Smt. V. Deepthi, JCJ, Gooty

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: GOOTY

Present: Smt. V.Deepthi,

Junior Civil Judge

Tuesday, the 13th day of December, 2022

Original Suit No.129 of 2018

Between:-

Sree Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Rep.by its Branch Manager, Gooty Branch, Anantapuramu District. ..Plaintif

Vs.

1.Hanumanthagari Chandrasekhar Rao, S/o H. Nagula, Hindu, Major, Business, Residing at D.No.10/449, Mulla Mydanam, Near Kurba Street, Gooty village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

2.Hanumanthagari Sampath Kumar, S/o Dharmaraju, Hindu, Major, Business, Residing at D.No.9/230, Near Old C.I., Bunglaw, Gooty village, Gooty mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

... Defendants

This suit was presented before me on this day i.e. 13.12.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Parameswara Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K.Manohar Babu, Advocate for defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Suit for recovery of Rs.37,312/- being the principal and interest due on memorandum of agreement dated 19.04.2012 for Rs.50,000/- executed by the defendant No.1 and on guarantee agreement executed by defendant

No.2 in favour of the plaintiff bank with interest at the rate of 13% per annum, for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff bank for financial accommodation of Rs.50,000/- towards his business advance loan and accordingly the plaintiff bank after due scrutiny sanctioned an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 19.04.2012 to the defendant No.1 vide loan Account No.PFTL 91008101469. The defendant

No.2 stood as guarantor to the loan sanctioned to the 1st defendant and the 2 defendant No.1 executed an memorandum of agreement and acknowledgement of debt in favour of plaintiff bank agreeing to repay the loan amount together with interest at 13% per annum or at such other rates as may be decided by the Bank from time to time and further agreed to abide by all the terms and conditions of the loan transaction and the defendant No.2 executed deed of guarantee for memorandum of agreement in favour of plaintiff bank. The defendant No.1 also acknowledged the debt of loan on 14.03.2015. Hence the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the said loan amount. Inspite of repeated demands made by the officials of plaintiff bank, the defendants did not repay the amount due to the bank and hence the plaintiff bank got issued legal notice dated 06.11.2017 to the defendants requiring them to pay the loan amount and said notices were served on the defendants, but the defendants failed to repay the loan amount due as agreed and there is an outstanding liability of Rs.37,312/- as on 28.02.2018 payable by the defendants to the plaintiff bank which includes interest calculated as per the contract rate till 28.02.2018. Hence the suit.

3. On the other hand the defendants filed written statement by admitting that 1st defendant obtained loan amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff's bank towards business advance on 19.04.201.2012 and the 2nd defendant stood as guarantor to the said loan sanctioned to the 1st defendant and they agreed to repay the said loan amount together with interest at 13% per annum with monthly rest or at such other rates as may be decided by the bank from time to time as per the directions of the

Reserve bank of India. Defendants further submitted that in pursuance of the execution of documents executed by them the financial assistance was granted to the defendants and they agreed for all the terms stipulated in the agreement. The defendant No.2 being the guarantor also agreed and abide 3 all terms and conditions and stood as guarantor to the defendant No.1 and hence both the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the said loan amount to the plaintiff's bank. Defendants denied the allegations that inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff's bank, they failed to repay the loan amount and 1st defendant has not paid the amount due to the plaintiff's bank and further submitted that 1st defendant asked the plaintiff bank to furnish the loan particulars and payments made by him, but the bank authorities had not furnished the same and it is the right of the defendants to know the facts of loan particulars, but intentionally the bank authorities had not furnished the account extract of defendants. Plaintiff bank has not shown the calculation of loan particulars and loan statement filed by the plaintiff bank is not in proper way and 1st defendant had paid some part amounts to the plaintiff bank and said payments are not shown in the plaint and nominally mentioned that 1st defendant is due to the plaintiff bank and further submitted that suit is barred by limitation and defendants are not in position to pay the suit amount and are having means to repay the suit debt amount within the time and hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the documents relied upon by the plaintiff bank are true, valid and binding on the defendants?

2. Whether defendant No.1 made part payment towards loan amount?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

4. Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendants, as prayed for?

5. If so what relief?

5. Heard on both sides. Perused the record.

4

6.In support of contention of the plaintiff, the present Branch Manager got examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. Ex.A1 is original

Memorandum of agreement executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff bank, Ex.A2 is original stamp receipt signed by the 1st defendant, Ex.A3 is acknowledgement of debt executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff bank, Ex.A4 is the office copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendants, Ex.A5 is the acknowledgements (2 in number) and

Ex.A6 is the statement of account. On behalf of defendants no oral or documentary evidence adduced. Hence defendants side evidence is closed.

