, Sri S.Ramesh, I ADJ, ATP

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT: Sri G. Srinivas,

Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu

Monday, this the 18 th day of April, 2022

Crl.M.P.No.470 of 2022

(Cr.No.30/2022 of Ananthapuramu II town P.S.)

Between:-

1. Nidimoru Jayalakshmi D/o Nidimoru Krishna Murthy Raju, 49 years, House wife, D.No.11-1-848, Krupananda Nagar, Ananthapuramu

2. Putta Sree Hari Babu S/o P. Penchalaiah, 45 years, Residing at Plot No.408, Shanthi Apartment, Opp. Shivalayam, Bhagya Nagar Colony, Kadapa

... Petitioners/A1 & A2

A N D

The State S.H.O., II town P.S., Ananthapuramu Rep. by Public Prosecutor

... Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri L. Narasimha Reddy and Sri D. Shafiulla, Advocates for the petitioners and of learned Public Prosecutor for the State, this Court passed the following :-

O R D E R

This is a petition filed under Section 439 CrPC praying the Court to enlarge the petitioners on regular bail.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.30/2022 of

Ananthapuramu II town P.S. registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.56 of A.P.Chit Fund Act and Sec.5 of

A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999. The petitioners were remanded to judicial custody in this crime on 16.03.2022 on execution of P.T. warrant.

3. Notice given to the learned Public Prosecutor and he opposed the bail petition. I have perused the material on record and heard the submissions on both the sides.

2

4. The case facts as per the case diary, in brief, are that “prior to 19.02.2022 the accused No.1 with an intent to cheat and attract the complainant and others as subscribers of the chit, made the subscribers into belief, collected huge amount from them on guise of monthly chits and utilized the collected money for their personal gains and dishonestly induced the complainant and others. After completion of chit, she did not return the chit amount to the depositors and thereby cheated complainant and others. When the complainant asked the accused to refund the chit amount, the accused threatened him with dire consequences. On the complaint of Katakam Krishna

Veni, a case in Cr.No.30/2022 under sections 406, 420, 506 IPC and Sec.56 of

AP Chit Fund Act and Sec.5 of A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial

Establishment Act was registered and investigated into. On 16.03.2022 the petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.”

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The defacto complainant has no capacity to pay such a huge amount of

Rs.1,53,55,000/-. Except the defacto complainant all are house wives and it is highly improbable to pay such a huge amount. The defacto complainant and accused No.1 accustomed to leading of a lavish life, being such they contacted debts by way of hand loan and debts, when pressure came for repayment of the same, all members thrown entire burden on accused No.1 and victimized accused No.1 since they are powerful and highly influenced persons. The accused No.1 is a lady, practicing advocate in Ananthapuramu Bar

Association. There is no necessity or occasion for her to run the chits. The petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is a resident of Kadapa and he is also a practicing advocate at Kadapa Bar Association, petitioner No.2 being suspected by the police that he is helping accused No.1 was implicated in the present case. The petitioners 1 and 2 are aged more than 45 years and suffering with blood pressure and diabetic. Both the petitioners require day to day medicine, 3 physical exercise and controlled diet. The petitioner No.2 is suffering from jaundice and he requires day to day medicine and control diet. Along with petition, the petitioner No.2 has filed Photostat copy of treatment given to him by the duty doctor in Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu dated 07.04.2022. He further submitted that there are no ingredients of Sec.5 of

A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act and Sec.56 of Chit

Fund Act and the said Acts are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Entire investigation is completed and all the material witnesses were examined. Hence, prayed to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition contending that the petitioners organized chit fund company without authorization and collected huge money from the depositors on the guise of daily chits and executed promissory notes and also issued cheques instead of giving chit money by inducing that they will return the money by pay Rs.2/- interest on principal amount and finally cheated the depositors by violating the rules and regulations of chit fund act as well as A.P. Protection of Depositors Financial

Establishment Act, 1999. The petitioners are involved in seven similar cases.

Investigation is pending for examination of some more witnesses. If the petitioners are released on bail, there is every chance to commit further offences, they may not co-operate for investigation and may not attend the court, they may threaten the witnesses and damage the evidence as they are well educated and practicing advocates and they may sell the assets earned by running chits. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. Now the points for consideration are (1) Whether the petitioners are entitled for bail as prayed for?

