V.Gopala Krishna

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: SATTENAPALLI

Present: Sri V.Gopala Krishna,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli

Monday, this the 29th day of April, 2019

C.C.No.21/2019

Between:

The State rep. by : Sub-Inspector of Police, Krosuru P.S …. Complainant. And:

Siddi Roja Rani, W/o.Kondaiah, 40 years, R/o.Yarrabalem village, Krosuru Mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming on 22-04-2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri. B.Narasimha Rao, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G E M E N T

1)The accused is charged for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act, 1968, in Cr.No.258/2018 of Krosuru P.S.

2)The case of prosecution in brief as follows:

The accused is a resident of Yarrabalem village of Krosuru Mandal and she used to purchase liquor bottles from the wine shops of

Sattenapalli and sold away at higher rates illegally and get some profit without having any valid licence and permission. On 04.09.2018 at about 6.00 PM on receipt of credible information received by

P.W.6-G.Yedukondalu, SI of police, about the illegal sale of liquor bottles and immediately he along with his staff P.W.1, P.W.2 and secured the presence of mediators P.W.3 to P.W.5 reached the scene of offence situated at the house of accused at 88-Thalluru road in Yerrabalem village and found accused doing business and on seeing the police party, 2 the accused tried to skulk away, but they caught hold and on interrogation the accused confessed that she having liquor bottles i.e,

1) 5-AC black Reserve whisky bottles, 2) 10-Grand Duke bottles,

3) 4-Bangalore Malt whisky bottles, Double Kick Fine whisky bottles and seized the same from the possession of the accused and arrested her in the presence of P.W.3 to P.W.5 under cover of

Ex.P1/mediators report and attested the same by them.

Basing on it, P.W.6 registered a case in Cr.No.258/2018,

U/s.34(a)of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and investigated into. During the course of investigation the scene of offence was examined and also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements in C.D part-II and prepared rough sketch. Later P.W.6 served sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and released him on station bail and later P.W.6 sent the samples to the

Analyst for analysis and received the C.E report After completion of investigation, L.W.8-P.Uday Babu, SI of police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3) This case was taken on cognizance of the offence punishable

U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968, against the accused Accused.

4) On appearance of the accused before this court, the copies of documents were furnished to her as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5)The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, for which the accused denied the charge punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise

Act, 1968 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

3

6)In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution in all examined Six witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.5 documents and M.O.1 to M.O.3 (CPR.No.18/2019) are produced.

7)After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, for which she denied the incriminating evidence levelled against her. When accused was called upon to enter upon defence evidence, For which accused reported no defence witnesses to be examined on her behalf and got marked no documents on behalf of defence.

8)Heard the arguments on both sides.

9) Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10)To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.W.1–T.Hanumantha Rao, PC, deposed in his evidence that on 04.09.2018 at about 6.00 PM, P.W.6/SI of police received credible information regarding the selling of liquor bottles and immediately he along with L.W.2-K.Ram Babu, P.W.2 accompanied with P.W.6 and proceeded to the scene of offence situated at the house of accused in

Yerrabalem village of Krosuru Mandal and found the accused selling the liquor bottles at higher price without having any licence or permission and on seeing them, the accused tried to escape from the place, and on suspicion, P.W.6 detained her and on eqnuiry by P.W.6, the accused 4 voluntarily confessed that she purchased the liquor bottles from various shops in Krosuru and selling the same at higher price without having any licence and then P.W.6 seized 1) 5-AC black Reserve whisky bottles,

2) 10-Grand Duke bottles, 3) 4-Bangalore Malt whisky bottles,

Double Kick Fine whisky bottles which were kept in card board box under cover of Ex.P.1/mediators report and they returned to Station along with the accused and seized property and registered a case in

Cr.No.302/2018.

