employee, R/o Railway Station Road, Pandillapalli,

Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Defendant.

This suit came before this Court on 01.10.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Adinarayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri A.

Satyanarayana, Advocate for defendant, upon hearing the arguments on both the sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant praying for relief of permanent injunction with regard to Item No.II in the manner of restraining the defendant and his henchmen from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Item No.II which is plaint schedule and for costs.

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

The plaintiff submits that she purchased plaint schedule property consists of two items from one Kandepu Srinivasulu and Kandepu Sekhar

Babu under a registered sale deed dated 12.04.2006. After purchasing the plaint schedule property the plaintiff and her husband constructed

RCC building under Indiramma Padakam an extent of 302.5 Sq.yards site in S.No.57/6 of Pandillapalli village. A B C D shown in the rough plan in 2

Item No.II of the plaint schedule property in an extent of 77 Sq. Yards which is path way width about 8 feet for their ingress and egress from

Item No.I to reach Northern side road. Plaintiff and her family members using the said path way un-interruptedly. Except the Item No.II of the plaint schedule path way there is no other way for ingress and eggress available to her family members from Item No.I. The said aspect known to defendant and his family members besides local inhabitants. Defendant also purchased house site from the vendors of the plaintiff under an agreement of sale and sold the plaint schedule Item No.II to the husband of plaintiff in another agreement of sale dt.31.03.2006. In turn the plaintiff purchased the same from her vendors with the consent of her husband through the defendant on 12.04.2006. Plaintiff also paying house tax to the Gram Panchayat, Pandillapalli besides electricity charges. The original registered sale deed dt.12.04.2006 amended registered sale deed dt.20.11.2010 and the agreement of sale dt.31.03.2006 besides house tax receipts and electricity receipts shows her in possession and enjoyment over plaint schedule properties I & II.

In the meanwhile because of mis-understandings and disputes arising between the families of plaintiff and defendant, defendant being a powerful man started causing disturbance to the plaintiff in the manner of throwing dust, thorns and other waste materials in Item No.II of the plaint schedule property. With the said behaviour defendant harassing the plaintiff and her family members restraining them from using path way. Defendant started proclaiming in the village that he will occupy Item

No.II of the plaint schedule property by removing the eastern side compound wall and put to an end to the ingress and egress to the plaintiff and her family members into Item No.I of the plaint schedule property from Northern road. Actually defendant has no right to do so and 3 defendant filed caveat against plaintiff with wrong boundaries and schedule with an intention to grab the Item No.II of the plaint schedule property tried to mis-lead this Hon'ble Court. The defendant has no respect towards law and he along with his henchmen trying to occupy

Item No.II of the plaint schedule property by removing the eastern compound wall. The defendant and his men have no right to do so. The plaintiff being a lady unable to resist the illegal acticities of the defendant and prays to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his henchmen from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

3.On receiving the notice from this Court the defendant appeared and filed his written statement.

4.The brief averments of the written statement are as follows:

The allegations mentioned in the plaint with regard to A B C D shown in the rough plan are all false. There is no path way width of 8 feet for ingress and egress of the plaintiff and her family members. The contents of the plaint with regard to purchase of the Item No.II from defendant with the permission of the vendors. Hence, there is no other way except from Item No.II to plaintiff are all false. The agreement of sale dt.31.03.2006 is a created one for the purpose of putting false version with regard to Item No.II. Originally vendors of the both plaintiff and defendnt and their predecessors in title i.e., Ronda Ramaswamy Reddy

S/o Pattabhi Reddy of Pandillapalli village. Defendant further submits that

Kandepu Jagannadha rao purchased an extent of Ac.0-14 cents in

S.No.57/6 of Pandillapalli village from Ronda Ramaswamy Reddy under a registered sale deed dt.22.01.1992. On the same day one Potti

Ammisetty purchased an extent of 660 Sq.feet which is situated to the

Northern side of the property covered by said sale deed and under an 4 agreement of sale dt.22.01.1992. Defendant purchased 6½ cents from out of the above Ac.0-14 cents under registered sale deed dt. 03.06.1998 from the sons of Kandepu Jagannadha rao which is on the northern side as shown in the plaint filed herein. He orally purchased an extent of 660

Sq.feet of site for a valuable consideration of Rs.13,500/- from Potti

Ammisetty on 09.12.1998 which is situated to the north of the above referred 6½ cents of site. Potti Ammisetty delivered possession of said 660 Sq.feet of site to the defendant on 09.12.1998 itself. After death of

Potti Ammisetty his son P. Sridhara Rao admitted the said factum of sale, has executed an agreement of sale in favour of the defendant and mentioned the aforesaid fact on 16.03.2012. Defendant also purchased

Ac.0-01 cent of site which is situated on the southern side under an agreement of sale dt.25.08.1999 from Nakkala Rama Rao. The defendant further submits that he has constructed compound wall on four sides of his site by leaving path way of 8 feet width and of a length of 87 feet in his entire Ac.0-09 cents of site which includes path way claimed by the plaintiff i.e., Item No.II of the plaint schedule property.

He further submits that plaintiff has no right, title or possession in

Item No.II of the schedule property and it exclusively belongs to the defendant and the same was perfected through his title for Item No.II of the plaint schedule by adverse possession to the knowledge of plaintiff and her vendor. He has shown his entire site including the disputed path way by by obtaining permission of the Panchayat of Pandillapalli by constructing the building to mortgage the same to L.I.C to obtain a loan.

Plaintiff has got right of ingress and egress through the southern side

Zilla Parishad road and also through western road to reach north side road. Plaintiff has got ingress and egress from Item No.I of the plaint schedule property on south and west and the allegations made in the 5 plaint that she has no other path way for ingress and egress is utterly false. Defendant never sold the property under an agreement of sale dt.31.03.2006 to the plaintiff's husband, it is nothing but a rank forged one. Defendant never given any consent for plaintiff's husband for registered sale deed dt.12.04.2006. The defendant filed caveat against plaintiff with true and correct facts mentioning the correct boundaries.

The detailed plan filed by the defendant is correct and it can be taken into consideration as part of his written statement. Defendant never attempted to remove eastern compound wall, but the defendant raised the height of the gate with the permission of the Hon'ble Court.

Defendant further submitted that there is no need or necessity to throw waste material, thorns etc., and proclaiming to trespass or occupy

Item No.II of the plaint schedule as falsely alleged in the plaint.

Defendants submits that on the back side of the path way there are five feet height of wild trees which were in existence since several years. The link documents and the material placed by the plaintiff does not disclose any pathway as claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. The suit on hand for mere injunction not maintainable as defendant claiming exclusive title over the item No.II of the plaint schedule property. The relief claimed in this suit by the plaintiff is not at all maintainable and she has to file suit for declaration for proving her title. With these submissions prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

5.After going through the pleadings of the both the parties this

Court framed the following issues for determination:

1. Whether the defendnat has perfected his title for item No.2 of the plaint schedule property by adverse possession ?

2. Whether mere suit for injunction is not maintainable ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the item No.2 of the plaint schedule ?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?

5. To what relief ?.

6. During the course of trial, plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and on her behalf Pws.2 to 5 examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 are marked.

7.On behalf of the defendant he himself examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.3.

8.Heard both the sides.

9.The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted his arguments that plaintiff purchased Item Nos.I & II from her vendors and she clearly submitted her documents to prove her contention. Defendant being a powerful person tried to restrain her and her family members from using the path way leading from Item No.I to northern side through Item No.II of the plaint schedule property. The defendant perfected site by constructing a compound wall leaving 8 feet path way towards eastern side. It means defendant has no right to interfere into the right of the plaintiff with regard to her possession of the Item No.II plaint schedule property .

Except the Item No.II of plaint schedule property no other way is available to plaintiff to reach the northern side road. To prove her contention she got examined Pws.2 to 5 on her behalf. The defendant as DW.1 clearly admitted in the cross examination that plaintiff and her family members are using path way on her western side is not at all correct. It is only a cart track that was left by respective owners for their own ingress and egress. They will not permit the plaintiff to use the cart track as path way.

Defendant failed to prove his documents in the manner of producing clinching evidence. Ex.A.1 and A.2 are the documents relating to plaintiff which are sale deeds of the years 2006 and 2010. To get clarification plaintiff also got registered an amended sale deed from her vendors.

Defendant himself came forward and sell the path way to the husband of plaintiff but intentinally to grab that property. He is deposing falsehood that Ex.A.6 is a rank forged one. No steps taken by defendant to disprove 7 the Ex.A.6 document. Any person can not leave the eastern side site by constructing compound wall even though he is having right beyond his compound wall on eastern side. The said contention of defendant is not believable in nature. With these submissions prayed this court to decree the suit by granting the relief prayed by the plaintiff.

10.On the other hand the learned counsel for the defendant vehemently argued and submitted that plaintiff has no right or title over the Item No.II of the plaint schedule property. She is having path way on her western side and she has to approach southern side road from that western side path way only to grab the property of the defendant she filed this false suit and claiming title in a wrong manner without any proof on her behalf. Plaintiff failed to examine even the attestor or scribe of the

Ex.A.6, in such circumstances there is no validity on part of Ex.A.6 which is a rank forged one. Plaintiff has to file suit with relief of declaration of title as defendant claiming right and title over the Item No.II of the plaint schedule property. Mere bare injunction through this suit cannot be maintainable. Already vendors of defendant and plaintiff sold away the

Item No.II of the plaint schedule property in the year 1998 itself as such there is no chance to vendors of the plaintiff to further sell the Item No.II of the plaint schedule property. Without any right and once lost their right how the vendors of defendant can resale the said Item No.II to plaintiff, not explained by the plaintiff in a proper manner. Even though witnesses 2 to 5 were examined on her behalf, they supported the defendant's version by stating that plaintiff is having path way on her western side and in case of other way available to the plaintiff through which she is having right and the plaintiff can claim right and title over the Item No.II of the plaint schedule property which exclusively belongs to defendant.

With regard to the Item No.II of the plaint schedule property plaintiff 8 unable to place before this Court that her right and title and approached this Hon'ble Court with unclean hands as such there is a cloud exists on the right of the plaintiff which was not cleared in a convincing manner as such the relief claimed by the plaintiff cannot be granted through this bare injunction suit. The documents under Exs.B.1 to B.3 clearly shows that the eastern side owner of the defendant site is one Kandepu

Jagannadha Rao, it means up to the site of the Kandepu Jagannadha Rao defendant is having right and title as per Ex.B.1. In these circumstances how the vendor of the plaintiff can resale the 8 feet path way to the plaintiff was not explained and it is not at all all permissible under law. To support his contention the learned counsel for the defendant relied on a decision reported in Ananthula Sudhakar Vs P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs.

& Ors Civil Appeal No.6191 of 2001 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when the plaintiff even though in possession, but title to the property is in dispute or under a cloud or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction, as such the relief claimed through this suit is not maintainable.

Another decision in AIR 2005 SC 2245 in Yamuna Nagar Improvement

Trust Vs Khariati Lal, wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that when the plaintiff was not in possession of the land then he shall be treated as trespasser and no trespasser will be entitled for any relief of permanent injunction and plaintiff has to prove his title being the owner of the property and it was still continued in her possession and also defendant has no right and title or interest therein.

11.As per the decision reported in2014(4) ALT 174 in between

Chapa Lakshmi Vs. Sri Pentakota Paradesi Naidu wherein it was held that when the plaintiff failed to prove the claiming the schedule property as 9 part and parcel of her title in such circumstances he is not entitled for any relief of permanent injunction. With the above decisions the learned counsel for the defendant argued that plaintiff has no title and right over the Item No.II of the schedule property as Ex.B.1 itself clearly shows defendant has perfected his title upto the eastern boundary are belongs to Kandepu Jagannadha Rao. Intentionally plaitniff filed this false suit by suppressing her western side path way with a view to grab the 8 feet path way under the guise of Ex.A.6 a rank forged document. All these orders basing on the material placed on record clearly reflects in favour of the defendant and with these submissions to dismiss the suit.

12.Issue No.1:-

In this issue it is to be decided whether defendant is having right over Item No.II of the plaint schedule property in the manner of he himself perfected his title by way of adverse possession. On observing the material on record it was clear that the defendant purchased another 1½ cents from one Potti Ammisetty a joint nadava who is having right along with defendant as joint nadava north side to the defendant. After said purchase the defendant constructed compound wall on his northern side by fixing two gates. It is an admitted fact by both the parties that defendant constructed compound wall fixing two gates to the said compound wall on his eastern side and at north-east corner. Nobody can expect that a site owner will leave eastern side site to some-extent and construct compound wall leaving his site beyond compound wall on eastern side which is creating doubt with regard to the right and title of the defendant over the Item No.II of the plaint schedule property. The several documents came on record i.e., Ex.B.1 to B.3 on behalf of defendnt and Ex.A.1 to A.6 on behalf of the plaintiff. Ex.A.6 is a fake and rank forged one as per the contention of the defendant. But defendant 10 himself admitting that plaintiff and his family members are using path way of 8 feet width for her ingress and eggress. It was also observed by this court that plaintiff is not having another path way on his western side and her western boundary is covered with site of Anjaneyachari. So far as the schedule of the Ex.A.2 the document belongs to plaintiff reflects her western side boundary is the site of one G. Subba Rao. In case there is any western side road available to the plaintiff definitely it will proceed ahead leading to some cart track actually available as western side boundary to the defendant also. The said aspect was missing in the document of both defendant as well as plaintiff. On observing the said aspect and also existence of site as admitted by defendant beyond his eastern compound wall strengthens the version of the plaintiff than that of the contention of the defendant. It was clear that both the plaintiff and defendant purchased respective properties from the same vendor. Once the admission on part of defendant in his cross examination with regard to the usage of path way by plaintiff and her family members to reach northern side road adds strength to the version of plaitiff and the issue decided in favour of the plaintiff with a conclusion that the defendant failed to perfect his title for Item No.II of the plaint schedule by way of adverse possession.

13.Issue No.2:-

This suit filed for bare injunction by the plaintiff. She is claiming right over the path way through her Ex.A.6 document. It was the contention of the defendant that he never executed Ex.A.6 in favour of husband of the plaintiff and his wife never acted as a witness to the said document as she is illiterate. Defendant has not taken steps for disproving the genuinity of Ex.A.6 by taking steps and he remained silent.

