U. Madhuri

1

APSR0D0003362024

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PALASA

Present: Smt U.Madhuri,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

PALASA. Tuesday, this the 28th day of April, 2026.

M.C. 19 of 2024

Between:

1. Kummari @ Kummara Gayatri, D/o Suryanarayana, W/o Kummara Krishnarao, aged 24 yrs, Household duties, R/o Dr.No.1-1-243, Kondistreet, Mogilipadu village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

2. Kummara Dhuvansh, S/o Krishnagarao, aged 2 yrs, No avocation, Household duties, R/o Dr.No.1-1-243, Kondistreet, Mogilipadu village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

...Petitioners.

And:

Kummara Krishna Rao, S/o late Simhachalam, aged 38 yrs, working in Pixel Film Restore India Private Limited, permanent R/o Kotta Ponnuturu village, Kothuru Mandal, Srikakulam District, at present R/o Moula Ali, Hyderabad.

…Respondent.

This case is coming on 31.03.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K Devaraju, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri G Prabhakar Rao

Advocate for respondentand the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

: O R D E R :

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 (1) Cr.P.C. against the respondent directing the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the 1st petitioner per month towards her maintenance and Rs.7,000/- to the 2nd petitioner per month towards his maintenance and for costs of the petition.

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

(a)It is averred that the 1st petitioner and the respondent was celebrated on 15.05.2020 as per their caste custom and Hindu rites at the house of the 2 respondent in the presence of villagers, elders, relatives, friends and near and dear. At the time of the marriage of the 1st petitioner, the parents of the 1st petitioner gave dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, 6 tulas of gold and sarisamans worth of

Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent and his family members on their demand, but at the time of giving dowry, the respondent and his family members did not accept to receive the said dowry and lanchans, as the dowry is not sufficient, at that time, the marriage elders and villagers conveyed the respondent and his family members and continued the marriage on that day itself.

(b)The 1st petitioner further averred that immediately after marriage, the 1st petitioner joined with the respondent at her in law's house and their marriage was consummated. After marriage, the respondent and his mother Kanthamma used to harass the 1st petitioner for demanding additional dowry, as the dowry brought by the 1st petitioner is not sufficient and made troubles to her. Immediately, the 1st petitioner informed the same to her parents, then her parents placed the matter

before the elders, in their presence the respondent agreed his mistake and

promised that he would look after the 1st petitioner properly. But the respondent failed to do so, inadvertently. he used to harass the 1st petitioner mentally and physically and used to come to the house in late night hours by consuming alcohol and beat the 1st petitioner with the active support of his mother, besides stopping the beating of the respondent, the mother of the respondent used to encourage him.

(c)The 1st petitioner further averred that when she was conceived and her health was not in proper, but the respondent did not take her to see a good doctor for recoup of her health. Accordingly, she gave birth to a male child on 15.06.2022 and after birth of male child, the respondent attitude was totally changed. After birth of male child, the respondent used to harass her and also demanded the 1st petitioner to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents. When the 1st petitioner expressed her inability to meet out the demand of the respondent, the respondent beat her as per his wish. At the time of marriage, the respondent and his family members by misrepresenting the parents of the 1st petitioner that the respondent is a government employee, believing their words, the parents of the 1st 3 petitioner agreed to perform her marriage with the respondent and also performed their marriage by meeting out the demand of the respondent and his family members. Later the 1st petitioner came to know that the respondent is not having any government job and he is working in a private firm i.e., at Hyderabad. After birth of the 1st son, the respondent used to addict to vices like drinking, in that due course, the respondent used to harass the 1st petitioner with the active instigation of his mother. The respondent forcibly took away the gold ornaments of the 1st petitioner and pledged them at outsiders, with that money, he spent all the pledged amount. Due to loss of gold ornaments and money, the respondent demanded the 1st petitioner for additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents and also harassed her. On which, the 1st petitioner placed the matter before the elders, but the respondent and his mother did not heed the words of the elders and demanded additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- to meet out his luxuries. Due to the acts of the respondent and his mother, the 1st petitioner gave report before

Kasibugga on 19.09.2023, but at that time, the Police made counseling to the 1st petitioner and the respondent and admonished the respondent, as such, they lived happily for some time.

(d)The 1st petitioner further averred that due to the acts of the respondent, the respondent never looked after the welfare of the 1st petitioner and also newly born child by name Dhuvansh and he did not provide any food, clothes and other necessities to them. When the 1st petitioner and her family members celebrated

Balasare function of new born baby boy i.e., 2nd petitioner, at that time, the respondent and his mother came to the said function and make a galata with the 1st petitioner and her parents to fulfill their demand of additional dowry of

Rs.2,00,000/- otherwise, the respondent did not take the petitioners to his house and beat the 1st petitioner in the presence of her parents and relatives. Then the elders admonished the respondent and his mother and pacified the issue, later they sent the petitioners to the house of the respondent. Where they lived happily for some time. After some time, the respondent came to the house in drunken state of mind and beat the 1st petitioner by demanding additional dowry of

Rs.2,00,000/- and necked out her from his house on the night hours, as there is no other alternative, the 1st petitioner came to her parent's house along with 2nd 4 petitioner. Meanwhile, the respondent got issued a legal notice through his

Advocate to the 1st petitioner on 30.04.2022 for rejoin her to his conjugal society, on which, the 1st petitioner gave a suitable reply to the counsel of the respondent.

(e)The 1st petitioner further averred that due to vex of the acts of the respondent, she gave report to Kasibugga Police Station, on her report on 14.03.2024, they registered a case for the offence punishable under sections 498-

A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of DP Act against the respondent and his mother in

Crime No.130/2024 of Kasibugga P.S and the same is pending before the Court.

(f)The 1st petitioner further averred that the respondent is an employee in Pixel

Film Restore India Private Limited, Hyderabad and getting in come of Rs.40,000/- per month, besides that he is doing money lending business, with that business, he is getting Rs.3,000/- per day and the respondent is also having house properties, house sites, wet lands in and around Ponnuturu village, Kothuru mandal. As such, the respondent is capable person to maintain the petitioners, but the respondent deliberately left the petitioners to their fate. The respondent is having bounden duty to maintain the petitioners, per contra the respondent left them to their fate. As such, the 1st petitioner and her children are requiring monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs.7,000/- per month to her son for her minimum necessities to eke out their livelihood, as the 1st petitioner is unable to attend any works, as she is suffering from ill-health. The respondent did not take any steps to lead the conjugal life with her or not providing any maintenance to the petitioners.

(g)The 1st petitioner further averred that she has no means to maintain herself and her sons and the petitioners are depending upon her parents. The 1st petitioner's parents are unable to maintain the petitioners, as they are old persons and they have also no income to maintain them. The 1st petitioner needs

Rs.10,000/- per month towards her maintenance, food, medicine and shelter and the 2nd petitioner needs Rs.7,000/- per month towards his maintenance, food, clothes, studies and shelter. The respondent is bound under law to maintain the petitioners and provide their necessary amenities keeping in line with his status.

5

Hence, this petition.

3.On the other hand, respondent filed counter denying the petition averments contending that the 1st Petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent.

