S. Vasu Dev L.L.B.,

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

THAMBALLAPALLE

Present: SRI S. VASU DEV,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Thamballapalle.

Monday, this the Third (03 rd ) day of October, 2016.

CALENDER CASE No.32 OF 2014

The State, represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Molakalacheruvu police station.… Complainant -Vs-

01. Pullagura Venkataramana, aged 58 years, s/o Venkatappa, Gollapalli, H/o Peddapalem, Molakalacheruvu mandal, Caste bny Yadava.

02. Pullagura Krishnappa, aged 45 years, s/o Venkatappa, Goppalapalli, H/o Peddapalem, Molakalacheruvu mandal, Caste bny Yadava.

03. Pullagura Sreenivasulu, aged 40 years, s/o Venkatappa, Goppalapalli, H/o Peddapalem, Molakalacheruvu mandal, Caste bny Yadava. … Accused

This case is coming before me on 28-09-2016 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the

State and Sri S. Hassan Valli and Sri P.Janardhana Reddy, Advocates for accused 1 to 3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Th Sub-Inspector of police, Molakalacheruvu police station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.10/2014 for the offence punishable Under

Section 447 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. against the accused 1 to 3.

02. The brief facts of the charge sheet, in nutshell, are as follows:-

LW-1(U.Sankara) and bis brothers LWs-2 to 4 namely

V.Sreenivasulu, V.Lakshmanna and V.Krishnappa are having ancestral landed properties in Survey Nos.439/2, 439/15, 439/20, 441/7, 474/5, 479/4 and 473/1, an extent of Ac.2.60 cents at Gollapalle village of 2

Molakalacheruvu Mandal. The accused 1 to 3 are claiming share in the above properties as a matter of right. The accused were obstructed the complainant and his family members at the time of ploughing the lands since three (3) years. LW-1 and their family members approached revenue people and obtained police protection at the time of agricultural work. On 01-02-2014 at about 9.30 a.m. while LW-1 and his brothers are ploughing the land, the accused criminally trespassed into their lands and obstructed from ploughing the land.

LW-5 (P.Naganna) had witnessed the offence. On 05-02-2014 at 11.00 a.m., the complainant went to police station and lodged a complaint against the accused. Basing on the complaint given by LW-1, LW-6 (N.Sreekantha Reddy), Sub Inspector of Police, Molakalacheruvu police station had registered a case in Cr.No.10/2014 against the accused 1 to 3 Under Sections 447 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. LW-6, during investigation, visited the scene of offence, prepared the rough sketch of scene of offence and seized the pattadar pass book belonging to

LW-1 under police proceedings. On 13-02-2014, LW-6 arrested the accused 1 to 3 and produced them before this Hon’ble Court for remand. After completion of investigation, LW-6 charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3.

03.The case was taken on file Under section 447 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. against accused 1 to 3.

04.On appearance of the accused 1 to 3, copies of relevant case documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

05.This Court having considered the record, examined the accused 1 to 3 Under section 251 of Cr.P.C and the accusation for the offences

Under section 447 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C has been read over and explained to the accused 1 to 3 in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty for the said offences and claimed to be tried.

3

06.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined

PW1 to PW4 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P4. Exhibit D1 marked on behalf of defence.

07.After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused 1 to 3 were examined Under section 313 of Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence against them and they denied the same. The accused 1 to 3 reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

08.Heard the arguments of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused.

09.Now the point that arises for consideration is;

Whether the prosecution would bring home the guilt of the accused 1 to 3 for the offence punishable Under sections 447 and 506 IPC read with 34 of I.P.C., beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:- [a]It is the case of prosecution that on 01-02-2014, the accused 1 to 3 had criminally trespassed into the land of PW1, obstructed and criminally intimidated them from doing agricultural operations and work. The accusation under sections 447 and 506 IPC read with 34 of I.P.C. were laid against the accused 1 to 3. The defence of the accused is that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they were falsely implicated due to civil disputes.

[b] To prove the accusation leveled against the accused 1 to 3, the prosecution had examined PW1 to PW4. PW1 is the de-facto complainant. PW-2 is the brother of PW-1. PW3 is the relative of PW1 and PW2. PW4 is the Investigation Officer. Exhibit P1 is the complaint given by PW1. Exhibit P2 is the printed F.I.R. Exhibit P3 is 4 the rough sketch of scene of offence and Exhibit P4 is the police proceedings dated 15-02-2014.

[c] Regarding the commission of offence Under 447 and 506 of

I.P.C., the evidences of PW1 to PW4 are relevant. PW1 deposed that on 01-02-2014 at about 9.30 a.m., while himself and his brothers were cultivating the land in Survey Nos.441, 439, 474 and 473, the accused 1 to 3 along with their family members trespassed into their agricultural lands and restrained them from operating the agricultural work. On that himself and his brothers stopped the agricultural work and placed the matter before their village elders and the matter was not settled before them and on 05-02-2014, they lodged complaint against the accused before Molakalacheruvu police station.

