Ms. Swarnalatha Volga Marka

CC No.427/2021 Dt.13.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AVANIGADDA

Present: Swarnalatha Volga Marka,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda.

Wednesday, this the 13th day of May, 2026 .

C.C.No.427/2021

State represented by

Sub-Inspector of Police, Avanigadda Police Station. .... Complainant

Vs.

1. Chinta Saikrishna, S/o Subba Rao, age 34 years, Mopidevi village and mandal.

2. Karanki Veerababu, S/o Satyanarayana, age 29 years, Mopidevi village and mandal.

3. Yennam Raghavulu, S/o Ramanjia, age 34 years, Mopidevi village and mandal.

4. Yerramsetti Srikanth, S/o Satyanarayana, age 27 years, Mopidevi village and mandal.

5. Padamati Srinivasa Rao, S/o late Narayana, age 35 years, Mopidevi village and mandal.

6. Nunemunthala Dhananjaneyulu @ Dhan Goud, S/o Venkatesh, age 27 years, N.G. Kothapalli village, Saliguravaram mandal, Nallgonda District.

… Accused

This case came before me on 12.05.2026, for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant and Sri E. Lakshmi Narayana, learned Advocate for Accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The accused 1 to 5 are arraigned before the court for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are :- On 09.07.2020, at about 3.00 PM, on credible information, L.W.5/D. Sandeep, Sub Inspector of Police, Avanigadda Police Station, along with his staff reached Mopidevi centre, there they found accused 1 and 2 on a motor bike bearing No. AP 16 BT 0456 Suzuki bike and accused 3 and 4 on another motor bike bearing No.AP 16

DT 1387 Hero Glamour bikes coming from Repalle side. One white colour bag is

available on pillion rider of each bike. L.W.5 caught hold the accused 1 to 4. L.W.5 recorded the confession of accused in which accused stated that A.1 to A.5 intend to

CC No.427/2021 Dt.13.05.2026

purchase the contraband, A.5 sent the amount through gogole pay to A.6 and A.1 to A.4 collected the bottles from A.6. L.W.5 seized 1) 18 bottles of MC Dovels 750 ml each and 2) 15 bottles of Maston House 750 ml each, and two bikes from their possession and arrested the accused 1 to 4, and also prepared occurrence report. Thereafter, he registered a case in Cr.No.181/2020 for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act, against the accused 1 to 6. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses He sent the samples for chemical analysis. After receipt of FSL report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3. This case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2020, against accused 1 to 6.

4. On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of the documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused 1 to 6 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charge under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2020, was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P.6 and MOs.1 to 5 were marked. The learned APP has given up L.W.1/G. Prasad, L.W.3/R. Ramanjaneyulu, L.W.4/V. Durga Prasad.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused 1 to 6 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating material available on behalf of prosecution, for which accused 1 to 6 denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused 1 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2020, beyond reasonable doubt?

CC No.427/2021 Dt.13.05.2026

POINT :-

10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.P. 1 to P.6 are sufficient to prove the case and that the prosecution had proved their case. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused argued that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the police personnel. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. Moreover, the police had not followed the procedure laid down under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C..

11. P.W.1/P. Uday Chand deposed that on 09.07.2020 at about 10.00 PM, he along with L.W.1, L.W.3 and L.W.4 accompanied P.W.2 and proceeded to Mopidevi center for conducting vehicle checking. They noticed two vehicles bearing No. AP 16 BT 0456 and AP DT 1387 proceeding from Repalle to Mopidevi center, Two persons were on the bikes. They noticed two bikes. They noticed Old Admiral -180 ml each 138 bottles, officer choice 750 ml- 2 bottles, Royal Stag – 750 ml – 3 bottles in one bag and in another bag, they noticed MC Dowells -750 ml – 18 bottles and Mansion House -750 ml – 15 bottles. On enquiry by P.W.2, they confessed that they purchased the above bottles from known persons in order to sell it for higher prices, without any permission or license. As no mediators were available, P.W.2 prepared the occurrence report, seized the two vehicles and he lifted five sample bottles , one bottle from each brand and affixed the slips containing the signature of P.W.2 and the accused 1 to 4.

12. P.W.2/D. Sandeep deposed that on 09.07.2020, at about 3.00 PM, on credible information, he accompanied his staff reached Mopidevi centre, there they found A.1 and A.2 of you on a motor bike bearing No. AP 16 BT 0456 Suzuki bike and A.3 and A.4 of you on aother motor bike bearing No.AP 16 DT 1387 Hero Glamour bikes coming from Repalle side. One white colour bag is available on pillion rider of each bike. He caught hold you and recorded your conrfessional statement in which you stated that A.1 to A.5 of you intend to purchase the contraband, A.5 of you sent the amount through gogole pay to A.6 of you, and A.1 to A.4 of you collected the bottles from A.6 of you. He seized 1) 18 bottles of MC Dovels 750 ml each and 2) 15 bottles of Maston House 750 ml each, and two bikes from their possession and arrested the accused 1 to 4, and also prepared occurrence report. Thereafter, he registered a case in Cr.No.181/2020 for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act, against the accused 1 to 6. He visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene,

CC No.427/2021 Dt.13.05.2026

examined and recorded the statements of witnesses He sent the samples for chemical analysis. After receipt of FSL report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

13. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the police personnel, it is clear that scene of offence is a busy locality, but the Investigation Officer did not examine any local inhabitants at the scene of offence. It is clear that P.W.2 did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. wherein it mandates that “before making search the officer about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable persons of the locality in which the place is to be searched to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them” So PW.2 did not comply with the procedure prescribed under Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C.