7. Issue No.1 to 3:-

As issues No.1 to 3 are related to each other, they are discussed commonly in order to avoid repetition of pleadings of the plaint, evidence and discussion.The version of the plaintiff bank is that defendant No.1 took a loan for business advance from the bank for an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 19.04.2012 vide loan Account No. PFTL 91008101469 and executed an memorandum of agreement by agreeing to repay the said amount with an interest at 13% per annum or at such other rates as may be decided by the

Bank from time to time and also agreed to abide the terms and conditions of the plaintiff bank and defendant No.2 stood as guarantor to defendant No.1 and executed guarantee agreement dated 19.04.2012, but the defendants failed to repay the loan amount to the bank inspite of repeated demands made by the officials of the bank and the plaintiff bank got issued legal notice to the defendants on 06.11.2017 by requiring them to pay the loan amount and said notices were also served on the defendants, but the defendants did not come forward to pay the same and hence filed this suit.

8.To prove the contention of plaintiff bank, the present Bank Manager was examined as PW.1 on behalf of plaintiff bank and got marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 on his behalf. PW.1 deposed consistently on par with the limes of 5 pleadings in the plaint. Ex.A1 is the original memorandum of agreement executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff bank for Rs.50,000/- dated 19.04.2012, which clearly shows that defendant No.1 took loan amount from the plaintiff bank for an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 19.04.2012. Original original stamp receipt executed by defendants on 19.04.2012, which shows that defendant No.1 took loan amount from the plaintiff bank and defendant

No.2 stood as guarantor to defendant No.1 for Rs.50,000/-. Ex.A3 is the original acknowledgement of debt executed by defendants in favour of the plaintiff bank dated 14.03.2015, which clearly shows that defendant No.1 has renewed the crop loan by acknowledging the debt and Ex.A3 clearly shows that the limitation period was renewed from 14.03.2015. As the suit filed on 14.03.2018, which clearly shows that the suit is within limitation and it is not barred by limitation. Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 clearly shows that the defendants No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said loan amount. Ex.A6 is the account extract issued by the plaintiff bank, which shows the outstanding due amount as Rs.37,312/- i.e. suit amount. Ex.A4 is the office copy of legal notice issued to defendants. On perusal of Ex.A4 it is seen that it is Xerox copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff bank to defendants, which is inadmissible evidence and so not considered. Ex.A5 is the postal acknowledgment card pertaining to defendants, which clearly shows that the legal notices sent to defendants No.1 and 2 are served on them and inspite of issuing legal notice to them, they did not come forward and hence the plaintiff bank filed the present suit in order to recover the loan amount.

9.On the other hand defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement by admitting the execution of memorandum of agreement for Rs.50,000/- and acknowledgement of debt in favour of plaintiff bank and denied the allegations made against them by the plaintiff bank that 1st defendant had 6 paid some part amounts to the plaintiff bank and said payments are not shown in the plaint and nominally mentioned that 1st defendant is due to the plaintiff bank and plaintiff bank has not shown the calculation of loan particulars and loan statement filed by the plaintiff bank is not in proper way and suit is barred by limitation. Except taking mere plea that they paid some part of amounts to the plaintiff bank, the defendants did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf to prove their case. Here the

Defendants have admitted the execution of Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 by them. If the 1st defendant paid some part of payments under Ex.A1, then what prevented him from filing the documentary proof to show that he paid some part of payments by adducing evidence on their behalf. Ample opportunity given by this court to the defendants to adduce the evidence, but they did not come forward and so their evidence was closed.

10.At this stage, this court would like to rely upon the AIR 1999 SC 1441 in between Vidhyadar vs Manikya Rao and another, wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme court held that "where a party to the suit does not appear

into the witness box and state its own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examine by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in series of decision passed by various high courts and the privy council. Moreover, if the party abstains from entering into the witness box, it will give raise to an inference adverse against him".

11. In the instant case, defendants failed to enter into the witness box and state their own case and did not offer to be cross examined by the other side. On relying the above judgment, adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant.

12. From all the observations made, this court is of the view that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that defendant No.1 has took loan for an 7 amount of Rs.50,000/- on 19.04.2012 and executed Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff bank and defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for the same and executed Ex.A3 on the same day and said loan was renewed on 14.03.2015 by the defendants and hence suit is within limitation and the defendants failed to prove that they paid some part of payments to the plaintiff bank and said payments are not shown in the account extract and hence these issues are answered in favour of plaintiff bank and against defendants No.1 and 2.

13. Issue No.4:-

In view of my finding given in issue No.1 to 3, this court is of the view that plaintiff bank is entitled to claim the suit amount basing on memorandum of agreement and hence this issue is also answered in favour of plaintiff bank and against the defendants No.1 and 2.

14. Issue No.5:-

In view of my pleadings on issues No.1 to 4, this suit is to be decreed with costs as prayed for.

In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff bank and against defendants, by directing the defendants to pay adjudged amount of Rs.37,312/- with future interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.37,312/- from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 14.03.2018 till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13th day of December, 2022.

Sd/- Smt.V.Deepthi

Junior Civil Judge Gooty Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Plaintiff: Defendants:

P.W.1: T.Subramanyam -Nil- 8

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original Memorandum of agreement executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff bank for Rs.50,000/-, Ex.A2: Original stamp receipt signed by the 1st defendant Ex.A3: Acknowledgement debt executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff bank, Ex.A4: Office copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendants Ex.A5: Acknowledgements (2 in number) Ex.A6: Statement of account.

