Sri. V. Eshwaraiah

C.C.No.185 of 2014

:: FAIR COPY ::

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :

AT :: BHAINSA

PRESENT:- SRI V.ESHWARAIAH,

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

BHAINSA.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 11 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

C.C.No.185 OF 2014

BETWEEN:- The State of Telangana Rep. by P.S.Kubeer. … COMPLAINANT

// AND //

1. Shahane Shankar S/o. Gangaram, Age: 60 years, Occ:Coolie,

2. Shahane Sunil S/o.Shankar, Age: 25 years, Occ: Coolie,

3. Shahane Ambadas S/o.Gangaram, Age: 40 years, Occ: Coolie,

4. Shahane Prakash S/o. Gangaram, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculturist,

5. Shahane Goutham S/o. Gangaram, Age: 30 years, Occ:Coolie,

6. Shahane Gangaram S/o. Gangaram, Age: 55 years, OcC:Coolie, All are R/o Pardi-K Village of Kubeer Mandal … ACCUSED Nos.1 to 6

This case coming before me on 05.08.2022 for final hearing in the presence of the learned A.P.P.O for the complainant and of Sri. B.Raghuveer, Advocate, the learned counsel for all the accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

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

1.The then Sub Inspector of Police, Kubeer P.S. filed the charge sheet in Crime

No.53 of 2014 for the offences punishable U/sec.290 and 326 of I.P.C against the accused Nos.1 to 6.

C.C.No.185 of 2014

2.The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:-

That on 05.02.2014 at 2000 hours, the defacto- complainant/Shahane Laxman came to P.S and lodged a police report stating that on 05.02.2014 at about 1900 hours his villagers namely Shahane Shankar/Accused No.1 and Shahane Sunil/Accused

No.2 abused his son Shahane Gangadhar in filthy language and beat him with hands.

When the complainant went there to rescue his son, the accused persons also beat him with hands. Basing on above the petition Lw.10/B. Chandar, the then S.I of Police,

Kubeer registered a petty case vide consecutive nos.37 and 38 of 2014 for the offence u/sec.290 and 323 of I.P.C. The Medical Officer, Dr.Rajanikanth/Lw.9 who treated the injured persons and issued medical certificates and opined that the injuries are sustained grievous in nature. A requisition sent to this court with a request to alter the petty case from u/sec.290 and 323 of I.P.C to the offence u/sec.290 and 326 of I.P.C.

On receipt of the orders from this court Lw.10 registered this case in Cr.No.53/2014 of the offence punishable u/sec.290 and 326 r/w 34 of I.P.C and issued F.I.R and took up for investigation. During the course of investigation that on 25.03.2014 at 1100 hours he along with force went to Pardi-K village and Lw.10 examined Lws.1 to 6 namely Shahane Laxman, Shahane Gangadhar, Shahane Laxmi Bai, Aaiti Sagara Bai,

Bandolla Ganesh and Shahane Reddy and recorded their statements. Thereafter the

Lw.10 inquired about the accused persons and apprehended Accused Nos.1 to 6 at

Pardi-K village from their respective houses. On interrogation all the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. After completion of legal

C.C.No.185 of 2014 procedure the Lw.10 produced the accused persons before the court and sent them to judicial remand. After completion of entire investigation Lw.10 filed charge sheet against accused persons.

3.This court took cognizance for the offences U/s.290 and 326 r/w 34 of I.P.C against all the accused on 29.03.2014. After appearance of all the accused, the copies of the documents are furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and when they were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offences U/s. 290 and 326 r/w 34 of I.P.C against all the accused. Hence, the charges were framed for the aforesaid offences and its contents were read over and explained to all the accused in vernacular language.

4.In order to bring home the guilt of all the accused, the prosecution examined the

PWs.1 to 7 and the documents are marked as Exs.P-1 to P-8. The learned A.P.P.O has given up evidence of Lws.3 to 5 and closed their evidences.

5.After completion of the prosecution evidence, all the Accused are examined

U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. with the reference of the prosecution evidence, appeared against them, for which they denied the incriminlity evidence of the prosecution. On behalf of all the accused, the accused no.1 is examined as Dw.1 and got marked the documents under

Exs.D-1 to D7 after taking permission from this court vide Crl.M.P.No.901 of 2022.

6.Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

C.C.No.185 of 2014

7.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the

offences U/s. 290 and 326 r/w 34 of I.P.C against the accused Nos.1 to 6?

8. POINT:- It is the case of the prosecution that on 05.02.2014 at about 1900 hours the accused person beat the Pw.2 who is the son of Pw.1 due to previous enmity, when the Pw.1 interfered and tried to rescue the Pw.2 and Pw.1 was also beaten by all the accused persons and caused grievous injury. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it examined and relied upon the oral evidence of the Pws.1 to

7. Pw.1, S.Laxman who is the defacto complainant and injured persons in this case.

Pw.2, S.Gangadhar who is the son of the Pw.1 and he is also one of the injured persons. PW.3, K.Sudhakar is the one of the panch witnesses for the scene of offence and Crime Detail Form. Pws.4 and 6 B.Ganesh and Shahana Reddy are the eyewitnesses to the incident in this case. Pw.5, Dr.Thotawar Rajnikanth is the

Medical Officer who treated the injured/PW.1 and gave the wound certificate. PW.7,

B.Chandar, the then Investigation officer who filed charge sheet in this case.

Admittedly the both eye-witnesses i.e., Pws.4 and 6, B.Ganesh and Shahana Reddy were declared hostile and nothing deposed against the accused persons involvement in this case. The Pw.3, K.Sudhakar is one of the panch witnesses for the scene of offence, also declared hostile by the prosecution and the Pw.3 identified his signature as Ex.P2 his signature on scene of offence. The evidences of Pws.1 and 2 and Pw.5 are only available on record for better appreciation and consideration.

C.C.No.185 of 2014

9. In order to prove the the case of the prosecution the prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients of Sec.290 and 326 of I.P.C.

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution must prove the essential ingredient U/s.326 of IPC i.e., (1) The accused must cause hurt to the Pw.1 as described in Sec.320 of I.P.C, (2) The accused must have intended and knowingly that he is likely to cause grievous hurt, of any kind so described in Sec.320 of I.P.C., by a dangerous weapon, and 3) The accused did so voluntarily except in the case provided for by Sec.335 of I.P.C. The accused must also cause public nuisance while causing injuries to the PW.1.

10. According to the evidence of the Pw.1, he deposed that at about one and half year back at 07.00 P.M., accused Nos.1 and 2 beat S.Gangadhar/PW.2 with their hands and also pushed with their legs on his son head and legs. He witnessed the incident and intervened to rescue his son but accused Nos.1 and 2 and other 12 members beat him with a stick on his hand and caused fracture injury and also on his chest caused breathless injury. Pw.1 further deposed that he went to police station and lodged report with them under Ex.P1. Thereafter, police referred him to the Govt.