[d]PW2 deposed that on 01-02-2014, while himself, PW1,

Padmavathi, Venkatramana, Lakshmanna and Ramaiah were doing agricultural operations, in the meantime, the accused 1 to 3 trespassed into the agricultural lands, intervened and beat his brother

Venkatramana and his wife Padmavathi and caused dumb injuries; LW- 5 P.Naganna came there and pacified the issue; they brought the said issue at the instance of elders, the elders had not settled the dispute

before them, after two (2) days of galata, himself along with PW-1 went

to police station and lodged the complaint against the accused.

[e]PW3 deposed that on 01-02-2014 at about 9.00 a.m.

himself, PW1, PW2, LW3 V.Lakshmanna, Venkatramana and

Padmavathi were doing agricultural operations, the accused trespassed into their lands, obstructed them, beat Venkatramana and

Padmavathi and caused dumb injuries; on 05-02-2014, they lodged complaint against the accused.

[f] PW4 deposed that, on 05-02-2014, LW1 and LW2 came to police station and gave written complaint stating that they were 5 having landed properties in S.No.439/2, 439/15, 441/7, 474/5, 479/4, 473/1 and the accused came there and obstructed them from doing agricultural work; basing on the complaint given by LW1, he registered a case in Crime No.10/2013 against accused, examined LW1 and LW2 at police station; immediately, he went to scene of offence, examined

Lws 3 to 5 and recorded their statements and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence; on 15-02-2014, he seized pattadar pass book stands in the name of LW1 under the cover of police proceedings; on 13-02- 2014, he arrested, the accused and produced before this Hon'ble Court for remand.

[g]During cross examination, PW1 deposed that he had not mentioned in his complaint that the elders had made panchayat, but, the same was ended in futile; it is true there were co-owners for the above said survey numbers; it is true the accused got filed partition suit against them before the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Madanapalle and the same was pending for disposal. PW2 deposed in his cross examination that he was working as a Mechanic at A.P.S.R.T.C.,

Madanapalle; it is true there were co-owners in eight (8) survey numbers and the accused had filed the suit in O.S.NO.152/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Madanapalle; the galata took place five (5) days prior to lodging of Exhibit P1 complaint. PW3 deposed in his cross examination that there were number of co-owners in the disputed survey numbers. The accused had filed O.S.No.152/2012 against them and said case was disposed of in their favour, it is true they have not filed the orders passed by the Senior Civil Judge,

Madanapalle. PW4 deposed in his cross-examination that, LW1 had not stated to him that there were cases pending between their family and family of accused; it is true LW2 had stated to me that, on 16-01-2014 all the accused tresspassed into their land and made galata.

6 [h]PW1, PW2 and PW3 categorically admitted that there is a civil case filed by the accused in O.S.No.154/2012 before Madanapalli

Court and the said case is pending for disposal and there were some ill feelings between them. Further, there is no explanation with regard to delay in lodging the complaint against the accused by PW1 either in

Exhibit P1 or in his evidence. The evidence of PW2 is contradictory with the evidences of PW1 and PW3. So, basing on the evidence given by

PW1 to PW3 coupled with the evidence of Investigating Officer i.e.,

PW4, this court is of the view that the veracity of the complaint cannot be relied in view of the civil disputes pending between the both parties. So, this court opines that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 447 and 506 IPC.

11.In the result, the accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable Under sections 447 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C.

and they are acquitted Under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 3 shall remain in force for a period Six (6) months.

The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The accused 1 to 3 had not undergone any remand period.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 03rd day of October,

2016.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

THAMBALLAPALLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

COMPLAINANT : DEFENCE: PW-1: V.Sankara. -Nil- PW-2: V.Sreenivasulu. PW-3: V.Krishnappa. PW-4: N.Sreekantha Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

COMPLAINANT : Exhibit P1 : Complaint given by PW1. Exhibit P2 : Printed F.I.R.

7

Exhibit P3 : Rough sketch of scene of offence. Exhibit P4 : Police proceedings dated 15-02-2014.

DEFENCE: Exhibit D1: Relevant portion marked in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2.

J.M.F.C. TBPL 8

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

THAMBALLAPALLE

CALENDER IN C.C.No.32 OF 2014

The State, represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Description of Complainant:: Molakalacheruvu police station. Cr.No.10/2014. Description of accused:

01. Pullagura Venkataramana, aged 58 years, s/o Venkatappa, Gollapalli, H/o Peddapalem, Molakalacheruvu mandal, Caste bny Yadava.

02. Pullagura Krishnappa, aged 45 years, s/o Venkatappa, Goppalapalli, H/o Peddapalem, Molakalacheruvu mandal, Caste bny Yadava.