14. Here in this case, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are police personnel. P.W.2 is the defacto-complainant and investigating officer in this case in whose presence the accused confessed that they are in possession of contraband, without any permission. Basing on the said confession, the occurrence report was drafted by the Investigating Officer. If such is the case, then certainly the confession given by the accused to the police personnel , is hit under Section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. Thus, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 without corroboration of the independent witnesses.

15. Further more the point to be considered in this case is that P.W.2 basing on the credible information, he proceeded to the scene of offence, seized the contraband and drafted the occurrence report to that effect, and basing on the same, he registered the crime and investigated into the case, and even charge sheet was filed by him. P.W.2 is present through out the investigation. Here in this case, P.W.2 is the complainant and investigating Officer. In such scenario the evidence of PW.2 cannot be relied upon.

16. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered view that the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such this court is inclined to acquit the accused 1 to 6.

CC No.427/2021 Dt.13.05.2026

In the result the accused 1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2020, and the accused 1 to 6 are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months. The M.Os.1 to 5 vide C.P.No.160/2021 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed by Stenographer to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this, the 13 th day of May, 2026.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Avanigadda.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

FOR PROSECUTION

P.W.1: P. Uday Chand P.W.2: D. Sandeep

FOR ACCUSED: None

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :- Ex.P.1: Occurrence report Ex.P.2: First Information Report Ex.P.3: Rough Sketch Ex.P.4: Letter of advice Ex.P.5: Chemical analysis report Ex.P.6: Destruction orders

For Accused :-

None

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.Os. 1 to 5: Sample bottles

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Avanigadda.

CC No.427/2021 Dt.13.05.2026

CALENDAR CASE No.427/2021

ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS, AVANIGADDA.

1Calendar Case: Calendar Case No.427/2021 2Complainant:State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Avanigadda Police Station.

3Description of the accused:1. Chinta Saikrishna, S/o Subba Rao, age 34 years, Mopidevi village and mandal.

2. Karanki Veerababu, S/o Satyanarayana, age 29 years, Mopidevi village and mandal.

3. Yennam Raghavulu, S/o Ramanjia, age 34 years, Mopidevi village and mandal.

4. Yerramsetti Srikanth, S/o Satyanarayana, age 27 years, Mopidevi village and mandal.

5. Padamati Srinivasa Rao, S/o late Narayana, age 35 years, Mopidevi village and mandal.

6. Nunemunthala Dhananjaneyulu @ Dhan Goud, S/o Venkatesh, age 27 years, N.G. Kothapalli village, Saliguravaram mandal, Nallgonda District. 4Date of occurrence:09.07.2020 5Date of complaint:09.07.2020 6Date of apprehension of accused:11.03.2026 7Date of Judgment: 13.05.2026 8Charges:Under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2020,

RESULT: Accused 1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2020, and the accused 1 to 6 are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months. The M.Os.1 to 5 vide C.P.No.160/2021 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY

This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2020. On 11.03.2026, copies were furnished to the accused and on 22.04.2026, accused 1 to 6 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charge framed against them for the offence under Section 34(a)

CC No.427/2021 Dt.13.05.2026

of Andhra Pradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2020, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. Ex.P.1 to P6 and M.Os.1 to 5 were marked. Accused 1 to 6 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 12.05.2026 and heard both sides. On 13.05.2026 Judgment was pronounced.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class,

Avanigadda.

Submitted to: The Hon’ble I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

CC 487/2020 Dt. 12.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AVANIGADDA

Present: Swarnalatha Volga Marka,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda.

Tuesday, this the 12th day of May, 2026

C.C.No.487/2020

State represented by

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Avanigadda Police Station. .... Complainant

Vs.