(2) To what relief?

8. POINT NO.1:-

A perusal of the case diary submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor shows that the petitioners were remanded to judicial custody in this crime on 4 16.03.2022 on P.T. Warrant and they are still in judicial custody for the offences U/ss 420, 406 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.5 of A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999 and Sec.56 of A.P Chit Fund Act. The bail application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor contending that investigation is pending for examination of some more witnesses. As the investigation is not completed and as the prosecution intended to examine some more witnesses, at this time if the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are enlarged on bail, there is every chance for them to threaten or influence the prosecution witnesses, to tamper with the record of the prosecution and to cause obstruction for further investigation to the investigation agency. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this juncture. Point

No.1 is answered accordingly.

9. POINT No.2:-

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 18 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- G. Srinivas

SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

Copy to :

1.The I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ananthapuramu

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Regional Office, Kurnool.

3.The S.H.O., Ananthapuramu II town P.S.

//t.c.f.b.o.//

Chief Administrative Officer, Prl.District Court, Ananthapuramu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT: Sri G. Srinivas,

Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu

Monday, this the 18 th day of April, 2022

Crl.M.P.No.468 of 2022

(Cr.No.60/2022 of Ananthapuramu Rural P.S.)

Between:-

1. Nidimoru Jayalakshmi D/o Nidimoru Krishna Murthy Raju, 49 years, House wife, D.No.11-1-848, Krupananda Nagar, Ananthapuramu

2. Putta Sree Hari Babu S/o P. Penchalaiah, 45 years, Residing at Plot No.408, Shanthi Apartment, Opp. Shivalayam, Bhagya Nagar Colony, Kadapa

... Petitioners/A1 & A2

A N D

The State S.H.O., Ananthapuramu Rural P.S. Rep. by Public Prosecutor

... Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri L. Narasimha Reddy and Sri D. Shafiulla, Advocates for the petitioners and of learned Public Prosecutor for the State, this Court passed the following :-

O R D E R

This is a petition filed under Section 439 CrPC praying the Court to enlarge the petitioners on regular bail.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.60/2022 of

Ananthapuramu Rural P.S. registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 506, 420 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.5 of A.P. Protection of Depositors of

Financial Establishment Act, 1999 and Sec.56 of A.P. Chit Fund Act. The petitioners were remanded to judicial custody in this crime on 22.03.2022 on execution of P.T. warrant.

3. Notice given to the learned Public Prosecutor and he opposed the bail petition. I have perused the material on record and heard the submissions on both sides.

2

4. The case facts as per the case diary, in brief, are that “prior to 03.03.2022 accused No.1 to 4 collected an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the complainant Gatta Yesaiah by attracting as subscriber of daily chits, made the subscriber into belief, collected huge amount from others on the guise of daily chits and utilized the collected money for their personal gains and dishonestly induced the complainant and others. After completion of chit, they did not return the chit amount to the depositors and thereby cheated the complainant and others. When the complainant asked the accused to refund the chit amount, the accused threatened them with dire consequences. On the complaint of Gatta Yesaiah, a case in Cr.No.60/2022 under Sections 420, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.5 of A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial

Establishment Act, Sec.56 of A.P. Chit Fund Act was registered and investigated into. On 22.03.2022 the petitioners were remanded to judicial custody in this crime on execution of P.T. warrant.”

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is a lady, practicing advocate in

Ananthapuramu Bar Association. There is no necessity or occasion for her to run the chits. The petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is a resident of Kadapa and he is also a practicing advocate at Kadapa Bar Association, petitioner No.2 being suspected by the police that he is helping accused No.1 was implicated in the present case. The petitioners 1 and 2 are aged more than 45 years and suffering with blood pressure and diabetic. Both the petitioners require day to day medicine, physical exercise and controlled diet. The petitioner No.2 is suffering from jaundice and he requires day to day medicine and control diet.