11)To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.W.2–B.Aruna Kumari, WPC, deposed in her evidence that on 04.09.2018 at about 6.00 PM, P.W.6/SI of police received credible information regarding the selling of liquor bottles and immediately she along with P.W.1, L.W.2 accompanied with P.W.6 and proceeded to the scene of offence situated at the house of accused in Yerrabalem village of Krosuru Mandal and found the accused selling the liquor bottles at higher price without having any licence or permission and on seeing them, the accused tried to escape from the place, and on suspicion, with the assistance of herself P.W.6 detained the accused and on eqnuiry by

PW.6, the accused voluntarily confessed that she purchased the liquor bottles from various shops in Krosuru and selling the same at higher price without having any licence and then P.W.6 seized 1) 5-AC black

Reserve whisky bottles, 2) 10-Grand Duke bottles,

3) 4-Bangalore Malt whisky bottles, Double Kick Fine whisky bottles which were kept in card board box under cover of

Ex.P.1/mediators report and they returned to Station along with the accused and seized property.

5

12)To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

PW.3-N.Kondala Rao, P.W.4-K.Yedukondalu, P.W.5-V.Govindarajulu, who are the mediators for arrest and seizure to the alleged offence they deposed that they do not know anything regarding this case, neither police seized any liquor bottles nor arrested the accused in their presence under cover of Ex.P.1/mediators report and they attested on

Ex.P.1 in the police station.

13)To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.W.6–G.Yedukondalu, SI of police, deposed in his evidence that on 04.09.2018 at about 6.00 PM he received credible information regarding the selling of liquor bottles and immediately he along with

P.W.1, P.W.2 and secured mediators P.W.3 to P.W.5 and proceeded to the scene of offence situated at the house of accused at 88-Thalluru road at the outskirts of Yerrabalem village of Krosuru Mandal and found the accused selling the liquor bottles at higher price without having any licence or permission and on seeing them, the accused tried to escape from the place, and on suspicion, with the assistance of P.W.2, he detained the accused and on his eqnuiry, the accused voluntarily confessed that she purchased the liquor bottles from various shops in

Krosuru and selling the same at higher price without having any licence and then he seized 1) 5-AC black Reserve whisky bottles, 2) 10-

Grand Duke bottles, 3) 4-Bangalore Malt whisky bottles, Double

Kick Fine whisky bottles which were kept in card board box under cover of Ex.P.1/mediators report and they returned to Station along with the accused and seized property and basing on it, he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.250/2018, U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and issued

Ex.P.3/FIR and prepared Ex.P.4/rough sketch and he served sec.41-A

Cr.P.C notice to the accused and released her and he forwarded M.Os.1 6 to M.O.3 for chemical analysis and after completion of investigation,

L.W.5 filed charge sheet against the accused.

14) The learned APP for prosecution argued that the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused by examining P.W.1 to P.W.6 and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.5 and M.O.1 to M.O.3 and requested the court to convict the accused according to law.

15)The learned counsel for accused argued that the accused are innocent and he did not commit the alleged offence and the case is foisted only for a statistical purpose. The learned defence counsel for the accused further argued that P.W.3 to P.W.5 who are the independent mediators and eye witnesses for the seizure and arrest of the accused are turned hostile and Ex.P.1 was brought into existence as if the PW.1,

P.W.2 and P.W.6 who are police official witnesses and found the accused was in possession of 1) 5-AC black Reserve whisky bottles,

2) 10-Grand Duke bottles, 3) 4-Bangalore Malt whisky bottles,

Double Kick Fine whisky bottles, but the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by placing cogent and consistent evidence and failed to produce the evidence to the confidence of the court and hence pray the court to acquit the accused in the interest of justice.

16)The learned counsel for accused relied upon the decision reported in 2006 Part-I ALD (Crl.) page No.254 Andhra Pradesh Excise and Prohibition; “Wherein their Lordship that Search and seizure- Failure to follow proper procedure – Effect – Accused found in possession of ID liquor – Conviction under Section 8(b) of Act– Confirmed in appeal - Revision - Excise Officials picked up punch witnesses at police station and took them along with them to scene of offence situate at distance of three kilometers – As disclosed by Panchanama no attempt made to secure independent respectable witnesses of locality 7 which is at a distance of 25 yards from scene of offence – Failure to follow the procedure for search as contemplated under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. While seizing plastic bag containing ID liquor - Seizure made is illegal – PW.2, mediator in whose presence plastic bag containing ID liquor was seized, turned hostile – Both Courts below relied upon self serving testimony of Excise Officials and found accused guilty – In absence independent evidence, evidence of Excise Officials cannot be relied upon – Revision allowed. Conviction and – sentence set aside 100(4)”.