Plaintiff always contending that Ex.A.6 is the document agreement of sale 11 executed by defendant in favour of her husband and not executed a regular registered sale deed even after repeated demands from their side. When once the plaintiff proved her title over Item No.I and also clearly brought on record about the usage of Item No.II of plaint schedule property which situates beyond the eastern compound wall of the defendant of the defendant shows that mere relief for bare injunction through this suit is sufficient and the plea of the plaintiff through this suit can be considered without any obstacle. Accordingly Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

14.Issue Nos.3 & 4:- .

The version of defendant with regard to the usage of plaintiff and her family members about the Item No.II of the schedule property as discussed in Issue No.1 itself is clear that she is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the Item No.II of the plaint schedule property. To some- extent it was clear that during the pendency of the suit also defendant submitted that he raised compound wall and gates in the passage i.e., the 8 feet path way. The witnesses who are examined on behalf of the plaintiff as Pws.2 to 5 clearly stated about the usage of 8 feet passage by plaintiff and her family members to reach northern side is clear and convincing. In the cross examination of PW.4 even though admitted that in single document stands in the name of defendant disclose eastern boundary owner as one Anala Govardhana Rao and his site and southern boundary shown as site of Zilla Praja Parishad and western boundary shown as site of Divi anjaneyachari and others. This aspect shows that there is no path way ont he western side boundary. In the next line in the cross examination that there is a passage on the western side of the land purchased by Gandu Guravaiah the husband of the plaintiff. Immediately he volunteers to say that Gandu Guravaiah has no right over the said 12 passage. PW.4 also clearly stated that Gandu Guravaiah family have no right to utilize the said passage to reach the northern side road from their western side. It seems, even though there is a small passage available on western side of the plaint schedule property as contended by the defendant but it is a private galli left by respective owners which does not contain inch of the site of plaintiff as per the version of PW.4. In such circumstance how PW.1 can utilize the said path way on her western side to reach the northern side road. Basing on Ex.A.6 the document through which she purchased path way from the defendant and also as per the sale deed of the vendor she got right over the path way of 8 feet which is

Item No.II of the plaint schedule property and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same as admitted by DW.1 in his cross examination.

The two main aspects observed by this court that usage of 8 feet disputed path way by plaintiff and her family members from the mouth of

DW.1 as admitted portion and also some site exists beyond the eastern compound wall of defendant adds strength to the version of plaintiff. In such circumstances the plaintiff is clearly brought on record that she is in possession and enjoyment of the Item No.II of the plaint schedule property and she is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the defendant shows that plaintiff is not having right and title over the disputed path way and a cloud exists on the right and title of the plaintiff with regard to the schedule property, plaintiff not approached this court with clean hands and she has to file declaration of title when the defendant claiming right over the title, these aspects are clearly observed by this court from the material available on record that plaintiff is having right over the plaint schedule Item No.I through Ex.A.1 and she got right over the Item No.II of the schedule property through Ex.A.6 as the said site was kept vacant 13 beyond the eastern compound wall of defendant and the version of vendors of the plaintiff supports her contention. Hence, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the defendant are not aptly applicable to the facts of case on hand as plaintiff clearly placed her contention before this court with clean hands. Accordingly issue nos.3 & 4 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

15.Issue No.5:-

In the result, suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendnt restraining the defendant and his henchmen not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property Item

No.2. However it was observed that defendant is also entitled for usage of the said path way as he already erected gate on his eastern side. Basing on the facts and circumstances of the case suit is decreed accordingly with costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 5th day of October, 2018.

Sd/- S.Srinivas,

Addl. Junior Civil judge, Chirala, FAC. Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1: Gandu Yasoda DW.1 : Avula Mala Kondaiah

PW.2 : Kandepu Srinivasulu

PW.3 : G.Venkateswarlu

PW.4 : Thirumala Srihari

PW.5 : Nakkala Subba rao

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:- Ex.A.1 : Registered sale deed dt.12.04.2006. Ex.A.2 : Registered amended deed dt.20.11.2010. Ex.A.3 : House tax receipts(4). Ex.A.4 : Electricity receipts(7). Ex.A.5 : Served copy of the Caveat. Ex.A.6 : Un-registered agreement of sale dt.31.03.2006. Ex.A.7 : Rough plan.

For Defendant:- Ex.B.1 :Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.03.06.1998. Ex.B.2 : Un-registered agreement of sale, dt.22.01.1992. Ex.B.3 : Un-registered agreement of sale, dt.25.08.1999.

Sd/- S.Srinivas,

Addl. Junior Civil judge, Chirala, FAC. Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

// True Copy //

Addl. Junior Civil judge, Chirala, FAC. Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHIRALA

Present: Sri S. Srinivas,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala,

FAC. Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Friday, this the 5th day of October, 2018.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.92 of 2012 Between:

Gandu Yasodha W/o Venkateswarlu @ Guravaiah, Hindu, aged about 35 years, House wife, R/o Railway Station Road, Pandillapalli,

Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District. ... Plaintiff.

And

Avula Mala Kondaiah S/o Venkateswarlu, aged about 58 years, Hindu, Retired Employee, R/o Railway Station Road, Pandillapalli,

Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Defendant.

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant praying for relief of permanent injunction with regard to Item No.II in the manner of restraining the defendants and his henchmen from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Item No.II which is plaint schedule and for costs.

Plaint Presented on : 30.04.2012 Plaint filed on : 30.04.2012. . Cause of Action : Cause of action arose when plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property from her vendors under Registered Sale deed on 12.04.2006 through the defendant, when the plaintiff constructed a house in Item-I of the plaint schedule property, when the plaintiff and her family members are used to walk in Item-II of the plaint schedule property to reach the northern road from Item-I of the plaint schedule property for ingress and egress, when the defendant and his men are trying to occupy the Item-II of the plaint schedule property by removing eastern side wall without any manner of right, when the defendant and his family obstructing the plaintiff and her family by throwing dust and thorns in Item-II of the plaint schedule property, when the plaintiff have no other path way except Item-II of the plaint schedule property, when the defendant and his en proclaiming in the village that they will grab the Item-II of the plaint schedule property, where the plaint schedule property is situated and plaintiff and defendant are residing in Pandillapalli Village is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court.

Valuation : The relief of Permanent Injunction is notionally valued at Rs.10,000/-, on which a court fee of Rs.786/- is payable but paid Rs.790/- (excess C.F of Rs.4/-)- is paid U/s.26(c) of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act.

This suit came before this Court on 01.10.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Adinarayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri A. Satyanarayana, Advocate for defendant, upon hearing the arguments on both the sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree:

1. that the defendant and his henchmen be and are hereby restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property Item-II; and

2. that the defendant do also pay an amount of Rs.3948-00 towards costs of the suit, bearing his own costs of Rs.3102/- (plaint schedule is herewith attached)

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 5th day of October, 2018.

Sd/- S.Srinivas,

Addl. Junior Civil judge, Chirala,

FAC. Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Table of Costs

ParticularsForFor Plaintiff Defendant

Stamp on Vakalat2.002.00

Stamp on Plaint786.00- Stamps on Process 60.00- Advocate's fee 3000.003000.00 Writing charges100.00100.00 Total 3948.003102.00

Sd/- S.Srinivas,

Addl. Junior Civil judge, Chirala, FAC. Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

// True Copy //

Addl. Junior Civil judge, Chirala, FAC. Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

CC/100148/2013 Convicted

Ghanta Narasimha Rao vs Parvathareddy Pardhasaradhi

26 Feb 2019

C.C.No.148 of 2013

I- A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala 1/16

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-I-ADDL. JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: CHIRALA

Present: Sri S.Srinivas, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC:I-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala.

Tuesday, the 26 th day of February, 2019

Calendar Case No.148 of 2013

Between:

Ghanta Narasimha Rao, S/o Subba Rao, aged 39 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Sopirala (V), Chinnaganjam Mandal.…Complainant -: And :-

01.Parvathareddy Pardhasaradhi, S/o Rama Rao, aged 37 years, Hindu, Sahara Agent, R/o Sopirala (V), Chinaganjam Mandal.

02.Parvathareddy Sujatha, W/o Pardhasaradhi, aged 35 years, Hindu, Sahara Employee, R/o Sopirala (V), Chinaganjam Mandal.… Accused

The case is coming on 19.02.2019 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.V.Chalapathi Rao, Advocate for complainant and of Sri K.Udaya Bhaskara Rao, advocate for accused 1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

01.This complaint fled by the complainant against the accused 1 and 2 under Sec.138 of N.I. Act.

02.The brief averment of the complaint are as follows:-

(i)The accused 1 and 2 are husband and wife. On 15.06.2012 A1 and A2 jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant for their business purpose and agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % per annum to the complainant or his order on demand and they jointly executed agreement on stamp paper infavour of the complainant on the same day for the said amount. On

C.C.No.148 of 2013

I- A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala 2/16 repeated demands made by the complainant, A1 issued two cheques bearing

No.910277 for Rs.2,00,000/- Dt:28.12.2012 and another cheque bearing

No.9102176 for Rs.50,000/- Dt: 29.12.2012 drawn on State Bank of India, Chirala

Branch infavour of complainant towards part payment. Later, the complainant presented the said two cheques through his banker ie., State Bank of India, Chirala

Branch for collection on 29.12.2012. But, the banker of the complainant returned the said two cheques with an endorsement ‘FUNDS INSUFFICIENT’.

(ii)The complainant further submits that the accused No.2 also issued two cheques bearing No.915000 for Rs.2,00,000/- Dt:28.12.2012, another cheque

No.915001 for Rs.50,000/- Dt:29.12.2012. Complainant presented the said two cheques issued by A2 through his banker ie., State Bank of India, Chinnaganjam

Branch for collection on 28.12.2012 and 29.12.2012 respectively. Both cheques issued by A2 also dis-honoured with an same endorsement ‘FUNDS INSUFFICIENT’ in the account of A2. SBI, Chinnaganjam issued cheque return memo while returning the original cheques to the complainant. On that complainant issued legal notice Dt:23.01.2012 demanding both the accused to pay the dis-honoured cheques amount. They received the said notice on 24.01.2013 and given reply on 30.01.2012 with false and frivolous allegations. Hence, complainant constrained to fle private complaint under Sec. 138 of N.I.Act against A1 and A2 towards part payment cheques dis-honoured for its recovery.

03.This case was taken on fle under Sec.138 of N.I.Act against the accused.

04.On receiving the notice in this case, accused appeared, on that copies furnished to him u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

C.C.No.148 of 2013

I- A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala 3/16

05. The accused examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C, read over and explained the accusation in Telugu for the ofence under Sec.138 of N.I.Act, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trial complainant himself got examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.16.

07.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused 1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., read over and explained the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of complainant, for which they denied and stated defence witnesses. On behalf of accused 1 and 2, they themselves examined as examined as D.Ws.1 and 2, but no documents marked.

08.Heard both the sides.

09.The points for determination are:-

Whether the complainant proved the guilt of the accused under Sec.138 of N.I.Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.The learned counsel for the complainant submitted his written arguments which in brief shows that A1 and A2 being wife and husband borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant on 15.06.2012 for their business purpose. Both they executed stamped papers of agreement infavour of the complainant. Even on repeated demands from the side of complainant they failed to pay the amount with interest. Finally they got issued cheques ‘four’ in number ie., each two cheques issued to a tune of Rs.5,00,000/- in total. All the cheuqes were presented by complainant before his bank, but the four cheques were dis-

honoured with an endorsement “Funds insufcientn in the account of the accused.

Even after receiving the dis-honoured cheques, A1 and A2 failed to pay the cheques amounts and simply issued reply notice with false allegations. Complainant himself

C.C.No.148 of 2013

I- A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala 4/16 examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to p.16. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P.1 clearly proves the case of the complainant that accused only issued four cheques which are dis-hionoured for want of funds. D.W.1 clearly admitted in the cross-examination that the signatures refecting on Exs.P.1 to P3, P6 and P7 are relates to him and his wife. He also admitted that the complainant is having

Ac.10.00 cents of land and also he is having property at Chinanganjam. D.W.2 admitted that signatures on Exs.P.1 to P.3, P6 and P7 belongs to her and her husband. Complainant clearly proved that there is a legally enforceable debt exists between complainant and the accused and for that purpose only cheques were issued by the accused which were dis-honoured. Hence, A1 and A2 are liable to punished.

11.The learned counsel for the accused 1 and 2 submitted his written arguments which in brief shows that A1 and A2 borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant for business purpose and agreed to repay the same with 24 % per annum to the complainant and on repeated demands accused 1 and 2 failed to repay the same and issued cheque ‘two’ cheques for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and

Rs.50,000/- vide cheque Nos.910277 Dt:28.12.2012 and 910276 Dt:29.12.2012 are all false. A1 and A2 are wife and husband they never borrowed a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant and never executed agreement on 18.05.2012.

Complainant doing money lending business and collecting interest at higher rates.

Earlier on the request of A1 and his wife complainant lent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to one Ganta Srilakshmi of Chinaganjam, Rs.1,50,000/- to Sikharam Srinivasa Rao of

Sopirala village. Complainant demanded them to sign on blank non-judicial stamps and also demanded them to handover blank four cheques ie., Exs.P.2,P3, P6 and P7.

Complainant must be put to strict proof about the execution of alleged agreement

C.C.No.148 of 2013

I- A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala 5/16

Dt:15.06.2012 and passing consideration under it. They never handed over said

cheques under Exs.P1, P3, P6 and P7 to the complainant for discharge of any legally enforceable debt. Complainant got fled the said cheques with the help his henchmen to get wrongfulgain. With these submissions prays to acquit the accused.

12 (i).To prove the contentions of the complainant he himself examined as

P.W.1 by fling chief afdavit reiterating the complaint averments. He got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.16 on his behalf. P.W.1 in the cross-examination deposed that he is not having any job and he is resident of Sopirala village and studied upto M.Com at

Chirala. He is having agricultural land in an extent of Ac.10.00 and use to cultivate the same situates at Chinaganjam. He denied the suggestion that he is not having any agricultural land. He is also doing ground nut business on commission basis without any licence. He admitted that both the accused are educated persons and he has not issued legal notice for repayment of debt covered under Ex.P.1 certifed copy of agreement. He added to say he got issued legal notice for amounts covered under dis-honoured cheques. He admitted the plea of the accused as per the written statement that he allegedly created Ex.P.1 document without hand overing the amount and also noted four blank cheques allegedly taken by him from the accused. He denied the suggestion that they never handed over Exs.P.2, P3, P6 and P7 to the complainant and not at all belongs to accused. He failed to say who flled cheques and where it was taken place, but stated that on his arrival accused put their signatures and handed over four cheques. He denied the suggestion that four cheques are created with his followers at his instance.