Their marriage was performed on Dt.15/05/2020 at Mogilipadu village, Palasa mandal, Srikakulam district, as per caste custom and Hindu rites, in the presence of relatives, friends and elders in the village. That as per their mutual understandings there is no practice of exchange of dowry or any other gift articles among the parties. Immediately after the marriage, the Petitioner joined conjugal society with the Respondent at his house. The Petitioner lead marital life happily for some time with the Respondent. That during their wedlock, they were blessed with a male baby, his name is Kummara Dhruvanth.

4.The respondent contended that the Petitioner has changed her attitude, started causing physical and mental harassment to the Respondent, with a direction to the Respondent not to look after the welfare of his old aged mother, and to take separate residence by leaving his mother alone, thereby not to extend any financial help like medical expenses, etc to his mother. That in the year 2021, the father of the Petitioner, visited the house of the Respondent, and requested to send the Petitioner to his house for some period, on which upon the desire of the

Petitioner, the Respondent agreed for the request of her father, consequently, the

Petitioner went to her parents house along with her father.

5.It is further averred that the Petitioner has not shown interest to come back to the house of the Respondent and informed the Respondent that she will join with him only after taking separate residence by leaving his mother separately.

That the Respondent is the only assistance to his parents, and he cannot leave his old aged parents, as such he could not meet the evil desire of the Petitioner. That since the year 2021, the Respondent, has been requesting the Petitioner to come and join with him and to lead marital life happily and also informed that she has a bounded duty to look after the welfare of the old aged parents of the Respondent, but in vain. The Respondent also put his best efforts and tried to convince the

Petitioner personally, through family members and also through elders on several 6 occasions, but in vain. At last as there is no other alternative, he got issued a registered legal notice on Dt.30/04/2024, through his counsel, requesting the

Petitioner to join with the Respondent, but after receipt of the same, the Petitioner gave a reply, Dt.04/05/2024 through her counsel with all false and frivolous allegations. The Petitioner has neglected and discarded the Respondent and went to her parents' house without any fault of the Respondent. Since near about more than 2 years, the Petitioner did not turn up to join with the Respondent even though the Respondent made several attempts personally and through elders.

6.The Respondent further contended that when he is trying for reunion, the

Petitioner filed false complaint against the Respondent covered under

Cr.No.130/2024, Dt.14/3/2024 on the file of SHO of Kasibugga PS and the same is pending for enquiry along with the above MC case. He is always ready and willing to join with the Petitioner. The Respondent has got much love and affection towards the Petitioner. The Respondent is suffering from much mental agony, hardship due to lack of company of the Petitioner. The Respondent approached the Petitioner on several occasions personally and through elders, claiming restitution of conjugal rights, but in vain. Hence the Respondent filed a petition vide

HMOP No. 150/2024 pending on the file of Honourable Addl Senior Civil Judge, at

Srikakulam for restitution of conjugal rights and earlier he had taken hand loans to meet family expenses, as such he is in heavy debts.

7.The Respondent further contended that the 1st Petitioner neglected and discarded the Respondent willful and wontedly as the Respondent is not having high source of income, suffering from debts, but surprisingly, the Petitioner filed the above MC with all false averments and are invented for the purpose of filing the above MC petition. The 1st Petitioner failed to file assets and liabilities as per the landmark judgment "Rajnesh Vs. Neha" passed by the Honourable Supreme court of India, as such the MC is not maintainable under law and liable to be dismissed.

The 1st Petitioner suppressed the true and material facts as such the MC is liable to be dismissed under the ground of doctrine of suppression of facts. The 1st

Petitioner has not approached the Honourable court with clean hands, and clean object. The cause of action is incorrect and that he reserves to file additional 7 counter as and when he receives additional information. He is in severe debts. The

Respondent has no landed properties, but the 1st Petitioner created a false, fabricated, concocted, created, flimsy, untenable story for the purpose of filing the above complaint without any bonafide grounds, cogent material evidence.

8.During enquiry, the 1st Petitioner was examined as PW.1 and got marked

Wedding Invitation Card as Ex.P1 and on the other hand the respondent is examined as RW.1 and no documents were marked.

9.Now the point for consideration is :

1.Whether the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent?

2. Whether the respondent has neglected petitioner without providing food and necessities and liable to pay the maintenance to her parents?

3.Whether the petitioners are entitled for the maintenance if so, what is the quantum of maintenance?

10. Point No.1: It is the case of the 1st petitioner that her marriage was performed with the respondent on 15-05-2023 as per caste custom and rites at the house of respondent. Upon perusal of the counter it can be seen that the respondent admitted his marriage with the 1st petitioner and the birth of 2nd petitioner through him. Therefore, the 1st petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent.

Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered.

11. Point No.2: It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of marriage the parents of 1st petitioner, at the demand of respondent and his parents gave

Rs.5,00,000/- cash, 6 tulas of gold, saresaman worth Rs.1,50,000/-. After the marriage the 1st petitioner joined the respondent and the marriage was consummated. Thereafter the mother of respondent started harassment subjected to the 1st petitioner that the dowry given by her parents is not sufficient and demanded additional dowry. The respondent also subjected the 1st petitioner with harassment for want of additional dowry by coming the house late nights in a drunken state. The matter was placed before the elders by the parents of the 1st petitioner but the respondent did not adhere the words of elders and continued his harassment. In the meanwhile, the 1st petitioner gave birth to the 2nd petitioner on 8 15-06-2022. The respondent continued the harassment for want of additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, the petitioner gave report to the Kasibugga Police on 19-09-2023 and the police admonished the respondent and sent back the 1st petitioner to her matrimonial home. After the birth of 2nd petitioner when the parents of 1st petitioner performed the barasala function of 2nd petitioner , the respondent and his mother attended the said function and raised dispute for want of additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. At last with the intervention of the elders, the respondent taken back the petitioners to the matrimonial home. Again the respondent started harassment subjected to 1st petitioner for want of additional dowry by coming the house late nights in a drunken state. Due to unbearable torture the 1st petitioner went to her parents house along with 2nd petitioner on 14-03-2024 and gave report to the police. The respondent is working as Pixel Film Restore India Private

Limited, Hyderabad and getting in come of Rs.40,000/- per month and also doing money lending business and getting Rs.3,000/- per day. The 1st petitioner is not having any income and depending upon her parents and they are not in a position to maintain the petitioners. In support of the case of the petitioner, the petitioner is examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 wedding card. Upon perusal of her evidence she reiterated the petition averments.

12.On the other hand, it is the case of respondent that the father of 1st petitioner visited the 1st petitioner and respondent house in Hyderabad and requested the respondent to take back the 1st petitioner. From the marriage itself the 1st petitioner insisted the respondent to put up separate family, by leaving the old aged mother of the respondent without providing any medical expenses and assistance, for which the respondent did not agree. The 1st petitioner demanded the luxury expenses which the respondent could not provide. The respondent is failed to get back the 1st petitioner to lead matrimonial life but the 1st petitioner did not join him and filed the present case with false averments. The respondent filed HMOP and the same is pending. In support of the case of the respondent he got examined as

RW.1. Upon perusal of the evidence of PW.1 and RW.1 it can be seen that the petitioners are residing separately from the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that due to unbearable torture caused by the respondent the 1st petitioner left to parents house. On the other hand it is the case of the respondent 9 that the petitioner voluntarily deserted the respondent without any reason and that it is also his case that inspite of efforts made by him she did not join with him. It is also his evidence that he placed the matter before elders but he did not place the evidence of the said elder before the court to support his version that inspite of efforts made by him, the 1st petitioner did not join the respondent. In view of above discussion, this court is of the opinion, the respondent neglected the petitioners.