17)In view of the above arguments advanced by the defence counsel I am of the opinion that the court has to see that whether the possession of 1) 5-AC black Reserve whisky bottles, 2) 10-Grand

Duke bottles, 3) 4-Bangalore Malt whisky bottles, Double Kick

Fine whisky bottles is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. As can be seen from the charge sheet averments and the evidence of PW.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 it is clear that the scene of offence place is situated at the house of accused in Yarrabalem village of Krosuru Mandal and the accused is having 1) 5-AC black Reserve whisky bottles,

2) 10-Grand Duke bottles, 3) 4-Bangalore Malt whisky bottles,

Double Kick Fine whisky bottles and sell by accused without any valid license and permission and the time of alleged offence is occurred on 04.09.2018 while P.W.6/SI of police secured independent local inhabitant as mediators from the scene of offence place situated at

Yarrabalem village of Krosuru Mandal to strengthen the seizure of 1) 5-

AC black Reserve whisky bottles, 2) 10-Grand Duke bottles,

3) 4-Bangalore Malt whisky bottles, Double Kick Fine whisky bottles in that regard.

18)The contention of P.W.1, P.W.2 is that P.W.6 searched for mediators and secured the P.W.3 to P.W.5 as mediators is not at all appears to be believable as they are turned hostile. PW.1, P.W.2 simply stated that one police constable drafted the Ex.P.1/mediators report on 8 the dictation of P.W.6 and seized the contraband. As it can be observed that the scene of offence at the house of accused in Yarrabalem village and it is a busy locality and Sarpanch, Secretary, VROs are residing in the village and they did not secure VRO, VRA and Sarapanch as mediators and P.W.6 did not issue any written notices or summons to the above persons requesting them to act as mediators. Even otherwise they did not obtained the signatures of the any of the local people on

Ex.P.1/mediators report. PW.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 who are police personnel also admitted in their cross examination that no property is seized from the scene of offence or from the possession of accused in the presence of mediators it creates a doubt in a mind of the court.

19)In view of the above evidence of PW.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 it is clearly shows that their staff did not make any efforts to secure local inhabitants as mediators and seizure of 1) 5-AC black Reserve

whisky bottles, 2) 10-Grand Duke bottles, 3) 4-Bangalore Malt

whisky bottles, Double Kick Fine whisky bottles. More over the evidence of PW.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 appears to be doubtful whether they found the accused while the accused is in possession of said contraband property at the alleged place of offence.

20)Basing on the oral evidence of PW.1, P.W.2, and P.W.6 who are no other than the police officials it is not possible to come to conclusion that the seizure of the said possession of 1) 5-AC black

Reserve whisky bottles, 2) 10-Grand Duke bottles, 3) 4-

Bangalore Malt whisky bottles, Double Kick Fine whisky bottles, from possession of accused is established and sent the sample for chemical analysis. From the oral evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.5 the prosecution mainly relied upon the Ex.P.1/mediators report. I have 9 perused it as can be seen from the contents of Ex.P.1/ mediators report. I have perused it as can be seen from the contents of Ex.P.1. it is clear that the accused confessed his guilt before the police which is in admissible in the eye of law as per Section 25 of Indian Evidence

Act 1872. Hence, I am of considered view that Ex.P1 can’t be taken into consideration to meet the accused liable for an alleged offence.

21)The evidence of PW.1, P.W.2 revealed that P.W.6 forwarded the entire seized contraband to the Deputy Commissioner Prohibition

Excise, Guntur for confiscation. PW.1, P.W.2 categorically stated that they did not obtain any receipt to show that they handed over the same to the Deputy Commissioner Prohibition and Excise, Guntur. PW.1 also not filed the property destruction order or memo before this court. The evidence of PW1, P.W.2 shows that P.W.6 forwarded the M.Os.1 to 3 samples to the Chemical Examiner, Guntur for analysis and after receipt of chemical examination report, L.W.8/SI of police filed charge sheet, FIR and Chemical Examination report before this court.