1. Undrakonda Naga Murali, S/o Srinivasa Rao, age 25 years, Potharlanka village, Koduru mandal, Guntur District.

2. Devalla Siva Nagaraju, S/o Sriramulu, age 35 years, Vaddera, Amaravathi villae and mandal, Guntur District. 3.Gangireddy Narayana Reddy (Died)

4. Chereddy Gangadhara Reddy, S/o Papi Reddy, age 41 years, 9th line, Buchaiah Thota, Tuntur town. … Accused

This case came before me on 11.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant and Sri E. Lakshmi Narayana, learned Advocate for Accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub- Inspector of Police, Avanigadda has filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 4 for the offence under Section 379 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 21(1) MMDR Act, 1957.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are :- On 20.06.2020, at about 6.00 hours, L.W.5/D. Sandeep, Sub-Inspector of Police, Avanigadda Police Station, he along with his staff reached Toll plaza, Puligadda village and while conducting vehicle checking, noticed two stone loaded tipper lorries bearing No.KA 05 AF 3786 and bearing No. AP 37 T 4896 coming from Repalle side towards Mopidevi. L.W.5 stopped the vehicles and enquired A.1 and A.2 who are the drivers of those vehicles to show the bills and permission from the Government for transporting the stones (Kankara rallu). On enquiry, A.1 confessed that 1

CC 487/2020 Dt. 12.05.2026

A.3 is the owner of the lorry bearing No.KA 05 AF 3786 and A.2 confessed that A.4 is the owner of lorry bearing No. AP 37 T 4896. They stated that with the directions of A.3 and A.4, they loaded the vehicles with stones, and they have no permission or license for transporting the same. L.W.5 seized the vehicles, arrested the accused and on his dictation, L.W.3/R. Ramanjaneyulu typed the occurrence report. L.W.5/D. Sandeep, Sub-Inspector of Police, Avanigadda Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.167/2020 for the offence under Section 379 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 21(1) MMDR Act, 1957. He prepared rough sketch of the scene, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, and served Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused 1 to

4. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3. This case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w 34 of IPC.

4. On appearance of the accused 1 to 4 before the Court, case copies were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused 1, 2 and 4 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The charge under Section 379 r/w 34 of IPC was framed. The charge leveled against them, were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P.3 were marked. The learned APP has given up L.W.2/K. Giri Babu, L.w.3/R. Ramanjaneyulu and L.W.4/G. Srinivasa Rao.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused 1, 2 and 4 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence available on record, for which he denied the same and reported no defense evidence..

8.Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused 1, 2 and 4 for

the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w 34 of IPC , beyond

reasonable doubt?

2

CC 487/2020 Dt. 12.05.2026

POINT :-

10. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 on their behalf. The record reveals that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the police personnel. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.2 along with other police personnel on credible information, proceeded to the scene of offence, seized the stones loaded tipper and lorry, while transporting by A.1 and A.2 being the drivers and A.3 and A.4 being owners of the said vehicles, and P.W.2 got drafted the occurrence report and basing on the said report, the crime was registered.

11. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.P. 1 to P.3 are sufficient to prove the case and that the prosecution had proved their case. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused argued that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the police personnel. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. Moreover, the police had not followed the procedure laid down under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C.. The Investigating Officer did not seize the stones(Kankara rallu) from the scene of offence.

12. P.W.1/P. Rambabu, Head Constable, Avanigadda Police Station deposed that on 20.04.2020 at about 4.00 PM, he along with L.Ws.2 to 4/K. Giri Babu, R. Ramanjaneyulu and G. Srinivasa Rao accompanied P.W.2 and proceeded to Puligadda toll plaza for conducting vehicle checking. They noticed two lorries bearing No. KA 05 AF 3786 and AP 37 T 4896 proceeding from Repalle to Mopidevi, having stones (kankara raallu) as load. P.W.2 stopped the two lorries and asked drivers to show license and relevant papers. On enquiry, A.1 and A.2 confessed that intended to sell the stones at Nagayalanka village, at the instructions of their lorry owners, without any bills or permission from the Government. As no mediators available, at the instructions of P.W.2, L.W.3 typed the occurrence report in the laptop and obtained print at the toll plaza. P.W.2 seized the two lorries along with stones.

13.P.W.2 deposed that on 20.06.2020 at about 6.00 AM, basing on information, he accompanied P.W.1, L.Ws.2 to 4 proceeded to Puligadda toll gate, while conducting vehicle checking, they found A.1 and A.2 of you while transporting stones (Kanaka rallu) in the lorries bearing No. KA 05 AF 3786 and AP 37 T 4896 belongs to A.3 and A.4 of you respectively, without having any bills or permission from the Government.

3

CC 487/2020 Dt. 12.05.2026

He seized the two lorries, prepared occurrence report. Basing on occurrence report, he filed a case in Cr.No.167/2020 for the offence under Section 379 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 21(1) MMDARA Act, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene, examined and recorded the statement of witnesses. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

14. During the cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it was elicited that the scene of offence is a busy locality and there are fruit stalls, petrol bunk and check post and auto stand are near by the scene of offence, but the Investigation Officer did not examine respectable inhabitants of that locality, by which, it is clear that P.W.2 did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C., wherein it mandates that “before making search the officer about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable persons of the locality in which the place is to be searched to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them” Therefore, PW.2 did not comply the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C.

15. Here in this case, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are police personnel. P.W.2 is the defacto-complainant and investigating officer in this case in whose presence the accused confessed that they are transporting the stones in the lorries, without any bills Basing on the said confession, the occurrence report was drafted by the Investigating Officer. If such is the case, then certainly the confession given by the accused to the police personnel , is hit under Section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, no stones (Kankara rallu) were seized from the crime vehicles, by the Investigating Officer. Thus, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 without corroboration of the independent witnesses.

16. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered view that the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such this court is inclined to acquit the accused. Accordingly, this point is answered.

In the result the accused 1, 2 and 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, A.1, A.2 and A.4 are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused 1, 2 and 4 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated 4

CC 487/2020 Dt. 12.05.2026

under Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Tipper goods carriage bearing No KA 05 AF 3786 and Lorry bearing No. AP 37 T 4896 which were given for interim custody vide Crl.M.P.No. 700/2020 and No.701/2020, dt.25.06.2020, are made absolute.

Typed by Stenographer to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this, the 12 th day of May, 2026 .

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Avanigadda.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

FOR PROSECUTION

P.W.1: P. Rambabu P.W.2: D. Sandeep

FOR ACCUSED: None

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :- Ex.P.1: Occurrence report Ex.P.2: First Information Report Ex.P.3: Rough Sketch

For Accused :- Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil.

JFCM.

5

CC 487/2020 Dt. 12.05.2026

CALENDAR CASE No. 487/2020

ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS, AVANIGADDA.

1Calendar Case: Calendar Case No.487/2020 2Complainant:State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Avanigadda Police Station.

3Description of the accused:1. Undrakonda Naga Murali, S/o Srinivasa Rao, age 25 years, Potharlanka village, Koduru mandal, Guntur District.

2. Devalla Siva Nagaraju, S/o Sriramulu, age 35 years, Vaddera, Amaravathi villae and mandal, Guntur District.

3.Gangireddy Narayana Reddy (Died)

4. Chereddy Gangadhara Reddy, S/o Papi Reddy, age 41 years, 9th line, Buchaiah Thota, Tuntur town.

4Date of occurrence:20.06.2020 5Date of complaint:20.06.2020 6Date of apprehension of accused:25.03.2026 7Date of Judgment:12.05.2026 8Charges:Under Section 379 r/w 34 of IPC.

RESULT:

Accused 1, 2 and 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, A.1, A.2 and A.4 are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused 1, 2 and 4 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Tipper goods carriage bearing No KA 05 AF 3786 and Lorry bearing No. AP 37 T 4896 which were given for interim custody vide Crl.M.P.No. 700/2020 and No.701/2020, dt.25.06.2020, are made absolute.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY

This case was taken on file against the accused 1 to 4 for the offence under Section 379 r/w 34 of IPC . On 25.03.2026, copies were furnished to the accused 1, 2 and 4. On 04.05.2026, accused 1, 2 and 4 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charges framed for the offence under Section Section 379 r/w 34 of IPC. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. Ex.P.1 to P.3 were marked. Accused 1, 2 and 4 were 6

CC 487/2020 Dt. 12.05.2026

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 11.05.2026, on the same day heard both sides. On 12.05.2026, Judgment was pronounced.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class,

Avanigadda.

Submitted to: The Hon’ble I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

7

C.C. No.222 of 2024 1 30-01-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: MOVVA

Present: Smt.Swarnalatha Volga Marka,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda.

FAC/ Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Movva.

Friday this the 30th day of January, 2026.

Calendar Case No. 222 of 2024

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Challapalli police station. … Complainant.

Versus

1. Vadugu Nageswara Rao, S/o Parishuddudu, 31 years, Nothchiruvolulanka Village of Mopidevi Mandal.

2. Vadugu Adilakshmi, w/o. Parishuddudu, 57 years, Nothchiruvolulanka Village of Mopidevi Mandal.

3. Vadugu Parishuddudu, S/o Nageswara Rao (Late), 62 years, Nothchiruvolulanka Village of Mopidevi Mandal.

… Accused.

-oo00oo-

This case came before me on 23-01-2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

C.C. No.222 of 2024 2 30-01-2026

Sri E.Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 to 3, and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of police, Challapalli filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 in crime No.52/2024 of Challapalli police station for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 324, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution:

The marriage of the de facto complainant/PW-1 was performed with the accused No.1 in the year 2018 at North Chiruvolulanka Village of

Mopidevi Mandal. Due to their wedlock they were blessed with two daughters. A2 and A3 harassed PW-1 that she gave birth two female children. A2 abused LW1 by saying that if PW1 could not have resided then she would performed another marriage to A1 by stating that A2 bet her on 09-11-2024 at about 12.00 PM, PW-1 called LW-2 to her

C.C. No.222 of 2024 3 30-01-2026

matrimonial house and informed him about the harassment. LW-2 questioned the acts of A1 to A3. Then A3 beat LW-2 with stick on his right shoulder, stomach due to which he sustained swelling injury. A1 also beat

LW-2 with hands. A3 beat LW-3 with stick over his head, due to which

LW-3 sustained bleeding injury. A2 cought hold of touft LW-1 and beat

LW-1 by stating that if PW-1, would die the problems would be cleared.