03. Pullagura Sreenivasulu, aged 40 years, s/o Venkatappa, Goppalapalli, H/o Peddapalem, Molakalacheruvu mandal, Caste bny Yadava. Date of offence::01-02-2014 Date of complaint::05-02-2014 Date of Taken on file::21-04-2014 Date of apprehension of accused::28-05-2014 Date of commencement of ::17-02-2016 trial Date of close of trial::20-09-2016 Date of Judgment::01-10-2016 Section 447 of IPC: Punishment for criminal trespass. Section 506 of IPC: Punishment for Nature of offence::criminal intimidation; Section 34 of IPC: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention U/Sec.447 and 506 read with 34 of Offence charged:: I.P.C. Plea of accused::Accused pleaded not guilty. Finding of the Court::Accused are found not guilty. In the result, the accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable Under sections 447 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. and they are acquitted Under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused Sentence or Order:: 1 to 3 shall remain in force for a period Six (6) months. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The accused 1 to 3 had not undergone any remand period.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

THAMBALLAPALLE.

9

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: THAMBALLAPALLE

Present: Sri S. Vasu Dev, LL.B., Junior Civil Judge, Thamballapalle.

Thursday, this the Twenty Forth (24th) day of July, 2014.

O.S.No. 12 OF 2011

Between:

1. P.Bayya Reddy (Died) his L.Rs

2. P.Ramanamma

3. P.Venkatramana Reddy

.. Plaintiffs.

And:

K.Ramanjulu

.. Defendant.

Plaintiff 2 and 3 are added as per orders in I.A.No.250/11, dated 24.06.11.

This suit is coming on 23.07.2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Jandardhan Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff; and of Sri

R.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate for the defendant; upon hearing the arguments from both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit promissory note debt of Rs.73,098/- being the principal of Rs.7,000/- and interest of

Rs.3,447/- due on the suit ‘A’ marked promissory note dated: 31-12-2008 and Rs.10,000/- and interest not claimed due under ‘B’ marked promissory note, dated 31.01.2009 and Rs.40,000/- and interest of Rs.12,651/- due under ‘C’ marked promissory note, dated 24.09.2009 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a and for subsequent interest and costs.

02.The averments in the Plaint, in brief, are as follows:

On 31-12-2008 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.7,000/- from the plaintiff for his legal and family expenses, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. on demand either to the plaintiff or to his order and in evidence thereof the defendant has executed ‘A’ marked promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day. Again on 31.01.2009 the defendant also borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff and executed ‘B’ marked promissory note and again on 24.09.2009 the defendant also borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the plaintiff and executed ‘C’ marked promissory note. The plaintiff caused a demand notice on 23.12.2010 which the defendant acknowledged and failed to make payment. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant went on postponing repaying the amount on some pretext or the other. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. The plaintiff in the above suit died on 15.04.2011 leaving behind the plaintiffs 2 and 3 as his legal heirs to succeed to his estate and recover the amount covered under the suit promissory notes from the defendant.

03.The defendant filed his written statement, he stated that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case and it is liable to be dismissed in limini. The defendant contended that, he borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- on 24.09.2009 but the plaintiff has insisted this defendant to execute a promissory note for Rs.40,000/- i.e., for double the amount borrowed by him and the defendant has paid interest on

Rs.7,000/-, 10,000/- and Rs.20,000/- till November 2010 @ 24% p.a. and subsequently he failed to pay the interest as he was put in financial troubles.

The defendant had requested to grant one year time for payment of due amount but plaintiff refused and got filed this suit. Therefore, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.

04.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit ‘C’ marked pronote dated 24.09.2009 is supported by consideration of Rs.20,000/- only, and not

by Rs.40,000/- as pleaded by the defendant?

2. Whether the defendant paid interest on the suit pronotes

regularly till November, 2010, as pleaded by him?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?

4. To what relief?

05.On behalf of the plaintiff, Plaintiff No.3 was examined as PW-1 and marked Exhibit A1 to A5 on his behalf. No evidence either oral or documentary has been adduced by the defendant.

06. Heard.

07. ISSUE NO. 1 & 2 :

[a] The plaintiff No.3 himself was examined as PW-1 and he re-iterated the contents of his plaint, in the chief examination affidavit. Exhibit A1 is the promissory note, dated 31.12.2008 for a sum of Rs.7,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of P. Bayya Reddy. Exhibit A2 is the promissory note,

dated 31.01.2009 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- executed by the defendant in

favour of P. Bayya Reddy. Exhibit A3 is the promissory note, dated 24.09.2009 for a sum of Rs.40,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of

P. Bayya Reddy. Exhibit A4 is the office copy of legal notice dated:

23.12.2010 issued by P. Bayya Reddy and Exhibit A5 is the Postal

Acknowledgment card.

[b] The defendant in his written statement pleaded that he borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- on 24.09.2009 but P. Bayya Reddy and insisted this defendant to execute a promissory note for Rs.40,000/- i.e., for double the amount borrowed by him and the defendant has paid interest on Rs.7,000/-, 10,000/- and Rs.20,000/- till November 2010 @ 24% p.a. and subsequently he failed to pay the interest as he was put in financial troubles. The defendant had requested to grant one year time for payment of due amount but P. Bayya Reddy refused, the burden is on the defendant to prove the above facts by examining himself. The Learned Counsel for defendant reported ‘no instructions’ and the defendant called absent, no representation on his behalf. Hence, the cross-examination by defendant is treated as NIL.