Accordingly, the Point No.2 is answered.

13.Point No.3 :- According to the 1st petitioner, the respondent is doing graphic works and getting Rs.1,00,000/- per month. On the other hand, upon perusal of evidence of RW.1, it can be seen that he worked as paint artist in Rotomat

Company at Hyderabad. It shows that the respondent is an artist. Though it is his evidence that at present he has no avocation, since he is paint artist he can get income if the attends the work per day he can earn Rs.600/- per day and he attends 20 days in a month he can get 20 x 600 = Rs.12,000/-. Awarding the maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C is meant for protecting the dependents from starvation but not full and final settlement. In the said circumstances, this court is inclined to grant Rs.3,000/- per month each to the 1st and 2nd petitioner.

Accordingly, the Point No.3 is answered.

14.In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- each to 1st and 2nd petitioners and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses of the petition to the petitioners. The respondent is directed to pay the litigation expenses and arrears of maintenance of amount, i.e., from the date of petition till the date of Order, within 60 days. The respondent is further directed to pay the said monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- each to the 1st and 2nd petitioners, from the date of Order on or before 10th of every succeeding month and to deposit the same in the savings Bank Account of the Petitioner, furnished to him.

Directly typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 28 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. U. Madhuri

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Palasa.

10

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners : For Respondent side :

P.W.1 : 01.05.2025: K Gayatri RW.1 : K Krishna Rao

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :- For Defence:

Ex.P1: Wedding Invitation Card

Sd/- Smt. U. Madhuri

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Palasa.

1

APSR0D0006072024

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PALASA.

Present:- Smt U.Madhuri,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),Palasa.

Monday, this the 27th day of April, 2026.

Original Suit No. 114 of 2024

Between: M/s Shriram Finance Limited Palasa Branch, Rep by its authorized Divisional Recovery Manager, Gavarasana Suresh.

…Plaintiff. And:

1. Shankararao Hanumanthu, S/o Gopalarao, aged about 40 yrs, R/o Dr.No.15-1-396/A, Shavijinagar Palasa, Palasa-Kasibugga Municipality, Srikakulam District, Pin Noo.532221, Mobile No.984996237.

2. Sareadha Hanumanthu, W/o of Shankararao Hanumanthu, aged about 35 yrs, R/o D.No.15-1–396-A, Shavijinagar Palasa, alasa- Kasibugga Municipality, Srikakulam District, Pin Noo.532221, Mobile No.9154491244.

3. Apparao Tamminana, S/o Simhachalam, aged about 48 yrs, R/o Dr.No.Nil, Makharajola village, Haripuram Post, Mandasa Mandalam, Srikakulam District, Mobile No.7382920592.

…Defendants.

This Case is coming before me for final hearing on 02.04.2026 in the presence of Sri Y Hema Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte on 24.12.2024 & Defendant No.3 remained ex-parte on 02-05-2025 and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGEMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff/Divisional Recovery Manager,

M/s Shriram Finance Limited Palasa Branch against the defendants for recovery of suit amount of Rs. 11,56,259/- together with subsequent interest @ 18 % per a nnum from the date of filing of the suit till realization and costs of the suit against the defendant No.1 on the mortgaged property described in the schedule annexed hereto for 2 realization of the decree amount by sale of the property and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient to satisfy the decree, to direct all the defendants to pay balance due personally.

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

(a)It is averred that the Plaintiff is a company registered under Indian companies Act, doing Various financial business, having its registered office at Sri Towers, Plot No.14A, South Phase, Industrial Estate,

Guindy, Chennai, and having branches all over India and Divisional

Office at Srikakulam and one of its branch office at K.T.Palasa doing financial business. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of financing

Trade Finance/Enterprises Finance, consumer goods and Vehicles, etc to various consumers and conducting its business with strict rules to relevant Laws.

(b) It is further averred that the Defendant No.1 is doing apparels business. He has approached the plaintiff company, submitted an application on 02.01.2020 for loan of Rs.8,00,000/- for the purpose of his business development under trade Finance. The plaintiff company duly sanctioned the loan for the said sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 further agreed to repay the loan amount together with interest at the rate of 27.25% per annum in terms of agreement. On sanctioning the afore said loan by the plaintiff

Company, as per the rules of the plaintiff company the 1st Defendant produced Two Guarantors, who are defendant Nos.2 and 3 herein. The defendant No.1 along with Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have executed necessary loan documents including loan agreement No. PALASA TF 2001210005 and Demand Promissory Note both dated 21.01.2020, agreeing the terms and conditions of the plaintiff's company to ensure future repayments in terms of the above loan agreement and they also became by virtue of said agreement of guarantee liable jointly and severally for entire due loan amount together with stipulated interest.

3

(c)It is further averred that the defendant No.1 has furnished her immovable property as shown in the schedule in favor of the plaintiff company by deposit of the original Title deeds thereof and created an equitable mortgage thereon and the defendant No.1 has also executed a Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 24.01.2020 covering document No.204 of 2020 of Sub Registrar office Kasibugga acknowledging the deposit of title deed in respect of the schedule mentioned property namely, the 1. Original Registered Sale deed dated 07.03.2014 covering document No.2407/2014 executed in favour of

D.1. 2.Original GPA deed 27.03.2013 Covering Document No.755/2013 in favour of D1. 3. Register Extract of Register Settlement Deed dated 02.04.2009 covering document No.128/2009 in favour of Sudua

Srinivasarao son of Ramarao executed by Sudiya Sarojani wife of

Ramarao 4. Original Registered sale deed dated 30.03.2009 executed in favour of Sudiya Sarojani wife of Ramarao by Kikkara Bheemarao son of late Gangayya document No.9267/2009 5. Original Registered sale deed in favour of Kikkara Bheemarao son of late Gangayya covering document No.673/2005 executed by Gojji Appalamma wife of

Dandasi. 6. True Copy of Adangal dated 14.05.2010 issued by

Tahasildar Palasa in respect of S.No.259/7 of Talabhadra Village for the fasali 1390 and EC 44416450/2019 dated 25.01.2019 by SRO

Kasibugga as detailed below. The memorandum of Deposit of title deeds dated 24.01.2020 covering document No. 204 of 2020 of Sub

Registrar office Kasibugga as annexure No.6.

(d)It is further averred that on execution of aforesaid loan documents and issue of post date cheques by the defendant.No.1, the plaintiff company disbursed the loan amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- under loan agreement No.PALSA TF 2001210005 dated 21.01.2020 by way of

NEFT (National Electronic Funds Transfer) in to his Account furnished 4 by him. As per terms and conditions the agreement, the defendant No.1 is liable to pay in 60 equated monthly installments at the rate of

Rs.24607/- to the plaintiff company.