Exhibits marked for Defendants: -NIL-

Sd/- Smt.V.Deepthi

Jr.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

GOOTY

Present:Smt. V. Deepthi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty

Monday, the 15th day of April, 2024

C.C.522 of 2017

Between: State rep. by the Inspector of police, Gooty Police station.

… Complainant.

And

A1:Nagadani Siva, aged 29 years S/o Late Naganna, R/o D.No.7/205, SC colony, Gooty Town. A2:Palyam Kupendra Reddy, aged 35 years S/o Hanumantha Reddy, R/o D.No.68, 20th ward, Renukacharya Nagar, Bellary District, Karnataka State. ….A1 and A2 * * * * * *

This case is coming on 15.04.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and

Sri S. Jakir Hussain, Advocate for A1 and A2 and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

Judgment.

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of police, Gooty Police station filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.268 of 2017 for the offences punishable U/secs.420, 406, 120(B) r/w 34 IPC and Sec.9(1) of A.P. Gaming Act (Matka) against A1 and A2.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are that A1 is the resident of Gooty Town and lives by coolie and decided to earn money by writing matka and met A2, who is running matka company at Bellary and A2 told A1 that he will give commission of Rs.30/- per Rs.100/- and since then A1 started writing matka by inducing people to get more money if they pay Re.1/- and would get Rs.80/- by way of matka and cheated them by misappropriated their amount by conspiring each other. While so on 03.11.2017 at about 6.00PM, while A1 was writing matka at foot ball ground, Gooty Town, LW13-N.

Prabhakar, Inspector of police, Gooty Police Station along with his staff 2 arrested A1 and seized cash of Rs.2,170/-, matka chits and ball pen from the possession of A1.

3.Basing on the said mahazarnama, LW13-N. Prabhakar, Inspector of police, Gooty Police registered a case in Cr.No.268 of 2017 for the offences punishable U/secs.420, 406, 120(B) r/w 34 IPC and section 9(1) of of Andhra

Pradesh Gaming Act of Gooty police station. On 07.11.2017 at 10.30AM, he arrested A2 under the cover of Mahazarnama in the presence of mediators and seized cash of Rs.2,79,050/-, one samsung J5 mobile phone from the possession of A2. Subsequently, he served notice u/sec. 41-A Cr.P.C to A1 and A2 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against A1 and A2.

4.Cognizance taken against A1 and A2 under for the offences punishable u/secs. 420, 406, 120(B) r/w 34 IPC and Sec.9(1) of A.P. Gaming Act (Matka).

5. On 12.04.2018, on appearance of A1 and A2 before the Court, copies of documents furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.PC.

6. Accused A1 and A2 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C by putting substance of accusation for the offences punishable u/secs. 420, 406, 120(B) r/w 34 IPC and Sec.9(1) of A.P. Gaming Act (Matka) and charges were framed under section 420, 406, 120(B) r/w 34 IPC and Sec.9(1) of A.P.

Gaming Act (Matka) against A1 and A2, the substance of accusation read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the said offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution, LW1, LW3, LW4, LW5 and LW13 were examined as PWs1 to 5 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and MOs1 to MO7. Pws1 to 3 who acted as mediators at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of property. PW4 and PW5 are the investigating officers. Exs.P1 to P3 are the signatures of PWs1 to 3 in confession, arrest and seizure Mahazarnamas, dt.03.11.2017, dt.07.11.2017 respectively.

Ex.P4 is the arrest, confession and seizure Mahazarnama, dt.03.11.2017.

Ex.P5 is the FIR in Crime No.268 of 2017 of Gooty police station. Ex.P6 is the 3 arrest, confession and seizure Mahazarnama, dt.07.11.2017. MO1 is the cash of Rs.2,170/-. MO2 is the one ball point pen. MO3 is the Nokia Chellphone

Model RM1110. MO4 is the cash of Rs.2,79,050/-. MO5 is the one ball point pen. MO6 is the one Matka chit and MO7 is the one samsung J5 model cell phone.

8.After closing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, A1 and A2 were examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material appeared from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

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

10. Now the points for determination are :

1) Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of A1

and A2 for the offence punishable U/sec. 420 r/w 34 IPC, beyond all

reasonable doubts?

2) Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of A1

and A2 for the offence punishable U/sec. 406 IPC, beyond all

reasonable doubts?

3) Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of A1

and A2 for the offence punishable U/sec. 120(B) IPC, beyond all

reasonable doubts?

4) Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of A1

and A2 for the offence punishable U/sec. Sec.9(1) of A.P. Gaming Act

beyond all reasonable doubts?

11. POINTs No.1 to 4:

In the present case PWs1 to 3 are punch witnesses. PW4 and PW5 are the police officials. PWs1 to 3 turned hostile completely and did not support the case of prosecution. PWs1 to 3 deposed that police obtained their signatures at the police station and they did not act as mediators in this case and they do not know anything about the case facts. Learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor failed to elicit any facts from the mouth of PWs1 to 3 in support of their case.