On 15.04.2011 plaintiff NO.1 i.e., P. Bayya Reddy died leaving behind the plaintiffs 2 and 3 as his sole legal heirs to succeed to his estate and recover the amount covered under the suit promissory notes from the defendant. The

Plaintiffs 2 and 3 filed S.O.P.No.1/2014 on the file of Junior Civil Judge,

Thamballapalli and the same was decreed in their favour.

[c] The settled Law is that when the witness fails to enter into the witness box to speak his case on oath, an adverse inference can be drawn to the effect that his case is false. So on account of the failure of the defendant to enter into the witness box, this Court concludes that the case set up by him is false. Therefore, by virtue of the consistent and discredited evidence of PW-1 coupled with Exhibits A1 to A5, this court concludes that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 had established the suit promissory notes under Ex.A1 to

Ex.A3 and the failure of the defendant to discharge the same, and as such, the plaintiffs are entitled for the suit claim as prayed for.

Therefore, these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

08. ISSUE NO. 3: In view of the decision on Issue No. 1 & 2, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant together with interest.

09. ISSUE NO. 4: In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to pay Plaintiffs 2 and 3 a sum of Rs.73,098/-, with subsequent interest at 12 % P.A from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter, with future interest at 6 % P.A from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.47,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant., corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24th day of July, 2014.

Junior Civil Judge, Thamballapalle.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for:

Plaintiff: PW-1: P.Venkataramana Reddy

Defendant: -None-

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1: Suit ‘A’ marked promissory note, dated 31.12.2008 for a sum of Rs.7,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A2: Suit ‘B’ marked promissory note, dated 31.01.2009 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A3: Suit ‘C’ marked the promissory note, dated 24.09.2009 for a sum of Rs.40,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A4: Office copy of legal notice, dated 23.12.2010 Ex.A5: Postal Acknowledgment received from the defendant

Defendant: - NIL - Junior Civil Judge, Thamballapalle.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: THAMBALLAPALLE

Present: Sri S. Vasu Dev, LL.B., Junior Civil Judge, Thamballapalle.

Thursday, this the Twenty Forth (24th) day of July, 2014.

O.S.No. 12 OF 2011

Between:

1. P.Bayya Reddy (Died), S/o Yerram Reddy, Hindu, aged 65 years, Cultivation, residing at Cheruvumundaramekalavaripalle H/o Panchalamarri village, Thamballapalli.

2. P.Ramanamma, W/o Late Bayya Reddy, Hindu, aged 50 years, cultivation,

3. P.Venkatramana Reddy, S/o Late Bayya Reddy, Hindu, aged 24 years, cultivation.

All three are residing at Cheruvumundaramekalavaripalli H/o Panchalamarri Village, Thamballapalle Mandal.

(Plaintiff 2 and 3 are added as per orders in I.A.No.250/11,

dated 24.06.11.)

.. Plaintiffs.

And:

K.Ramanjulu, S/o Ganganna, Hindu, aged 45 years, Health Supervisor, Primary Health Centre, N.P.Kunta Village and Mandal, Anantapur District.

.. Defendant.

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit promissory note debt of Rs.73,098/- being the principal of Rs.7,000/- and interest of Rs.3,447/- due on the suit ‘A’ marked promissory note dated: 31-12-2008 and Rs.10,000/- and interest not claimed due under ‘B’ marked promissory note, dated 31.01.2009 and Rs.40,000/- and interest of Rs.12,651/- due under ‘C’ marked promissory note, dated 24.09.2009 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a and for subsequent interest and costs.

Plaint presented on: 19.01.2011 Plaint filed on: 25.01.2011

Suit is valued at Rs. 73,098/- and a Court fee of Rs.4,068/- is paid under Section 20 of A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act.

Cause of action arose for this suit arose on 31.12.2008 at Thamballapalle within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

This suit is coming on 23.07.2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Jandardhan Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff; and of Sri R.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate for the defendant; upon hearing the arguments from both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows:

1) That the defendant to pay Plaintiffs 2 and 3 a sum of Rs.73,098/-, with subsequent interest at 12 % P.A from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter, with future interest at 6 % P.A from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.47,000/-; and

2)That the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs.8,088/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on this the 24th day of July, 2014.

Junior Civil Judge, Thamballapalle.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

For PlaintiffFor Defendant Rs.Rs. Stamp for Plaint4068-00Costs Memo Stamp for power2-00Not Filed. Pleader’s fee3893-00Hence, Costs Service of Process100-00Not Typing charges25-00Certified. Total Rs.8,088-00

JCJ. TBPL

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

THAMBALLAPALLE.

Present:- SRI S. VASU DEV,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Thamballapalle.

Friday, this the Thirtieth (30th) day of September, 2016.