(ii) He denied the suggestion that only to harass the accused this false case fled by creating four cheques. He admitted that Ex.P.12 reply notice got

C.C.No.148 of 2013

I- A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala 6/16 issued by accused, but denied the suggestion that Ex.P.1 created by him. He denied the suggestion that this case is not maintainable as he failed to furnish the copy of Ex.P.1 as demanded by accused in the reply notice. He know one Ganta

Srilakshmi, Sikharam Srinivasa Rao and Ganta Venkata Narayana his villagers, but he denied that he arranged amounts to above three persons at the request of A1 and

A2.

(iii)He further denied the suggestion that out of money transactions with

Ganta Srilakshmi, Sikharam Srinivasa Rao and Ganta Venkata Narayana he took accused 1 and 2 as sureties and obtained blank signed stamp paper as well as four blank cheques and misused the same for this false case. One Pratap Kumar is the attestor to Ex.P.1 agreement who runs a private school at Kadavakuduru and got acquaintance with him for the last ten years,. He denied the suggestion that out of said acquaintance with Pratap Kumar he got created Ex.P.1 agreement. One

Punumalli Venkata Siva is the scribe of Ex.P.1 document writer, but he do not know whether he is a registered document writer or not. He has not fled any document to show that he is having Rs.5,00,000/- cash on hand by the date of Ex.P.1. A1 is agent of Sahara India since beginning,. He denied the suggestion that A1 never worked as agent of Sahara India and A2 is an employee before said Institution.

Ex.P.1 does not refect the purpose of alleged borrowal except business necessities without mentioning which type of business. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P.1 created in a hurry mood without mentioning the reasons for alleged borrowal.

(iv)He further denied the suggestion that Exs.P.2, P3, P6 and P7 are created with the assistance of his followers for the purpose of false case and this complaint is not maintainable as there is no legally enforceable debt exists between him and the complainant. He admitted that he has not mentioned in his

C.C.No.148 of 2013

I- A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala 7/16 notice and the complaint or in his chief afdavit that he secured the alleged cash of

Rs.5,00,000/- by way of selling agricultural land under Ex.P.13. He denied the suggestion that he fled a false case. He has no objection to send the cheques to hand writing expert for comparison.

13.Coming to the defence evidence, both the accused were examined as

D.Ws.1 and 2 and they fled their chief-afdavits with the same contents that they never borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant on 15.06.2012 and never executed agreement under Ex.P.1 They only stood as sureties while arranging amounts to Ganta Srilakshmi, Sikharam Srinivasa Rao and Ganta Venkata Narayana out of money lending business by complainant, at that time the complainant obtained blank non judicial stamp papers and four blank cheques. complainant put to strict proof of the said documents.

(i)Coming to cross-examination D.W.1 stated that complainant is relative to him and signature refecting on Ex.P1 to P.3, P6 and P7 relates to him and his wife. Complainant is having Ac.10.00 cents of land, residence of Sopirala where he is having own house at Sopirala. He admitted that one Amanchi Venkata

Subba Rao is his villager is Sopirala. He do not know the sale transaction of Ac.2 ½ acres between complainant and Amanchi Venakta Subba Rao under Ex.P.13. He denied the suggestion he mediated the said transaction under Ex.P.13 but intentionally deposing falsehood. He admitted that Ex.P.1 refects borrowed amount from complainant for business purpose to a tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. He added to say he never borrowed any amount from the complainant and they are not doing any realestate business. He admitted one civil litigation vide

O.S.163/2015 pending on the fle of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, wherein he

fled his written statement. He admitted basing on hs mediation complainant

C.C.No.148 of 2013

I- A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala 8/16 arranged amounts to Ganta Srilakshmi, Sikharam Srinivasa Rao and Ganta Venkata

Narayana to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively.

He denied the suggestion that he executed Ex.P.13 as surety. He again stated that he along with his wife only signed on Ex.P.13 as surety without knowing the contents. He denied the suggestion that he purpose stamp paper under Ex.P.13 from one V.H.Sprasad of main road Chinaganjam a stamp vendor. He denied the suggestion that he deposing falsehood to escape from the liability.

(ii)` He admitted he received Ex.P.10 legal notice and got issued Ex.P.12 reply by mentioning his signatures on Exs.P.1 to P.3, P6 and P7 are forged for false plea. He denied the suggestion that he is taking inconsistent versions as per his convenience and deposing diferent versions from one case to another case. He admitted that one more civil litigation fled by complainant vide O.S.44/2015 on the fle of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Chirala claiming for specifc performance of agreement of sale. He do not know one Punumarthi Venkata Siva and G.Pratap

Kumar who are the scribe and attestors to Ex.P.1. He denied the suggestion that he himself executed Ex.P.1 by borrowing Rs.5,00,000/- for his business purpose which is a legally enforceable debt. He denied the suggestion that Exs.P.2 and P3 are issued by him at his house infavour of complainant for discharge of debt under

Ex.P.1 agreement. He denied the suggestion that complainant is having fnancial capacity to lent such a huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/- which was procured by him by way of selling agriculture land. He denied the suggestion that they are liable for punishment under N.I Act, but deposing falsehood to escape from the liability.

(iii)Sofar as, cross-examination of D.W.2 concerned who is wife of P.W.1 she deposed that she has been working as computer operator before Sahara India

Chinnaganjam and their ofce use to do business with fnancial transaction. She

C.C.No.148 of 2013

I- A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala 9/16 know the complainant being relative who is not having business. She admitted that her husband done real-estate business previously by selling and purchasing agricultural lands as mediator, but she do not know whether any transaction taken place between complainant and A1.

(iv)She further deposed that the signature on Ex.P.1 is belongs to her.

She denied the suggestion that she know each and every transaction, but intentionally deposing falsehood and in the month of June, 2012 she along with her husband taken amounts and executed Ex.P.1. The signatures on Exs.P.2, P3, P6 and P7 belongs to her and her husband respectively. She do not know whether any civil litigation pending between complainant and A1. They received legal notice about dis-honour of cheques and they have not flled the cheques in question and only handed over blank cheques as sureties. Out of relationship with the complainant no legal notice sent by them with regard to cheques in question for fling these cases by the complainant without their knowledge. She denied the suggestion that she is having knowledge about the civil litigation, complainant requested on several occasions to clear of the debts, but deposing falsehood intentionally.

14.POINT :-

The contention of the complainant is that accused 1 and 2 being wife and husband borrowed amounts for their business purpose and executed Ex.P.1 agreement. To clear of the said debt covered under Ex.P.1, A1 and A2 issued cheques under Exs.P.2,P3, P6 and P7. On that aspect accused 1 and 2 are

C.C.No.148 of 2013

I- A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala 10/16 contending that P.W.1 obtained blank cheques four in number in a money transaction for the amount entrusted to three persons ie., Ganta Srilakshmi,

Sikharam Srinivasa Rao and Ganta Venkata Narayana and they stood as sureties.

Accused 1 and 2 failed to produce those three persons to prove their contentions that Ex.P.1 only a surety agreement at the time of money transaction between complainant and three other persons. Both accused 1 and 2 clearly admitting about the signatures on four cheques in question ie., Exs.P.2,P3, P6 and P7.

Complainant got issued Ex.P.10 legal notice demanding for repayment of dis-

honoured cheque amount. Ex.P.12 is the reply notice got issued by accused in the

legal notice in Ex.P.1 complainant clearly noted the same facts as mentioned in his complaint as well as in his chief afdavit. The reply notice at para No.2 in page No.2 shows that complainant forged the signatures of A1 and A2. But coming to the evidence part in the cross-examination both D.Ws.1 and 2 clearly admitting their signatures on Ex.P.1 agreement. It clearly shows the contention of the complainant is having trustwrothyness than that of accused 1 and 2 who approached with diferent manner of pleas which are not matching from Ex.P.12 to their own defence evidence in cross-examination.

15.Once the signatures on Exs.P.1 to P.3, P6 and P7 admitted by accused the initial burden lying on complainant was discharged by P.W.1 and the burden shifts to accused 1 and 2 to rebut the presumption. On that aspect except the oral testimony of D.Ws.1 and 2 no piece of evidence either in oral or in documentary produced by accused to dis-prove the contentions of the complainant.

16.Accused 1 and 2 are admitting about the landed property owned by

P.W.1 in an extent of Ac.1.00 in Chinaganjam besides a own house at Sopirala. In such circumstances, the fnancial capacity of the complainant can easily be

C.C.No.148 of 2013

I- A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala 11/16 estimated for lending amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused. On pretext accused 1 and 2 contending that complainant doing money lending business and he lent amounts to a tune of Rs.2,50,000/- to Ganta Srilakshmi, Sikharam Srinivasa Rao and

Ganta Venkata Narayana in their presence and they stood as sureties by hand overing blank agreement and cheques. On the other hand accused 1 and 2 contending that complainant has no fnancial capacity to lent amounts. It means accused 1 and 2 are taking diferent pleas only to escape from the liability covered under Ex.P.1 agreement. On this aspect also the contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant is having much weight than that of the contentions of the accused which are baseless.

17.Once the cheques in question with regard to issuance admitted by accused 1 and 2 basing on the decision in between I.C.D.S Limited Vs. Beena

Shabeer and another Dt:12.08.2002, wherein it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that Where any cheque was issued and which was in possession of the complainant it must be deemed that the same was issued for discharge of the loan amount and initial burden of complainant about existence of legally enforceable debt deemed to be fulflled. Eventough accused tried well to dispose the complainant version, but they failed to explain about existence of Exs.P.1 to 3, P6 and P7 in the possession of complainant which are clear documents.

18.After having discussion supra and basing on material available on record both oral and documentary as adduced by the complainant and accused, this court come to conclusion that the case against accused 1 and 2 proved by the complainant for the ofence under Sec.138 of N.I.Act.

C.C.No.148 of 2013

I- A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala 12/16

19. In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found guilty for the ofence under Sec.138 of N.I.Act and they are convicted under Sec.255 (2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 26 th day of February, 2019.

Sd/- S.Srinivas

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC:I-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala 20 (i).Heard the accused 1 and 2 with regard to quantum of sentence, for which they stated that minor children are depending on him and that complainant demanding excess amounts and also demanding for registration of land in his favour, even though they are ready to pay settled amount and prays to show mercy on them.On hearing the plea of the as the accused 1 and 2 are involving fnancial matter to a tune of Rs.5,00,000/- causing incontinence to the complainant for the last seven years they are not entitled to benefts under P.O.Act or 360

Cr.P.C. But, on hearing the burden of the accused 1 and 2 that their minor children are depending on them, this court opines that imposing simple imprisonment itself is sufcient to meet the ends of justice.

(ii)Hence, accused 1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ‘6’ months (Six months) each for the ofence under

Sec.138 of N.I Act.

(iii) The period of imprisonment already if any undergone by accused 1 and 2 shall be given set of under Sec.428 Cr.P.C. (NIL).

C.C.No.148 of 2013

I- A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala 13/16

(iv)The accused 1 and 2 are informed about their right to appeal, for which they stated that they have got means to prefer an appeal by engaging a counsel.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 26 th day of February, 2019.

Sd/- S.Srinivas

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC:I-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

-:WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1: Ganta Narasimha Rao D.W.1: P.Pardhasaradhi D.W.2: P.Sujatha

// DOCUMENTS MARKED //

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1 is theCertifed copy of the deed executed by the accused 1 and 2 infavour of the complainant on Rs.50/- stamp for Rs.5,00,000/- Dt:15.06.2012 Ex.P.2 is the Cheque Dt:28.12.2012 bearing No.910277 drawn on State Bank of India, Chirala Branch for Rs,.2,00,000/- infavour of the complainant Ex.P.3 is the cheque Dt:29.12.2012 bearing No.910276 drawn on State Bank of India, Chirala Branch for Rs.50,000/- in favour of the complainant Ex.P4 is the cheque return memo Dt:29.12.2012 issued by the State Bank of India, Chirala Branch Ex.P5 is the cheque return memo Dt:29.12.2012 issued by the State Bank of India, Chirala Branch Ex.P6 is the cheque Dt:28.12.2012 bearing No.915000 drawn on State Bank of India, Chinaganjam Branch for Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the complainant Ex.P7 is the cheque Dt:29.12.2012 bearing No.910276 drawn on State Bank of India, Chinaganjam Branch for Rs.50,000/- in favour of the complainant Ex.P8 is the cheque return memo Dt:28.12.2012 issued by the State Bank of India, Chianganjam Branch Ex.P9 is the cheque return memo Dt:29.12.2012 issued by the State Bank of India, Chinaganjam Branch Ex.P10 is the ofce copy of the regd. Legal notice issued to both the accused Ex.P11 is the original postal receipts Dt:23.01.2013 two (2) in number Ex.P.12 is the regd. Reply notice Dt:30.01.2013 issued by the both accused to the complainant counsel. Ex.P.13 si the certifed copy of the regd. Sale deed Dt:11.04.2012 vide document No.707 of SRO, Ammanabrolu executed by the complainant in favour of Amanchi Venakta Subba Rao Ex.P.14 is the certifed copy of plaint in O.S.163 of 2015 on the fle of Senior Civil

Judge’s Court, Chirala

C.C.No.148 of 2013

I- A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala 14/16

Ex.P.15 is the true copy of 1-B Namuna (ROS) Dt:19.05.2014 issued by the Tahsildar, Chinaganjam Mandal obtained through Mee-seva Ex.P16 is the certifed copy of written statement.

FOR DEFENCE

– NIL---

// MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED //

-NIL- Ild/- S.S. P.J.C.J., Chirala

FAC:I-A.J.C.J-cum-

I-A.J.F.C.M, Chirala // True copy //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC:I-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala

C.C.No.148 of 2013

I- A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala 15/16

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-I-ADDL. JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: CHIRALA

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.148 of 2013

Date of ofence:29.12.2012 Date of complaint : 13.02.2013 Date of appearance of accused: 13.11.2013 Date of release of accused: 13.11.2013 Date of commencement of trial:09.09.2016 Date of closure of trial:18.04.2018 Date of Judgment:26.02.2019

Between:

Ghanta Narasimha Rao, S/o Subba Rao, aged 39 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Sopirala (V), Chinnaganjam Mandal.…Complainant -: And :-

01.Parvathareddy Pardhasaradhi, S/o Rama Rao, aged 37 years, Hindu, Sahara Agent, R/o Sopirala (V), Chinaganjam Mandal.