LW-1 to LW-3 were shifted to Goverment Hospital, Avanigadda for treatment. Basing on the Hospital intimation, LW-14 recorded the statement of PW-1 at the hospital. On 09-01-2024 basing the statement of

PW-1, LW-8/the Sub Inspector registered a case in crime No.53/2024 for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 324, 323, r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code and investigated into it. After completion of the investigation,

LW-15/the Sub Inspector of police, filed the chargesheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3.

3.The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 324, 323, r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused

Nos.1 to 3 and summons were issued to them.

C.C. No.222 of 2024 4 30-01-2026

4.On the appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 3, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused were examined under section 239 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. The charges were framed against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence U/s 498-A, 324, 323, r/w 34 of IPC. The charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded “not guilty” and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, PW-1 was examined and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked. PW2 and PW3 were examined and Exs.P3 and P4 were marked. The learned APP and given up the evidence of LW-4 to

LW14. Thus, the closure of the evidence of the prosecution.

7.After the completion of the evidence of the prosecution, as there was no incriminating material appeared in the prosecution evidence against the accused Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, the 313 examination of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 is dispensed with.

C.C. No.222 of 2024 5 30-01-2026

8.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

9.The points for determination are:

“ Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 324, 323, r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt ??”

10. Point:

To prove it’s case, the prosecution examined the defacto complainant/ V.Yamini as P.W.1. P.W.1 deposed that in the year 2018, her marriage was performed with Accused No.1 as per Christian rites and customs and they lived happily for 10 years and they were blessed with two daughters. She further deposed that some petty disputes arose between themselves. She placed the matter before elders and police. She deposed that she sustained injuries when she fell down in kitchen due to which she sustained injuries on leg and hands. The learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor got marked her signature as Ex.P.1. The learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor was given permission to cross examine the witness, but

C.C. No.222 of 2024 6 30-01-2026

nothing was elicited except marking her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement as

Ex.P.2.

11.P.W.2/. Kanna Veera Narayana, is the father of P.W.1. He deposed in the same lines of PW-1 about the marriage and petty disputes between PW1 and A1. PW2 deposed that himself and LW-3 sustained injuries when they fell down from bike. The learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor was given permission to cross examine the witness, but nothing was elicited except marking his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P.3.

12.P.W.3/. Kanna Karthik, is the brother of P.W.1. He deposed in the same lines of PW-1 about the marriage and petty disputes between

PW1 and A1. PW3 deposed that himself and PW2 sustained injuries when they fell down from bike. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was given permission to cross examine the witness, but nothing was elicited except marking his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P.4.

C.C. No.222 of 2024 7 30-01-2026

13.Upon perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and exhibits

Ex.P.1 to P4 that are marked:

14. It is an admitted fact that the marriage of P.W.1 was performed with A.1 in the year 2018. P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution and P.W.1 went to the extent of deposing that when petty disputes arose between herself and accused No.1, she placed the matter before elders and police. She put her signature on a white paper on the advise of elders. She admitted that she sustained injuries to her leg and hands when she fell down in the kitchen. She does not know about the contents of then statement given to police. P.W.2 and PW3 who are no other than the father and brother of PW1, did not support the case of the prosecution. They further admitted that the sustained injuries when they fell down from bike.

15. Here in this case, the main and material witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 did not support the case of prosecution. P.W.1 to 3 who are the victims in this case did not utter a single incidents about the cruelty and also about the injuries sustained by them. From evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, there is no

C.C. No.222 of 2024 8 30-01-2026

iota of evidence. Hence this court is inclined to hold that the prosecution had failed to prove their case and thereby the accused are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly this point is answered.

16.In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 324, 323, r/w 34 of IPC.

Accordingly, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months.

Directly typed to my dictation by typist, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 30 th day of January, 2026.

sd/- Smt.Swarnalatha Volga Marka,

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Avanigadda,

FAC/Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Movva.

C.C. No.222 of 2024 9 30-01-2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1: V.Yamini None P.W.2: Kanna Veera Narayana P.W.3: Kanna Karthik

EXHIBITS MARKED

For prosecution: Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on the report Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 For Defence: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil

sd/- Smt.Swarnalatha Volga Marka,

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Avanigadda,

FAC/Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Movva.

C.C. No.222 of 2024 10 30-01-2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Movva.

Offence Report ofDate of Date ofCommenClose of Sentence or Reasons complaintarrestreleasecement TrialOrderfor of trialdelay Remarks Prior to09-01-41A--23-01-23-01-202631-01-2026-- 09-01-2024notice 2026 2024

Complainant: State through the Sub Inspector of Police,

Challapalli police station.

Accused: 1. Vadugu Nageswara Rao, S/o Parishuddudu, 31 years,

Nothchiruvolulanka Village of Mopidevi Mandal.

2. Vadugu Adilakshmi, w/o. Parishuddudu, 57 years,

Nothchiruvolulanka Village of Mopidevi Mandal.

3. Vadugu Parishuddudu, S/o Nageswara Rao (Late), 62 years, Nothchiruvolulanka Village of Mopidevi

Mandal.