22)In view of the evidence of PW.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 with regard to connect the accused with the alleged offence and the arguments submitted by the defence counsel admittedly the said possession of

1) 5-AC black Reserve whisky bottles, 2) 10-Grand Duke bottles,

3) 4-Bangalore Malt whisky bottles, Double Kick Fine whisky bottles, after taking the sample was i.e, M.O.1 to M.O.3 not produced

before this court. Basing on oral evidence of PW.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 it is

not possible to come to just conclusion that the prosecution has established the case against the accused. In the absence of independent evidence and I am of a considered view that the evidence of PW.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 who are no other than the police personnel and interested 10 witnesses cannot be taken into consideration to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The independent mediators who present at the time of seizure of contraband and arrest of the accused turned hostile and did not supported the prosecution version. Moreover, seizure of the said contraband from the possession of the accused is not established beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case the evidence of PW.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 who are police persons the prosecution as they did not seize any property from the possession of accused in the presence of mediators, to strengthen the seizure of the said contraband is certainly fatal to the prosecution case. The non-examination of L.W.2-K.Ram Babu,

PC, L.W.8-P.Uday Babu, SI of police, is also fatal to the prosecution case.

23)For the fore going reasons I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt.

24)In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968, and she is acquitted under

Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

The M.O.1 to M.O.3 ( CPR.No.18/2019) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period is over.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 29 th day of April, 2019.

Sd/-V.Gopala Krishna

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATTENAPALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:None P.W.1: T.Hanumantha Rao, PC. P.W.2:B.Aruna Kumar, WPC. P.W.3:Nallagopu Kondala Rao, Mediator. P.W.4:Kumbha Yedukondalu, Mediator.

11

P.W.5:Vepuri Govinda Rajulu, Mediator. P.W.6:G.Yedukondalu,SI of police

. EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 Mediators report. Ex.P.2 FIR. Ex.P.3 Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.4 Rough sketch. Ex.P.5 Analysis report.

For Defence: NIL

Material Objects: M.O.1: 1-180 ML of AC Black Reserve whiksy bottle. M.O.2: 1-180 ML of Grand Duke bottle. M.O.3: 1-180 ML of Bangalore Malt whiksy bottle.

Sd/-V.Gopala Krishna

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATTENAPALLI.

12

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SATTENAPALLI.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.21/2019 DATE OF :- Offence: 04.09.2018 Complaint: 04.09.2018, Apprehension of accused: 04.09.2018 Released on bail: 04.09.2018 Commencement of trial: 25.03.2019 Close of trial: 22.04.2019 Sentence or order: 29.04.2019

Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of witnesses Name of the Complainant : State: Sub-Inspector of police, Krosuru P.S. (Cr.No.258/2018) Name of the accused

Siddi Roja Rani, W/o.Kondaiah, 40 years, R/o.Yarrabalem village, Krosuru Mandal.

Offence : U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968

Finding : Found not guilty U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968

Sentence : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968, and she is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 to M.O.3 ( CPR.No.18/2019) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period is over.

Sd/-V.Gopala Krishna

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATTENAPALLI.

Copy submitted to : 1)The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Guntur.

// True copy //

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SATTENAPALLI.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

SATTENAPALLI

Present: Sri V.Gopala Krishna, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.

Monday, this the 29 th day of April, 2018.

CALENDAR CASE NO.319/2018

Between: The State:Sub-Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli Rural Police Station. (Cr.No.250/2018)

...Complainant

And:

1.Narra Radhamma, W/o.Anjaiah, 69 years. 2.Kondaveeti Baji @ Babu, S/o.Narayana, 27 years. 3.Narra Sankar, S/o.Anjaiah, 30 years. 4.Kondaveeti Narayana @ Bujji, S/o.Venkateswarlu, 57 years.