Calendar Case No. 123/ 2016

Between:- The State: Rep. by the Proh& Excise Sub-Inspector, Molakalacheruvu PS, in Crime No.135/2014-15. … Complainant And:- A1: V.Venkatesh, aged 30 years, s/o V.Reddeppa, Caste Kuraba, Kappalaveedhi, Neerugattupalli village, Madanapalle mandal, Chittor District. (died) A2: C.Nageswara Rao, age 28 years, s/o Siddanna, Caste Kuraba, Kukkarajupalli village, Thamballapalle mandal, Chittoor District.

(The case against the accused No.1 is abated as he died).

… Accused No.1 and 2

This case is coming before me on 28-09-2016 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri S.Gaffar Saheb, Advocate for the accused No.2; the case against the accused No.1 is abetted as he died; and having stood over for consideration till this day, upon perusal of case records available in this case, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a case filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Molakalacheruvu Excise police station in Crime No.135/2014-15 under

Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P. Act against the accused 1 and 2.

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

On 24-07-2014 at 6.00 p.m. at Kotakonda Thanda cross, which is 3 km distance and South-East direction from Kotakonda

Thanda village, Chittoor District, conducted raids along with his staff and found the accused 1 and 2 in possession of 3 polythene covers each cover contains 10 lts. of I.D. Liquor total 30 lts of I.D. Liquor. The accused 1 and 2 were arrested and seized the contraband under cover of police proceedings, from the said contraband drawn sample, seized for chemical analysis and received analysis report that is the sample is illicitly distilled arrack and it is unfit for human consumption and injury 2 to health. The police proceedings was drafted on the spot and after returning to the station, registered a case in Crime No.04/2015 under

Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act. The sample was sent to

Chemical Analysis and the Chemical Examiner, Chittoor opined that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused 1 and 2.

03.The prosecution filed a memo stating that the accused

No.1 was died on 05-06-2016 and death certificate filed. Thus, the case against the accused No.1 is abated as he died. The case was taken on file for the offence Under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act against the accused No.2.

04.On appearance of accused No.2 in the Court, copies of relevant documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

05.This Court having considered the record, framed charge

Under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act against the accused and the same was read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution had examined PW-1 and got marked Exhibits P-1 to P-5 and M.O.1 marked.

07.After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence against them and he denied the same. The accused reported no defense evidence on their behalf.

08.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant public prosecutor and the defense counsel.

09. Now the point that arises for consideration is;

Whether the prosecution is able to prove and establish the guilt of the accused No.2 for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of APP

Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

3

10. POINT:- [a]PW-1, is the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,

Molakalacheruvu has stated in his evidence that on 24-07-2014 at 6.00 p.m. at Kotakonda Thanda cross, which is 3 km distance and South-

East direction from Kotakonda Thanda village, Chittoor District, conducted raids along with his staff and found the accused 1 and 2 in possession of 3 polythene covers each cover contains 10 lts. of I.D. Liquor total 30 lts of I.D. Liquor. The accused 1 and 2 were arrested and seized the contraband under cover of police proceedings, from the said contraband drawn sample, seized for chemical analysis and received analysis report that is the sample is illicitly distilled arrack and it is unfit for human consumption and injury to health. The police proceedings was drafted on the spot and after returning to the station, registered a case in Crime No.04/2015 under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act. The sample was sent to Chemical Analysis and the

Chemical Examiner, Chittoor opined that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused.

[b]During the course of cross-examination for the accused,

PW-1 admitted that it is true the scene of offence is situate on

Kotakonda-Veligallu main road and the scene of offence is a busy locality. It is true there were nearly 200 to 250 residential houses situate at Kotakonda and the scene of offence is at a distance of 3 kilometers to Kotakonda. He denied that they never conducted raids and they never seized any incriminating material from the possession of the accused and they laid false case against the accused.

11.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that no incriminating material was seized from the possession of the accused.

This is a false case foisted against the accused for statistical purpose.

He further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the confession of crime by the accused and also the seizure of the liquor from the possession of the accused. The search proceedings were also 4 not conducted in the presence of the inhabitants of the same locality.

Thus, the prosecution failed to follow the procedure established under

Section 100 (4) of the Cr.P.C. For the above said reasons, he prayed to acquit the accused from this case.

12. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor representing the case submitted that the evidence of PW-1 supported to the case of the prosecution and there is no necessity for the police to plant I.D arrack in this case falsely without seizing the same from the accused. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor prayed this Court by placing reliance on the evidence of PW-1 to punish the accused for the offence under

Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

13.As per Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C, the prosecution must conduct the seizure in the presence of inhabitants of that locality where the property is seized. The prosecution failed to follow the procedure under Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court fairly considers the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused and the prosecution failed to prove the crime by the accused and also seizure of the liquor from the possession of the accused.

14.In the result, the accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

Accordingly, this Court acquitted the accused No.2 under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. M.O.1 sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused

No.2 will be in force for a period of six months. Accused No.2 had undergone remand period from 25-07-2014 to 31-07-2014.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 30th day of September,

2016.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thamballapalle.