4

12. At this juncture this court inclined to rely upon Abbulu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Hon'ble A.P. High court held that "panch witness had turned hostile and as such, the seizure of incriminating material is not proved. The further evidence by the members of raiding party, in the absence of corroboration from the panch witness, would not be acceptable." 13Upon relying said judgment, this court is of the view that in the present case both the mediators turned hostile and so the seizure of property from the possession of accused was not proved by the prosecution and the evidence of PW4 and PW5 is not corroborated by PWs1 to 3 and hence evidence of PW4 and PW5 cannot be relied upon.

14. Further in Megha Seen Vs State of Haryana (AIR 1995 SC 2339), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme court held that “when investigation officer happened to be the complainant that it would be perhaps be difficult to uphold the position that the investigation was impartial”.

15.On relying the above said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court and in view of the above observation made, this court is of the view that

PW5 examined herein is interested witness who prepared Ex.P4 and Ex.P6 mahazarnama and registered FIR and done investigation. He can be said to be witness interested in the result of the case projected by him. Further his evidence is not credible and trustworthy and did not inspires confidence of this court and there may be a chance of becoming partial in proving their case. Further it is highly doubtful whether really the incriminating material was seized from the possession of accused.

16.Further the confession recorded by PW5 in Ex.P4 and Ex.P6 are hit by section 25, 27 of Indian Evidence Act, as laid by the Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh in S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs state of A.P. (Supra).

In view of all the above observations made, this court is of the view that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offences under section 420, 406 and 120(B) r/w 34 IPC and Sec.9(1) of A.P. Gaming Act 5 beyond all reasonable doubt and hence benefit of doubt should be given to

A1 and A2. Accordingly, point No.1 to 4 are answered against the prosecution.

17. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/secs. 420, 406 120(B) r/w 34 IPC and Sec.9(1) of A.P. Gaming

Act, and thereby they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall stands canceled after six months from the date of this judgment.

MO1 cash of Rs.2,170/- and MO4 cash of Rs.2,79,050/- shall be returned to A1 and A2 respectively after expiry of appeal time. MO2, MO5, MO6 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. MO3 Nokia Cellphone Model

RM1110 and MO7 One samsung J5 Model cell phone shall be returned to A1 and A2 respectively after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 15th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- Smt. V. Deepthi

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gooty

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution

PW1:Shaik Nazeer. PW2:C.P. Prabhakar. PW3:P. Shankar Mahadev. PW4:H. Ravi, the then police constable Gooty police station. PW5:N. Prabhakar, the then Inspector of police, Gooty police station.

Defence

NIL

Exhibits marked for the Prosecution

Ex.P1:Signature of PW1 in confession, arrest and seizure Mahazarnama, dt.03.11.2017. Ex.P2:Signature of PW2 in confession, arrest and seizure Mahazarnama, dt.03.11.2017 Ex.P3:Signature of PW3 in confession, arrest and seizure Mahazarnama, 6 dt.03.11.2017 Ex.P4:Arrest, confession and seizure Mahazarnama, dt.03.11.2017. Ex.P5:FIR in Crime No.268 of 2017 of Gooty police station. Ex.P6:Arrest, confession and seizure Mahazarnama, dt.07.11.2017.

Exhibits marked for the Defence

NIL

Material objects marked on behalf of

Prosecution

MO1: Cash of Rs.2,170/-.

MO2: One ball point pen.

MO3: Nokia Chellphone Model RM1110.

MO4: Cash of Rs.2,79,050/-.

MO5: One ball point pen.

MO6: One Matka chit. MO7: One samsung J5 model cell phone.

Defence NIL

Sd/- Smt. V. Deepthi

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gooty

True copy

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gooty 7

CALENDAR CASES TRIED

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, GOOTY

CALENDAR CASE No.522 of 2017

Complainant : Sub Inspector of police, Gooty Police Station. Crime No.268 of 2017 of Gooty Police Station.

A1:Nagadani Siva, aged 29 years S/o Late Naganna, R/o D.No.7/205, SC colony, Gooty Town. A2:Palyam Kupendra Reddy, aged 35 years S/o Hanumantha Reddy, R/o D.No.68, 20th ward, Renukacharya Nagar, Bellary District, Karnataka State.

Date of Report or Appearanc Released Commenc Close of Sentence

Offence Complaint e/ on bail ement of trial Order

Apprehensi trial

on of accused 03.11.2017 03.11.2017 12.04.201812.04.201826.05.2022 26.09.202315.04.2024 (No detention)

Offence :-offences punishable under sections 353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Finding :- Found not guilty. Sentence of Order:- In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/secs. 420, 406 120(B) r/w 34 IPC and Sec.9(1) of A.P. Gaming Act, and thereby they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall stands canceled after six months from the date of this judgment.