02.Parvathareddy Sujatha, W/o Pardhasaradhi, aged 35 years, Hindu, Sahara Employee, R/o Sopiral a(V), Chinaganjam Mandal.… Accused

Ofence: u/Sec.138 of NI Act.

Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court: Found guilty

Sentence or Order:

In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found guilty for the ofence under Sec.138 of N.I.Act and they are convicted under Sec.255 (2) Cr.P.C. Hence, accused 1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ‘6’ months (Six months) each for the ofence under Sec.138 of N.I Act. The period of imprisonment already if any undergone by accused 1 and 2 shall be given set of under Sec.428 Cr.P.C. (NIL). The accused 1 and 2 are informed about their right to appeal, for which they stated that they have got means to prefer an appeal by engaging a counsel

C.C.No.148 of 2013

I- A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala 16/16

Explanation for delay:-

This case was taken on fle against the accused 1 and 2 u/Sec.138 of NI Act.

On appearance of accused 1 and 2 before this court, copies of documents were furnished u/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. Accused 1 and 2 were examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the accusation made against them for the ofence under section 138 of NI Act, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.On 09.09.2016 trial was commenced and concluded on 18.04.2018, during trial P.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P16 and complainant side evidence was closed. On 20.04.2018, accused 1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence found against them, for which, they denied the same and examined themselves as D.Ws.1 and 2, but no documents marked on their behalf. Arguments heard on both the sides. On 26.02.2019, Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- S.Srinivas

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala I-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Note:- Sentence passed against the accused 1 and 2 are suspended till 25.03.2019 as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.880/2019, Dt:26.02.2019 // True copy //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC:I-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala

CC/100098/2013 Acquitted

P.Sesha Reddy vs Najana Krishna,

30 Dec 2019

C.C.98 of 2013 I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala

1 / 17

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-I-

ADDITIONAL JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: CHIRALA

Present: Sri S.Srinivas , Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC: I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chirala.

Monday, the 30th day of December, 2019

Calendar Case No.98 of 2013

Between:

State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Food Safety Officer, O/O.Food Safety Designated Offcer, Sanjaya Gandh colony, Prakasam District, Ongole.…Complainant -: And :- Najana Krishna, Age 38 years, S/o Ramulu, Proprietor of New Visveswara Fast Foods, Gadiyaram Stambam Centre, Perala Chriala Municipality, Prakasam District.… Accused

This is case is coming on 23.12.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri P.V.Tulasiram, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

01.This complaint filed by the Food Safety Officer, P.Sesha Reddy against the accused for the offence under Sec.26 (2) (I), 3 (1) (zz) (viii) of FSS

Act 2006 read with Regulation 3.1.2 (1) and (6) of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation 2011.

C.C.98 of 2013 I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala

2 / 17

02.The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:-

(i)The complainant being Food Safety Officer qualified and notified as Food Safety Officer vide in G.O.Ms.No.243, Dt:25.08.2011 with the Local area assigned entire State of Andhra Pradesh, by the time of inspection worked at Prakasam District. On 03.02.2012 at about 0400 P.M under supervision of the Asst. Food Controller, Zone-III, Guntur and the Food safety designated officer of the Prakasam District along with office subordinate

B.Ch.Ramulu visited the Hotel New Visveswara Fast Foods situated at

Gadiyaram Stambam centre, Perala of Chirala for inspection. At that time accused was present and transacting the business. After disclosing the identity and purpose of the visit of P.Sesha Reddy (L.W.1), enquired with the accused regarding proprietor ship particulars of the Hotel, accused disclosed that he himself proprietor of the Hotel New Visveswara Fast Foods. Then

P.Sesha Reddy (L.w.1) called one D.Bangar Reddy (L.W.2) who is present at the premises of the hotel as witness, then he accepted. In the presence of

D.Bangar Reddy (L.W.2), P.Sesha Reddy (L.W.1) inspected the hotel and found 5 Kgs of loose Tea Powder kept in a Metal tin for preparation of Tea sale for human consumption. P.Sesha Reddy (L.W.1) suspected the quality of the said stock of Tea powder to be adulterated and enquired with the accused regarding the purchase bill and source of supply and the accused not produced the bill till to date. P.Sesha Reddy (L.W.1) purchased Two Kgs of

Tea powder for Rs.440/- and paid towards cost of the sample and obtained cash receipt under the acknowledgment of accused attested by D.Bangar

C.C.98 of 2013 I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala

3 / 17

Reddy (L.W.2). Then, P.Sesha Reddy (L.W.1) served Form-V A notice to the accused disclosing with an intention to send the sample to the Food Analyst

Hyderabad for analysis.

(ii)Then, P.Sesha Reddy (L.W.1) divided the purchased tea powder in to four equal parts, each part having ½ Kg and placed into four clean, dry and empty plastic tins and tightly closed the caps of the tins and sealed with sealing wax. P.Sesha Reddy (L.W.1) affixed a label on the container bearing

Code No.B008/00744/2012. On the sample tins used with gum and wrapped each sample tin separately with a thick brown paper neatly folded the ends were in and affixed with gum. P.Sesha Reddy (L.W.1) affixed a paper slip with a code No.B008/00744/2012 issued by the Food Safety designated officer,

Prakasam District on each sample tin going around from bottom to top and obtained the signatures of accused and D.Bangar Reddy (L.W.2), on the sample tins in such a manner the signatures are covering with the paper slip and brown paper.

(iii)P.Sesha Reddy (L.W.1) tied each sample tin with a twine thread both above and across and put four wax seals, one at the top, one at the bottom and two are either side of the sample tin used with specimen impression seal by covering knots ends of thread. P.Sesha Reddy (L.W.1) explained to the Food Business Operator provision for option for analysis of the 4th part of sample with the approved accredited Laboratory, Hyderabad with the payment of prescribed fee, served an intimation letter to Food

Business Operator under rule 2.4.1.10 (iii) of F.S.S.Rules, 2011 vide letter

C.C.98 of 2013 I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala

4 / 17

Rc.No.B008/00744/2012, Dt:03.02.2012. The accused has not given option for analysis of the 4th part of sample under the said provision. In the presence of accused and D.Bangar Reddy (L.W.2), P.Sesha Reddy (L.W.1) prepared panchanama in Telugu regarding the inspection and collection of sample and procedure followed in the premises of the hotel, and read over the contents and obtained their signatures on the panchanama.

(iv)On 04.02.2012 P.Sesha Reddy (L.W.1) sent one part of sample along with Form-VI Memorandum containing specimen impression seal used to seal on the sample tin to the Food analyst, State Food Laboratory,

Hyderabad, for analysis, in a sealed parcel by express parcel service as per receipt No.54 Dt:04.02.2012. On the same day P.Sesha Reddy (L.W.1) sent a copy of Form-VI Memorandum containing specimen impression seal in a sealed cover to the Food Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad Vide postal receipt No.EN 528812515 IN Dated 04.02.2012.

(v)On 04.02.2012, P.Sesha Reddy (L.W.1), deposited 2nd and 3rd parts of sample and two copies of Form-VI Memorandum containing specimen impression seal with Food safety designated officer, Prakasam District as per letter Rc.No.B008/00744/2012, Dt:04.02.2012 and also 4th part of sample along with Form-VI Memorandum containing specimen impression seal

Ongole vide letter Rc.No.B008/00744/2012, Dt:04.02.2012 under acknowledgment.

(vi)On 21.02.2012, P.Sesha Reddy (L.W.1) received the Food Analyst report bearing No.50/2012, Dt:17.02.2012, along with covering letter

C.C.98 of 2013 I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala

5 / 17

No.237/SFL/2012. Dt:17.02.2012 through the Food Safety Designated

Officer, Prakasam District, Ongole. The Food Analyst in his report opined that, “the sample contains added Synthetic Colours. Therefore it is Unsafe.”

(vii)On 21.02.2012 the Food Safety Designated Officer, Prakasam

District, Ongole forwarded a Food analyst report bearing No.50/2012,

Dt:17.02.2012 along with a notice under rule 2.4.2 (6) vide

No.B008/0744/2012, Dt:21.02.2012, informed in the notice to the accused if it is so desired make an application in Form-VIII to the Food Safety

Designated Officer enclosed with Bank Draft Rs.1000/- prescribed fee of analysis sending second pat of sample to the referral Food Laboratory,

Kolkata, sent by register post vide Postal receipt No.EN 528821217 IN,

Dt:21.02.2012, vide Notice Rc.No.B008/00744/2012, Dt:21.02.2012, and

received postal acknowledgment. The accused has not given option for analysis of 2nd part of sample by referral food laboratory, Kolkata under the said provision.

(viii)On 24.02.2012, P.Sesha Reddy (L.W.1) submitted a detailed report along with annexure in and all case documents pertaining to the unsafe sample addressed to the Food safety designated officer, Prakasam

District vide letter Rc.No.B008/00744/2012, Dt:24.02.2012. The Food Safety

Designated Office forwarded the detail report to the Commissioner of Food

Safety, vide letter Rc.No.32/FSDO/PKM/2012, Dt:24.02.2012, requested for sanction orders for prosecution of accused.

C.C.98 of 2013 I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala

6 / 17

(xi)On perusal of copies of documents, detailed report and Food analyst report the commissioner of Food Safety, Andhra Pradesh is satisfied that there is a prima facie case of use of Unsafe Tea Powder in preparation of tea sale for human consumption against the accused by name Najani Krishna and accorded orders and directed the Food Safety Officer to file prosecution against the accused before the Hon’ble Court for the offence committed

U/s.26 (2) (I), 3 (1) (zz) (viii) of FSS Act, 2006 read with Regulation 3.1.2 (1) and (6) of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food

Additives) Regulations, 2011 punishable U/s 59 (I) of FSS Act, 2006 vide orders Rc.No.1060/F3/2012. Dt:31.12.2012 of the Commissioner of Food

Safety, Andhra Pradesh in respect of Unsafe Tea Powder. Hence, the complainant prays to punish the accused according to law.

03.This case was taken file against the accused under Sec. 26 (2) (I), 3 (1) (zz) (viii) of FSS Act, 2006 read with Regulation 3.1.2 (1) and (6) of Food

Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives)

Regulations, 2011 punishable U/s 59 (I) of FSS Act, 2006

04.On appearance of accused case copies furnished under Sec.207

Cr.P.C.

05.Accused was examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation for the offence under Sec.26 (2) (I), 3 (1) (zz) (viii) of

FSS Act, 2006 read with Regulation 3.1.2 (1) and (6) of Food Safety and

Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011

C.C.98 of 2013 I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala

7 / 17

punishable U/s 59 (I) of FSS Act, 2006, read over and explained him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trial complainant himself examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P20. On behalf of accused no witnesses were examined nor marked any documents.

06.After closure of the complainant side evidence, accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C, read over and explained the incriminating material available on record in the evidence of complainant and his side witnesses evidence for which accused denied and stated no defence witnesses.

07.Now the point for consideration is :-

Whether the prosecution proved the prove of the accused for the offence under Sec.26 (2) (I), 3 (1) (zz) (viii) of FSS Act, 2006 read with Regulation 3.1.2 (1) and (6) of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 punishable U/s 59 (I) of FSS Act, 2006 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

08.Heard on both the sides.

09.The learned A.P.P submitted his arguments that in this case complainant himself examined as P.W.1 who stated in a clear and convincing manner about the Food adulteration that was taken place in the premises of accused. Accused used to run Fast Food Center under name and style New

Visveswara Fas Food Center. He has not maintain the standards with regard to the tea powder. On suspicion P.W.1 lifted the sample by purchasing 2 Kgs of tea powder, He followed the procedure dividing the sample and sending

C.C.98 of 2013 I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala

8 / 17

the same to FSL and received report that is tea powder is substandard and adulterated. Hence the complainant filed this complainant, with these submissions prays to punish the accused according to law.

10.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that in this matter no raid conducted by complainant and he prepared all the documents in his office, as such he failed to produce the mediators in whose presence alleged raid was conducted. In the absence of another independent witness to support the complainant version the case of the complainant cannot be believed. With these submissions prays to acquit the accused.

EVIDENCE :- 11 (I) In this case complainant himself examined as P.W.1 who reiterated entire complaint averments as part of his chief evidence by deposing from date of inspection as 03.02.2012 at 04.00 p.m at New

Visveswara Fast Foods situated at Gadiyaram Stambam Centre, Perala of

Chirala up to lifting the sample, sending one part of tea powder to FSL personally for analysis, handing over second and third parts to concerned authority. Serving notice under Form-V, applying for sanction orders after receiving analysis report as sample contains added Synthetic Colours.

Therefore it is Unsafe. These facts deposed by complainant are same reflecting in complaint. Exs.P.1 to P20 were marked through complainant.

Coming to his cross-examination he admitted that the hotel registration new Visweswara Fast Foods center is not filed before this Court.