Appendix of Evidence

5

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

Prosecution: Defence:

PW-1: S.Ramachandra Murthy. - None -

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

Prosecution:

Exhibit P1: Special Report dated 24-07-2014. Exhibit P2: FIR in Crime No.135/2014-15 dated 24-07-2014. Exhibit P3: Chemical analysis report. Exhibit P4: Confiscation proceedings. Exhibit P5: Destruction proceedings.

Defence:-Nil-

Material Objects marked:

MO1- One 180 ml sample bottle.

J.M.F.C TBPL 6

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

THAMBALLAPALLE

CALENDER C.C. No. 123 of 2016

Cr. No.135 of 2014-15 of Molakalacheruvu Police Station.

The State., Rep. by Proh. & Excise Description of ComplainantInspector, Molakalacheruvu Excise police station in Cr. No.135 of 2014-15. Description of accused: A1: V.Venkatesh, aged 30 years, s/o V.Reddeppa, Caste Kuraba, Kappalaveedhi, Neerugattupalli village, Madanapalle mandal, Chittor District. (died) A2: C.Nageswara Rao, age 28 years, s/o Siddanna, Caste Kuraba, Kukkarajupalli village, Thamballapalle mandal, Chittoor District. (The case against the accused No.1 is abetted as he died). Date of offence24-07-2014 Date of complaint24-07-2014 Date of Taken on file20-09-2016 Date of arrest25-07-2014 Date of commencement of trial27-09-2016 Date of close of trial27-09-2016 Date of Judgment30-09-2016 Nature of offenceIllegal possession of ID-Arrack.

Offence chargedUnder Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of APP Act Plea of accusedAccused pleaded not guilty. Finding of the CourtAccused No.2 found not guilty. In the result, the accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act. Accordingly, this Court acquitted the accused No.2 under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said Sentence or Orderoffence. M.O.1 sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused No.2 will be in force for a period of six months. Accused No.2 had undergone remand period from 25-07-2014 to 31- 07-2014.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Thamballapalle.

7

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: THAMBALLAPALLE

Present: Sri S. Vasu Dev, LL.B., Junior Civil Judge, Thamballapalle.

Thursday, this the Twenty Fourth (24th) day of July, 2014.

O.S.No. 12 OF 2012

Between: Y.Rama Krishna Reddy

.. Plaintiff.

And: E.Sreenivasulu

.. Defendant.

This suit is coming on 23.07.2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Arun Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff; and of Sri

D.Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the defendant; upon hearing the arguments from both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit promissory note debt of Rs.51,340/- being the principal of Rs.10,000/- and interest of

Rs.7,200/- due on the suit ‘A’ marked promissory note dated: 14-01-2009 and Rs.20,000/- and interest of Rs.14,140/- due under ‘B’ marked promissory note, dated 24.01.2009 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a and for subsequent interest and costs.

02.The averments in the Plaint, in brief, are as follows:

On 14-01-2009 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff for his legal and family expenses, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. on demand either to the plaintiff or to his order and in evidence thereof the defendant has executed ‘A’ marked promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day. Again on 24.01.2009 the defendant also borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff and executed ‘B’ marked promissory note. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant went on postponing repaying the amount on some pretext or the other. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

03.The defendant filed his written statement, he stated that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case and it is liable to be dismissed in limini. The defendant contended that, he borrowed sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff and that the defendant paying the interest at the rate of 60% to the plaintiff on every month for a sum of Rs.1,500/- without fail. The plaintiff is the big financier in the Vepurikota village and he used to collect the interest but he is not passing the receipts or endorsed the same on the rear side of the pronotes.

The plaintiff sold the Cable TV receivers to the defendant for a sum of

Rs.20,000/- in the year 2011 and that the defendant requested to the plaintiff to transfer the receivers in the name of defendant but the plaintiff did not transfer the receivers in the name of defendant and that there was exchange of heated words in between them. So, the plaintiff taking the advantage of promissory notes and he got filed the present suit against the defendant to take revenge against the defendant. Therefore, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.

04.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial:

1)Whether the defendant had discharged the suit pronote debts to the plaintiff?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit promissory notes amount?

3) To what relief ?

05.On behalf of the plaintiff, PW-1 was examined and marked Ex. A1 and A2 on his behalf. No evidence either oral or documentary has been adduced by the defendant.

06. Heard.

07. ISSUE NO. 1 : The plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and he re- iterated the contents of his plaint, in the chief examination affidavit. Ex.A1 is the promissory note dated 14-01-2009 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.10,000/- Ex.A2 the promissory note dated 24-01-2009 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.20,000/-.

08.The defendant in his written statement pleaded that The defendant contended that, he borrowed sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff and that the defendant paying the interest at the rate of 60% to the plaintiff on every month for a sum of Rs.1,500/- without fail, the burden is on the defendant to prove the above facts by examining himself.

The Learned Counsel for defendant reported ‘no instructions’ and “party may be called”, the defendant called absent, no representation on his behalf.