All are R/o.Lakkaraju Garlapadu village, Sattenapalli Mandal. … A1 to A4

This case is coming on 22-04-2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri M.V.Subba Reddy, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)The A1 to A4 are charged for the offence punishable U/Sec.448, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC in Cr.No.250/2018 of Sattenapalli Rural Police

Station.

2)The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that:

PW1 and P.W.2 are wife and husband and they are residing at

Lakkaraju Garlapadu village and they blessed with two sons. P.W.1 and

P.W.2 constructed a new house beside their house. On the eastern side of the P.W.1’s house, A1 house is situated. During the construction work of P.W.1, some sand and lime accidentally fallen on the compound wall of A1. Then the accused objected for it and then P.W.1 and P.W.2 2 covered with gunny bags to prevent such falling and also assured that they will clean it. On 12.06.2018 at about 1.00 PM when P.W.1 was present at her house, then A1 came to her and told that lime was still falling on their house, for which, P.W.1 replied that they will cause clean of it. Then A1 scolded P.W.1, she objected for it. In the meanwhile, A2 to A4 came and all the accused trespassed into the house of P.W.1 with a common intention, armed with sticks, crowbards etc., dragged P.W.1 from the house, fisted her, abused her in filthy language and insulted the modesty of P.W.1 and threatened with dire consequences. On seeing the same, P.W.2 intervened and all the accused also manhandled P.W.2 and threatened with dire consequences. P.W.3 to

P.W.6 witnessed the incident. On the same day, P.W.1 went to police station and reported to police.

Basing on the report of P.W.1, the P.W.7-M.Nazeer Beig, SI of police, registered the same as a case in Cr.No.250/2018, U/s.448, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, drafted rough sketch of scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements, prepared rough sketch and on 05.07.2018 P.W.6 served sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to A1 to A4 and released them on station bail.

After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.

3)This case was taken on cognizance of the offence punishable

U/Sec.448, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC against the A1 to A4.

4)On appearance of the A1 to A4 before this court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

3

5) The accused were examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for which they denied the offence punishable U/Sec.448, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

6)To prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution in all examined

Seven witnesses as PW1 to PW7 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to P7 documents on behalf of the prosecution.

7)After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A4 were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating evidence appearing against them and the plea of accused is one of total denial. When they were called upon to enter upon defence evidence, they did not choose to examine any defence witnesses and not marked any documents on behalf of defence.

8)Heard the arguments on both sides.

9) Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.448, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10)It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 and P.W.2 constructed a new house in Lakkaraju Garlapadu village beside their house. On the eastern side of the P.W.1’s house, A1 house is situated. During the construction work of P.W.1, some sand and lime accidentally fallen on the compound wall of A1. Then the accused objected for it and then

P.W.1 and P.W.2 covered with gunny bags to prevent such falling and also assured that they will clean it. On 12.06.2018 at about 1.00 PM when P.W.1 was present at her house, then A1 came to her and told that lime was still falling on their house, for which, P.W.1 replied that 4 they will cause clean of it. Then A1 scolded P.W.1, she objected for it.

In the meanwhile, A2 to A4 came and all the accused trespassed into the house of P.W.1 with a common intention, armed with sticks, crowbards etc., dragged P.W.1 from the house, fisted her, abused her in filthy language and insulted the modesty of P.W.1 and threatened with dire consequences. On seeing the same, P.W.2 intervened and the accused also manhandled P.W.2 and threatened with dire consequences. P.W.3 to P.W.6 witnessed the incident. On the same day, P.W.1 went to police station and reported to police, as such the A1 to A4 shall be punishable U/Sec.448, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

11)To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

PW1- Putti Thayaramma deposed in her evidence that A1 has got house on the eastern side of her house and at the time of her house construction the waste cement and sand was fell in the site of A1, for which A1 asked her, then she replied that she will cleaning the same, when A1 abused her in filthy language and later about 7 months on one day at about 1.00 PM while she was present at her house, A1 to A4 came to her house, trespassed into her house, beat her with hands, abused her in filthy language, then she raised hue and cries and on hearing her husband/P.W.2-Putti Hanumantha Rao and others P.W.3 to

PW.6 came there when P.W.2 asked the accused, all the accused also beat P.W.2 with hands. Ex.P.1 is her report to police.