Offences: Under sections 498A, 324, 323, r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code.

C.C. No.222 of 2024 11 30-01-2026

Finding: Accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty.

Sentence:In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 324, 323, r/w 34 of IPC.

Accordingly, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months.

sd/- Smt.Swarnalatha Volga Marka,

J.M.F.C., AVG.

FAC/ J.M.F.C. MOVVA.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Additional District Judge, Krishna.

CC No.07/2026 Dt.11.05.2026

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS, AVANIGADDA.

Present:: Swarnalatha Volga Marka

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Avanigadda.

Monday, this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

C.C. No.07/2026

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Nagayalanka Police Station. ….. Complainant

Vs.

1. Shaik Najiruddin, S/o Saida, age 22 years, D.No.26-16-17/2, Akulavari thota, Guntur District.

2. Shaik Said @ Saidam (Died)

3. Shaik Muntaj Hazi Munisa, D/o Saida, age 24 years, D.No.26-16-17/2, Akulavari thota, Guntur District.

4. Shaik Najim Munissa @ Najimunisa Begum D/o Saida, age 24 years, D.No.26-16- 17/2, Akulavari thota, Guntur District.

….. Accused

This Calendar Case coming on for hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri B. Raghu Kumar, learned Advocate for accused, upon consideration the material on record, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagayalanka Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 4 by alleging that they committed an offence punishable U/Section 85 of BNS and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

2. Brief averments of charge sheet are as follows:- L.W.1/ Sikha Kolli Divenkata Sai Padmini and A.1 loved each other and their marriage was held on 18.08.2021. After six months of marriage, A.1 to A.4 started harassment towards L.W.1 both physically and mentally, used to abuse her by saying that she has illicit relationship with others. A.1 used to come home in drunken state and beat her. A.1 to A.4 planned to sell her daughter for Rs.1,50,000/-. On knowing the same, L.W.1 reached her grand mother’s village Bhavadevarapalli along with her daughter. A.1 to A.4 also harassed her that the child was not born through A.1 and demanded for DNA test, and also demanded to bring additional dowry from her grand mother. Due to unbearable harassment, L.W.1 lodged a report before Nagayalanka

CC No.07/2026 Dt.11.05.2026

2

Police Station. L.W.10/K. Rajesh, SI of Nagayalanka Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.98/2025 for the offence under Section 85 of B.N.S. and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. During the course of investigation, L.W.10 examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, and served Section 35(3) of B.N.S.S. notices to accused 1 to 4. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

3. This Court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 85 of B.N.S. and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, against the accused Nos.1 to 4. Case against A.2 is abated due to his death.

4. On appearance of accused, case copies were given to A.1, A.3 and A4 as contemplated under Section 230 of B.N.S.S.

5.Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 were examined under Section 262 of B.N.S.S. Charges were framed against them for the offence under Section 85 of B.N.S. and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2, Ex.P.1 to P.3 were marked. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up L.W. 2/Sikha Kolli Thirumala Rao, L.W.3/Sikha Kolli Anitha Udaya Rajeswari, L.W.4/G. Pavan Kumar, L.W.5/G. Panduranga Rao, L.W.6/Mandali Uday Bhaskara Rao, L.W.7/Mathi Srinivasa Rao, L.W.8/Bande Babu Rao and L.W.9/Vinnakota Nageswara Rao.

7.The accused 1, 3 and 4 were examined under Section 351 of B.N.S.S. by explaining the incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence in Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

8. Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused

A.1,A.3 and A4 for the offence under Section 85 of B.N.S. and Section 3

and 4 of D.P.Act , beyond reasonable doubt?”

CC No.07/2026 Dt.11.05.2026

3

Point:-

10. To prove its case, the prosecution examined the defacto complainant/ Sikha Kolli Divenkata Sai Padmini as P.W.1. P.W.1 deposed that her marriage was performed with Accused No.1 in the year 2021 at Kaza, Guntur. Her marriage is a love marriage. After the marriage, she joined with A.1 for marital life. Herself and A.1 were blessed with one female child. They lived happily for about six months. She further deposed that when petty disputes were arose between them, they placed the matter

before elders and on their advice, she signed on a written paper and gave to police.

But she does not know the contents and she cannot say the names of elders. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor got marked her signature as Ex.P.1. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was given permission to cross examine the witness, but nothing was elicited except marking her Section 180 of B.N.S.S. statement as Ex.P.2.

11. P.W.2/K. Rajesh, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Nagayalanka police station deposed that on 01.10.2025, on being presented Ex.P.1/report by P.W.1, he registered Ex.P.3/FIR in Cr.No.98/2025 for the offence under Section 85 of BNS and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, during the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

12. After careful perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and exhibits Ex.P.1 to P.3 that are marked:

P.W.1 is the defacto complainant- cum-victim in this case. It is an admitted fact that marriage of P.W.1 was performed with accused No.1 in the year 2021. P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution. She went to the extent of deposing that when disputes arose between herself and accused No.1, she signed on a white paper on the advise of elders. There is no iota of evidence from P.W.1 about the cruelty and harassment for additional dowry.