MO1 cash of Rs.2,170/- and MO4 cash of Rs.2,79,050/- shall be returned to A1 and A2 respectively after expiry of appeal time. MO2, MO5, MO6 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. MO3 Nokia Cellphone Model

RM1110 and MO7 One samsung J5 Model cell phone shall be returned to A1 and A2 respectively after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt. V. Deepthi

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Gooty

Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu. True copy

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gooty

8

DIS.No.253, Dt.19.04.2024.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: GOOTY

Present: Smt. V.Deepthi,

Junior Civil Judge

Tuesday, the 13th day of December, 2022

Original Suit No.120 of 2019

Between:-

M.Sreenivasulu, S/o Maila Pedda Sunkanna, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Agriculture, Resident of Ubicherla village, Gooty mandal, Anantapuramu District. ...Plaintif

Vs.

C.Obilesu, S/o Chetnepalli Adinarayana, aged about 36 years, Hindu, Business, Resident of Ubicherla village, Gooty mandal, Anantapuramu

District. ...Defendant

This suit was presented before me on this day i.e. 13.12.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.V.Thimma Reddy, Advocate for the plaintif and of Sri C.Sathyanarayana and Sri A.Suryanarayana, Advocates for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Suit for recovery of Rs.68,533/- being the principal and interest due on suit promissory note dt:20.04.2016 for Rs.40,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2. The contention of plaintif is that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.40,000/- on 20-04-2016 from the plaintif for his family necessities and he executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintif on the same day agreeing to repay said amount with interest at 24% per annum. The plaintif made several oral demands on the defendant for repayment of debt amount, but the defendant did not pay any amount. The defendant is not an agriculturist and he is not entitled to the benefits under Madras Act IV 1938 and Agricultural Relief Acts. Hence interest is claimed at contract rate.

2

3. The defendant contested the case after receiving summons. The defendant filed his written statement and he denied the material allegations made against him by the plaintif in the plaint. The defendant further submitted that the first two lines of writing in suit promissory note is diferent and the remaining promissory note writing is diferent and in the suit promissory note of 6th line is mentioned as Adinarayana S/o Obilesu and plaintif filed the above suit that Obilesu was borrowed the amount from the plaintif, but as per the suit promissory note Adinarayana is the borrower and Obilesu was not borrower. The defendant further submitted that plaintif, scribe and attestor are strangers to the defendant and with the help of scribe and attestor the plaintif fabricated the suit promissory note for unlawful gain and plaintif has no capacity to lend such huge amount claimed in this suit and plaintif brought up the suit promissory note with forgery signature for unlawful gain with the help of scribe and attestor and executed their help in bringing up the forgery suit promissory note against the defendant. The defendant is getting good income which is sufficient to maintain himself and his family and he has no necessity to borrow amounts from the others or plaintif and the signatures on the suit promissory note is forgery signature and hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the promissory note is forged document?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled to claim the suit amount basing on the suit promissory note?

3. If so what relief?

5. Heard on both sides. Perused the records available and the evidence.

6. In support of his case, plaintif himself got examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1. Plaintif also examined the scribe of suit promissory note as 3

PW.2. Ex.A1 is suit promissory note dated 20-04-2016 for Rs.40,000/-. On behalf of defendant, the defendant himself examined as DW.1 and no exhibits got marked.

7. Issue No.1:

The case of the plaintif is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/- from the plaintif on 20.04.2016 and executed suit promissory note by agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% p.a., and defendant did not pay the amount even though several demands made by the plaintif.

8.In support of his contention, the plaintif himself examined as PW1 and reiterated the case in his chief affidavit on par with the pleadings. The contention of PW.1 is supported by Ex.A1, which clearly shows that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/- from the plaintif on 20.04.2016 and executed suit promissory note for an interest of 24% per annum. In the cross examination PW.1 deposed consistently and supported his case and the defendant failed to elicit any fact in support of his case and failed to prove that Ex.A1 is a forged document. Further PW2 who is the scribe of Ex.A1 also well corroborated the evidence of PW.1 and learned defendant’s counsel failed to elicit any facts from the mouths of PW.1, PW.2 to support his case and failed to prove that Ex.A1 is fabricated by forging his signatures of defendant.

9.To support the contention of defendant, the defendant himself examined as DW.1 and reiterated the case in his chief affidavit on par with the contents of his written statement. In the cross examination he admitted that he admitted that his father name is Adinarayana. The main contention of defendant is that in suit promissory note the handwriting in first two lines is diferent and handwriting in the remaining part of promissory note is diferent and in the 6th line of promissory note it is written as Adinarayana 4

S/o Obulesu and so as per the promissory note one Adinarayana is the borrower and Obulesu is not borrower of suit promissory note and it is brought up by the plaintif with the help of scribe and attestor by forging the signature of defendant. Defendant further submitted that he is getting good income which sufficient to maintain his family and he has no necessity to borrow amount from others or from the plaintif. In support of his contention the defendant failed to elicit any fact from the mouths of PW.1 and PW.2.

Except the defendant, none others were examined on behalf of defendant.