Hospital, Bhainsa for treatment. According to the evidence of PW.2, S.Gangadhar he deposed that at about four and half years back on one day at about 11.00 P.M., he was present in front of his house, at that time all the accused came to his house and started abusing him and beat him with hands. Pw.2 further deposed that at that time his father/Pw.1 came there to rescued him, accused no.2 beat Pw.1 with a stick on his left

C.C.No.185 of 2014 hand, as a result his father received fracture injury to his left hand, the Bandolla

Ganesh and Pw.6 were present at the scene, and witnessed the incident. Thereafter they went to the police station and police referred him and Pw.1 to the hospital for treatment. Pw.2 further deposed that the accused beat him and PW.1 keeping the old grudges in mind.

11. It is the case of the accused that by cross-examining the Pws.1 and 2 that the

Pw.1 admitted the incident was occurred at 07.00 or 08.00 P.M and it was dark night.

It is further admitted by the Pw.1 that he cannot say the specific over acts of the accused persons and he cannot say the names of the persons who witnessed the incident as it was dark night. It is specifically case of the accused that the Ex.P1 was got scribed by his father/Pw.1 and he was not present at that time. Pw.2 further admitted that they do not remember the date on which they went to police station. He further admitted that he did not mention the abusive words in the police report. It is also admitted by Pw-2 that there is a previous disputes between his family members and the accused persons. It is further admitted that a case was registered against the

Pws.1 and 2 in C.C.No.103 of 2014 and the same was acquitted. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the accused that there is a case and counter case between the Pws.1 and 2 with the accused persons and on the same day two cases were registered, therefore due to counter blast of the case filed by the accused persons, the Pws.1 and 2 filed this false case.

C.C.No.185 of 2014

12. In order to further proof of the injuries sustained by the Pw.1, the prosecution examined Pw.5, Dr.Thotawar Rajnikanth. According to him, that on 06.02.2014 the

P.S Kubeer filed a requisition to give treatment to the injured person by name

Shahane Laxman/Pw.1, accordingly he gave treatment as in patient and found following injuries. (1) Tenderness on left fore arm(grievous in nature), (2) Tenderness on chest(Simple in nature). Thereafter he issued medical certificate which is marked as Ex.P4. It is the contention of the accused that the injuries mention in theEx.P4 are possible to receive if any person falls on hard surface and got contact with any other hard object. It is also admitted by the Pw.5 that he has not mentioned the age of injuries. He further given explanation that nobody can say the age of the injuries mere seeing this certificate. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the Ex.P4 discloses the date of the admission and date of the discharge shown as 06.02.2014 and 07.02.2014. No X-ray reports were brought on record and no radiologist report brought on record as to prove the nature of the injuries are grievous and caused by the accused persons, with dangerous weapons.

13. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the accused that there is no weapon which was allegedly used by the accused persons and caused injuries. In the absence of the involvement of the weapon, the prosecution cannot prove the case either u/sec.324 of IPC or 326 of I.P.C. It is further contention of the learned counsel

for the accused that there is no seizure of the weapon in this case as such the

prosecution fail to prove the case for the offence u/sec.324 or 326 of I.P.C. It is

C.C.No.185 of 2014 further contention of the learned counsel for the accused that to prove the case and counter case the accused no.1 is examined as Dw.1 and got marked the documents

Exs.D1 to D7. Ex.D-1 Certified copy of the Judgment vide C.C.No.103 of 2014

dated:26.06.2019 on the file of this court. Ex.D-2 Certified copy of the deposition of

Pw.1, S.Shankar, dt.11.10.2017. Ex.D-3 Certified copy of the deposition of Pw.2,

S.Prakash, dt.11.10.2017. Ex.D-4 Certified copy of the deposition of Pw.3, Shaney

Reddy, dt.11.10.2017. Ex.D-5 Certified copy of the charge sheet vide Cr.No.17/2014.

Ex.D-6 Certified copy of the F.I.R along with complaint. Ex.D-7 Certified copy of the

Crime Detail Form along with rough sketch. By considering all the above documents the accused proved that the Pws.1 and 2 are the accused in C.C.no.103 of 2014, it shows that there is a previous disputes between the accused and Pws.1 and 2.

14. The prosecution further relied upon the evidence of Pw.7, B.Chandar is the investigation officer who he deposed that on 05.02.2014 at 08.00 P.M., he received a petition from Pw.1, basing on it he made G.D entry and filed a requisition before this court for permission to conduct investigation as the offence is non cognizable in nature. He referred the injured person to the Hospital for treatment, after obtaining the permission from this court vide consecutive number 37/2014 and 38/2014

U/sec.290 and 323 of I.P.C and after receiving medical certificate of Pw.1 he registered case in Cr.No.53/2014 for the offence punishable U/sec.290 and 326 r/w 34 of I.P.C. P.w7 further deposed that during the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Pw.7 further deposed that on 25.03.2014

C.C.No.185 of 2014 he apprehended all the accused and remanded them to judicial custody. After completion of investigation he laid charge sheet against the accused persons. Ex.P6 is

F.I.R. Ex.P7 is Crime Detail Form, Ex.P8 is rough sketch map.

15. According to the evidence of Dw.1, Shane Shankar deposed that in C.C.No.103 of 2014 he is the defacto- complainant and he filed the case against the accused nos.1 and 2 namely Shane Gangadhar and Shane Laxman. Dw.1 further deposed that after trial the accused nos.1 and 2 were found not guilty and they were acquitted on 26.06.2019. This case and the case of C.C.No.103 of 2014 are case and counter cases.

Dw.1 further deposed that the a false case has been filed by the PW.1 and his family members against him and family members.

16. On careful perusal of the evidence of the prosecution and the documentary evidence relied by the accused in Exs.D1 to D7, it clearly shows that there is a case and counter case against the accused and Pws.1 and 2 and there is a previous enmity between the Pws.1 and 2 and accused. The incident was occurred on 05.02.2014 at 2300 hours as per the Ex.D1 but whereas in this case the incident was occurred on 05.02.2014 at 2000 hours. There is a difference of three hours between two cases and it cannot be termed as case and counter cases and it can be said that on the same day two incidents were occurred differently at different time. Admittedly the Pws.1 and 2 were acquittal in C.C.No.103 of 2014. Admittedly in this case the eye-witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution in any manner. Though the medical evidence is brought on record and it is not corroborating with that of the oral evidences of the

C.C.No.185 of 2014

Pws.1 and 2. Admittedly there is no weapon seized nor produced before this court to attract the offence u/sec.326 of I.P.C. If the weapon is brought on record there is an occasion to make observations regarding the seizure and the manner in which it was used in commission of the offence and causing grievous injuries as described u/sec.320 of I.P.C. On the other hand the oral evidences of Pws.1 and 2 is having doubtful because they are having enmity with the accused persons. Basing on the doubtful evidence no conviction can be recorded against the accused persons in this case. The evidence which were brought on record is not sufficient neither for conviction for the offence u/sec.326 nor sec.324 of IPC nor u/sec.323 of I.P.C as such the prosecution fails to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubts.