13. In view of the above discussion, the main and material witness P.W.1 did not support the case of prosecution. Basing on the testimony of the Investigation Officer and without corroboration from the prosecution witnesses, if the accused are convicted, it leads to miscarriage of justice. The prosecution failed to prove his case beyond

CC No.07/2026 Dt.11.05.2026

4 reasonable doubt. Hence this court is inclined to hold that the prosecution had failed to prove their case and thereby the accused are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly this point is answered.

In the result, the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 85 of B.N.S. and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, and accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are acquitted under Sec.271(1) of B.N.S.S.. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months. Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 11 th day of May, 2026

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class,

Avanigadda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1: Sikha Kolli Divenkata Sai Padmini None P.W.2: K. Rajesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

For prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on the report Ex.P.2: Section 180 of B.N.S.S statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.3: First Information Report

For Defence: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil

JFCM

CC No.07/2026 Dt.11.05.2026

5

CALENDAR CASE No.7/2026

ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS, AVANIGADDA.

1Calendar Case : Calendar Case No.07/2026 2Complainant:The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagayalanka Police Station. 3Description of the accused:1. Shaik Najiruddin, S/o Saida, age 22 years, D.No.26-16-17/2, Akulavari thota, Guntur District.

2. Shaik Said @ Saidam (Died)

3. Shaik Muntaj Hazi Munisa, D/o Saida, age 24 years, D.No.26-16-17/2, Akulavari thota, Guntur District.

4. Shaik Najim Munissa @ Najimunisa Begum D/o Saida, age 24 years, D.No.26- 16-17/2, Akulavari thota, Guntur District.

4Date of occurrence: 01.10.2025 5Date of complaint: 01.10.2025 6Date of apprehension of accused:11.05.2026 7Date of Judgment:11.05.2026 8Charges:Under Section 85 of B.N.S. and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. RESULT: Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 85 of B.N.S. and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, and accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are acquitted under Sec.271(1) of B.N.S.S.. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY

On 04.02.2026, this case was taken on file against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence under Section 85 of B.N.S., and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. On 11.05.2026 copies were furnished to accused 1, 3 and 4, they were examined under Section 262 of B.N.S.S. ,charge framed against them for the offence under Section 85 of B.N.S., and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, Ex.P.1 to P.3 were marked. as there is no incriminating evidence available on record, the examination of the accused under Section 351 of B.N.S.S. is dispensed with, heard both sides and on the same day i.e., on11.05.2026, Judgment pronounced.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class,

Avanigadda. Submitted to: The Hon’ble I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

OS No.17/2025 Dt.13.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

AVANIGADDA

Present: Swarnalatha Volga Marka, Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Avanigadda.

Wednesday, this the 13th day of May, 2026.

O.S.No.17/2025

State Bank of India, Nagayalanka Rep., by its Branch Manager, Nagayalanka. ….Plaintiff

Vs.

Pushadapu Anil Kumar, S/o Babu Rao, age 34 years, Bhavadevarapalli village, Nagayalanka Mandal, Krishna District. …Defendant.

This suit come before me on 22.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Raghu Rama Prasad, learned Advocate for plaintiff and defendant set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made this following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff-Bank filed suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,90,593/-, against the defendant with subsequent interest, costs and other reliefs.

B2. rief averments of the plaint are as follows :- Defendant approached the plaintiff by internet to obtain personal loan. Bank introduced new polict to prescribe the loan facility to the employees on pre -approved express credit loans. As per the terms and conditions, the borrower has to furnish all details through online and by considering the details furnished by the borrower, the system will approve the loan amount of Rs.1,98,000/- and the loan term is 36 months and to disburse in the SB account directly.

Defendant proceeded to avail loan, made all his particulars available through on line by agreeing to repay the amount with interest @ 13.5% per annum, accordingly sanctioned the loan and disbursed to his SB A/c No.31266921825. Defendant created loan account bearing No.41756534890, the loan amount be transferred to his loan account from SB Account. Defendant availed loan facility of Rs.1,98,000/- with agreed rate of interest @ 13.5 % per annum with equal monthly installments of Rs.6,720/-. Defendant also agreed to pay penal interest @ 2% per month, if irregularity exceeds EMI exceeds for a period of one month, and will change on the overdue amount for the default.

1

OS No.17/2025 Dt.13.05.2026

Defendant paid the loan for some time, later committed default. Though repeated demands by the plaintiff bank, defendant did not respond. Defendant failed to pay the due amount of Rs.1,67,291/-, accordingly defendant loan account is treated under NPA account. Plaintiff bank issued legal notice on 03.07.2024, but the same was returned by the defendant on 06.07.2024. Thus plaintiff was constrained to file this plaint. Hence this suit.