He did not file documents showing the proprietorship of the said hotel. He

C.C.98 of 2013 I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala

9 / 17

did not enquire about the proprietor of Visweswara Hotel in any labout office and sale tax office. The Visweswara Fast food center is clock tower center which is busy locality. He do not know whether MRO office is 100 meters far away. He admitted that he did not served any written notice to any one to act as mediator. He along with the designated officer of

Prakasam District, Assistant Food Controller of Guntur and his office sub- ordinate went to the scene of offence. He admitted that except his signature on mediator report there were no signatures of other officials. He added to say that they obtained independent mediator signature. He admitted that he did not produce any document showing that other official accompanied him to the scene of offence on the alleged date. He did not examine the officials as witnesses. He denied the suggestion that he along with other officials did not visit the scene of offence on the alleged date and filed this case falsely for statistical purpose. They found 5 Kgs of loose tea powder. They enquired about the manufacture of Tea Powder, but could not elicit about any information about it. They also enquired about the place where accused purchased the said Tea power. They did not get proper answered on it. He admitted that they did not get any information about the manufacture super stockist, stockist, dealer and retailer. He admitted that accused was not selling tea powder. He admitted that they did not seize any bills regarding the purchase of said Tea powder as there were no bills pertaining to it. They did not enquire the accused at what rate he purchased the tea powder. Ex.P.3 is prepared as per the norms of FSS Act and obtained

C.C.98 of 2013 I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala

10 / 17

the signature of accused and independent witness. They did not file any permissions from superior officer for amount of Rs.440/- which they paid to the accused for the sample of Tea powder from the accused and only obtained his signatures. They did not use any preservative to preserve the sample as it does not require. They took sample of 2 Kgs out of 5 Kgs tea powder and left remaining 3 Kgs. He admitted that they did not seize the remaining 3 Kgs or warned about not to use. He admitted that he did not file cash receipts for the purchase of the plastic tins in which they took samples of Tea Powder in quantity of half KG. He admitted that he did not produce any document to show that the plastic tins are made in hygienic. He admitted that they did not mention in the report about the colour of the Tea powder. He denied the suggestion that colour of the Tea powder not mentioned clearly in Ex.P.13. He admitted that percentage of unsafety is not mentioned in Ex.P.13. He added to say that unsafe means 100 % unsafe. He admitted that the word Health Hazard was not there in Ex.P.13. He admitted that they did not file any document to show that the labs which they mentioned in Ex.P.6 are approved by the Government. He added to say that it is not required. He admitted that they received complaint not regarding the tea powder. They received complaint about the tea. He denied the suggestion that they did not receive any complaint. He admitted that they did not file any document to show that the accused is the proprietor of the

Visweswara Fast Food center. He added to say that accused himself admitted that he himself is the owner of the Visweswara Fast Food Center.

C.C.98 of 2013 I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala

11 / 17

They did not shown the workers of Visweswara Fast Food Center as witnesses. They did not produce any document showing that they enquired the customers of the hotel.

12.POINT :-

(i)In this matter the only evidence available on record is that of

P.W.1 who is Food Safety Officer and as per his version, he inspected the premises of New Visveswara Fast Food center on 03.02.2012 at 4-00 p.m and his premises situates near Gadiyaram center, Perala. The version of P.W.1 shows, out of suspicion he called independent witness L.W.2/D.Bangaru

Reddy who is resident of Vital nagar and in his presence, he inspected the premises of accused. He found 5 Kgs of loose tea powder kept in a metal tin for preparation of tea sale for human consumption. No bill was produced by accused with regard to the said 5 Kgs of tea powder. He purchased 2 Kgs of tea powder for a sum of Rs.220/- each by paying Rs.440/- in toto. The complainant deposed all the procedure followed by him for lifting the sample, he also prepared panchanama in the presence of independent mediator. When once the presence of independent mediator was came from the mouth of P.W.1, it is the burden of the P.W.1 to produce the said witness for proving the case. This Court given several opportunities from 01.10.2018 to 23.12.2019 for a period of more than one year for production of

D.Bangaru Reddy (L.W.2). The complainant not shown interest to proceed with the case. He himself only appeared and given evidence with regard to the alleged raid conducted by him. For every seizure there must be

C.C.98 of 2013 I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala

12 / 17

supporting independent witnesses to prove the entire proceedings of panchanama under Ex.P.7. Complainant clearly admitted in the cross- examination that he failed to seize the documents proving that accused is the proprietor of the hotel and he has not even enquired who is the proprietor of Visveswara hotel in any labour office or sales tax office. It shows there is no connectivity with the accused to the Visveswara Fast Food

Center in the manner of a piece of paper. The version of complainant shows that accused was present and transacting the business, as such he served notice. Mere presence of accused will not connect the accused to the alleged offence that he himself liable for punishment of the alleged offence.

The complainant has to establish the case against accused in a clear and convincing manner that he is only the proprietor of Fast Food center and dealing with alleged adulterated tea powder for human consumption.

(ii)Further it was also observed by this Court that designated officer of Prakasam District and Assistant Food Controller of Guntur also present during the course of raid along with office sub-ordinate. But, their names were not reflecting in complaint as a witness and simply shown the name of D.Bangaru Reddy/L.W.2 as a mediator. Even on Ex.P.7 panchanama he only signed even though designated officer of Prakasam District and Asst.

Food Controller of Guntur available with him. This version of P.W.1 creates some doubt in the absence of evidence of D.Bangaru Reddy/L.W.2. Even it was not brought on record through the complainant that what is the source of said alleged adulterated tea powder from which place the proprietor of

C.C.98 of 2013 I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala

13 / 17

the Fast Food center brought the same. Complainant failed to get any information about the manufacturer or super stockist, stockist, dealer and retailer of the alleged adulterated tea powder. Simply holding the tea powder within the premises of Fast Food center and presence of accused as a tea master will not connect the accused to the alleged offence as contended by the learned counsel for the accused which is having much weight. In case independent mediator was produced and examined with regard to the alleged raid then there is every chance of proving the contents of Ex.P7/panchanama in a full-pledged manner. Once the proprietorship was not brought on record in a convincing manner with regard to the Visveswara

Fast Food Center, this Court come to conclusion that connecting the accused with the alleged offence by the complainant was not properly brought on record.

(iii)After going through the oral evidence of P.W.1 , it was taken place in a routine manner as he failed to produce the independent mediator who was allegedly present and also he failed to examine the other officials who were accompanied him at the time of alleged raid creates doubt with regard to the raid conducted by the complainant. The sole version of P.W.1 as an investigating officer complainant and filing charge sheet will create doubt with regard to the entire procedure conducted by him without presence of any independent mediator or independent persons evidence has contended by the learned counsel for accused. Hence, accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

C.C.98 of 2013 I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala

14 / 17

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Sec.26 (2) (I), 3 (1) (zz) (viii) of FSS Act, 2006 read with Regulation 3.1.2 (1) and (6) of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food

Additives) Regulations, 2011 punishable U/s 59 (I) of FSS Act, 2006 , accordingly he is acquitted under Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C.

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

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30 th day of December, 2019.

Sd/- S.Srinivas

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC:I-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chirala

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

-:WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

FOR COMPLAINANT : FOR ACCUSED

PW.1: P.Sesha reddy NONE

// DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT//

Ex.P.1 is the complaint Ex.P.2 is the G.O.Ms.No.243, Health, Medical and family welfare (L1), 25.08.2011 Ex.P.3 is the Cash receipt issued by accused Dt:03.02.2012 Ex.P.4 is the form-V A Ex.P5 is the label of container added (Sec.Rule 2.4.8 of FSS Rules, 2011), Dt;03.02.2012. Ex.P6 is the intimation to Food business operator/accused under rule 2.4.1 (III) of FSS Rules, 2011 Ex.P.7 is the panchanama Dt:03.02.2012 at 4.00 P.M Ex.P.8 is the Form-VI memorandum to food analyst Ex.P.9 is the Express postal receipt Dt:04.02.2012 Ex.P.10 is the Postal receipt Dt:04.02.2012 Ex.P11 is the acknowledgment from Food safety designated Officer,

Dt:04.02.2012 by depositing 2nd and 3rd parts of samples

Ex.12 is the acknowledgment from Food Safety designated officer,

Dt:04.02.2012 by depositing 4th part of sample

C.C.98 of 2013 I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala

15 / 17

Ex.P.13 is the report of food analyst Dt:17.02.2012 Ex.P14 is the covering letter of food analyst Dt:17.02.2012 Ex.P15 is the notice to accused by food safety designated officer

Dt:21.02.2012

Ex.P16 is the postal receipt dt:21.02.2012 Ex.P17 is the acknowledgment from accused Ex.P18 is the report submitted by complainant to the Food Safety designated Officer, Prakasam District Dt:24.02.2012 Ex.P19 is the letter submitted by Food Safety Designated officer, Prakasam District to the Commissioner, Food Safety, Government of Andhra Pradesh Ex.P20 is the proceedings of Commissioner of Food safety, Government of Andhra Pradesh

// DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED//

- Nil -

// MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED //

-NIL-

Ild/- S.S P.J.C.J., Chirala FAC:I-A.J.C.J -cum- I-A.J.F.C.M, Chirala /// True copy ///

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

FAC:I-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chirala

C.C.98 of 2013 I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala

16 / 17

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-I-

ADDITIONAL JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: CHIRALA

CALENDAR IN C.C.No. 98 of 2013

Date of offence Prior to : 03.02.2012 Date of complaint : 31.01.2013 Date of appearance of accused : 20.03.2013 Date of release of accused: 20.03.2013 Date of commencement of trial: 06.03.2019 Date of closure of trial : 23.12.2019 Date of Judgment : 30.12.2019

Between:

Offence : Under Sec.26 (2) (I), 3 (1) (zz)

(viii) of FSS Act, 2006 read with Regulation 3.1.2 (1) and (6) of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 punishable U/s 59 (I) of FSS Act, 2006

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

Sentence or Order :

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.26 (2) (I), 3 (1) (zz) (viii) of FSS Act, 2006 read with Regulation 3.1.2 (1) and (6) of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 punishable U/s 59 (I) of FSS Act, 2006 , accordingly he is acquitted under Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C.

C.C.98 of 2013 I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.C.M.Court, Chirala

17 / 17

Explanation for delay:-

This complaint filed by the Food Safety Officer, P.Sesha Reddy against the accused for the offence under Sec.26 (2) (I), 3 (1) (zz) (viii) of FSS Act, 2006 read with Regulation 3.1.2 (1) and (6) of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 punishable U/s 59 (I) of FSS Act, 2006. On appearance of accused case copies furnished under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation for the offence under Sec.26 (2) (I), 3 (1) (zz) (viii) of FSS Act, 2006 read with Regulation 3.1.2 (1) and (6) of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 punishable U/s 59 (I) of FSS Act, 2006, read over and explained him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial complainant himself examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P20. On behalf of accused no witnesses were examined nor marked any documents. After closure of the complainant side evidence, accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C, read over and explained the incriminating material available on record in the evidence of complainant and his side witnesses evidence for which accused denied and stated no defence witnesses. Arguments heard on both sides. On 30.12.2019, judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- S.Srinivas

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC:I-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chirala

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

/// True copy ///

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

FAC:I-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chirala

CC/100701/2014 Acquitted

Sub-Inspector of Police, Chirala Rural P.S vs Katuri Jayalakshmi

23 Dec 2019

1 // 14

C.C.701/2014

I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.CM.Court, Chirala

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-I-ADDL.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: CHIRALA

Present: Sri S.Srinivas, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC:I-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I-Additional Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chirala.

Monday, the 23 rd day of December, 2019

Calendar Case No. 701 of 2014

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Chirala Rural P.S.…Complainant -: And :-

01.Katuri Jayalakshmi, W/o Venkateswarlu (late), 63 years, Padmasali by caste, Epurupalem village, Chirala Mandal.

02.Katuri Suresh Babu, S/o Venkateswarlu (late), 35 years, Padmasali by caste, Epurupalem village, Chirala Mandal.

03.Katuri Venkata Rao, S/o Venkateswarlu (late), 44 years, Padmasali by caste, Epurupalem village, Chirala Mandal.… Accused

This is case is coming on 19.12.2019 for hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade-II for the state-complainant and Sri T.Sreekanth, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chirala Rural Police Station filed a charge sheet in Cr.No.121/2014 for the offence under Sec.498 (A) of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of

D.P.Act against the accused 1 to 3.

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

Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) is complainant in this case. Bandaru Venakta

Narasimham and Bandaru Adilakshmi (L.Ws.2 and 3) are her parents and they are residents of Ramayapatnam village of Gudluru Mandal. The marriage of Katuri

Padmaja (L.W.1) was performed with one Katuri Prabahakara Rao (Late) resident of 2 // 14

C.C.701/2014

I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.CM.Court, Chirala

Epurupalem village of Chirala Mandla and the said Prabhakara Rao is an advocate.

At the time of marriage, parents of Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) gave cash of

Rs.1,00,000/- besides 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the husband and in-laws of Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1). After the marriage, Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) joined with her husband and leads conjugal life amicably. Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) blessed with one male child. After two years of her marriage the husband of Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) joined with her husband and leads conjugal life amicably. Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) blessed with one male child. After two years of her marriage the husband of Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) and her in-laws namely Venkateswarlu (late), mother-in- law/A1, brother-in-laws ie., A2 and A3 harassed Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) by demanding additional dowry. Due to unbearable tortures Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) went to her parents house at Nalgonda. On one day in the year 2003, the husband and father-in-law of Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) went to Nalgonda town, picked up quarrel with Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) and beat her. Due to which Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) reported the matter to police at Nalgonda. Since then Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) is residing along with her parents and look after her son by working as a private teacher. During the period the father-in-law of Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) was died. Int he year 2013 the husband of Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) has filed a divorce petition in the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Chirala. Later, Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) and her husband came into compromise and they are residing together.

Later, the husband of Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) was died on 14.05.2014 due to ill- health. At the time of death ceremony (Pedda Karma) of husband of Katuri

Padmaja (L.W.1), the accused/A1 has taken all gold ornaments of Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) weighing about 40 sovereigns. Later the accused/A1 to A3 are put more tortures against Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) by demanding additional dowry for their feeding. Further the Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) stated that the accused/A1 is used to 3 // 14

C.C.701/2014

I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.CM.Court, Chirala

force to lead ill-legal intimacy with A2. As the Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) is not accepted then the accused 1 to 3 are necked out Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1). Then,

Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) went to her parents house and informed the incident to elders by name Guddanti Rajendra Prasad (L.w.6), Machrla Anjaneyulu (L.W.7) and others who tried to get compromise the matter, but the accused did not hear their words. Having no other go, Katuri Padmaja (L.W.1) reported the matter before

Chirala Rural Police Station. Basing on the same R.Rambabu, S.I of Police (L.W.13) registered this case and after completion of investigation laid charge sheet. Thus, accused 1 to 3 are liable for the offence under Sec.498 (A) of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of

D.P.Act.

03.Case taken on file under sec. 498 (A) of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act against the accused/A1 to A3.

04.On appearance of the accused 1 to 3 copies furnished under sec.207

Cr.P.C.

05.Accused 1 to 3 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C read over and explained the accusation in Telugu for the offences under Sec.498 (A) of IPC after framing charge under Sec.240 Cr.P.C, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trial prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.6.

07.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused 1 to 3 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, read over and explained the incriminating material appearing against them in Telugu for which they denied and stated defence witnesses.

08.On behalf of accused, D.W.1 was examined and marked Ex.D.1.