12)To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

PW2- Putti Hanumantha Rao, who is husband of P.W.1,deposed in his evidence that A1 has got house on the eastern side of his house and at the time of their house construction the waste cement and sand was fell in the site of A1, for which A1 asked him, then he replied that he will cleaning the same, when A1 abused P.W.1 in filthy language and 5 later about 7 months on one day at about 1.00 PM while he coming to his house, A1 to A4 came to his house, trespassed into his house, beat

P.W.1 with hands, abused her in filthy language, then P.W.1 raised hue and cries and on hearing he along with others P.W.3 to P.W.6 came there when he asked the accused, all the accused also beat him with hands.

13)To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW3-Paleti Amaraiah, P.W.4-Putta Sathish, P.W.5-Makkena

Krishna Rao, P.W.6-Narra Nageswara Rao, who are the independent eye witnesses and neighbours of scene of offence did not depose anything on behalf of the case of the prosecution and hence they are declared as hostile and in their cross-examination by the learned A.P.P they denied their respective 161 Cr.P.C statements recorded by police.

14)To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

PW.7-M.Nazeer Beig, SI of police,deposed in his evidence that on 12.06.2018 at about 5.00 PM, P.W.1 came to police station and submitted Ex.P.1/report and basing on it, he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.250/2018, U/s.448, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC and issued

Ex.P.6/FIR and later he visited the scene of offence at P.W.1’s house and prepared Ex.P.7/rough sketch and on 05.07.2018 he served sec.41-

A Cr.P.C notice to A1 to A4 and released them on station bail and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 to A4.

15)Coming to the appreciation of the evidence U/Sec.448, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC reads as follows:-

Section 448 IPC punishment for house trespass:

“Whoever commits house-trespass, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one months, or with fine which may extent to one thousand rupees, or 6 with both”.

Section 323 IPC Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt: “Whoever except in the case provided for by Section 324, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to one year, or with fine which may extent to one thousand rupees, or with both”

Section 509 IPC Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman: “Whoever intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, exhibits any object, intending that such work or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be, punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both ;”.

ction 506 IPC punishment for criminal intimidation:Se “Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to two years, or with fine, or with both;”.

16)The learned APP for the prosecution vehemently argued that the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt by examining the PW1 to PW7 who supported the prosecution case and got exhibited

Ex.P1 to P7 documents beyond all reasonable doubt and requested the court to convict the accused according to law.

17)In a criminal trial the charges made against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the requirement of proof cannot lie in the surmises and conjecturers. It should be born in the mind that there is no absolute standard for proof in a criminal trial and the question whether the charges made against the accused have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of the evidence adduced in the case and the material placed on record.

7

18)While coming to the conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, the court to take the following circumstances into consideration.

1. the circumstances in which the offence is said to have been committed.

2. The motive for the offence or false accusation

3. The consistency of the story told by the prosecution, its probability or plausibility.

4. The nature of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution

5. Its credibility

6. The character, position and independence of the witnesses

7. The reasons for accepting or rejecting any portion of the statements, its effect on the testimony.

8. The examination of the accused explaining the f acts in the evidence against him

9. The evidence adduced in support of the defence theory.

19)“The test beyond all reasonable doubt” is really the estimate which a Prudent man makes of the probabilities, having regard to what must be his duty as a result of his evidence.

20)The learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution miserably failed in proving the ingredients of U/Sec.448, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC against the accused and he further argued that the entire prosecution evidence reveals that PW1 and P.W.2 started construction of their house in their house site in Lakkaraju Garlapadu village and A1 has got house on their eastern side of her house, at the time of construction, the waste cement and sand was fell into the A1’s site, for which A1 asked her, then she replied that she will clean the same and on that all the accused trespassed into her house, dragged her to the road and beat fisted her, abused her in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences with a common intention, When P.W.1 asked the accused about their attitude all the accused threatened 8 them with dire consequences, due to the acts of the accused are all false, The motive behind this case is all accused trespassed into her house and fisted her. then she gave report to police under Ex.P1 are all false and requested the court to acquit the accused.