Along with the petition, the petitioner No.2 has filed Photostat copies of treatment given to him by the duty doctor in Government General Hospital,

Ananthapuramu dated 07.04.2022. The learned counsel further submitted that there are no ingredients of Sec.5 of A.P. Protection of Depositors of 3

Financial Establishment Act and Sec.56 of Chit Fund Act and the said Acts are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Entire investigation is completed and all the material witnesses were examined. Hence, prayed to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition contending that the petitioners organized Chit Fund Company without authorization and collected huge money from the depositors on the guise of chits and finally cheated the depositors by violating the rules and regulations of Chit Fund Act as well as

A.P. Protection of Depositors Financial Establishment Act, 1999. The petitioners are involved in number of similar cases. Investigation is pending for examination of some more witnesses and arrest of other accused. If the petitioners are released on bail, there is every chance to commit further similar offences, they may not co-operate for investigation and may not attend the court, they may threaten the witnesses and damage the evidence as they are well educated and practicing advocates and they may sell the assets earned by running chits. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. Now the points for consideration are (1) Whether the petitioners are entitled for bail as prayed for?

(2) To what relief?

8. POINT NO.1:-

A perusal of the case diary submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor shows that the petitioners were remanded to judicial custody in this crime on 22.03.2022 on P.T. Warrant and they are still in judicial custody for the offences U/ss 420, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.5 of A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999. The bail application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor contending that investigation is pending for examination of some more witnesses and arrest of other accused. As the investigation is not completed and as the prosecution intended to examine some more witnesses, at this time if the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are 4 enlarged on bail, there is every chance for them to threaten or influence the prosecution witnesses, to tamper with the record of the prosecution, and to cause obstruction for further investigation to the investigation agency. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this juncture. Point

No.1 is answered accordingly.

9. POINT No.2:-

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 18 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- G. Srinivas

SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

Copy to :

1.The I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ananthapuramu

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Regional Office, Kurnool.

3.The S.H.O., Ananthapuramu II town P.S.

//t.c.f.b.o.//

Chief Administrative Officer, Prl.District Court, Ananthapuramu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT: Sri G. Srinivas,

Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu

Monday, this the 18 th day of April, 2022

Crl.M.P.No.469 of 2022

(Cr.No.67/2022 of Ananthapuramu I town P.S.)

Between:-

Nidimoru Jayalakshmi D/o Nidimoru Krishna Murthy Raju, 49 years, House wife, D.No.11-1-848, Krupananda Nagar, Ananthapuramu

... Petitioner/Accused

A N D

The State S.H.O., Ananthapuramu I town P.S. Rep. by Public Prosecutor

... Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri L. Narasimha Reddy and Sri D. Shafiulla, Advocates for the petitioner and of learned Public Prosecutor for the State, this Court passed the following :-

O R D E R

This is a petition filed under Section 439 CrPC praying the Court to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

2. The petitioner is accused in Cr.No.67/2022 of Ananthapuramu I town

P.S. registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 IPC and Sec.5 of

A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999 and Sec.56 of A.P. Chit Fund Act. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody in this crime on 16.03.2022 on execution of P.T. warrant.

3. Notice given to the learned Public Prosecutor and he opposed the bail petition. I have perused the material on record and heard the submissions on both the sides.

4. The case facts as per the case diary, in brief, are that “The complainant

M. Sujatha is living by selling sarees. She along with others joined as chit subscribers at Chit Organizer N. Jayalakshmi, who is running chits privately (accused herein). The complainant has joined in number of chits total amount 2 of Rs.35,00,000/-. She has been asking the accused to clear her matured chit, but accused did not return her amount. Thus accused cheated them without giving amount. On the complaint of M. Sujatha, a case in Cr.No.67/2022 under sections 420 IPC and Sec.5 of A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial

Establishment Act, Sec.56 of A.P. Chit Fund Act was registered and investigated into. On 16.03.2022 the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.”

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and she has been falsely implicated in this case.

The accused is a lady, practicing advocate in Ananthapuramu Bar Association.

There is no necessity or occasion for her to run the chits. The petitioner is aged more than 45 years and suffering with blood pressure and diabetic. She requires day to day medicine, physical exercise and controlled diet. There are no ingredients of Sec.5 of A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial

Establishment Act and Sec.56 of Chit Fund Act and the said Act are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Entire investigation is completed and all the material witnesses were examined. Hence, prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition contending that the petitioner organized Chit Fund Company without authorization and collected huge money from the depositors on guise of chits and finally cheated the depositors by violating the rules and regulations of chit fund act as well as A.P.