Here the defendant has taken the forgery plea by stating that his signature was forged by the plaintif with the help of attestor and scribe. If really plaintif fabricated Ex.A1 by forging the signature of defendant, then the defendant should have taken steps by sending the suit promissory note i.e.

Ex.A1 along with his contemporaneous signatures to the expert for comparison and in order to prove his case, but defendant did not take any such steps. He is contending as per Ex.A1 that the borrower is the son of

Obulesu and he is not the borrower. If really Adinarayana was a borrower of suit promissory note amount, then said Adinarayana should have signed in

Ex.A1, but Obulesu has not signed in Ex.A1 and there is no material alteration at the signature portion of the executant and no money lender will give money to one person and write other person name in the promissory note and will obtain the signature of that other person as the borrower in the promissory note. Simply because there is a small alteration at the portion of son, the defendant has taken objection that it is not son and it is

S/o.

10.Further DW.1 deposed in his cross examination that signature present in the suit summons does not belongs to him and signature present in vakalath belongs to him and signature present in written statement belongs to him and signature present in Ex.A1 does not belongs to him. If really the 5 signature present in suit summons does not belongs to the defendant, then how the defendant is able to get knowledge about filing of the suit by the plaintif against him was not explained. Even if we assume that some other person by name Obulesu has received summons, then that person should have appeared before this court, but why this defendant appeared before this court on the first date of adjournment and filed the vakalath on his behalf was not explained. Without getting knowledge about filing of this suit against him and without getting knowledge of the date of first adjournment, how the defendant can able to dream that the present suit is filed against him was not explained. No person will come to the court simply and contest the case by assuming that case may be filed against him. Hence the evidence deposed by the defendant that the signature present in the suit summons does not belongs to him is highly suspicious and itself shows the conduct of defendant. Further on perusal of suit summons, vakalath, written statement and the deposition of defendant, it is seen that in suit summons, vakalath and in his deposition the defendant kept his signature as "C.Obulesu". Whereas in the written statement and in Ex.A1 he kept his signature as only "Obulesu", but defendant denied his signature in Ex.A1, but both signatures appears to be similar and there is no variation in his signature in written statement and in Ex.A1 and so, the plaintif succeeded in proving that Ex.A1 was executed by the defendant and the defendant failed in proving that the signature in Ex.A1 is the forged signature. In view of all the observations made, this court opined that defendant borrowed

Rs.40,000/- from the plaintif and executed Ex.A1 in favour of plaintif. Hence this issue is answered in favour of plaintif and against the defendant.

11. Issue No.2:-

In view of my finding on issue No.1, the plaintif is entitled for recovery of suit amount basing on suit promissory note with an interest at 24% per 6 annum. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of plaintif and against the defendant.

12. Issue No.3:

In view of my finding on issues No.1 and 2, the suit is to be decreed with costs as prayed for.

In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintif, directing the defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs.68,533/- (Rupees sixty eight thousand five hundred and thirty three only), with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.40,000/- on suit promissory note from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 16.04.2019 till the date of the decree and further interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13th day of December, 2022.

Sd/- Smt.V.Deepthi

Junior Civil Judge Gooty Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Plaintif: Defendant:

P.W.1: M.Sreenivasulu DW.1: C. Obilesu PW.2: P.Venkataramudu

Exhibits marked for Plaintif:

Ex.A1: Suit promissory note dated 20.04.2016 for Rs.40,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif

Exhibits marked for Defendant: -NIL-

Sd/- Smt.V.Deepthi

Jr.C.J.

1

N THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: GOOTY

Present:Smt. V. Deepthi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty

Tuesday, the 16th day of April, 2024

CALENDAR CASE No.867 of 2022

Between: State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Gooty.

… Complainant.

And

Eslavath Hemla Naik S/o E. Badde Naik, aged 38 years R/o Bata Thanda village, Thuggali Mandal, Kurnool district.

....Accused

* * * * *

This case is coming on 16.04.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri A. Suryanarayana, Advocate for the accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

Judgment.

J U D G M E N T

1. The Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Gooty filed charge sheet in Crime No.259 of 2020 for the offence punishable under section 7-A read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 of

Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Gooty against the accused.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case is that on 12.11.2020 at 4.30 hours on credible information, LW5-T. Suseelamma, Enforcement Sub

Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Gooty her staff along with mediators conducting vehicle checking at cross road, Bethapalli Village,

Gooty Mandal and found the accused was coming by carrying a white coloured polythene bag and on noticing the police, the accused tried to escape from that place but in vain and on due search of the said bag they found 3 plastic covers each having 5 litres and in total 15 litres of ID Arrack 2 and collected 180 ML of ID Arrack as sample for chemical analysis and seized remaining ID Arrack under the cover of Panchanama.

3.Basing on the said Panchanama, LW5-T. Suseelamma, Enforcement sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Gooty, registered the case in Crime No.259 of 2020 for the offence punishable under section 7-A read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 of Special

Enforcement Bureau Station, Gooty against the accused. Subsequently, she produced the accused before this Court for judicial custody.