17. For the reasons stated above and considering the case of the accused coupled with documentary evidence under Exs.D1 to D7, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case for the offence u/sec.290 and 326 r/w 34 of I.P.C and the accused are entitled for acquittal.

18. IN THE RESULT, this court found the accused Nos.1 to 6 are not guilty for the offences U/sec. 290 and 326 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 6 shall stands cancelled subject to the provisions Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. for a period of six months.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of August, 2022.

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

BHAINSA.

C.C.No.185 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

PW-1 S.Laxman DW-1Shane Shankar PW-2 S.Gangadhar PW-3 K.Sudhakar PW-4 B.Ganesh PW-5 Dr.Thotawar Rajnikanth PW-6 Shahane Reddy PW-7B.Chandar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR ACCUSED: Ex.D-1: Certified copy of the Judgment Ex.P-1: Police report vide C.C.No.103 of 2014 dated:26.06.2019 Ex.P-2: Signature of Pw.3 on CDF on the file of this court. Ex.P-3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-4 Ex.D-2: Certified copy of the deposition of Ex.P-4: Medical Certificate Pw.1, S.Shankar, dt.11.10.2017 Ex.P-5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-6 Ex.D-3: Certified copy of the deposition of Ex.P-6: F.I.R Pw.2, S.Prakash, dt.11.10.2017 Ex.P-7: Crime Detail Form Ex.D-4: Certified copy of the deposition of Ex.P-8: Rough sketch map Pw.3, Shaney Reddy, dt.11.10.2017 Ex.D-5: Certified copy of the charge sheet vide Cr.No.17/2014 Ex.D-6: Certified copy of the F.I.R along with complaint, Ex.D-7: Certified copy of the Crime Detail Form along with rough sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

-NIL- -NIL-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

BHAINSA.

C.C.No.185 of 2014

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT BHAINSA.

C.C. No. 185 OF 2014

1. Complainant : State of Telangana rep through, SI of Police,

P.S.Kubeer

2. Cr.No. & Nature of Offence : Cr.No.53/2014 for the offence U/s.290 and 326 r/w 34 of IPC

3. Name of the accused :

1. Shahane Shankar S/o. Gangaram, Age: 60 years, Occ:Coolie,

2. Shahane Sunil S/o.Shankar, Age: 25 years, Occ: Coolie,

3. Shahane Ambadas S/o.Gangaram, Age: 40 years, Occ: Coolie,

4. Shahane Prakash S/o. Gangaram, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculturist,

5. Shahane Goutham S/o. Gangaram, Age: 30 years, Occ:Coolie,

6. Shahane Gangaram S/o. Gangaram, Age: 55 years, OcC:Coolie, All are R/o Pardi-K Village of Kubeer Mandal D A T E S:

1.OFFENCE05.02.2014

2.COMPLAINT05.02.2014

3.APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED25.03.2014

4.COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL23.11.2015

5.CLOSURE OF TRIAL19.07.2022

6.JUDGMENT11.08.2022

7.PLEA OF THE ACCUSEDNot Guilty

4.SENTENCE OR ORDER: IN THE RESULT, this court found the accused Nos.1 to 6 are not guilty for the offences U/sec. 290 and 326 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused

Nos.1 to 6 shall stands cancelled subject to the provisions Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. for a period of six months.

5.REMARKS : -Nil-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

BHAINSA.

C.C.No.185 of 2014

O.S.No.46 of 2017

FAIR COPY

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT :: BHAINSA ::

PRESENT:- V.ESHWARAIAH,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHAINSA.

TUESDAY THIS THE 16 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

O.S. No.46 OF 2017

Between:

Abdul Nayeem S/o. Abdul Sattar, Age: 40 years, Occ:Lorry Driver, R/o. Khazi Galli, Bhainsa, R/m. Bhainsa, Dist.Adilabad … Plaintiff // And //

Shaik Abdul Khadeer(Qadeer) S/o. Sk.Ahmad, Age: 60 years, Occ:Business, R/o. 3- 40-40 Pandharigalli, Bhainsa, R/m. Bhainsa, Dist.Adilabad. … Defendant.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 03.08.2022 in the presence of Sri.Dileep Kulkarni, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. T.Ravinder Singh, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.This suit is instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.73,600/- (Rupees Seventy Three Thousand Six Hundred only) against the defendant for wages and damages. (Hereinafter this amount is referred to as the Suit amount). It is further submitted by the plaintiff that defendant is the owner of the Super Bazar runs under the name and style of S.K.Zarda Super Bazar. The plaintiff being Lorry driver by profession was employed by the defendant to fetch the goods from various places as per his needs on 12.01.2014. The salary of the plaintiff was fixed at Rs.7000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) per month. The defendant owns a small truck of

Eicher company bearing number AP.01.X.9002 which was usually driven by the

O.S.No.46 of 2017

plaintiff along with another driver of the defendant by name Abdul Mujeeb @ Mujju,

Bhainsa. That on 07.06.2014 the defendant asked the plaintiff and said Abdul Mujeeb @ Mujju to go to Nipani in Karnataka to bring certain goods for his shop, from where the defendant used to get it. When they reached within limits of Fartabad police station in the night the lorry met with an accident and overturned. At that time the said Mujeeb was driving the lorry and the plaintiff was sleeping on the back seat. In this accident both the drivers suffered injuries. But the plaintiff suffered grievous injury and got his collar bone fractured. The police of Fartabad P.S got them and admitted in the Civil Hospital Gulbarga where they received treatment and his left hand was tied for stopping the movement of hand for healing. After two days the plaintiff returned to Bhainsa and went to Nanded and received further treatment in the hosptial of Dr.Katruwar. That, the defendant immediately after coming to know of the accident managed to recover the truck and suppressed the matter. He paid rupees to the plaintiff to return to Bhainsa and promised to pay for the expenses incurred for the treatment. The plaintiff believed him and was taking rest as he was unable to do any work for about two months. The defendant evaded to make the payment for some days on one pretext or other. The defendant anyway managed to hush up the case in collusion with the police. The defendant has to pay the due salary of 4 months and 25 days the plaintiff worked with the defendant and which comes to Rs.33,600(Rupees

Thirty Three Thousand Six Hundred only). The defendant paid him only Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and there is remaining due of Rs.23,600/-(Rupees

Twenty Three Thousand Six Hundred only). The plaintiff incurred an expenditure of

Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) for his medical treatment, traveling and food expenses. The defendant promised to pay it. Thus, the defendant is due an

O.S.No.46 of 2017

amount and to pay total sum of Rs.73,600/-(Seventy Three Thousand Six Hundred only) to the plaintiff including salary and treatment expenses, loss of work and other expenses. The defendant after managing his case refused to pay the amount. Inspite of several demands when the defendant did not pay the amount the plaintiff filed application with the Assistant Labour Officer, Bhainsa. The officer called the defendant and asked him to settle the account and pay the money. The plaintiff seeing all ways to make a settlement closed and got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 03.01.2015 demanding the amount but the defendant did not care even to reply.