09.Heard both the sides.

4 // 14

C.C.701/2014

I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.CM.Court, Chirala

10.Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused 1 to 3 for the offence under sec. 498 (A) of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

11.The learned A.P.P submitted his arguments that in this matter P.W.1 stayed with her in-laws and brothers of deceased husband at Epurupalem, during that period they harassed the complainant by taking away her gold ornaments. In such circumstances, the harassment and subjecting her to cruelty was proved by the prosecution. The defence witness D.W.1 clearly admitted about the mediation taken place at Sivalayam temple at Epurupalem and the entire case was brought on record through the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses and prays to punish the accused according to law.

11.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused 1 to 3 submits that P.W.1 never reside in the house of A1 to A3. She always resided separately from that of her in-laws. Previously she filed a case against her husband and father-in-law at Nalgonda and the said case was ended in acquittal. After filing

H.M.O.P by her husband they entered into compromise. Then they shifted the family to Chirala, where her husband fell sick and subsequently died out of ill- health. P.W.1 claimed the specific property of her in-laws. In that dispute she filed these false criminal cases and prays to acquit the accused.

12.To prove the case of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined.

P.W.1 deposed that her marriage with late Prabhakara Rao taken place on 13.10.1999 as per their caste customs and rites. At the time of marriage, her parents presented a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry, 40 sovereigns of gold to the accused. Immediately after marriage, she joined Prabhakara Rao at her in-laws house and gave birth to a child on 31.03.2012. For some period they looked after her well and later started demanding her to bring additional dowry and the said 5 // 14

C.C.701/2014

I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.CM.Court, Chirala

demand was made by her husband and father-in-law. Due to unbearable harassment she went to her parents house at Nalgonda. Even at Nalgonda her husband and father-in-law abused her and beaten her by visiting that place. Then she presented a report before police at Nalgonda. Since then she continued to stay at her parents house at Nalgonda. Later she received notices in H.M.O.P from

Courts of law at Chirala. In that divorce O.P herself and Prabahakra Rao entered into compromise in the manner of re-union. She joined Prabahkara Rao at her in- laws house where in herself and her husband, children, A1, A2 used to resided under one roof. During that period her husband suffered from ill health and while undergoing treatment at Guntur he expired. During the ceremonies of her husband, wife of A2 went for delivery. When she placed all the gold at her in-laws house, her mother-in-law harassed her stating that she might have die during the 10 years period for their free life. She has to follow their instructions for continuing her life with them, otherwise they will neck out her from their house.

They have not returned her gold ornaments. A2 demanded her to develop extra marital relationship with him as her husband is no more. When she bluntly refused the illegal demand of A2, then they will look into the matter for doing favour to her. For about 5 to 6 months for the said mediation through elders she visited

Chirala, but they have not pursued the matter and not even given any gold or items to her in her favour. A2 and A3 only appeared before elders at Sivalayam and there they talked about her in inhuman words. Finally at the suggestion of elders she presented report before police. Ex.P.1 is the report.

In the cross-examination she deposed that she presented report

before Nalgonda police only against her husband and father-in-law and not alleged

anything against A1 to A3. The said case ended in acquittal at first appeal stage.

She admitted that she filed partition suit against A1 to A2 and wife of A2 and A3 6 // 14

C.C.701/2014

I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.CM.Court, Chirala

vide O.S.No.92/2012 on the file fo Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Chirala and

O.S.154/2012 on the file of learned Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Chirala and both

the matter are still pending. No compromise entered into compromise in H.M.O.P.

Ex.P.1 report drafted by her in the police station. She denied the suggestion that herself and Prabhakara Rao set up separate family at Kothapeta of Chirala. She admitted that A3 is a private employee working at different places as his job is a transferable one. She has not noted the specific date for alleged illegal demand of

A2 towards her in Ex.P.1. She admitted that she has not noted in Ex.P.1 and not stated in her 161 Cr.P.C statement about the alleged specific date of necking out her from the house of the deceased. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing entirely falsehood.

13.P.W.2 who is the father of P.W.1 deposed in the similar lines as that of

P.W.1 about the marriage of P.W.1, presentation of dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and 40 sovereigns of gold and blessing of male baby by P.w.1. He also deposed about the filing of criminal case against husband of P.W.1 and father-in-law of P.W.1 at

Nalgonda by P.W.1. He also deposed about the filing of H.M.O.P by the husband of

P.W.1, in that O.P., P.W.1 and her husband compromised and lived together. Later due to ill-health, husband of P.W.1 died. During the period of final rites, A1 to A3 and Venkateswarlu taken away gold ornaments weighing about 40 sovereigns. A1 to A3 after completion of entire formalities with regard to death of Prabhakara

Rao finally they necked out P.W.1 from their house by behaving in an high handed manner. The wife of A2 was not with him and went to her parental home for delivery purpose. A2 expresses his evil intention towards P.W.1 to fulfill his biological needs. All the accused demanded to follow their words otherwise they will not allow P.W.1 in their house. At that time mediation held before Rajendra 7 // 14

C.C.701/2014

I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.CM.Court, Chirala

Prasad, Issackl and Anjaneyulu (L.Ws.6,8 and 9), but no change in the behaviour of accused, finally P.W.1 presented report before police.

In the cross-examination he deposed that he was examined by police in the year 2014 and he is residing at Chirala since June, 2014. After one month of death of Prabahakara Rao he started living at Chirala. She admitted that civil litigation pending between P.W.1 and her in-laws with regard to properties by way of partition suit. He admitted that the criminal case filed by P.W.1 under sec. 498 (A) of IPC against her husband Prabahakara Rao and father-in-law Venkateswarlu

before Courts of law at Nalgonda. He added to say A1 to A3 never turned up to

Nalgonda as such no case filed against them at Nalgonda. He admitted that one letter executed by both parties after settlement in the manner of an understanding

before police station on 16.11.2014. When P.W.1 presented report before

Epurupalem police station, elders intervened and settled the issue, reduced into writing Dt: 16.11.2014. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing entire falsehood.

14.P.W.3 younger brother of P.W.1 deposed in the similar lines as that of

P.Ws.1 and 2 in chief and cross followed by P.W.4.

15.P.W.5 deposed that after death of Prabahakara Rao they came to know through P.W.1 that she facing harassment in the manner of taking away her gold ornaments weighing about 40 sovereigns and also accused harassed P.w.1 both physically and mentally. He along with others mediated the issue, in that mediation A1 not attended for that mediation, but A2 and A3 turned up. They suggested accused to arrange a shelter to P.W.1 out of several house properties claimed their name for which A2 and A3 convinced. Later they came to know that

P.W.1 was not allowed into their house and necked out her. Finally at their suggestion P.W.1 reported the matter before police.

8 // 14

C.C.701/2014

I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.CM.Court, Chirala

In the cross-examination he admitted that some other elders also available in their caste. He has not stated before police the names of other elders who were also present at the time of alleged Sivalayam. They suggested to arrange house property to P.W.1. They have not reduced the said suggestion into writing.

It is some letter of understanding executed by both the parties wherein he also signed. He admitted that as per said understanding accused to arrange a house property to P.W.1. He denied the suggestion that police never examined him and that he is deposing entirely falsehood even though he is not an elder at

Epurupalem, only at the instance of P.W.1.

16.P.Ws.6, 8 and 9 said to be the mediators not supported the prosecution case and they were turned hostile.

17.P.W.7 deposed that due to ill health husband of P.W.1 died at that time he was shifted to Epurupalem their native place. At the time after final rites to Prabahakar, accused try to neck out P.W.1 by harassing her and by teasing her on petty issues. He along with P.Ws.4 and 5 and G.Rajhendra Prasad acted as elders and requested the accused to provide shelter to P.W.1, but accused leased bothered their suggestion and came upon them in a high handed manner. They suggested accused to sell away the joint family property for the future of minor son of Prabhakara but they did not accept their suggestion. The entire mediation taken place at Sivalayam temle, Epurupalem.

In the cross-examination he deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the family affairs of P.w.1 and her in-laws. He do not know the

WILL and other property related aspects of father of Prabhakar. He admitted that oen criminal case ended in compromise both the parties in Court of Law at

Nalgonda. He admitted that their caste elders only have to appear to settle any issue within the caste people. Civil litigation filed by P.W.1 and the same is 9 // 14

C.C.701/2014

I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.CM.Court, Chirala

pending. They were called for mediation for settling the properties among family members with a hope to give share to P.W.1 and her daughter.

18.P.W.10 investigating officer deposed about the registration of case and filing of charge sheet etc facts.

In the cross-examination he admitted that Ex.P.1 and 161 cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 does not reflect the information of previous acquittal of deceased husband and his father at Nalgonda. He was not enquired about the cases if any filed by her husband before Courts of law at Chirala while conducting his part of investigation as Ex.P.1 clearly reflects about the previous cases filed by her husband. P.W.1 not stated before him about any previous cases filed by her and pending if any against the accused. He do not know whether any civil litigation filed by P.W.1 claiming for partition of the property of her in-laws and the same still pending before Courts of law at Chirala. There is no specific date mentioned in

Ex.P.1 with regard to alleged necking out her from the conjugal home. No specific date mentioned in Ex.P.1 or in 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 when the alleged gold relating to her taken away by accused.

19.POINT :-

On observing the evidence available on record ie., P.ws.1 to 3 they are the near relatives to P.W.1 stated about marriage that was taken place between

P.W.1 and deceased husband in the year 1999 as per caste customs and rites. As per the version of P.W.1 she resided at Nalgonda for a some period where she reported the matter before police against her deceased husband and father-in-law.

She received notices in H.M.O.P from Courts of law, Chirala. She also stated that she entered into compromise with her husband and re-union taken place in between them. At that time she stayed along with her deceased husband and in- laws under one roof along with A2 and A3 and their children. She specifically 10 // 14

C.C.701/2014

I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.CM.Court, Chirala

denied that she along with Prabhakara Rao set up family at Kothapeta of Chirala.

She admitted that she has not mentioned in Ex.P.1 or in her 161 Cr.P.C statement about the alleged specific date of necking out her from the house of the deceased husband. P.W.2 also denied about the separate family set up by P.W.1 and deceased husband at Kothapaeta in her cross-examination. P.W.2 admitted that under Domestic Violence Act petition, P.W.1 claimed for right over a house property lying in the name of her father-in-law. P.W.3 one of the close relative of

P.W.2 and brother of P.W.2 stated that all the accused are residents of

Eepurupalem. P.W.1 filed a case against her husband at Courts of law at Nalgonda.

P.w.1 filed partition suit before Courts of Law at Chirala. They admitted one settlement reduced into writing at Sivalayam. He denied the suggestion that accused 1 to 3 never harassed P.W.1. P.W.4 who is an independent witness stated that he know P.W.1 and her husband Prabhakara Rao. He know that Prabhakara

Rao and P.W.1 resided at Kothapaeta on rent basis. This version of independent witness shows P.W.1 and her deceased husband Prabhakara Rao lived for some period on rent basis from there he was shifted to hospital for his ill-health at

Guntur where he died. P.W.5 also clearly admitted out of some understandings accused arranged a house property to P.W.1. It was clearly brought on record

P.W.1 filed partition suit claiming the partition of the properties relating to her father-in-law. P.W.6 an independent witness not supported the prosecution case.

P.W.8 another independent witness followed him as well as P.W.9 they were declared hostile.

20.P.W.7 stated that some petty disputes taken place between P.W.1 and accused, accused least bothered about their suggestion as mediators. P.W.7 clearly stated that after P.W.1 and Prabahakara Rao compromised in H.M.O.P, re-union 11 // 14

C.C.701/2014

I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.CM.Court, Chirala

taken place and they resided at Kothapeta in a rented house. It means for some period they stayed at Nalgonda, disputes taken place leading to criminal case at

Nalgonda and H.M.O.P filed before Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Chirala.

Again out of understandings they started leading conjugal life at Kothapeta,

Chirala, there the health of the Prabahakara Rao disturbed leading to his death. It means P.W.1 never resided at the house of Eepurupalem along with A1 to A3. The contention of the learned A.P.P that she resided in the house of A1 to A3 during customary rights and final rights of the Prabhakara Rao. Since beginning there is a dispute exists between parties with regard to the sharing of the property.

Previously also one criminal case filed by P.W.1 which was ended in acquittal. P.W.1 entered into compromise with Prabahakara Rao during his life time shows that the allegations mentioned in the complaint under Ex.P.1 are not having that much of weight. Another point observed by this Court is that the ingredients of Section 498

(a) of IPC not brought on record in a convincing manner that the alleged victim was driven to commit suicide or there is any injury to her body or mind. No such material is there with regard to the said aspects. In addition to that she filed partition suit claiming property from her father-in-law. The gold regarding to her taken away by accused is concerned,. Only oral evidence available from her near relatives and hostile version of independent witnesses available from the side of accused, After watching the material available on record, it was clear that the version of learned counsel for accused is having much weight than that of the prosecution version leading to acquittal fo the accused.

21.In the result, accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence under sec. 498 (A) of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act and hence they are acquitted of the same under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused 1 to 3 12 // 14

C.C.701/2014

I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.CM.Court, Chirala

shall be in force for a period of six months under Section 437(a) Cr.P.C. In this case no property seized and produced, hence no property order is passed.

Dictated to the shorthand writer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 23 rd day of December, 2019.

Sd/- S.Srinivas

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC:I-Additional Junior Civil Judg-cum- I-Additional Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chirala

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

-:WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1 – Katuri Padmaja D.W.1 : Indrani Venkata Ramana P.W.2 – Bandaru Venkata Narasimham P.W.3 – Bandaru Jwala Narasimham P.W.4 – Meriga Issac P.W.5 – Gurram Anjaneyulu P.W.6 – Panchumurthi Narasimha P.W.7 – Macharla Anjaneyulu P.W.8 – Arekati Chandra Sekhar P.W.9 – Kommanaboina Sivaiah P.W.10 – R.Rambabu, S.I of Police

// DOCUMENTS MARKED //

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1/ Report given by P.W.1 Ex.P2/161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6 Ex.P3/ 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.8 Ex.P4/ 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.9 Ex.P5/First Information Report Ex.P6/ Rough sketch FOR DEFENCE : Ex.D.1 Part of 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5

// MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED //

--- NIL --- Ild- S.S PJCJ, Chirala FAC: I-A.J.C.J-cum- I-A.J.F.C.M, Chirala

/// True copy ///

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

FAC:I-Additional Junior Civil Judg-cum-

I-Additional Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chirala

13 // 14

C.C.701/2014

I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.CM.Court, Chirala

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-I-ADDL.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: CHIRALA

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.701 of 2014

Date of offence prior to:23.12.2014 Date of report:23.12.2014 Date of apprehension of accused:24.12.2014 Date of release of accused:24.12.2014 Date of commencement of trial:22.09.2017 Date of closure of trial:04.12.2019 Date of Judgment: 23.12.2019

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Chirala Rural P.S.…Complainant -: And :-

01.Katuri Jayalakshmi, W/o Venkateswarlu (late), 63 years, Padmasali by caste, Epurupalem village, Chirala Mandal.