4.Chemical Examiner for Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor examined the seized sample and issued report vide CE No.1850/2020, dt.15.12.2020 opining that the sample was illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Thus, the accused committed the offence punishable under section 7-A read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act, 1995.

5.The Court took cognizance against the accused for the offencec punishable under section 7-A read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition

Act, 1995.

6. On 14.09.2022, on appearance of the accused, copies of documents furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973.

7. On 18.11.2022, the accused was examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for which he denied. After hearing both sides and on considering the entire record, the charge for the offence punishable under section 7-A read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 was framed against the accused. The said charge was read-over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.

3

8. During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution, LW1, LW2 and LW5 were examined as PWs1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 besides MO1.

The prosecution has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses.

9.After closing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the incriminating material appeared from the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

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

11. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under section 7-A read with 8(e)

of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable

doubts?

12 POINT:

In the present case PW1 and PW2 are punch witnesses. PW3 is the police official. PW1 and PW2 turned hostile completely and did not support the case of prosecution. PW1 and PW2 deposed that police obtained their signatures at the police station and they did not act as mediators in this case and they do not know anything about the case facts. Learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor failed to elicit any facts from the mouths of PW1 and PW2 in support of their case.

13. At this juncture this court inclined to rely upon Abbulu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Hon'ble A.P. High court held that "punch witness had turned hostile and as such, the seizure of incriminating material is not proved. The further evidence by the members of raiding party, in the absence of corroboration from the panch witness, would not be acceptable."

14.Upon relying said judgment, this Court is of the view that in the present case both the mediators turned hostile and so the seizure of I.D 4 arrack from the possession of the accused was not proved by the prosecution and the evidence of PW3 is not corroborated by PW1 and PW2 and hence evidence of PW3 cannot be relied upon.

15. Further in Megha Seen Vs State of Haryana (AIR 1995 SC 2339), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme court held that “when investigation officer happened to be the complainant that it would be perhaps be difficult to uphold the position that the investigation was impartial”.

16.On relying the above said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of the above observation made, this Court is of the view that

PW3 examined herein are interested witnesses who prepared Ex.P3

Panchanama and registered FIR and done investigation. They can be said to be witnesses interested in the result of the case projected by them. Further their evidence is not credible and trustworthy and did not inspires confidence of this Court and there may be a chance of becoming partial in proving their case. Further it is highly doubtful whether really the liquor was seized from the possession of the accused.

17.Further the Panchanama recorded by PW3 in Ex.P3 is hit by section 25, 27 of Indian Evidence Act, as laid by the Hon’ble High court of

Andhra Pradesh in S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs state of A.P. (Supra). In view of all the above observations made, this Court is of the view that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubts and hence benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7-A read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

Therefore, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 for the said offence and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of 5 the accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 16th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- Smt. V. Deepthi

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gooty

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution

PW1:P. Obulesu. PW2:B. Lalu Naik. PW3:T. Suseelamma, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau Station Gooty.

Defence

NIL

Exhibits marked for the Prosecution

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 in panchayatinama, dt.12.11.2020.

Ex.P2: Signature of PW2 in panchayatinama, dt.12.11.2020.

Ex.P3: Panchayatinama, dt.12.11.2020.

Ex.P4: First Information Report in Crime No.259 of 2020 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Gooty.

Ex.P5: Chemical analysis report.

Ex.P6: Attested copy of destruction proceedings.

Exhibits marked for the Defence

NIL

Material objects marked on behalf of

ProsecutionDefence MO1: 180ml sample containing IDNIL arrack.

Sd/- Smt. V. Deepthi

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gooty

True copy

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gooty

6

CALENDAR CASES TRIED

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, GOOTY

CALENDAR CASE No.867 of 2022

Complainant : Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Gooty. Crime No.259 of 2020 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Gooty.

Eslavath Hemla Naik S/o E. Badde Naik, aged 38 years R/o Bata Thanda village, Thuggali Mandal, Kurnool district.

Date of Report or Appearanc Released Commenc Close of Sentence

Offence Complaint e/ on bail ement of trial Order

Apprehensi trial

on of accused 12.11.2020 12.11.2020 12.11.202017.11.202018.08.2023 22.02.202416.04.2024

Offence :-offence punishable under section 7-A read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

Finding :- Found not guilty.