Hence this suit.

2.After receiving the summons from this court , the defendant filed his written statement through his advocate by denying the plaint averments. The defendant admitted that the he is the owner of S.K.Super Bazar and defendant denied that the plaintiff is employed to fetch the goods from various places as per the need of the shop of defendant and further denied by the defendant that no salary of Rs.7000/- fixed per month to the plaintiff. The defendant further admitted that the he owns a small truck in his name which was regularly driven by Abdul Mujeeb @ Muju but not plaintiff. That on 07.06.2014 the vehicle of the defendant met with an accident at

Fartabad police station and case was registered against driver not against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff accompanied with Mujeeb on that day but he was not engaged as a temporary driver by defendant. Further admitted that the defendant immediately approached the police Fartabad and on a humanitarian grounds given an amount of

Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff for his medical treatment. Further the entire contents of the plaint is denied. Further it is contended by the defendant that the plaintiff is

O.S.No.46 of 2017

habituated to harass the defendant and in order to extract money and filed a false case instead of filing a case before the proper Tribunal. Hence pray this court to dismiss the suit with cost.

3. On the above rival pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:- (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim amount as prayed for? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief, if so to what extent?

4.In order to prove the suit claim, the plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents as Exs.A-1 to A4. No witnesses are examined on behalf of the defendant to prove the written statement pledings and no documents were marked on behalf of the defendant.

5. Heard both sides arguments, and perused the case record.

Un-disputed facts in this case are as follows:

The defendant is the owner of S.K.Supar Bazar, Bhainsa. The plaintiff is the temporary driver to the defendant. The defendant paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the defendant towards medical treatment on humanitarian grounds. It is also admitted by the defendant that on 07.06.2014 his vehicle was met with an accident as Fartabad police station and the case was registered against the driver namely Mujeeb @ Mujju not the plaintiff. It is also undisputed fact that the plaintiff/Pw.1 sustained injuries in that accident.

6. ISSUES NO.1 and 2 : It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the truck driver to the defendant and the defendant has to pay the 4 months 20 days at the rate of

Rs.7000/- per month and total amount of Rs.33,600/-. It is further case of the plaintiff

O.S.No.46 of 2017

that the defendant promised to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff towards medical treatment and loss of work including compensation. When the plaintiff approached to the defendant to repay the above said amount, the defendant not only denied the plaintiff as a driver but also refused to pay the amount due to him.

7.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as P.W.1. He deposed in his chief-examination by reiterating the plaint pleadings once again. He further specifically deposed that the defendant owns a small truck of Eicher company bearing registration number AP.01.X.9002 which was usually driven by plaintiff along with another driver of the defendant by name Abdul Mujeem @ Mujju, R/o.

Bhainsa. That on 07.06.2014 the defendant asked the Pw.1 and the said Abdul

Mujeeb @ Mujju to go to Nipani in Karnataka to bring certain goods for his shop, from where defendant used to get it. When they reached within the limits of Fartabad police station in the night, the said lorry met with an accident and overturned. At the time of the accident the said Abdul Mujeed @ Mujju was driving the said lorry and

Pw.1 was sleeping on the back seat. In this accident both the drivers suffered injuries, but he suffered grievous injuries and got collarbone fractures, the police of Fartabad police station got us admitted in the Civil Hospital, Gulbarga where they received treatment and his left hand was tied for stopping the movement of hand for healing.

After two days he returned to Bhainsa and then went to Nanded to receive further treatment in the hospital of Dr.Katruwar. The defendant paid him few rupees to return the Bhainsa and promised to pay for the expenses incurred for the treatment. He believed him and was taking rest as he was unable to do any work for about two months. The defendant evaded to make the payment for some days on one pretext or other. Further Pw.1 deposed that the defendant is due salary of four months and

O.S.No.46 of 2017

twenty days which Pw.1 worked with the defendant and which comes to Rs.33,600/- the defendant paid him only Rs.10,000/- and reamining due amount of Rs.23,600/- and he incurred an expenditure of Rs.50,000/- for medical treatment, travelling and food expenses. The defendant promised to pay it, thus the defendant is due a total amount of Rs.73,600/- to him including salary, treatment expenses, loss of work and other expenses. Despite of several demands when the defendant did not pay the amount he filed an application with Assistant Labour Officer, at Bhainsa. The officer called the defendant and asked him to settle the account and pay the money but the defendant refused. He seeing all the ways of settlement closed issued a legal notice to the defendant on 03.01.2015 demanding the amount but the defendant did not even care to reply. In order to further support the case of the plaintiff relied upon the documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to A4. The Ex.A1 Packet book/diarty, dated:

12.01.2014 of Pw.1. Ex.A2 is the application made to Asst. Labour Officer, dt.03.02.2015. Ex.A3 is the Transport Authority, Adilabad regarding the ownership of the truck bearing No.AP.01.X.9002 in the name of Shaik Abdul Qadeer(who is defendant herein). Ex.A4 is office copy of legal notice, dated.03.01.2015.

8.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant during the s cross- examination of the Pw.1 that he admitted that he has not filed document to show that the defendant is the owner of the super Bazar of Sk.Zarda super Bazar and further admitted that Ex.A1 does not contain signature of the defendant. Pw.1 further admitted in his cross-examination that no document is executed between him and the defendant regarding Pw.1 is the driver and the defendant is the owner and he has not filed his driving license in this cae and not filed any document in this case to show

O.S.No.46 of 2017

that the accident was occurred to him. It is further admitted hat he filed his medical certificates in this case to show he is injured person.

9.Admittedly though the defendant denied the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant as the servant and master but the defendant did not choose to enter into the witness box to prove his pleadings. It is settled principal of law that without leading evidence, the pleadings cannot be said to have been proved in a court of law.