02.Katuri Suresh Babu, S/o Venkateswarlu (late), 35 years, Padmasali by caste, Epurupalem village, Chirala Mandal.

03.Katuri Venkata Rao, S/o Venkateswarlu (late), 44 years, Padmasali by caste, Epurupalem village, Chirala Mandal.… Accused

Offence:u/Sec.498 (A) of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence under sec. 498 (A) of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act and hence they are acquitted of the same under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused 1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of six months under Section 437(a) Cr.P.C. In this case no property seized and produced, hence no property order is passed.

Explanation for delay:-

This case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.498 (A) of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act against the accused 1 to 3. On appearance of accused 1 to 3

before this court, copies of documents furnished as contemplated under Sec.207 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused 1 to 3 were examined under Sec.239

Cr.P.C read over and explained the accusation in Telugu for the offences under Sec.

14 // 14

C.C.701/2014

I-A.J.C.J-cum-I-A.J.F.CM.Court, Chirala

498 (A) of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act after framing charge under Sec.240

Cr.P.C, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial was commenced on 22.09.2017 and concluded on 04.12.2019, during trial P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P6, prosecution evidence was closed.

After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused 1 to 3 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, read over and explained the incriminating material appearing against them in Telugu for which they denied and stated defence witnesses. On behalf of accused D.W.1 was examined and marked Ex.D.1. Heard arguments on both the sides. On 23.12.2019 Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- S.Srinivas

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC: I-Additional Junior Civil Judg-cum- I-Additional Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chirala

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole

/// True copy ///

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

FAC:I-Additional Junior Civil Judg-cum-

I-Additional Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chirala

OS/3/2018

Smt. Pavalla Ramadevi vs Pavalla Ravi Prasada Rao

18 Mar 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHIRALA

Present: Sri S. Srinivas,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Wednesday, this the 18th day of March, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.3 of 2018 Between:

Pavalla Ramadevi W/o P. Siva Vara Prasad, Hindu, aged about 45 years, House wife, D.No.12-13-2, Behind Ramalayam, Kothapeta Post, Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District. ... Plaintif.

And

Pavalla Ravi Prasada Rao S/o P. Kotilingam, Hindu, aged about 35 years, Employee, C/o Store Babu, D.No.4-8-380, Srinagar Colony, Sri Sailam Post,

Kurnoole District. ...Defendant.

This suit came before this Court on 11.02.2020 for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri M. Satyanarayana, Advocate for the plaintif and Sri

P. Sambaiah, Advocate for Defendant, Plaintif counsel fled written arguments and the arguments on behalf of defendant is treated as heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit fled for recovery of Rs.1,90,160/- being the

principal and interest due on a promissory note dt.20.09.2014 executed

by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs.1,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that :

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintif on 20.09.2014 from the plaintif to meet his family and business expenses and executed a promissory note in her favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintif or to her 2 order on demand. Inspite of several demands made by the plaintif for repayment of the said promissory note debt, the defendant failed to discharge the debt due to the plaintif and postponing the same on some pretext or the other. On 12.08.2017 the plaintif got issued legal notice demanding the defendant to repay the promissory note debt amount , the defendant received the said notice on 16.08.2017, but the defendant did not choose to repay the debt. Hence, the plaintif is constrained to fle the suit. Hence, the suit.

3.On receiving the notices from this Hon’ble Court the defendant appeared and fled his detailed written statement which in brief shows as follows:

The entire allegations mentioned in the plaint are untrue and invented for the purpose of fling the present suit against the defendant for wrongful gain. The Defendant further submits that he neither borrowed any amount covered under the alleged suit promissory note nor executed the same in favour of the plaintif on 20.09.2014. The alleged suit promissory note came into picture whenever the disputes arose in between him and his brother, the present suit promissory note is created, concocted, fabricated and forged the signature on the suit promissory note. He further submits that after seeing the plaint and copy of alleged suit promissory note, then he came to a conclusion that the plaintif has no avocation and she has been depending upon her husband and no income to her. Hence, plaintif has no capacity to lend such huge amount covered under the alleged suit promissory note.

Hence, there is no consideration passed to the defendant under the promissory note. Hence, the alleged suit promissory note is devoid of consideration. The suit promissory note is neither binding nor enforceable against the defendant, the plaintif is being house wife and 3 she has no capacity to lend such huge amount covered under the suit promissory note and the suit promissory note is forged one. With these submissions prays to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the pleadings of the both the sides this Court framed the following issues for determination:

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of promissory note amount with interest as prayed for?

3. To what relief ?

5.To prove the contentions of respective parties as part of their evidence, PWs.1 & 2 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4. On behalf of

Defendant, he himself examined as DW.1 and in support DW.2 fled chief affidavit and he was not cross examined. No documents are marked on behalf of defendant.

6.Plaintif counsel fled written arguments. So far as defendant side argument is concerned when the matter posted on 10.02.2020 for arguments, an I.A.No.259/2020 and I.A.No.260/2020 fled by the defendant for comparison purpose U/s.45 of Indian Evidence Act to send the document to expert. The said petitions were dismissed by this Court on merits. From 27.02.2020 matter posted to 03.03.2020 for arguments on that day the written arguments fled by the plaintif and at the request of defendant posted the matter to 05.03.2020 for defendant arguments. At that stage defendant counsel reported that he fled copy application and praying time. Hence, giving 11 days time and posted the matter to 16.03.2020 fnally. On 16.03.2020 no representation from the side of defendant, hence the arguments of the defendant treated as heard in this oldest identifed case as defendant dragged the matter from 21.11.2019 to produce his part of evidence and to adduce arguments till 16.03.2020.

7.The learned counsel for the plaintif has submitted his written arguments which in brief shows that:

On behalf of Plaintif 4 documents marked to prove her case. DW.1 was examined and no document marked on behalf of defendant. DW.2 fled chief affidavit but not turned up to face the cross-examination.

Execution of Ex.A.1 was clear and convincing from the side of defendant as submitted by plaintif and for comparison purpose. Sec.45, 47, 73 and 90 of Indian Evidence Act is sufficient to any presiding officer/Judge to compare the admitted signature along with suit promissory note. One

C.C.No.27/2016 on the fle of learned Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala fled by plaintif in connection with promissory note submitted in the suit the same was agreed that part of the amount was also paid, in pursuance of a compromise in the said C.C. The said payment is related to cheque bounce case and in the said C.C double the cheque amount was sought, as one of the reliefs, by the plaintif/complainant as per

Sec.138 of N.I. Act. The plea of forgery of the defendant is vague and he did not explain anywhere in his pleadings that why he did not approach police or Court to fle a criminal case against the plaintif, if the said promissory note is really a forged one. The only evidence in support of the said plea of the defendant is his self-serving solitary statement as

DW.1. As per the decision reported in between Shamsher Singh Vs

Bhagwan Singh of Punjab, Haryana High Court dt.14.01.2015 it was clearly observed that in the absence of evidence of this witness the only evidence in support of plea of the defendant-appellant is his self-serving solitary statement as DW.1 and his evidence is also found to be inconsequential in view of his silence in the matter and his failure to render an explanation why he did not approach a Civil Court or police authority complaining against stated high handedness of the plaintif- 5 respondent, or to seek cancellation of the promissory note. The initial burden of the plaintif was clearly discharged and defendant failed to rebut the same, in such circumstances, the case of the complainant was clear and convincing when referred with decisions reported in between

Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao Vs. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm &

Ors dt.16.05.2008 as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in another case in between A-One Industries Vs Shri D.P.Garg dt.30.07.1999 of

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that it needs to be high lighted that fling a

false affidavit or giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding is a serious matter. The stream of justice has to be kept clear and pure and anyone spoiling its purity must be dealt with sternly so that no one can be permitted to undermine the dignity of the Court and interfere with due course of Judicial proceedings or the administration of justice.

Simple oral version of DW.1 cannot be taken into consideration and DW.2 not turned up to face cross-examination and his evidence is eschewed.

In such circumstances adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintif and in favour of the plaintif . With these submissions prays to decree the suit.

8.Issue Nos.1 & 2:- The version of PWs.1 & 2 who are the main creditor and attestor to the Ex.A.1 promissory note. The version of

PW.1 in the cross-examination she deposed that she is the relative to the defendant, defendant is an employee and also doing business. She do not remember the nature of business run by defendant. She arranged amounts on 16.09.2016 a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and on 20.09.2019 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. She do not know whether any specifc emergency raised in the family of defendant prior to alleged Ex.A.1 transaction. She arranged the amounts to the defendant at her house with denomination of Rs.500/- currency notes. She denied the suggestion that defendant is 6 an employee, as such he has no need to borrow amounts from her and that to get wrongful gain, she created promissory note and that Ex.A.1 is a forged one and foisted the false suit.

9.PW.2 also deposed in his cross-examination that as per his remembrance the pronote transaction taken place on 16.09.2014 and four days subsequent that date i.e., 20.09.2014 another transaction. The defendant himself scribed the promissory notes for Rs.1,00,000/- each and the said transaction taken place at the house of PW.1 at Kothapet,

Chirala. He do not know personally the defendant and he observed the same on the date of execution of promissory note only. He did not remember the denomination of alleged debt arranged by PW.1 to defendant but it was Rs.1,00,000/- in each transaction. He came to know that defendant visited the house of PW.1 from Srisailam.

10.DW.1 fled his chief affidavit reiterating the written statement averments.

Coming to the cross-examination he deposed that he has been working as Assistant Cook before Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam,

Srisailam. He admitted that plaintif is his relative and he has not paid any interest to the plaintif at any occasion. He denied the suggestion that he is in the habit of borrowing amounts from the plaintif and discharged the said previous debts. He denied the suggestion that he used to repay the debt amount to the plaintif by way of depositing amounts into her bank account. He has no document to show about his plea i.e., alleged forgery of Ex.A.1. He cannot produce any documents with regard to the plea no consideration passed under Ex.A.1. He has no document to show about fnancial incapability of plaintif for lending any amounts especially under Ex.A.1 as pleaded by him. He admitted that he paid some amount out of compromise in a criminal case under 138 of N.I 7

Act to the plaintif for the debt covered under Ex.A.1. He denied the suggestion that as the terms of compromise failed from his side still the cases are pending. No immovable property lying in his name as on today. He denied the suggestion that all the pleas taken by him in his written statement are false with regard to forgery, no consideration and plaintif has no fnancial capacity. He denied the suggestion that those pleas taken by him only with a view to avoid Ex.A.1 promissory note amount repayment. He denied the suggestion that without having immovable properties he has taken another false plea that to grab his property fled this false suit by plaintif. He denied the suggestion that his entire chief affidavit averments are false only to avoid suit claim and that he is deposing entirely falsehood.

11.In this matter it was clearly admitted by defendant as DW.1 that he has no document to show about his plea of alleged forgery of

Ex.A.1. He admitted that a compromise was entered by him in a criminal case U/s.138 of NI Act for the debt covered under Ex.A.1. It means he is admitting about the debt under Ex.A.1 promissory note. In such circumstances forgery plea of defendant is clearly vitiated by plaintif from his cross-examination put to DW.1.

12.Further to decide about the forgery plea taken by defendant in his written statement as well as chief-affidavit this Court observed the promissory note under Ex.A.1. The signature refecting on Ex.A.1 when compared with written statement as executant the signature was refecting in English. Whereas, he put his signature in written statement in Telugu language. But, Defendant as DW.1 fled his chief affidavit by putting his signature in English and when compared the said signature of executants on Ex.A.1 and in chief affidavit as DW.1 there is a clear similarity refecting with regard to his signatures.

13.In written statement defendant has taken diferent pleas that forgery, no fnancial capacity by plaintif and no consideration passed. In the above lines of the cross-examination to the said contents

DW.1 clearly admitted that he entered into compromise with plaintif in a criminal case U/s.138 of NI Act and paid some amount for the debt covered under Ex.A.1. Whatelse required to this Court to come to a conclusion that Ex.A.1 was duly executed by defendant for the purpose of borrowing amount covered under Ex.A.1. At the time of fling written statement diferent pleas taken by Defendant, this Court also observed that he intentionally signed in Telugu language even though he is working as Assistant Cook before Srisailam Devasthanam and he is able to sign in English language as refecting on the chief affidavit of DW.1.

This Court also observed that Ex.A.2 legal notice got issued by plaintif to the defendant, but defendant not given any reply to the said Ex.A.2.

After going through the entire evidence of both the parties this Court come to a conclusion that the pleas taken by the defendant is not having much weight when compared to Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 and oral evidence of

PWs.1 & 2 that Ex.A.1 was duly executed by defendant it was true, valid and binding on the defendant and plaintif is entitled for recovery of entire suit promissory amount with interest. Accordingly issues 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.

14. Issue No.3:- In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintif and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,90,160/- along with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till the date of realization on the

principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 18th day of March, 2020.

Sd/-S.Srinivas,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintif: For Defendant:

PW.1: Pavlla Ramadevi DW.1 : Pavalla Ravi Prasada Rao

PW.2: Kurma Rajulji DW.2 : Katter Ravi Kumar(chief affidaviti

Documents Marked

For Plaintif:-

Ex.A.1 : Original promissory note dt.20.09.2014 for Rs.1,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif. Ex.A.2 : Office copy of legal notice dt.12.08.2017. Ex.A.3 : Original Postal receipt dt.12.08.2017. Ex.A.4 : Original postal acknowledgment dt.16.08.2017.

For Defendant:- N I L -

Sd/-S.Srinivas,

P.J.C.J.Chirala.