Sentence of Order:- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7-A read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

Therefore, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 for the said offence and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt. V. Deepthi

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Gooty

Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

True copy

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gooty

DIS.No.867, Dt.19.04.2024.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: GOOTY

Present: Smt. V. Deepthi,

Junior Civil Judge

Friday, the 12th day of April, 2024

Original Suit No.194 of 2019

Between:- R. Anjineyulu Naik S/o R. Ramudu Naik, Hindu, aged about 35 years, Cultivation, R/o Palyam Thanda village, Pamidi Mandal, Anantapuramu District. ..Plaintif

And

R. Chandra Sekhar Naik S/o R. Ramudu Naik, Hindu, aged about 30 years, Business, R/o Palyam Thanda village, Pamidi Mandal, Anantapuramu District. … Defendant

* * * * *

This suit came before me on 12.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Jakir Hussain, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri T. Dhanunjaya, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Suit for recovery of Rs.1,08,318/- being the principal and interest due suit promissory note for Rs.63,000/- dt.27.06.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.63,000/- dt.27.06.2016 from the plaintiff for his family necessities and executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum. The plaintiff made several oral demands on the defendant demanding him to repay the debt amount covered under suit promissory notes, but the defendant has not made any amount. The defendant is not an agriculturist and he is not entitled to the benefits under Madras Act IV 1938 and

Agricultural Relief Acts. Hence interest is claimed at contract rate.

3. The defendant contested the case after receiving summons. The defendant filed his written statement and he denied the material allegations 2 made against him by the plaintiff in the plaint. The defendant further submitted that the plaintiff brought up the suit promissory note with forged signatures of the defendant with an intention to take vengeance and the suit promissory note is a rank forged document. The plaintiff manufactured the forged promissory note against the defendant with an ulterior motive. The defendant has no necessity to borrow the amount from the plaintiff as contended in the plaint and the plaintiff has no capacity to lend the amount to others and there is no cause of action and cause of action set out in the plaint is fabricated for the purpose of this suit and hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the suit promissory note, dt.27.06.2016 is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

2. Whether the signature of the defendant in suit promissory note is a forged one ?

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

4. If so what relief?

5. Heard on both sides.

6.In support of contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined as

PW1 and got marked Ex.A1. PW1 also examined the attestors of suit promissory note as PW2 and PW3 respectively and scribe of Ex.A1 as PW4.

Ex.A1 is suit promissory note dated 27.06.2016 for Rs.63,000/-. On behalf of defendant, the defendant filed his chief affidavit and examined in chief and did not enter into the witness box for his cross examination. Hence, the evidence of defendant was eschewed and no oral or documentary evidence adduced on his behalf. Hence defendant side evidence is closed.

7. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff. Perused the records available and the evidence.

8. Issue No.1 to 3:-

As issues No.1 to 3 are related to each other, they are discussed commonly in order to avoid repetition of pleadings of the plaint, evidence 3 and discussion. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.63,000/- on 27.06.2016 from the plaintiff and executed suit promissory note by agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and defendant did not pay the amount even though several demands made by the plaintiff.

9.In support of his contention, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and reiterated the case in his chief affidavit on par with the pleadings. The contention of PW.1 is supported by Ex.A1 which clearly shows that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.63,000/- on 27.06.2016 from the plaintiff and executed suit promissory note for an interest of 24% per annum. The attestors of Ex.A1 and scrbie of Ex.A1 are examined as PWs2 to 4 and they reiterated the case in their chief affidavits in supporting the version of PW1. At the stage of cross examination of PWs1 to 4, they deposed consistently and well corroborated the plaintiff case and the defendant counsel failed to elicit any fact in support of his case. Except filing written statement and denying the contention of the plaintiff, the defendant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to prove his case and to prove that Ex.A1 contain the forged signatures of defendant and the same is forged document. Ample opportunity given by this Court to the defendant to adduce the evidence, but the defendant did not come forward and so his evidence was closed.

10.At this stage, this court would like to rely upon the AIR 1999 SC 1441 in between Vidhyadar vs Manikya Rao and anothe r, wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme court held that "where a party to the suit does not appear

into the witness box and state its own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in series of decision passed by various high courts and the privy council. Moreover, if 4 the party abstains from entering into the witness box, it will give raise to an inference adverse against him".

11.In the instant case, defendant failed to enter into the witness box and state his own case and did not offer to be cross examined by the other side.

On relying the above judgment, adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant.

12. From all the above discussion and evidence placed, the plaintiff clearly established that on 27.06.2016 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.63,000/- and executed Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff and defendant failed to prove that Ex.A1 is forged document. In view of the same I hold that suit promissory note is not a forged document and plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount basing on the said suit promissory note. Accordingly these issues are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

13. Issue No.4:-

In view of my finding on issues No.1 to 3, the suit is to be decreed with costs as prayed for.

14.In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, by directing the defendant to pay the suit amount of

Rs.1,08,318/- (Rupees One lakh eight thousand three hundred and eighteen only), with subsequent interest at 12 percent per annum on the principal sum of Rs.63,000/- under suit promissory note from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 26.06.2019 till the date of the decree and further interest at 6 percent per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation, by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 12th day of April, 2024.

Junior Civil Judge, Gooty 5

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Plaintiff: Defendant: PW1: R. Anjineyulu Naik -NIL-

PW2: A. Shankar Naik.

PW3 : R. Ramu Naik.

PW4 : R. Anjineyulu Naik.

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original suit Promissory note for Rs.63,000/-, dt.27.06.2016 executed by the defendant in in favour of plaintiff.

Exhibits marked for Defendant: -NIL-

Junior Civil Judge, Gooty.