In this case though the learned counsel for the defendant contended that this court has no jurisdiction to deal with this case and he did not take any steps regarding the non maintainabiliyt of the suit and not frame any issue. Infact, there is no dispute regarding the ownership of the Super Bazar and the oral evidence of the plaintiff’s cannot be disbelieve regarding the amount which was due by the defendant. In this suit the plaintiff did not dispute the termination of his employment only he is claiming the remuneration and the compensation and other promises made by the defendant herein. According to Sec.48(5) of A.P.Shops and Establishment Act-1988, the plaintiff not claimed relief of reinstate in the same employment and the plaintiff only seeking the recovery of his salary and loss of work. On the other hand the defendant did not place any provisions regarding the non maintainability of the suit

before this court. As such the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable in this court for

recovery of suit amount.

10.Coming to the case on hand, it is undisputed fact that the accident was occurred and the Pw.1 and another driver Mujeeb sustained injuries in the said accident. The defendant paid Rs.10,000/-to the plaintiff towards medical treatment and others and he further promised to pay remaining amount to the plaintiff subsequently. Though the defendant denied the relationship between the plaintiff and

O.S.No.46 of 2017

defefendant as driver and master but the fact and circumsances and the degree of the evidence shown by the plaintiff is more probable than that of the defendant. The fact and circumstances are clearly made out a prima-facie case in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant regarding the jural relationship of master and servant. It is settled principal of law that the master is always liable for all acts and deeds done by the his servant. By invoking this principal this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for his amount of Rs.23,600/- and other loss of work from the defendant.

11.Coming to the quantum of amount to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant, the defendant has to pay Rs.23,600/- towards monthly salary of the plaintiff. Coming to the loss of work and compensation regarding the injury sustained by the Pw.1 in the accident. The oral evidence of the Pw.1 shows that he sustained grievous injuries and incurred an amount of Rs.50,000/- but the plaintiff fail to prove any documentary evidence to show the medical expenditures of Rs.50,000/- was incurred. However, this court is of the opinion that Rs.39,000/- is enough for loss of work and compensation and towards medical expenditures incurred by the plaintiff. Therefore, this court is of the opinion of that in totally the plaintiff is entitled Rs.62,600/- including his arrears of salary, compensation and loss of work etc.,

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favor of plaintiff against the defendant and the defendant is directed to pay Rs.62,600/-(Rupees Sixty Two Thousand Six

Hundred only) to plaintiff forthwith towards arrears of salary and compensation. The plaintiff is entitled interest rate 6% per annum on the principal sum adjudged amount from the date of suit till the date of realization.

Typed dictation given to the typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 16th day of August, 2022.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHAINSA.

O.S.No.46 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Abdul Nayeem – None –

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.A-1: Packet book/diary, dated:12.01.2014, – Nil – Ex.A-2: Copy of application made to Asst. Labor Officer, dt.03.02.2015, Ex.A-3: True copy of Addl. Registering Authority(Transport), dt.10.09.2014, Ex.A-4: Office copy of legal notice, dated: 03.01.2015.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

BHAINSA.

C.C.No.466 of 2014

:: FAIR COPY ::

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT :: BHAINSA

PRESENT:- SRI. V.ESHWARAIAH,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHAINSA.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 18 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

C.C.No.466 OF 2014 BETWEEN:-

Kamshetti Marothirao S/o.Laxman, Age: 65 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Sowna, R/m. Kubeer, Dist.Adilabad State of Telangana. …COMPLAINANT

AND

1.Kishan Rangawar S/o.not known, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Business Venkateshwara Commission Agent,(Died)

2. Mahesh Rangawar S/o.Kishan Rangawar, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business Venkateshwara Commission Agent,

3. Ganesh Rangawar S/o. Kishan Rangawar, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business Venkateshwara Commission Agent,

4. Ramesh Rangawar S/o. Kishan Rangawar, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Business Venkateshwara Commission Agent,, All are R/o.Purna Bazar, Bhainsa, R/m.Bhainsa, Dist. Adilabad …ACCUSED Nos.1 to 4

This case coming before me on 11.08.2022 for final hearings in the presence of the Sri.Gadpale Shankar, Advocate, the learned counsel for the complainant and of Sri. Venkatesh Pardikar, Advocate the learned counsel for the accused nos.1 to 4 and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

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

1.The complainant Kamshetti Marothi Rao filed this complaint U/Sec.200 of

Cr.P.C through his advocate on 24.06.2014 for the offence u/sec.500 r/w 34 of IP.C

C.C.No.466 of 2014 against all the accused persons. After recording the statements on oath of the witnesses, this court took cognizance for the offence u/sec.500 r/w 34 of I.P.C on 14.08.2014 and issue summons to all the accused persons. All the accused persons after receiving the summons appeared before this court on 25.09.2014 and engaged

Sri.Venkatesh Pardikar, Advocate, to defend their case.

2.The brief allegations in the complaint are as follows:-

That the complainant is a commission agent business at Bhainsa and the accused are also running the same business, in the name of Sri.Venkateshwara

Commission Agent at Bhainsa. Since both the parties are engaged with same business the Complainant and the accused persons had good relationship and used to co- operate with one another in the smooth running of their business. Thus the complainant and accused had developed good rapport in the field of business for last one decade. That last year differences arose between both the parties on account of said business and the accused persons spread rumors among the business community saying the complainant became bankrupt and he is having lacks of rupees due to pay in the market and thereby the complainant lost his reputation in the market, as a result the complainant sustained heavy loss in the business. The act of the accused was with a malifide intention to cause damage to the reputation of the complainant in the market as well in the eyes of society. Hence this complaint.

3.After the copies of the documents were furnished to the accused persons as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and when they were examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. for

C.C.No.466 of 2014 the offence u/sec.500 r/w 34 of I.P.C, for which they denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the above offence. Hence the substance of accusation for the above offence was read over and explained its contents to the accused in vernacular language. During the pendency of this case the accused no.1 was died and the case was abated against him.

4.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the complainant himself examined as PW.1 and Nagarao Varagante, who is the servant of the Pw.1 is examined as PW.2 and no documents were marked on behalf of the complainant. On behalf of the accused no witnesses and no documents were marked.

5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused nos.2 to 4 are examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the prosecution evidence appeared against them, for which they denied the incriminating evidence of the prosecution and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard, the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

7.Now the points for determinations are:-

1. Whether the complainant has complied with the provisions u/sec.199 of Cr.P.C?

2.Whether the prosecution/complainant proved that the accused spread

rumors against the complainant among the business community persons

stating that the complainant became bankruptcy and having dues amount in

the market?

C.C.No.466 of 2014

3. By doing so, whether the complainant’s reputation was lost in the market, as pleaded by the complainant?

4. Whether the complainant prove its case beyond reasonable doubts for the

offences U/sec.500 r/w 34 of I.P.C against the accused nos.2 to 4 ?