3. Inspite of publication, defendant called absent and no representation, hence he was set exparte on 03.02.206.

4.In support of his case, the present bank manager by name T. Pavan Kumar got himself examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked, in which Ex.A.1 is the online copy of terms and conditions for PAPL non CSP, dt.16.03.2023, Ex.A.2 is the office copy of legal notice to the defendant, dt.03.07.2024, Ex.A.3 is the original postal receipt dt.03.07.2024, Ex.A.4 is the original returned notice by the defendant, dt.06.07.2024, Ex.A.5 is the attested copy of statement of accounts, dt.31.12.2024 and Ex.A.6 is the attested copy of closure account, dt.31.12.2024.

5.Heard the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff.

6. Perused the material on record.

7.Now the points for determination are:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for?

Point:

8. To establish his case, the branch manager of the Plaintiff’s bank filed his chief examination affidavit re-iterating the material contents of the Plaint. He was examined as P.W1 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. Cross-examination of P.W.1 is recorded nil as the defendant was set exparte. The oral and documentary version of plaintiff remain unchallenged. It also strengthens the case of the plaintiff bank that the defendant approached the plaintiff bank through online and obtained loan amount of Rs.1,98,000/- by agreeing the terms and conditions for PAPL NON CSP and failed to repay the loan amount. Subsequently, he was declared NPA and due by Rs.1,67,291/-. On perusal of Ex.A.5 which is the account statement of the defendant, it appears that he obtained the 2

OS No.17/2025 Dt.13.05.2026

loan from State Bank of India, Nagayalanka branch, under loan A/c No41756534890, and he paid the loan to some extent and he is due by Rs.1,67,291/-. The oral evidence of the plaintiff as PW.1 is coupled with the documentary evidence Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 clearly establishes the case of the plaintiff, as such plaintiff bank is entitled for the suit claim. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, in favour of the plaintiff, directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.1,90,593/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Three only ) with subsequent interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the suit to realization on principal amount of Rs.1,67,291/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety One only).

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, this the 13 th day of May, 2026

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Avanigadda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For plaintiff PW1: T. Pavan Kumar

For defendants: None

Exhibits Marked

For plaintiff: Ex.A.1 : Online copy of terms and conditions for PAPL non CSP, dt.16.03.2023 Ex.A.2 : Office copy of legal notice to the defendant, dt.03.07.2024, Ex.A.3 : Original postal receipt dt.03.07.2024, Ex.A.4 : Original returned notice by the defendant, dt.06.07.2024, Ex.A.5 : Attested copy of statement of accounts, dt.31.12.2024 Ex.A.6 : Attested copy of closure account, dt.31.12.2024. For defendants: Nil.

PCJ(JD)

AVG.

3

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

AVANIGADDA

Present: Swarnalatha Volga Marka, Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Avanigadda.

Wednesday, this the 13th day of May, 2026.

O.S.No.17/2025

State Bank of India, Nagayalanka Rep., by its Branch Manager, Nagayalanka. ….Plaintiff

Vs.

Pushadapu Anil Kumar, S/o Babu Rao, age 34 years, Bhavadevarapalli village, Nagayalanka Mandal, Krishna District. …Defendant.

Purpose of the suit:

The plaintiff-Bank filed suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,90,593/-, against the defendant with subsequent interest, costs and other reliefs.

Plaint presented on 06.01.2025 and numbered on 24.01.2025

Cause of action:

Cause of action for the suit arose when the defendant approached online to avail the loan facility under the scheme of preapproved express credit loans from the bank and when the defendant furnished his details by online and sanctioned the loan by system automatically and availed the loan by the defendant, and when the loan amount of Rs.1,98,000/- credited to his account No.31266921825 and be transferred to his loan coount No.41756534890 agreed to repay the amount with interest at 13.50% with montly rents and when the defendant failed in discharge the loan amount and when the plaintiff bank issued legal notice to the defendant on 03.07.2024 demanding him to discharge the loan amount and when the same was returned by him on 06.07.2024 and the transaction took place in Nagayalanka, which are within the jurisdiction of this court.

The value of the suit is Rs.1,90,593/- on which the plaintiff paid Court Fee of Rs.4,426/- under Section 20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

This suit come before me on 22.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Raghu Rama Prasad, learned Advocate for plaintiff and defendant set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth Judgment and

DECREE

i) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs, in favour of the plaintiff, directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.1,90,593/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Three only ) with subsequent interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the suit to realization on

principal amount of Rs.1,67,291/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand

Two Hundred and Ninety One only);

ii)

that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,622/- and the defendant do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil (Cost memo not filed by defendant (Exparte) )

Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 13 th day of May, 2026.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Avanigadda.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

Particulars For plaintiff For defendant

(Allowed) (Taxed) Stamp on Vakalat2-00 Stamp on plaint4426-00Nil Process45-00(Exparte) Petition stamp----------- Advocate fee3709-00 Publication charges2240-00 Typing charges and writing charges 200-00

Total 10622-00

PCJ (JD)

Note: The parties are hereby directed to apply for return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve as soon as possible within three years as the record will liable to be destroyed three years after the date of decree of order.