// True Copy //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHIRALA

Present: Sri S. Srinivas,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Wednesday, this the 18th day of March, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.3 of 2018 Between:

Pavalla Ramadevi W/o P. Siva Vara Prasad, Hindu, aged about 45 years, House wife, D.No.12-13-2, Behind Ramalayam, Kothapeta Post, Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District. ... Plaintif.

And

Pavalla Ravi Prasada Rao S/o P. Kotilingam, Hindu, aged about 35 yers, Employee, C/o Store Babu, D.No.4-8-380, Srinagar Colony, Sri Sailam Post,

Kurnoole District. ...Defendant.

This is a suit fled for recovery of Rs.1,90,160/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dt.20.09.2014 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs.1,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and for costs.

Plaint Presented on : 15.09.2017 Plaint fled on : 03.01.2018.

.Cause of Action : Cause of action for the suit arose on 20.09.2014 when the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintif and executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintif on the same day at the plaintif’s house at Kothapeta village of Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District and when the plaintif made several demands for the repayment of the promissory note debt but the defendant is postponing the same on some pretext of the other, and on 12.08.2017 when the plaintif got issued a legal notice to the defendant and on 16.08.2017, when the defendant received the said notice and did not choose to repay the debt due and the place was at Kothapeta village, Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District, where the suit promissory note is executed and where the plaintif is residing within the jurisdiction of this

Hon’ble Court.

Valuation : The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.1,90,160/-, on which a court fee of Rs.4426/- is paid U/s.20 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act.

This suit came before this Court on 11.02.2020 for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri M. Satyanarayana, Advocate for the plaintif and Sri P. Sambaiah, Advocate for Defendant, Plaintif counsel fled written arguments and the arguments on behalf of defendant is treated as heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree:

1. that the defendant do pay the plaintif a sum of Rs.1,90,160/- together with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of fling of the suit i.e, 15.09.2017 to till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-; and

2. that the defendant do also pay the plaintif a sum of Rs.11,978/- towards costs of the suit, bearing his own costs of Rs.Nil-(No CM & FC is fled by defendanti.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 18th day of March, 2020.

Sd/-S.Srinivas,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Table of Costs

ParticularsForFor Plaintif Defendant

Stamp on Vakalat2.00-

Stamp on Plaint4426.00- Stamps on Process 45.00- Advocate's fee 7405.00-No CM & FC is fled - Writing charges100.00- Total 11,978.00-

Sd/-S.Srinivas,

P.J.C.J., Chirala.

// True Copy //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Order Record 2,427 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/43/2020	Grandhi Bala Subrahmanyam vs Dasi Prakasam	04 Jun 2020	Judgment	—
OS/381/2019	Shaik Meera Vali alias Swamy vs Jada Bujji	04 Jun 2020	Judgment	—
OS/3/2018	Smt. Pavalla Ramadevi vs Pavalla Ravi Prasada Rao	18 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/4/2018	Smt. Pavalla Rama Devi vs Pavalla Ravi Prasada Rao	18 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/86/2015	Akkala Poli Reddy vs Dontiboina Venkateswara Reddy	18 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
EP/28/2019	M/SMargadarsi Chit fund PVT Ltd, Chirala vs Chopparapu Kishore	17 Mar 2020	Order	—
OS/36/2015	Manchegarla Venkateswarlu vs Ramisetty Syama Sundara Rao	16 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/52/2019	Kumbha Narendra Babu vs Palagada Subba Rao	16 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/69/2014	Dasari Krishna Vamsi vs Dasari Nageswara Rao	16 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/128/2019	Sajja venubabu vs ThallaRavi Kumar	16 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/244/2012	Asadu Sivamba vs Daggubati Mallikharjuna Rao	16 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/245/2012	Sadi Krishna Reddy vs Daggubati Mallikarjuna Rao	16 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
EP/23/2019	Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt Ltd vs Shaik Khasim	12 Mar 2020	Order	—
OS/31/2019	State Bank of India vs Mallaapu Venkata Rao	12 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/38/2020	Annapareddy Mahalakshmi vs Palaparthi Venkateswarlu	12 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/294/2017	Gajjela Jayamma vs Challa Srinivasa Rao	12 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/100143/2018	Kothagorla Prasad vs Gangavarapu Venkateswarlu	12 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/13/2020	Goli Venkata Mallikarjunudu vs Devi Tulasidevi	11 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/129/2014	Gorremuchu Ruthu vs Jogi Danamma	11 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/133/2019	AmarneniHarikrishna vs KothagorlaChinaVenkataSubbarao	11 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
EP/87/2017	Siram Parvathi Devi vs Nimma Appayamma	10 Mar 2020	Order	—
OS/65/2013	Chinthalapudi Jayaram vs Chinthalapudi Subbarao	10 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/100155/2018	Ramayanam Anasuyamma vs Pittu Kamala	10 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/369/2019	Budati Charan Ravi Teja vs Budati Savathri	07 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/29/2014	Gaddam Somaiah vs Vadlamudi China Venkateswarlu	05 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/235/2017	Bheemineni Mohan Rao vs Parimi Venkata Naveen	05 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/100189/2018	Devarakonda Bhavannarayana vs Alapana Akkamma	05 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
EP/32/2019	M/S Margadarsim Chit Fund Pvt ltd Chirala vs Boddu Madhusudhana Rao	04 Mar 2020	Order	—
EP/67/2019	M/S Shriram Chits Pvt Ltd,Chirala Branch vs Yamala Nageswara Rao	04 Mar 2020	Order	—
OS/28/2014	Pathuri Venkateswarlu vs Yarram Madhavi	04 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
EP/12/2019	Telaprolu Venkateswara Rao vs Asadi Sambasiva Rao alias Sambireddy	03 Mar 2020	Order	—
EP/100021/2018	Thota Madduleti vs Payanam Raghava Rao	03 Mar 2020	Order	—
OS/115/2012	Duddi Hanumath Kali Krishna vs Kondapalli Subba Rao	03 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/100245/2018	Karanam Ramesh Babu vs Kothamasu Harinadha Babu	03 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/99/2016	Ramisetty Srinivasulu vs Kuppam Srihari	02 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/322/2019	Mukiri Chinna Babu vs Alapana Bodemma	29 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/323/2019	Kasani Ramu vs Madduluri Venkata Rao	29 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/251/2019	Grandhi Bala Nageswara Rao vs Julakanti Venkata Subba Rao	27 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/100192/2018	Nakka Siva Kumari vs Challa Srinivasa Rao	27 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
EP/33/2019	M/SMargadarsi Chit Fund Pvt., Ltd., vs Pynam Ravi Kumar	26 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/16/2015	Burla Brahmaiah vs Burla Viswanadham	26 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/35/2018	Vishnumolakala Suneetha vs Syed Irfan	25 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/85/2015	Sri Venkateswara Cashew Chikky Manufacturers, Vetapalem vs Padma Creams Private Limited	25 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/92/2017	Kuppala Suresh Kumar vs Vakkalagadda Peresh Kumar	25 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/7/2019	Munnaluri Rama Rao vs Munnaluri Mallikarjuna Rao	24 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/95/2018	Vemuri Lakshmi vs Smt. Mallela Prameela Devi	24 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/127/2012	Shaik Zaheer vs Shaik asif	20 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/200/2013	Vutukuri Hari Babu vs Jangili Venkata Krishna Rao	19 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/8/2020	Uppiretla Madhavi vs Podili Siva Prasad	18 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/23/2014	Adusumalli Durga Prasad vs Rohini Anjaiah	18 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/54/2018	Nerella Guravaiah vs Chejarla Chalapathi Rao	18 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/113/2019	State Bankof India, Chirala vs Istharla Nagamani	18 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/100126/2018	Galinki Yebu vs Chippalapalli Srinivas	18 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/8/2019	Ponnuri Bala Subrahmanyam vs Avula Satish Kumar	17 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/21/2018	Potturi Nageswara Rao vs Gutti Raja Babu	17 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/104/2019	AvvaruRangaRao vs LankaVenkateswaraRao	17 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/100144/2018	Dasari Poorna Chandra Rao vs Shaik Abdul Salam Basha	17 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
EP/36/2019	M/s. Margadarsi Chits Funds Pvt. Ltd., Chirala. vs Kandrakonda Lakshmi Narsulu	12 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/391/2019	Muvvala Vamsi Krishna vs Nangu Balaramireddy	11 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/100218/2018	Nallamalli Sridevi vs Telaprolu Srinivasa Rao	11 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/2/2020	Muppalaneni Sesha Sambasiva Rao vs Panta Nagendra Kumar	08 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/12/2016	Gangireddy Vasu babu vs Arikati brahmaji Rao	08 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/299/2019	Burla Siva Ram Prasad vs Aathina Venkata Rao	08 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/388/2019	Gorla Venkateswarlu vs Maddiboina Sambaiah	08 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/282/2017	Payanam Ravi Kumar vs Salam Usha Rani	06 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/314/2019	Maddala Srinivasa Rao vs Sahaik Haseena	06 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
EP/48/2019	Kapil Chit Funds Pvt,Ltd, Chirala Rep by P.Rajeswara Rao vs Potikalapudi Venkateswara Rao	05 Feb 2020	Order	—
EP/56/2019	Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt., Ltd., vs Sayyed Babi Gori	05 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/214/2015	Ellapragada Deepti vs Ramisetty Koteswaramma	05 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/100211/2018	Suragani Ankamma vs Peram Venkateswarlu	05 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/257/2019	Tella Parvathi vs Masanam Venkata Rama Rao	04 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/100220/2018	Devana Venkata Subba Rao vs Paresettla Bhavni Prasad	04 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
EP/10/2019	Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt Ltd. vs Surisetty Hymavathi	03 Feb 2020	Order	—
EP/41/2019	Margadarsi Chit funds Pvt., Ltd. vs Yerraboina Bhulakshmi	03 Feb 2020	Order	—
EP/84/2019	Kadiyam Lakshmana Rao vs Birudu Nageswara Rao	27 Jan 2020	Order	—
EP/85/2019	Vijayalakshmi Agencies rep by its Y.Lakshmikantha Rao vs Gondral Srinivasa Rao	27 Jan 2020	Order	—
OS/309/2019	Kurra Lakshmi Kumari vs Kurra Chandra Babu	25 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/36/2018	Bala Venkateswarlu vs Shaik Karimulla	22 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/342/2019	Manoj Fashnions Rep.by its Proprietor Gugglam Kasturi Rao vs Bhavirisetty Venkata Rao	21 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
EP/54/2016	Yarra Mangamma vs Maddukuri Veeraiah	09 Jan 2020	Order	—
OS/266/2015	Chunduru Nagarapamma vs Ramisetty Leelavathi	09 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/373/2019	Chinta Santhi Swaroop vs Chinta Ravichand	09 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
EP/75/2017	Bommisetty Umamaheswara Rao vs Dola Parisuddam	08 Jan 2020	Order	—
OS/180/2019	Kasani Ramu vs Masanam Venkata Rama Rao	08 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/332/2019	Shaik Aliyaz vs Shaik Arifa	08 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/86/2019	Andhra Bank, Perala vs Nadendla Suresh Kumar	07 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/87/2019	Andhra Bank, Perala vs Nadendla Sreenivasa Rao	07 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/16/2016	Kurapati Mythri vs Kurapati Bhaskara Babu	06 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/58/2017	S. Venkata Bala Krishnaiah vs Bhavana Projects India Private Limited, Spurthi complex	06 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/163/2019	Matcha Venkateswara Reddy vs Bapanapalli Satyanarayana	06 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/330/2019	Thalluri Siva Bhaktha Kumar vs Shaik Mainuddin	06 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
EP/72/2019	M/S Shriram Chits Pvt Ltd,Chirala Branch vs Shaik Mahaboob Bee	02 Jan 2020	Order	—
OS/334/2019	Chunduru Krishna Murthy vs Sadu Venkata Satyanarayana	02 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/343/2019	KOmmanaboina Vasu Babu vs Ebbili Srinivasa Rao	02 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/345/2019	Graandhi Bala Subrahmanyam vs Nallapu Praveen Kumar	02 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/100125/2018	Vutukuri Santha Kumari vs Batta Jaya Lakshmi	02 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
EP/90/2015	Pinjala Madhavi vs Lella Rama Krishna	31 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/100052/2018	Gampala Durga Prasad vs Nune Alia	30 Dec 2019	Order	—
OS/257/2017	Kakarla Narasimha Rao vs Mediboyina Bala Rami Reddy	30 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
OS/319/2019	Burala Sambaiah vs Pakala Nageswara Rao	30 Dec 2019	Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 2,427 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jun 2020		3
Mar 2020		33
Feb 2020		40
Jan 2020		22
Dec 2019		229
Nov 2019		62
Oct 2019		79
Sep 2019		201
Aug 2019		77
Jul 2019		140
Jun 2019		32
May 2019		17

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri S.Srinivas handled?

Sri S.Srinivas has handled 2446 court orders since 2017 at Senior Civil Judge, Chirala (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 77 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri S.Srinivas hear?

Based on available records, Sri S.Srinivas primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Senior Civil Judge, Chirala (Taluka).

Where is Sri S.Srinivas currently posted?

Sri S.Srinivas is posted as I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Chirala at Senior Civil Judge, Chirala (Taluka), Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri S.Srinivas available online?

Yes. 25 judgments by Sri S.Srinivas are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri S.Srinivas dispose cases?

Sri S.Srinivas disposes approximately 77 cases per month, based on 2446 orders handled over their tenure at Senior Civil Judge, Chirala (Taluka).

Since when is Sri S.Srinivas serving?

Sri S.Srinivas has been serving at Senior Civil Judge, Chirala (Taluka) since 2017.

Case Types

CC 71%

OS 15%

MC 5%

EP 4%

PRC 3%

DVC 2%

STC 1%

RCC 0%

Posting History

Jul 2019 — Dec 2019

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Chirala · 602 orders
Nov 2018 — Mar 2019

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Chirala · 207 orders
Oct 2018 — Jul 2020

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala · 444 orders
Aug 2018 — Oct 2018

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala · 13 orders
Aug 2018 — Oct 2018

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Chirala · 157 orders
May 2017 — May 2017

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala
May 2017 — Jul 2018

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Chirala · 1,023 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 15

Convicted 1

Other Judges at this Court

Smt.B.Baby Rani

Senior Civil Judge, Chirala

0 orders

Smt M.Venkata Vahini

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

639 orders

Smt. J.Katyaini

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Chirala

1,611 orders

← View all judges at Senior Civil Judge, Chirala (Taluka)