8. POINTS 1 to 4:- It is the case of the complainant that his reputation was lost in the market by making rumors by the accused persons stating that the complainant became bankrupt. In order to prove its case the complainant himself examined as

PW.1 and Nagarao Varagante, the servant of the Pw.1 is examined as PW.2. On careful perusal of the complaint, the complainant filed this complaint on 24.06.2014

before this court and after recordings the statement of witnesses on oath this court

took cognizance for the aforesaid offence and commenced the prosecution as per the sec.199 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the point no.1 is answered.

9. The complainant/prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients of sec.499 of I.P.C. (1) The accused must by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations or publishes any imputation intending to harm the reputation of the complainant.

10. According to the Pw.1, Kamoshetti Marothi Rao, he is having commission agent business at Bhainsa. He know all the accused, the accused no.1 Kishan Rangawar is the father of accused nos.2 to 4 namely, Mahesh Rangawar, Ganesh Rangawar and

Ramesh Rangawar and accused are resident of Bhainsa and run the same business i.e., Commission agent at Bhainsa. While accused and complainant were in the same business, they used to cooperate one another in the business development but since

C.C.No.466 of 2014 last year difference arose among accused persons and complainant on account of business so complainant stopped giving cooperation to accused persons and annoyed with his non co-operation in business all the accused persons started spreading rumors in the market that he has sustained heavy loss in his business and became bankrupt, with the malafied intention to cause damage to his running business. It is further deposed by the Pw.1 that as a result people gradually started to cut short giving him business believing their rumor, thereby he sustained heavy loss in his business and at last he had to shut down his whole business. PW.1 further deposed that he lost his reputation in the market and in society.

11. According to the evidence of the PW.2, Varangante Nagorao, he used to work in the shop of PW.1 as commission agency and he is also relative of PW-1. He further deposed that he knows the complainant and accused. He further deposed by supporting the case of the Pw.1 that due to rumors by the accused persons the Pw.1 sustained heavy loss in the business and became bankrupt and at last the Pw.1 had to shut down his business. Both the PW-1 and PW-2 constitently deposed the same version.

12. It is the case of the accused that the complainant did not mention the name of his commission agency either in the complaint nor in the chief-examination affidavit of PWs.1 and 2. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the accused that except the Pw.2 no other independent witnesses were examined by the Pw.1 though some of the witnesses shown in the complaint. It is further contention of the learned

C.C.No.466 of 2014 counsel of the accused that in whose presence the accused allegedly made allegations against the Pw.1 are not examined in this case. It is also admitted by the Pw.1 that he cannot say the date, time and place when the accused persons made allegations against Pw.1 regarding bankruptcy. The PW.1 did not file any documents such as receipts or bills etc., to show that he used to sell the cotton to the accused persons. It is also admitted by the PW.1 that one Sainath Bachuwar filed a complaint against the

PW.1 u/sec.138 of N.I Act and the same is acquitted. It is further admitted that the said Bachuwar Sainath filed appeal against the acquittal of Pw.1. During the cross- examination of the Pw.2, he admitted that PW.1 is his casteman and he used to work in the shop of Pw.1 for 15 to 20 years. Pw.2 further admitted that he does not know the date, time and place where the accused persons made allegations against the Pw.1 about his bankruptcy. Pw.2 further admitted that he has no due amounts to the accused and the accused never sold out the cotton crops to them in business but infact they used to sell their cotton to the accused persons. Further Pws.1 and 2 denied all other suggestions which were insignificant to the core case.

13. On careful perusal of the evidences of the Pws.1 and 2, the motive for filing of this complaint against the accused persons is that Pw-1 had to close his business, on account of spreading rumors in the market that Pw.1 sustained heavy losses in his business and became bankrupt. In order to establish the accusation under section 500 of IPC, the complainant must be able to establish the actual ownership of PW-1 over the commission agent shop where the alleged incidents said to have been taken place.

C.C.No.466 of 2014

Admittedly there is no oral evidence or documentary evidence on record Ownership to Agencyship. The Pw.1 did not mention the name of the commission agent shop either in complaint or in chief-examination affidavit. The Pws.1 and 2 specifically admitted in their cross-examination that they cannot say the date, time and place when the accused persons made allegations against Pw.1 regarding bankruptcy. No documentary evidence and independent witnesses were examined to to prove the defemation statements against the Pw-1. It is not the case of the PW-1 and 2 that the accused distributed the pramplates about the rumor of the bankruptcy done by Pw.1 and in whose presence the accused persons are rumor about the bankruptcy and there is no proof of the shop of the accused persons and the PW.1 shop is situated side by side. In view of the matter, the inconstant version of the PW-1 and 2, made this court to conclude that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of the offense under Section 500 IPC is insufficient. In view of the discussion made and finding arrived at with regard to the offenses under sections 500 of I.P.C, it must be held that the prosecution is not able to adduce the best available evidence to establish the remaining charges. Consequently, it must be held that the accused are, entitled to be acquitted.

14. In the absence of the documentary evidence of the ownership of the shop of the

Pw.1 and the accused rumor about the bankruptcy in the society is doubtful. The evidence of the Pws.1 and 2 is inconsistent with regard to the presence of the accused

C.C.No.466 of 2014 persons on the date of the alleged offence. The Pws.1 and 2 did not specified the date, time and place when the accused persons made allegations against Pw.1 regarding bankruptcy . On the other hand there is no specific overtacts against the each accused person regarding above the offence of defemation.

15. For the reasons stated above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case this court is opined that the prosecution/complainant failed to prove the essential ingredients u/sec.500 r/w 34 of I.P.C against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts, as such the accused nos.2 to 4 are entitled for acquittal. Hence the points no. 2 to 4 are answered against the prosecution/complainant.

16.IN THE RESULT, this court found the accused nos.2 to 4 are not guilty for the offences U/sec.500 r/w 34 of I.P.C and they are acquitted under Section 255(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled subject to the provisions of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. for a period of six months.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18st day of August, 2022.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHAINSA.

C.C.No.466 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION/COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED: PW-1 Kamshetti Maruthi – NONE – PW-2 Nagorao Varagante

FOR PROSECUTION/COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED: – NIL – – NIL –

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHAINSA.

C.C.No.466 of 2014

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

::AT BHAINSA

C.C. No466 OF 2014

1. Complainant : Private Complaint u/sec.200 of Cr.P.C

2. Cr.No. & Nature of Offence :

3. Name of the accused :

1.Kishan Rangawar S/o.not known, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Business Venkateshwara Commission Agent,(Died)

2. Mahesh Rangawar S/o.Kishan Rangawar, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business Venkateshwara Commission Agent,

3. Ganesh Rangawar S/o. Kishan Rangawar, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business Venkateshwara Commission Agent,

4. Ramesh Rangawar S/o. Kishan Rangawar, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Business Venkateshwara Commission Agent,, All are R/o.Purna Bazar, Bhainsa, R/m.Bhainsa, Dist. Adilabad D A T E S:

1.OFFENCE07.06.2014

2.COMPLAINT14.08.2014

3.APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED ------

4.COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL15.07.2022

5.CLOSURE OF TRIAL26.07.2022

6.JUDGMENT18.08.2022

7.PLEA OF THE ACCUSEDNot Guilty

4.SENTENCE OR ORDER: IN THE RESULT, this court found the accused nos.2 to 4 are not guilty for the offences U/sec.500 r/w 34 of I.P.C and they are acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled subject to the provisions of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. for a period of six months

5.REMARKS : -Nil-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHAINSA.