(e)It is further averred that as per terms of the loan agreement, the defendant is liable to pay the loan amount of Rs 8,00,000-00 together with interest at the rate of Rs 27.25% Flat i.e., a total amount of

Rs.14,76,420/- in 60 installments, payable on or before 10th of every month. The 1st installment being due on 10.03.2020 and the last installment being due on 10.02.2025. As per the terms of the

Agreement the defendant No.1 is liable to pay interest @ 36% on the outstanding due till realization.

(f)It is further averred that during the pandemic period of Covid-19, in view of financial stress, the plaintiff company was granted moratorium and the tenure of the contract revised and extended for further period of 17 installments from 60 installments to 77 installments. The defendant No.1, as per revised tenure and extended for 77 installments liable to pay revised total loan amount in 77 equated monthly installments at the rate of Rs.24475/- to the plaintiff company.

The revised last due date is 10.07.2026.

(g)It is further averred that the defendants failed to honor the terms of the loan agreement executed by them in favor of the plaintiff company, The defendant No.1 liable to pay as revised installments commencing from 10.03.2020 and the last installment being due on 10.02.2025. The defendant. No.1 issued postdate cheques for repayment of aforesaid loan amount and bounced. He has not paid the dishonoured cheque mounts and bank charges. The defendant No.1 is liable to pay, as per account sheet maintained by the plaintiff company, total loan amount with over dues is Rs.14,06,573/-. The defendant No.1

Paid total amount is Rs.9,09,827/- future installments Rs.6,15,043/- in 5

Total Rs.11,11,789/- payable by the defendant No1 as on 22.06.24 as shown in the account sheet, filed here with as a annexure No.6. He committed default and breach of loan agreement.

(h)It is further averred that the plaintiff company demanded the defendants to pay the aforesaid due amount through the legal notice

dated 16.04.24. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have received the said

legal notices on 25.04.24 and legal notices sent to the defendant No. 3 has received on 03.05.24. However, the defendants have not paid any amount to the plaintiff company after issuing the legal notices and committed default in paying subsequent installments instead of repeated demands made by the plaintiff company. The outstanding due amount as on 22-06-2024 is Rs.14,06,573/-. Hence, the suit.

3.Upon perusal of the record, it can be seen that the summons to the was personally served to D1 and D2. But they did not turn up to attend the court. Hence, the court set them at ex-parte on 24.12.2024.

Summons was personally served to D3 but D3 did not attend the court.

Hence, the court set him at ex-parte on 02.05.2025.

4. To prove his contention, the Asst. Branch Manager of plaintiff company, Palasa is examined as P.W.1 and got markedExs.A1 to A12.

5.Heard the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-bank.

6.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?

7. POINT: It is the case of the plaintiff finance company that the defendant approached the plaintiff company and submitted the loan application for sanction of business Loan for his business development and the plaintiff company considered his proposal and sanctioned 6 enterprise finance loan of Rs.8,00,000/- to the defendant. The defendant agreed to repay the said amount with interest of

Rs.6,68,500/- in 60 equal monthly installments @ Rs.24,607/- and executed necessary documents i.e., loan agreement, promissory note, etc. in that regard along with two sureties i.e. D-2 and D-3. D1 also executed deposit of title deed and furnished his immovable property covered under document No.2407/2014 dated 7.3.2014 of Kasibugga

SRO. Subsequently, at the request of defendants, in view of the financial stress caused in Covid-19 pandemic, moratorium period was granted for 17 months. Accordingly, the installment of Rs.24,607/- was payable on 10.7.2026 in terms of the revised schedule. The 1st defendant paid 36 installments in full and 37th installment in part and committed default in payment of monthly installments from 10.3.2020.

Hence, the plaintiff company issued registered notice on 16.4.2024 but the defendant did not choose to pay the said outstanding due amount as on 22.6.2024 is Rs.11,56,259/-.

8.In support of the case of plaintiff bank, the Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank was examined as P.W.1 and got marked attested copy of certificate of incorporation dated 30.11.2022 as Ex.A1, attested copy of certificate of registration issued by RBI as Ex.A2, attested copy of certificate of General Power of Attorney as Ex.A3, original loan application submitted by 1st defendant as Ex.A4, original loan agreement submitted by the defendants as Ex.A5, original promissory note dated 21.01.2020 as Ex.A6, Copy of regd. Notice dated 16.04.2024 as Ex.A7, three postal receipts of legal notices of D1 to D3 as Ex.A8, original postal acknowledgment track consignment as Ex.A9, original postal acknowledgment track consignment of D2 as Ex.A10, original postal acknowledgment track consignment of D3 as Ex.A11 and

Memorandum of deposit of title deed as Ex.A12. As can be seen from the Ex.A6 promissory note that it was executed by D1 to D3 and from 7

Ex.A6 it can be seen that D1 created equitable mortgage over the plaint schedule property by depositing her title deeds towards collateral security for the debt.

9.On the other hand, in spite of sufficient opportunity is given to the defendants, the defendants did not turn up to attend the court. Hence this court set the defendant No.1 and 2 at ex-parte on 24.12.2024. D3 was set at ex-parte on 2.5.2025. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with

Ex.A.1 to A.12 stands unchallenged. In the absence of contrary evidence, basing on the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 to

A.12, this court is of the opinion, that the plaintiff has established his case. Hence, the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10.In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs in favour of the Plaintiff-company for Rs.11,56,259/- against D1 to D3 and schedule property which was mortgaged by D1 directing them to pay

Rs.11,56,259/- to the plaintiff company with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till date of decree and @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till date of realization. The defendants can pay the same and redeem the property within 30 days from the date of passing of preliminary decree. Failing which, the plaintiff can apply for final decree and bring the schedule property for sale for realization of the suit amount.

Directly typed to my dictation, corrected and Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. U. Madhuri

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PALASA.

8

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW.1: 04.12.2025 : Anem Prasada Rao - None -

Documents Marked

For PLAINTIFF:- Ex.A.1 : Attested copy of True copy of certificate of Incorporation, dt. 30-11-2022.

Ex.A.2 : Attested copy of Certificate of Registration issued by RBI, dt. 30-11-2022.

Ex.A.3 : Attested copy of Certificate of General Power of Attorney, dt. 14-02-2023.

Ex.A.4 : Original Loan Application submitted by the 1 defendant, dt. 02- 01-2020.

Ex.A.5 : Original loan Agreement with schedule executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff company, dt. 21-01-2020.

Ex.A.6 : Original promissory note executed by the defendants, dt. 21- 01-2020.

Ex.A.7 : Office copy of Lawyer's notice, dt. 16-04-2024.

Ex.A.8 : Three postal receipts of the legal notices of D.1 to D.3, dt. 24- 04-2024.

Ex.A.9 : Original Postal acknowledgment Track consignment of D.1, dt. 25-04-2024.

Ex.A.10 : Original Postal Acknowledgment Track consignment of D.2,

dt. 27-04-2024.

Ex.A11 : Original Postal Acknowledgment Track consignment of D.3, dt.27-04-2024.

Ex.A12 : Memorandum evidencing deposit of title deeds.

For DEFENDANT:- -- None --

Sd/- Smt. U. Madhuri

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PALASA.

APSR0D0009822025

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PALASA.

Present:- Smt U.Madhuri,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),Palasa.

Monday, this the 27th day of April, 2026.

Original Suit No. 87 of 2025.