Hence, the cross-examination by defendant is treated as NIL and posted for

Defendant’s evidence on 23-07-2014. On 23-07-2014, there is no representation of behalf of defendant and the defendant was called and this court, treated his evidence as NIL and closed. The settled Law is that when the witness fails to enter into the witness box to speak his case on oath, an adverse inference can be drawn to the effect that his case is false. So on account of the failure of the defendant to enter into the witness box, this

Court concludes that the case set up by him is false. Therefore, by virtue of the consistent and discredited evidence of PW-1 coupled with Exhibits A1 and A2, this court concludes that the plaintiff had established the suit promissory notes under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and the failure of the defendant to discharge the same, and as such, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for. Therefore, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

09. ISSUE NO. 2: In view of the decision on Issue No. 1, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant together with interest.

10. ISSUE NO. 3: In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to pay the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.51,340/-, with subsequent interest at 12 % P.A from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter, with future interest at 6 % P.A from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.30,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant., corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24th day of July, 2014.

Junior Civil Judge, Thamballapalle.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for:

Plaintiff: PW-1: Y.Rama Krishna Reddy

Defendant: -None-

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Suit ‘A’ marked promissory note dated 14-01-2009 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.10,000/-

Ex.A2: Suit ‘B’ marked promissory note dated 24-01-2009 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.20,000/-.

Defendant: - NIL - Junior Civil Judge, Thamballapalle.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: THAMBALLAPALLE

Present: Sri S. Vasu Dev, LL.B., Junior Civil Judge, Thamballapalle.

Thursday, this the Twenty Fourth (24th) day of July, 2014.

O.S.No. 12 OF 2012

Between: Yeddula Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o Y.Venkataramana Reddy, aged about 42 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Yedulavaripalle H/o Vepurikota Post, Molakalacheruvu Mandal, Chittoor District.

.. Plaintiff.

And: Edagotti Sreenivasulu, S/o E.Venkataramana, Hindu, working as Lineman in AP TRANSCO, aged about 41 years, residing at Kanikalathopu village, H/o Gollapalle, B.Kothakota Mandal, Chittoor District, at presiding working as Lineman, Nekkundi Sub- Station, Punganur Town and Mandal, Chittoor District.

.. Defendant.

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit promissory note debt of Rs.51,340/- being the principal of Rs.10,000/- and interest of Rs.7,200/- due on the suit ‘A’ marked promissory note dated: 14-01-2009 and Rs.20,000/- and interest of Rs.14,140/- due under ‘B’ marked promissory note, dated 24.01.2009 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a and for subsequent interest and costs.

Plaint presented on: 18.01.2012 Plaint filed on: 07-02-2012

Suit is valued at Rs.51,340/- and a Court fee of Rs.3202/- is paid under Section 20 of A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act.

Cause of action arose for this suit arose on 14.01.2009 at Vepurikota, Molakalacheruvu Mandal within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

This suit is coming on 23.07.2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Arun Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff; and of Sri D.Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the defendant; upon hearing the arguments from both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows:

1) That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs.51,340/- with subsequent interest at 12% P.A. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree, and thereafter, with future interest at 6% P.A. from the date of decree till the date of realisation on the Principal sum of

Rs.30,000/- and

2) That the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 6,544/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on this the 24th day of July, 2014. Junior Civil Judge, Thamballapalle.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

For PlaintiffFor Defendant Rs.Rs. Stamp for Plaint3202-00Costs Memo Stamp for power2-00Not Filed Pleader’s fee3240-00Hence, Costs Service of Process75-00Not Typing charges25-00Certified. Total Rs.6,544-00

JCJ. TBPL

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

THAMBALLAPALLE.

Present:- SRI S. VASU DEV,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Thamballapalle.

Friday, this the Thirtieth (30th) day of September, 2016.

Calendar Case No. 125/ 2016

Between:- The State: Rep. by the Proh. & Excise Inspector, Molakalacheruvu in Crime No.243/2014-15. … Complainant And:- Patnam Narayana, s/o P.Chinna Venkata Ramana, age 40 years, caste Balija, resident of Sampathikota village, Pedda Thippa Samudram mandal, Chittoor District.

… Accused

This case is coming before me on 28-09-2016 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri K,Raghupathy, Advocate for the accused; and having stood over for consideration till this day, upon perusal of case records available in this case, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a case filed by the Proh. & Excise Inspector,

Molakalacheruvu in Crime Number No.243/2014-15 under Section 34

(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 against the accused.

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

On 29-10-2014 at 5.00 p.m. at Sampathi Kota cross, 1 KM distance East to Sampathi Kota village situated on the bus road from

B.Kothakota village to Batlapalli village of P.T.M. mandal, Chittoor

District, conducted raids along with his staff and found the accused was in possession of 80 nos. of 90 ml Haywards Punch Fine Whisky Tetra packets belonging to Karnataka State. The accused was arrested and seized the contraband under cover of special report, from the said contraband drawn sample, seized for chemical analysis. The special report was drafted on the spot and after returning to the station, registered a case in Crime No.243/2014-15 under Section 34 (a) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968. The sample was sent to Chemical Analysis and the 2

Chemical Examiner, Chittoor opined that the sample is Indian made

Liquor. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused.