C.C.No.466 of 2014

O.S.NO.16 OF 2016

FAIR COPY

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT :: BHAINSA ::

PRESENT:- V.ESHWARAIAH,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHAINSA.

THURSDAY THIS THE 11 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

O.S. No.16 OF 2016

Between:

Kashinath S/o.Sambaji, Age about 54 yars, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o.H.No.1-2-82, Bhattigally, Bhainsa, R/m.Bhainsa, Dist.Adilabad. … Plaintiff // And // Vinayak Rao S/o.Dattu Ram, Age about 40 years, Occ:Agriculturist, R/o.A.P.Nagar Colony, Bhainsa, R/M.Bhainsa, Dist.Adilabad. … Defendant.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 04.08.2022 in the presence of Sri.Dileep Kulkarni, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. S.Sainath, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.This suit is instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.51,000/- (Rupees Fifty One thousand only) against the defendant, on promissory note dated 22.06.2013.(Hereinafter called this amount is referred to as the Suit amount). It is further submitted by the plaintiff that plaintiff and defendant are having mutual acquaintance. Both are residence of Bhainsa and known to each other since long time. That on 21.06.2013 the defendant approached and requested the plaintiff for a temporary loan for Rs.51,000/-(Rupees Fifty One Thousand only). The defendant assured and promised to return the amount within 5 or 6 months. The plaintiff because of old acquaintance agreed to advance the loan of Rs.51,000/- without charging any interest(because of old acquaintance). That on 22.06.2013 the plaintiff gave a loan of Rs.51,000/-(Rupees Fifty One Thousand only) in cash and the

O.S.NO.16 OF 2016

defendant executed a demand promissory note for the said amount. The defendant also executed a receipt whereby the defendant acknowledging the receipt of the suit amount. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that the defendant did not honour his promised and assurance. In addition, the defendant also executed an agreement dated 22.06.2013 by acknowledging the loan agreement whereby the defendant accepted that he received an amount of Rs.51,000/- from the plaintiff as loan. Since the defendant did not pay the amount and also avoided the plaintiff, the plaintiff issued a lawyer notice dated.22.01.2016, the notice was issued from the office of Sri Bhim

Rao Kadam, Advocate(due to error the advocate had mentioned the amount of

Rs.1,00,000/-). But the entire notice mentioned is made only regarding the loan of

Rs.51,000/-. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 22.01.2016 intimating the defendant that if the amount is not repaid he will constrained to file a suit in a court of law. Hence this suit.

2. On receipt of the summons from this court the defendan filed written statement through his advocate by denying the plaint averments. The defendant contended that the plaintiff is proprietor of the Saraswathi Traders, Bhainsa and runs the business of selling seeds and pesticides. The defendant is a customer of the

Saraswathi Traders. The defendant used to purchase seeds and pesticides from the plaintiff’s shop. But the defendant never requested the plaintiff for a temporary loan of Rs.51,000/-(Rupees Fifty One Thousand only). The defendant did not execute the promissory note as alleged in the plaint. It is further submitted by the defendant that the notice issued by the plaintiff was received on 27.01.2016. The contents of the notice are vague and false. Since defendant did not approach the plaintiff for any hand loan and execute the promissory note, he did choose to reply the notice. Hence,

O.S.NO.16 OF 2016

the allegations in the notice are denied. The contents of the plaint are false and created for the purpose of filing this suit. The defendant used to buy seeds and pesticides from the plaintiff and timely paid the amount for the same. The defendant is filing receipts issued by the Saraswathi Traders in support of his case. Now the defendant was purchasing seeds and pesticides from other persons hence the plaintiff fabricated the promissory note and other document and filed this present suit alleging that the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.51,000/- from plaintiff and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

3. On the above rival pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:- (1) Whether the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.51,000/- from the plaintiff on 22.06.2013 under the suit Promissory Note?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle to recover the suit amount as prayed?

(3) If so, to what relief?

4. In order to prove the pleadings of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1 and one Vinod, who is the one of the witnesses to the agreement of loan is examined as Pw.2 and the documents are marked as Exs.A1 to A5 on behalf of the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendant the defendant himself examined as

DW.1 and got marked the documents i.e., Exs.B-1 and B2.

5.Heard both sides arguments and perused the case record.

6. ISSUE NOs.1and 2 : IT is the case of the plaintiff that on 21.06.2013 the plaintif gave hand loan of Rs.51,000/- to the defendant and the defendant after receiving the amount executed the promissory note in favor of the plaintiff. It is further case of the plaintiff that apart from the promissory note the defendant also executed a loan agreement dated.22.06.2013 by acknowledging the loan amount in favor of the

O.S.NO.16 OF 2016

plaintiff. In order to prove the pleadings of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1. He reiterated in his chief-examination affidavit the plaint averments once again. The plaintiff further relied upon the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A5. The Ex.A1 is the Original Promissory note, dated: 22.06.2013 for Rs.51,000/-, which is executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff. The

Ex.A1 is further notorised by Sri.Bhim Rao Kadam, Advocate. Ex.A2 Original

Receipt, dated:22.06.2013 executed by the defendant in favor of plaintiff by acknowledging the receipt of Rs.51,000/- in the presence of witneses namely Ashok

Rao and another namely Vinod. Ex.A3 Original un-registered Agreement dated.22.06.2013 executed by defendant in favor of the plaintiff by receiving

Rs.51,000/- and agreeing to repay the same on or before 31.12.2013 in the presence of witnesses namely Ashok Rao and another namely Vinod. Ex.A4 is Office copy of legal notice, dated.04.01.2016 got issued by the plaintiff through his Advocate

Sri.Bhim Rao Kadam, Advocate to the defendant to call upon to repay the suit amount within 8 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. Ex.A5 is the

Acknowledgement copy of DTDC courier, dated.27.01.2016.

7.In order to further proof of the contention of the plaintiff the plaintiff got examined one of the witnesses namely Vinod examined as Pw.2. According to Pw.2 he deposed in his chief examination by supporting the plaint pleadings that on 22.06.2013 the defendant received suit amount from the Pw.1. It is further specifically deposed by the Pw.2 that the defendant also executed an agreement dated.22.06.2013 in favor of the plaintiff by acknowledging the receipt of the suit amount.