Between: M/s Shriram Finance Limited Palasa Branch, Rep by its authorized Divisional Recovery Manager, Gavarasana Suresh.

…Plaintiff. And:

1. Marri Bharath kumar, S/o Rajeswararao, aged about 34 yrs, R/o Dr.No.10-2-111, Palli Street, Near Police Station, Kasibugga Palasa, Palasa-Kasibugga Municipality, Srikakulam District, Pin No.532222, Mobile No.9177408240.

2. Marri Bhanumathi, W/o Rajeswararao, Aged about 58 yrs, R/o D.No.10-2-111, Palli Street, Near Police Station, Kasibugga Palasa, Palasa-Kasibugga Municipality, Srikakulam District, Pin No.532222, Mobile No.9154699798.

3. Marri Niranjan Kumar, S/o Rajeswararao, Aged about 30 yrs, R/o D.no.10-2-11, Palli Street, Near Police Station, Kasibugga Palasa, Palasa-Kasibugga Municipality, Srikakulam District, Pin No.532222, Mobile No.9154699798. …Defendants.

This Case is coming before me for final hearing on 02.04.2026 in the presence of Sri Y Hema Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants remained ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGEMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff/Divisional Recovery Manager,

Palasa Branch against the defendant for recovery of suit amount of Rs.

5,44,572/- together with subsequent interest in terms of loan agreement @ 36 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization and costs of the suit against the defendant No.3 on the mortgaged property described in the schedule annexed hereto for realization of the decree amount by sale of the property and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient to satisfy the decree, to direct all the defendants to pay balance due personally, and to grant such other incidental reliefs which the court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the suit.

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

(a)It is averred that the Plaintiff is a company registered under Indian companies Act, doing Various financial business, having its registered office at Sri Towers, Plot No.14A, South Phase, Industrial Estate,

Guindy, Chennai, and having branches all over India and Divisional

Office at Srikakulam and one of its branch office at K.T.Palasa doing financial business. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of financing

Trade Finance/Enterprises Finance, consumer goods and Vehicles, etc to various consumers and conducting its business with strict rules to relevant Laws.

(b) It is further averred that the Defendant No.1 is doing business. He has approached the plaintiff company, submitted an application on 27.09.2020 for loan of Rs.5,00,000/- for the purpose of his business development under trade Finance. The plaintiff company duly sanctioned the loan for the said sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant

No.1. The defendant No.1.further agreed to repay the loan amount together with interest at the rate of 27.31% per annum in terms of agreement. On sanctioning the afore said loan by the plaintiff

Company. As per the rules of the plaintiff company the 1st defendant produced two Guarantors, who are Defendant Nos.2 and 3 herein. The 1st defendant along with defendant Nos.2 and 3 have executed necessaryloandocumentsincludingloanagreement

No.PALSATF2010270005 and Demand Promissory Note both, dated 27.10.2020, agreeing the terms and conditions of the plaintiff's company to ensure future repayments in terms of the above loan agreement and they also became by virtue of said agreement of guarantee liable jointly and severally for entire due loan amount together with stipulated interest.

(c)It is further averred that the defendant No.2 has furnished her immovable property more fully described in the schedule annexed hereto in favor of the plaintiff company by deposit of the original Title deeds thereof and created an equitable mortgage thereon and the defendant No.2 has also executed a Memorandum of Deposit of Title

Deeds dated 29.10.2020 covering document No.3641 of 2020 of Sub

Registrar Office Kasibugga acknowledging the deposit of title deed in respect of the schedule mentioned property namely,

1. Original Registered Sale deed dated 13.12.1997 covering document

No.1808/1997 executed in favour of D.2.

2. True Copy of VA No.3 for Fasalies 1395 to 1407 issued by the

Tahsildar Palasa mandalam.

3. EC Dated 19,10.2020 issued by SRO Kasibugga as detailed below.

The memorandum of Deposit of title deeds dated 29.10.2020 covering document No. 204 of 2020 of Sub Registrar office Kasibugga as annexure No.6.

(d)It is further averred that on execution of aforesaid loan documents and issue of post date cheques by the defendant.No.1, the plaintiff company disbursed the loan amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- under loan agreement No.PALSA TF 2010270005

dated 27.10.2020 by way of NEFT [National Electronic Funds Transfer] in to his

Account furnished by him. As per terms and conditions the agreement, the defendant No.1 is liable to pay in 60 equated monthly installments at the rate of

Rs.15378/- to the plaintiff company.

(e)It is further averred that as per terms of the loan agreement, the defendant is liable to pay the loan amount of Rs 5,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of

Rs 27.31% Flat i.e., a total amount of Rs 9,22,680/- in 60 installments, payable on or before 10th of every month. The 1st installment being due on 10.12.2020 and the last installment being due on 10.11.2025. As per the terms of the Agreement the defendant No.1 is liable to pay interest @ 36% on the outstanding due till realization. The defendants failed to honor the terms of the loan agreement executed by them in favor of the plaintiff company, The defendant No.1 liable to pay in 60 installments, payable on or before 10th of every month. The 1st installment being due on 10.12.2020 and the last installment being due on 10.11.2025. The defendant. No.1 issued postdate cheques for repayment of aforesaid loan amount and bounced. He has not paid the dishououred cheque amounts and bank charges.

The defendant No.1 is liable to pay, as per account sheet maintained by the plaintiff company, total loan amount with over dues is Rs.9,66,291-00 . The defendant No.1 paid total amount is Rs.5,26,230/- future installments Rs.92,268/- in Total

Rs.5,32,320 payable by the 1st defendant as on 22.05.24. He committed default and breach of loan agreement.

(f)It is further averred that the plaintiff company demanded the defendants to pay the aforesaid due amount through the legal notice dated 27.12.2024. The defendants Nos.1 and 2 have refused and returned to the sender and Defendant

No.3 received the notice. However, the defendants have not paid any amount to the plaintiff company after issuing the legal notices and committed default in paying subsequent installments instead of repeated demands made by the plaintiff company. The oustanding due amount as on 22-05-2025 is Rs.5,32,320/-. Hence the suit.

3.Upon perusal of the record, it can be seen that the summons personally served to D1 to D3 and that D1 and D2 made their appearance through the counsel Sri BKRP but they did not turn up to file written statement within time and remained ex-parte. Summons to

D3 was personally served but the D3 did not turn up to attend the court and remained ex-parte.

4. To prove his contention, the Asst. Branch Manager of plaintiff company, Palasa is examined as P.W.1 and got markedExs.A1 to A14.

5.Heard the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-bank.

6.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?

7. POINT: It is the case of the plaintiff finance company that the defendant approached the plaintiff company and submitted the loan application for sanction of business Loan for his business development and the plaintiff company considered his proposal and sanctioned enterprise finance loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant. The defendant agreed to repay the said amount with interest of

Rs.4,22,680/- in 60 equal monthly installments @ Rs.15,378/- and executed necessary documents i.e., loan agreement, promissory note, etc. in that regard along with two sureties i.e., D-2 and D-3. D2 also executed deposit of title deed and furnished her immovable property covered under document No.3641/2020 of Kasibugga SRO.

Subsequently, the defendants failed to repay the loan amount. Hence, the plaintiff company issued registered notice on 27.12.2024 but the defendant did not choose to pay the said outstanding due amount as on 16.6.2025 is Rs.5,44,572/-.