03.The case was taken on file for the offence Under Section 34

(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 against the accused.

04.On appearance of accused in the Court, copies of relevant documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207

Cr.P.C.

05.This Court having considered the record, framed charge

Under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 against the accused and the same was read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution had examined PW-1 and got marked Exhibits P-1 to P-4 and M.Os.1 to 4 marked.

07.After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence against him and he denied the same. The accused reported no defense evidence on his behalf.

08.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant public prosecutor and the defense counsel.

09. Now the point that arises for consideration is;

Whether the prosecution is able to prove and establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:- [a]PW-1, is the Proh. & Excise Sub Inspector, Molakalacheruvu has stated in his evidence that on 29-10-2014 at 5.00 p.m. at Sampathi

Kota cross, 1 KM distance East to Sampathi Kota village situated on the bus road from B.Kothakota village to Batlapalli village of P.T.M. mandal,

Chittoor District, conducted raids along with his staff and found the accused was in possession of 80 nos. of 90 ml Haywards Punch Fine 3

Whisky Tetra packets belonging to Karnataka State. The accused was arrested and seized the contraband under cover of special report, from the said contraband drawn sample, seized for chemical analysis. The special report was drafted on the spot and after returning to the station, registered a case in Crime No.243/2014-15 under Section 34

(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The sample was sent to Chemical Analysis and the Chemical Examiner, Chittoor opined that the sample is Indian made Liquor. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused.

[b]During the course of cross-examination for the accused,

PW-1 admitted that he has not mentioned the registration number of vehicle, in which, they conducted raids. It is true, he had not mentioned the boundaries of scene of offence. it is true he had not mentioned the name of the mediator. He denied that they never conducted raids and they never seized any incriminating material from the possession of the accused and they laid false case against the accused.

11.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that no incriminating material was seized from the possession of the accused.

This is a false case foisted against the accused for statistical purpose.

He further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the confession of crime by the accused and also the seizure of the liquor from the possession of the accused. The search proceedings were also not conducted in the presence of the inhabitants of the same locality.

Thus, the prosecution failed to follow the procedure established under

Section 100 (4) of the Cr.P.C. For the above said reasons, he prayed to acquit the accused 1 and 2 from this case.

12. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor representing the case submitted that the evidence of PW-1 supported to the case of the prosecution and there is no necessity for the police to plant I.D arrack in this case falsely without seizing the same from the accused. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor prayed this Court by placing reliance on 4 the evidence of PW-1 to punish the accused for the offence under

Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

13.As per Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C, the prosecution must conduct the seizure in the presence of inhabitants of that locality where the property is seized. The prosecutio3n failed to follow the procedure under Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court fairly considers the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused and the prosecution failed to prove the crime by the accused and also seizure of the liquor from the possession of the accused.

14.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. Accordingly, this Court acquitted the accused under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. M.Os.1 to 4 sample bottles shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused will be in force for a period of six months. Accused had undergone remand period from 30-10-2014 to 10-11-2014.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 30th day of September,

2016.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thamballapalle.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

Prosecution: Defence:

PW-1: S.Ramachandra Murthy. - None -

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

Prosecution: Exhibit P1: Special Report dated 29-10-2014. Exhibit P2: FIR in Crime No.243/2014-15 dated 29-10-2014. Exhibit P3: Chemical analysis report. Exhibit P4: Destruction proceedings. Defence:-Nil-

Material Objects marked:

MO1- One 90 ml sample bottle. MO2- One 90 ml sample bottle. MO3- One 90 ml sample bottle. MO4- One 90 ml sample bottle.

J.M.F.C TBPL 5

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

THAMBALLAPALLE

CALENDER CASE No. 125 of 2016

Cr. No. 243 of 2014-15 of Molakalacheruvu Excise Police Station.

The State: Rep. by the Proh. & Excise Description of ComplainantInspector, Molakalacheruvu in Crime No.243/2014-15. Patnam Narayana, s/o P.Chinna Venkata Ramana, age 40 years, caste Balija, Description of accused:resident of Sampathikota village, Pedda Thippa Samudram mandal, Chittoor District. Date of offence29-10-2014 Date of complaint29-10-2014 Date of Taken on file20-09-2016 Date of arrest29-10-2014 Date of commencement of trial27-09-2016 Date of close of trial27-09-2016 Date of Judgment30-09-2016 Nature of offenceIllegal possession of Liquor. Under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, Offence charged 1968. Plea of accusedAccused pleaded not guilty. Finding of the CourtAccused is found not guilty. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. Accordingly, this Court acquitted the accused under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Sentence or Orderfor the said offence. M.Os.1 to 4 sample bottles shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused will be in force for a period of six months. Accused had undergone remand period from 30-10-2014 to 10-11-2014.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

THAMBALLAPALLE

6