Protection of Depositors Financial Establishment Act, 1999. The petitioner is involved in number of similar cases. Investigation is pending for examination of some more witnesses. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every chance to commit further similar offences, she may not co-operate for investigation and may not attend the court, she may threaten the witnesses and damage the evidence as she is well educated and practicing advocate and 3 she may sell the assets earned by running chits. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. Now the points for consideration are (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for bail as prayed for?

(2) To what relief?

8. POINT NO.1:-

A perusal of the case diary submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor shows that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody in this crime on 16.03.2022 on P.T. Warrant and she is still in judicial custody for the offences

U/s 420 IPC and Sec.5 of A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial

Establishment Act, 1999 and Sec.56 of A.P. Chit Fund Act. The bail application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor contending that investigation is pending for examination of some more witnesses. As the investigation is not completed and as the prosecution intended to examine some more witnesses, at this time if the petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail, there is every chance for her to threaten or influence the prosecution witnesses, to tamper with the record of the prosecution and to cause obstruction for further investigation to the investigation agency. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this juncture. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

9. POINT No.2:-

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 18 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- G. Srinivas

SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

Chief Administrative Officer, Prl.District Court, Ananthapuramu

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE :: ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT : SRI G. SRINIVAS,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU

Monday, the 18 th day of April, 2022

EP.313/2021 in AA.174/2020

Between:

Shriram City Union finance Limited, D.No.10-1-136, Kanekal road, Rayadurgam, Rep. by it’s authorized signatory C. Munishekar, … … D.Hr

A N D

1.Y.Mallikarjuna S/o Y.Hanumantharayudu, aged about 35 years, D.No.11-518, Rachappa Bavi street, Kalyandurg, Ananthapuramau district

2. S. Mohankumar, S/o Late S.Thippaiah swamy, aged about 46 years, D.No. 8-1988, Vadde colony, 8th ward, Kalyandurgam, Ananthapuramu district. Occ. Chain man, Assistant Director, Agriculture office, Kalyandurgam … … J.Drs

This Execution petition filed Under Order 21, Rules 48 of C.P.C against JDrs 2 to order for attachment of salary of JDrs No. 2 for realization of EP amount attachment of Rs.30,000/- per month from the salaries of JDrs No.2 till the date of realization of E.P amount and with costs.

This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri J.L.Narasimhulu, Advocate for D.Hr and Sri Chittoor Waheedulla Khan and Syed Shahi, and T.SatyaKumar, Advocates for JDr.No.2 and this court made the following:

O R D E R

JDr not filed counter. JDr called absent. No representation. Hence, it is deemed that the JDr is not having counter. Attachment warrant is served on 16.08.2021 to the garnishee. Hence, attachment is made absolute. EP is closed.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 18 th day of April, 2022

Sd/- G. SRINIVAS

Principal District Judge,

Ananthapuramu

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT: G.Srinivas,

Principal District Judge, Ananthapuramu

Monday, the 18 th day of April, 2022

O.S.No.95/2017

Between:

K.Koteswara Rao, S/o Late K.Konda Mallaiah, Hindu, aged about 70 years, residing at D.No.28-3-806, V.F.Nagar, 1st cross, Bangalore road, Ananthapuramu … Plaintiff

AND

1) Dr. B.Aftab, S/o Dr. B. Akbar Saheb, age 47 years,

2) Dr. O.B. Jameela, W/o Dr. B.Aftab, aged about 42 years,

Defendants 1 and 2 are residents of D.No.6-2-898, Ramnagar, Ananthapuramu town and district 3)Dr. Bonala Akbar Saheb, S/o not known, aged about 75 years, R/o 6th cross, Sainagar, Ananthapuramu town and district … Defendants

Suit for recovery of Rs.32,64,000/- being the amounts due by the 1st defendant as per the calculations submitted and arrived in the plaint and for costs of the suit.

This suit coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of

Sri N.R.K. Mohan and for the plaintiff and Sri D.Shyam Prasad, Advocate for the

Respondents and this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Steps not taken. Plaintiff called absent. Waited up to 5-00 p.m. No representation. Suit is abated against Plaintiff. Hence suit is dismissed. No costs.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 18 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- G.Srinivas

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

ANANTHAPURAMU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

Sd/- G.Srinivas

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

ANANTHAPURAMU