8.In support of the case of plaintiff bank, the Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank was examined as P.W.1 and got marked attested copy of certificate of incorporation dated 30.11.2022 as Ex.A1, attested copy of certificate of registration issued by RBI, dated 02.02.2023 as Ex.A2,

Original loan application submitted by 1st defendant as Ex.A3, Original loan agreement submitted by the defendant as Ex.A4, Original promissory note dated 27.10.2020 as Ex.A5, certified copy of

Memorandum of Deposit of title deed dated 29.10.2020 as Ex.A6, attested copy of GPA in favour of G.Suresh asEx.A7, registered legal notice issued by the plaintiff as Ex.A8, three postal receipts as Ex.A9, postal refused returned cover from D1 as Ex.A10, postal acknowledgment of D2 as Ex.A11, postal returned cover of D3 as

Ex.A12, original computerized account sheet of loan account of defendant as Ex.A13 and certified copy of authorization letter as

Ex.A14. As can be seen from the Ex.5 promissory note that it was executed by D1 to D3 and from Ex.A6 it can be seen that D2 created equitable mortgage by depositing her title deeds towards collateral security for the debt.

9.On the other hand, in spite of sufficient opportunity is given to the defendant, the defendant did not turn up to attend the court. Hence this court set the defendant at ex-parte on 24.2.2026. The evidence of

P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 to A.14 stands unchallenged. In the absence of contrary evidence, basing on the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with

Exs.A.1 to A.14, this court is of the opinion, that the plaintiff has established his case. Hence, the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10.In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs in favour of the Plaintiff-company for Rs.5,44,572/- against D1 to D3 and schedule property which was mortgaged by D2 directing them to pay

Rs.5,44,572/- to the plaintiff company with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till date of decree and @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till date of realization. The defendants can pay the same and redeem the property within 30 days from the date of passing of preliminary decree. Failing which, the plaintiff can apply for final decree and bring the schedule property for sale for realization of the suit amount.

Directly typed to my dictation, corrected and Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. U. Madhuri

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PALASA.

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW.1: 16.03.2026 : Anem Prasada Rao - None -

Documents Marked

For PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A.1 : Attested copy of certificate incorporation, dated 30-11-2022. Ex.A.2 : Attested copy of Certificate of Registration issued by RBI, dt. 02-02-2023. Ex.A.3 : Original Loan Application submitted by the 1st defendant, dt. 27-09-2020. Ex.A.4: Original Loan agreement with schedule executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, dated 27-10-2020. Ex.A.5 : Original promissory note executed by the defendants, in favour of the plaintiff company, dt. 27-10-2020. Ex.A.6 : Certified copy of Memorandum of Deposit of title deed (Registered Mortgage deed), dated 29-10-2020. Ex.A.7 : Attested copy of GPA executed in favour of G.Suresh, dated 14-02-2023. Ex.A.8 : Original Register legal notice issued by the plaintiff company through its advocate to the defendant, dated 27-12-2024. Ex.A.9 : Original three postal receipt of the legal notice, dated 31-12- 2024. Ex.A.10 : Original Postal refused return cover of D.1, dated 02-01- 2025. Ex.A.11 : Original postal acknowledgment of D.2, dt. 11-01-2025. Ex.A.12 : Original postal return cover D,.3, dated 01-01-2025. Ex.A.13 : Original Computerized Account sheet maintained by the plaintiff company in respect of loan account of defendant,dated 22-05- 2025. Ex.A.14 : Certified copy of the authorization letter executed in favour of Anem Prasada Rao.

For DEFENDANT:- -- None --

Sd/- Smt. U. Madhuri

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PALASA.

-1-

APSR0D0025072022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 st CLASS ::

PALASA.

Present :: Smt.U.Madhuri,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PALASA

Monday, this the 27thday of April, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE No.394/2022

Between: The State Represented by Inspector of Police, SEB Palasa PS.

.… Complainant. And : Nowpada Suresh, S/o Ramarao late, Age 27 yrs, R/o Ullasapeta, Udayapuram, Palasa.

.... Accused.

This case is coming on 31-03-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant; and of Sri V Ravi, Learned Counsel for the accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

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

1.The Station House Officer, SEB, Palasa Police Station Palasa filed charge- sheet against the accused in Cr.No.06/2021, for the offence punishable under

Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

2. The averments of the charge-sheet is as follows:-

(a)The accused is the resident of Ullasapeta, Udayapuram, Palasa-Kasibugga

Municipality and the offence took place in Bhadramma Park Opposite at Ullasapeta

Road of Palasa-Kasibugga, Municiplaity, Srikakaulam Dist which lies within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. The LW1 to LW7 are the Enforcement

Personnel of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Palasa.

(b)On 07.01.2021 at about 14.15 Hrs during the route watch conducted by the

Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Palasa LW5/Smt. J Sandhya

Rani along with his staff (LW1 to LW4) at Bhadramma Park Opposite at Ullasapeta

Road of Palasa-Kasibugga, Municiplaity, Srikakaulam District the accused was found in possession of one red gunny bag contains 19 I.D.Liquor packets each with 500ml (Total:9.5 Its of I.D.Liquor) which was placed on the oil tank of motor cycle i.e., TVS Victor GL bearing Reg. No.AP30-DL-1120 while transporting. Then tried -2- for mediators, but in vain. Then LW5 verified the bonafides of the accused and also about the source of contraband and motor cycle. The LW5 drew one I.D.Liquor packet in to a paper and packed as sample for analysis purpose, affixed identity slips, seized and sealed them, and arrested the accused under cover of occurrence report drafted on the scene of offence and brought the accused along with report and property and motor cycle to the Station at 20.45 Hrs and immediately the LW5 registered a case in Cr.No.6/2021, dt.07.01.2021 u/s 7(B) r/w 8(B) of APP (Amendment) Act 2020 and the accused has been sent to remand for judicial custody.

(c)L.W.6 the S.E.B. Inspector, Palasa, Sample sent to the Chemical Examiner,

Regional S.E.B. Laboratory, Vishakhapatnam on 17.02.2021 for analysis and the

Chemical Examiner after due analysis and opined that the contents of sample is

Illicitly Distilled Liquor and Unfit for human consumption & injures to health and also issued a report vide C.E. No. 386/2021, dt.22.02.2021, Sl.No.4903 and it containing 65.4°UP, The report is herewith enclosed. The remaining property except samples destroyed on 11.06.2021 as per the orders Vide R.C.No.653/2020/SEB/SKL, dt.22.05.2021 of Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam which is here with enclosed.

Thus, it is evident that the accused is in possession of 19 I.D.Liquor packets each with 500ml, contravened the provisions of Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of APP (Amendment)

Act 2020 and hence, liable for punishment u/s 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment)

Act 2020. Hence, the Charge.

3.The charge-sheet was taken-on-file against the Accused under 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the charge-sheet and other documents were furnished to him under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and a charge was framed for the said offence, against him, read-over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 was examined, Ex’s.P1 to P4 and M.O.1 is marked.

-3-

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

Sec.313 Cr.P.C, with regard to the incriminating material available on record. She denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

7.Heard on both sides and perused the case record.

8. Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond all reasonable doubt? POINT :

9.In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined

LW.5/J.Sandhya Rani examined as PW.1 and got marked the occurrence report as

Ex.P.1, Original FIR as Ex.P.2, Letter of Advice as Ex.P.3 and Analysis Report as

Ex.P4 and one sample packet as M.O.1. The Learned APP submitted that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused by examining the Investigating

Officer coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.4 and MO.1. Hence, the accused is liable to be convicted.

10.The Learned Counsel for accused argued that the Excise people did not follow the search procedure laid down under Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C and failed to secure the mediators from the locality of the scene of offence, it is contrary to the procedure laid down under Sec.100(4)(a) of Cr.P.C and there is no evidence to show that the accused is having possession of ID liquor bottles except Ex.P1 occurrence report. He also argued that in Ex.P1 occurrence report, they did not mention the descriptive particulars and address particulars of the accused and boundaries of the scene of offence and the particulars about the place at where the

Ex.P1 report was scribed and no rough sketch was prepared and also argued that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the accused and contended that the SEB police foisted this case for statistical purpose by planting the alleged

M.O.1, as such, the Ex.P1 report cannot be relied without independent corroborating evidence and prayed the Court for acquittal of the accused.

-4-

11.Now the Court will scrutinize the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.P1 to

P4. “Whether the prosecution is able to establish the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt or not”?

12.On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the Ex.P1 occurrence report, the alleged scene of offence is at Badramma Park opposite to

Ullasapeta road. Ex.P1 report is silent with regard to the boundaries of the scene of offence. She has not prepared rough sketch and obtained photographs. P.W.1 deposed that she cannot say the boundaries of the scene of offence and that

Ullasapeta is busy locality. Though it is the case of prosecution that P.W.1 made efforts to secure the mediators but in vain, during cross examination she admitted that the names of the persons to whom they have made request to act as mediators were not noted in the occurrence report. As can be seen from the evidence of

PW.1 that she along with other police personnel were conducting raid to detect the offences, at the scene of offence at the relevant point of time and place. In such circumstances, PW.1 ought to have secure the mediators before reaching to the scene of offence, instead of securing mediators after apprehending the accused.

The prosecution has failed to establish the identification of the accused. Absolutely there is no evidence to connect the accused with the present case.

13.Though there is no legal impediment to rely upon the sole evidence of investigating officer if it inspires confidence of the Court, the investigating officer has to explain under what circumstances she had decided to conduct special proceedings and the efforts what have been made by her to secure mediators.

There is no proper explanation from P.W.1 and as to why they failed to secure the mediators either before reaching to the scene of offence or from the locality of the scene of offence. When the private person has not come forward to act as mediator, then it is the duty of the investigating officer to secure the concerned VRA or VRO or Panchayat Secretary or any Revenue officials to act as mediator by giving summons to them. Except her oral testimony that she tried to secure the presence of the mediators, the investigating officer has not placed any material

before the Court such as written summons to the concerned mediator, as such, the

oral testimony of the investigating officer with regard to the securing mediators cannot be relied upon.

-5-

14.It is the case of prosecution that basing on the confession, SEB police seized the liquor bottles from the possession of accused and arrested the accused under

Ex.P1 report, but it is well settled proposition that the SEB officials also comes within the meaning of police officer, as such, any amount of confession made by the accused during the custody of the police is hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act and moreover, there is correction of crime number and the date and name of the accused is wrongly mentioned on M.O.1. In such circumstances, this court feels that, it is not safe to come to conclusion that the accused is having possession of liquor bottles and the SEB Police seized M.O.1 from the possession of accused. In view of above discussion, the Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

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

Section 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the accused is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C, for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of Six months under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 27 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. U. Madhuri

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Palasa.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution : For Defence : P.W.1 : 24.03.2026 : J Sandhya Rani, Inspector of Police, SEB

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :- For Defence: Ex.P.1 : Occurence Report - Nil - Ex.P.2 : Original FIR Ex.P.3 : Letter of Advice Ex.P.4 : Analysis Report

Material Objects

For Prosecution:- For Defence: M.O.1 : Sample packet. - Nil -

Sd/- Smt. U. Madhuri

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Palasa.

-6-

FORM NO.72 Calendar & Judgment (for use in cases where there are more accused persons than one)

DISTRICT OF SRIKAKULAM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS, PALASA.

C.C. No.394 /2022

REPORT OR

DATE OF OFFENCE:07.01.2021COMPLAINT:07.01.2021

APPREHENSION OF

ACCUSED :07.01.2021RELEASE ON 12.01.2021 REMAND OF ACCUSED: ACCUSED :08.01.2021

COMMENCEMENT OF

TRIAL:24.03.2026CLOSE OF TRIAL:24.03.2026

SENTENCE OF

ORDER:27.04.2026

EXPLANATION OF

DELAY AND Delay due to non-production of prosecution witnesses REMARKS: JUDGMENT IN C.C:394/2022 Cr.No.06/2021 The State Represented by Inspector of Police, SEB Palasa COMPLAINANT:PS NAME, AGE, FATHER’S

NAME, RELIGION,

Nowpada Suresh, S/o Ramarao late, Age 27 yrs, R/o

CALLING, RESIDENCE

Ullasapeta, Udayapuram, Palasa.

AND TALUK OF THE

ACCUSED:

U/Sec.7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. OFFENCE:

FINDING:Found not guilty

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the accused is acquitted under SENTENCE:Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C, for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of Six months under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt. U. Madhuri

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Palasa.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble 1st Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

-1-

APSR0D0024462022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 st CLASS ::

PALASA.

Present :: Smt.U.Madhuri,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PALASA

Monday, this the 27thday of April, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE No.341/2022

Between: The State Represented by Inspector of Police, SEB Palasa PS.

.… Complainant. And : Kottapalli Chinna, S/o Surappanna (late), Age 41 yrs, R/o Near Petrol Bunk, Ward No.3 Palasa-Kasibugga Municipality, Srikakulam District.

.... Accused.

This case is coming on 31-03-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant; and of Sri V Ravi, Learned Counsel for the accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

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

1.The Station House Officer, SEB, Palasa Police Station Palasa filed charge- sheet against the accused in Cr.No.05/2021, for the offence punishable under

Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

2. The averments of the charge-sheet is as follows:-

(a)The accused is the resident of Near petrol bunk, ward No.3, Palasa-

Kasibugga Municipality and the offence took place in Front of Tallabadra Railway

Gate left side road vacant place of Palasa-Kasibugga Municipality, which lies within the jurisdiction of this Court. The LW1 to LW7 are the Enforcement Personnel of

Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Palasa.

(b)On 06.01.2021 at about 05.25 Hrs during the patrolling conducted by the Sub

Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Palasa/LW5/Smt.J.Sandhya Rani along with his staff (LW1 to LW4) at Front of Tallabadra Railway Gate left side road vacant place of Palasa-Kasibugga Municipality the accused was found in possession of white gunny bag contains 22 I.D.Liquor packets each with 250ml which was holding with his right hand heavily. Then tried for mediators, but in vain.