O.S.NO.16 OF 2016

8.In order to refute the contention of the plaintiff the defendant specifically not only denied the contentions of the plaintiff but also submitted that he never received any amounts from the plaintiff as alleged. It is further contention of the defendant that the plaintiff is the properitor of the Saraswathi Traders and he runs the business of selling seeds and pesticides. The defendant specifically admitted that he is one of the customer to the plaintiff’s shop and he used to pay the amounts for purchasing the seeds and pesticides. It is specifically admitted by the defendant that he used to purchase seeds and pesticides from the plaintiff. It is further denied by the defendant that he never executed the promissory note nor the agreement in favor of the plaintiff in respect of the amount of Rs.51,000/-.

9.In order to prove the Written Statement allegations the defendant himself examined as Dw.1. According to the Dw.1, he deposed that the Pw.1 is the proprietor of the Saraswathi Traders, Bhainsa and runs the business of selling seeds and pesticides and he is one of the the customers of Saraswathi Traders and he used to purchase seeds and pesticides from Saraswathi Traders. Dw.1 further deposed that he never requested to Pw.1 for temporary loan of Rs.51,000/- and he did not execute

Exs.A1 to A3 i.e., Ex.A1 Promissory note, Ex.A2 receipt and Ex.A3 Agreement in favor of plaintiff. Dw.1 further deposed that he used to buy seeds and pesticides from the Pw.1 and timely he paid the amount for the same, due to unfair practices of Pw.1 he stopped buying the seeds and pesticides from Pw.1’s shop. Subsequently he started buying seeds and pesticides from other persons, because of this Pw.1 filed this present suit against him on the basis of false and fabricated documents only to harass

Dw.1. In order to support the contents of the Written statement the Dw.1 relied upon the two documentary evidence i.e., Ex.B1 is the receipt an amount of Rs.10,000/-,

O.S.NO.16 OF 2016

dated: 29.12.2010 received from Vinayaka from the Saraswathi Traders, Bhainsa.

Ex.B2 is the receipt an amount of Rs.10,000/-, dated: 29.12.2010 received from

Vinayaka from the Saraswathi Traders, Bhainsa.

10.On careful perusal of the evidences of the Pws.1 and 2 it is undisputed fact that the plaintiff is running seeds and pesticides shops under the name and style of

Saraswathi Traders in Bhainsa since last 15 years. The plaintiff and defendants are also known to each other since last 20 to 25 years. It is also admitted that the defendant is one of the customers to the plaintiff’s shop. It is the main contention of the defendant that when he stopped purchasing the seeds and pesticides from the shop of Plaintiff and he bore grudges against the defendant and filed this false suit by creating false and fabricated documents. During the cross-examination of the Pws.1 and 2 nothing was elicited by the defendant except mere denying regarding filing of the false suit. Though the defendant relied upon the Exs.B1 and B2 which clearly shows the defendant paid Rs.10,000/- on 29.12.2010 and another date 10.01.2014.

Even if two documents are considered to be true, the defendant did not give any reasonable explanation regarding execution of Exs.A1 to A3 in favor of the plaintiff.

11. At the stage it is pertinent to mention that Sec.101 of Evidence Act speaks that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts, which asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

Therefore, the burden initially rests on plaintiff who has to prove the Promissory note was executed by the defendant. As soon as the execution of the promissory note is proved, the rule of presumption laid down U/sc.118 of Negotiable Instrument Act, comes to the plaintiff’s aid and shifting the burden on the defendant side. Therefore, from a careful reference u/sec.118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act it mandates that it

O.S.NO.16 OF 2016

imposes a duty on the court to raise a presumption in favour of the plaintiff that the

Exs.A1 to A3 are made for consideration. Such presumption is rebuttable one. If the defendant proved to have been discharged the initial onus, showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful the same was ill-legal the onus would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact. The burden upon the defendant the non existence of consideration can be either direct or by bring on record or by preponderance of probabilities. The defendant did not rebutte the presumption drawn in favor of the plaintiff eventhough he is examined as Dw.1 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2 those documents are not related to suit promissory note.

Hence, it can be concluded that the plaintiff pleaded and proved the execution of

Exs.A1 to A3 by the defendant. Accordingly the Issues no.1 and 2 are answered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant.

12.Therefore, on a cosideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on recod, this court holds that the plaintiff proved that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.51,000/- from the plaintiff on 22.06.2013 and executed the Ex.A1 to

A3 suit pronote, Agreement and receipt, but failed to pay the principal amount mentiond therein. Thus, the Issue nos.2 and 3 are answered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled for decree of sum of Rs.51,000/-.

13. In the result: this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant is directed to pay the suit amount of Rs.51,000/-(Rupees Fifty One

Thousand only) to the plaintiff forthwith. The plaintiff is entitled interest rate 6% per

O.S.NO.16 OF 2016

annum on the principal sum adjudged amount from the date of suit till the date of realization.

Typed dictation given to the typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 11th day of August, 2022.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHAINSA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: KashinathD.W.1: Vinayak Rao P.W.2: Vinod

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1 Original Promissory Note Dt.22.06.2013 for Rs.51,000/-. Ex.A2 Original Receipt, dt.22.06.2013 for Rs.51,000/-. Ex.A3 Original Agreement executed by defendant dt.22.06.2013. Ex.A4 office copy of legal notice dated 04.01.2015. Ex.A5 Acknowledgement of courier dt.27.01.2016

FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.B-1 Receipt, dt.29.12.2010. Ex.B2 another receipt, dt.10.01.2014

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

BHAINSA.

O.S.NO.16 OF 2016

Dt: 08-08-2022

STC/1422/20221 / 1

TSNR030016352022

IN THE COURT OF THE Junior Civil Judge: Bhainsa

Present: Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa

STC/1422/2022

Between:

State of Telangana rep through P.S Bhainsa Town Address: P.S Bhainsa Town … Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

Khule Shankar Address: Santhoshnagar, Bhainsa … Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for Petitioner : P.P,Advocate

Counsel for Respondent : ,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

The accused is present in person and the copies of the documents are furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. When the accused is examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C for the offence under seciton 185(a) of M.V Act for which he pleaded guilty. The admission of

Dt: 08-08-2022

STC/1422/20221 / 1 the accused appears free and voluntarily. Hence accused is convicted under section 252 of Cr.P.C for the offence 185(a) of MV Act. When heard about quantum of sentence to be imposed upon the accused person, he submitted that he is poor person and not having permanent income and he is doing doing daily labor work and if fine is imposed by this court he is ready to pay it. Accordingly the accused is sentenced to pay an amountof Rs.2000 for the offence under section 185(a) of MV Act. In default of payment of fine amount of the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Total fine of Rs.2000

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 08-08-2022 {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAM} Bhainsa (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)