Then the LW5 verified the bonafides of the accused and also about the source of -2- contraband. The LW5 drew one I.D.Liquor packet with 250ml in to a paper and packed as sample for analysis purpose, affixed identity slips, seized and sealed them, and arrested the accused under cover of occurrence report drafted on the scene of offence and brought the accused along with report and property to the

Station at 10.35 Hrs and immediately the LW5 registered a case in Cr.No.5/2021, dt.06.01.2021 u/s 7(B) r/w 8(B) of APP (Amendment) Act 2020 and the accused has been sent to remand for judicial custody.

(c)L.W.6/B.V.Muralidhar, the S.E.B. Inspector, Palasa, Sample sent to the

Chemical Examiner, Regional S.E.B. Laboratory, Vishakhapatnam on 17.02.2021 for analysis and the Chemical Examiner after due analysis and opined that the content of sample is Illicitly Distilled Liquor and Unfit for human consumption & injures to health and also issued a report vide C.E. No. 386/2021, dt.22.02.2021,

Sl.No.4902 and it containing 67.7°UP, The report is herewith enclosed. The remaining property except samples destroyed on 11.06.2021 as per the orders Vide

R.C. No. 653/2020/SEB/SKL, dt.22.05.2021 of Superintendent of Police,

Srikakulam which is here with enclosed. Thus, it is evident that the accused is in possession of 22 I.D.Liquor packets each with 250ml, contravened the provisions of

Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of APP (Amendment) Act 2020 and hence, liable for punishment u/s 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020. Hence, the Charge.

3.The charge-sheet was taken-on-file against the Accused under 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the charge-sheet and other documents were furnished to him under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and a charge was framed for the said offence, against him, read-over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 was examined, Ex’s.P1 to P4 and M.O.1 is marked.

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

Sec.313 Cr.P.C, with regard to the incriminating material available on record. She -3- denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

7.Heard on both sides and perused the case record.

8. Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond all reasonable doubt? POINT :

9.In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined

LW.5/J.Sandhya Rani examined as PW.1 and got marked the occurrence report as

Ex.P.1, Original FIR as Ex.P.2, Letter of Advice as Ex.P.3 and Analysis Report as

Ex.P4 and one sample packet as M.O.1. The Learned APP submitted that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused by examining the Investigating

Officer coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.4 and MO.1. Hence, the accused is liable to be convicted.

10.The Learned Counsel for accused argued that the Excise people did not follow the search procedure laid down under Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C and failed to secure the mediators from the locality of the scene of offence, it is contrary to the procedure laid down under Sec.100(4)(a) of Cr.P.C and there is no evidence to show that the accused is having possession of ID liquor bottles except Ex.P1 occurrence report. He also argued that in Ex.P1 occurrence report, they did not mention the descriptive particulars and address particulars of the accused and boundaries of the scene of offence and the particulars about the place at where the

Ex.P1 report was scribed and no rough sketch was prepared and also argued that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the accused and contended that the SEB police foisted this case for statistical purpose by planting the alleged

M.O.1, as such, the Ex.P1 report cannot be relied without independent corroborating evidence and prayed the Court for acquittal of the accused.

11.Now the Court will scrutinize the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.P1 to

P4. “Whether the prosecution is able to establish the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt or not”?

-4-

12.On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the Ex.P1 occurrence report, the alleged scene of offence is at Tallabhadra railway gate.

Ex.P1 report is silent with regard to the boundaries of the scene of offence. She has not prepared rough sketch and obtained photographs. Though it is the case of prosecution that P.W.1 made efforts to secure the mediators but in vain, during cross examination she admitted that the names of the persons to whom they have made request to act as mediators were not noted in the occurrence report and that she cannot say the boundaries of the scene of offence and that the scene of offence is busy locality. As can be seen from the evidence of PW.1 that she along with other police personnel were conducting raid to detect the offences, at the scene of offence at the relevant point of time and place. In such circumstances,

PW.1 ought to have secure the mediators before reaching to the scene of offence, instead of securing mediators after apprehending the accused. The prosecution has failed to establish the identification of the accused. Absolutely there is no evidence to connect the accused with the present case.

13.Though there is no legal impediment to rely upon the sole evidence of investigating officer if it inspires confidence of the Court, the investigating officer has to explain under what circumstances she had decided to conduct special proceedings and the efforts what have been made by her to secure mediators.

There is no proper explanation from Pw.1 and as to why they failed to secure the mediators either before reaching to the scene of offence or from the locality of the scene of offence. When the private person has not come forward to act as mediator, then it is the duty of the investigating officer to secure the concerned VRA or VRO or Panchayat Secretary or any Revenue officials to act as mediator by giving summons to them. Except her oral testimony that she tried to secure the presence of the mediators, the investigating officer has not placed any material

before the Court such as written summons to the concerned mediator, as such, the

oral testimony of the investigating officer with regard to the securing mediators cannot be relied upon.

14.It is the case of prosecution that basing on the confession, SEB police seized the liquor bottles from the possession of accused and arrested the accused under -5-

Ex.P1 report, but it is well settled proposition that the SEB officials also comes within the meaning of police officer, as such, any amount of confession made by the accused during the custody of the police is hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act and moreover, there is correction of crime number and the date and name of the accused is wrongly mentioned on M.O.1 In such circumstances, this court feels that, it is not safe to come to conclusion that the accused is having possession of liquor bottles and the SEB Police seized M.O.1 from the possession of accused. In view of above discussion, the Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As such the accused is entitled for acquittal.

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

Section 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the accused is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C, for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of Six months under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 27 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. U. Madhuri

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Palasa.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution : For Defence : P.W.1 : 24.03.2026 : J Sandhya Rani, Inspector of Police, SEB

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :- For Defence: Ex.P.1 : Occurrence Report - Nil - Ex.P.2 : Original FIR Ex.P.3 : Letter of Advice Ex.P.4 : Analysis Report

Material Objects

For Prosecution:- For Defence: M.O.1 : Sample packet. - Nil -

Sd/- Smt. U. Madhuri

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Palasa.

-6-

FORM NO.72 Calendar & Judgment (for use in cases where there are more accused persons than one)

DISTRICT OF SRIKAKULAM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS, PALASA.

C.C. No.341 /2022

REPORT OR

DATE OF OFFENCE:06.01.2021COMPLAINT:06.01.2021

APPREHENSION OF

ACCUSED :06.01.2021RELEASE ON 12.01.2021 REMAND OF ACCUSED: ACCUSED :07.01.2021

COMMENCEMENT OF

TRIAL:24.03.2026CLOSE OF TRIAL:24.03.2026

SENTENCE OF

ORDER:27.04.2026

EXPLANATION OF

DELAY AND Delay due to non-production of prosecution witnesses REMARKS: JUDGMENT IN C.C:341/2022 Cr.No.05/2021 The State Represented by Inspector of Police, SEB Palasa COMPLAINANT:PS NAME, AGE, FATHER’S NAME, RELIGION, Kottapalli Chinna, S/o Surappanna (late), Age 41 yrs, R/o CALLING, RESIDENCE Near Petrol Bunk, Ward No.3 Palasa-Kasibugga Municipality, AND TALUK OF THE Srikakulam District. ACCUSED:

U/Sec.7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. OFFENCE:

FINDING:Found not guilty

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the accused is acquitted under SENTENCE:Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C, for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of Six months under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt. U. Madhuri

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Palasa.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble 1st Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.