21)The learned defence counsel cross-examined the PW1 to PW7 at length and the admission in the cross-examination itself discard the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The suggestion put by the defence counsel and admission of PW1, PW2, P.W.7 cut the roots of the prosecution case.

22)The learned APP has submitted that the fact recorded by this court basing on the evidence and that no corroboration is required when testimony of the prosecutrix (PW1) is clear, cogent and convincing. The APP has further contended that there is nothing to show that the prosecution has falsely implicated the accused.

23)On perusing the evidence of P.Ws.1, P.W.2 are victims and admittedly PW7 is the investigating officer did not conduct test identification parade of the accused and also the investigating officers did not produce any photographs of the scene, which is great fatal to the case of the prosecution.

24)The learned defence counsel submitted that PW1, PW2 are the wife and husband and family members and no independent eye witnesses to the alleged offence is examine by the prosecution to corroborate the offence for the reasons best known to the prosecution.

Thus the prosecution failed to examine the any independent eye witnesses. P.Ws.3 to P.W.6 who are independent eye witnesses, neighbours of the scene of offence have turned hostile and they did 9 not support the prosecution case.

25)From the discussion above all I feel that the evidence adduced by the prosecution from PW1 to PW7 is not establishing the guilt of the accused. The evidence of prosecution witnesses are not corroborating each other. All the prosecution witnesses are cross examined at length, they stood the test of cross examination, the discrepancies elicited by defence counsel can be looked into the reasons given above. Hence, the evidence of prosecution witnesses are not reliable, trust worthy, convincing and inspiring the confidence of the court. From the discussion above all I feel that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences charged beyond all reasonable doubt.

26)In the result, the A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.448, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted

U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for the period of six months as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 29 th day of April, 2019.

Sd/-V.Gopala Krishna

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SATTENAPALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence: None PW1Putti Thayaramma PW2Putti Hanumantha Rao PW3Paleti Amaraiah PW4Putta Satish PW5Makkena Krishna Rao PW6Narra Nageswara Rao PW7M.Nazeer Beig, SI of police 10

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1Report of PW1 Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4 Ex.P4161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5 Ex.P5161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6 Ex.P6F.I.R Ex.P7Rough sketch For Defence: -NIL –

Material Objects

N I L

Sd/-V.Gopala Krishna

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SATTENAPALLI.

11

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SATTENAPALLI.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.319/2018 DATE OF :- Offence: 12.06.2018 Complaint: 12.06.2018 Apprehension of accused: 05.07.2018 Released on bail: 05.07.2018 Commencement of trial: 07.01.2019 Close of trial: 22.04.2019 Sentence or order: 29.04.2019

Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of witnesses

Name of the Complainant: State:Sub-Inspector of police, Sattenapalli Rural P.S. (Cr.No.250/2018)

Name of the accused :

1.Narra Radhamma, W/o.Anjaiah, 69 years. 2.Kondaveeti Baji @ Babu, S/o.Narayana, 27 years. 3.Narra Sankar, S/o.Anjaiah, 30 years. 4.Kondaveeti Narayana @ Bujji, S/o.Venkateswarlu, 57 years.

All are R/o.Lakkaraju Garlapadu village, Sattenapalli Mandal.

Offence : U/Sec.448, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

Finding : Found not guilty U/Sec.448, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

Sentence or Order : In the result, the A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.448, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for the period of six months as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-V.Gopala Krishna

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. Copy submitted to : 1)The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Guntur.

// True copy //

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SATTENAPALLI.

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: SATTENAPALLI

Present: Sri V.Gopala Krishna,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli

Tuesday, this the 30th day of April, 2019

C.C.No.239/2014

Between:

The State rep. by : The Food Safety Officer, Guntur District. O/o.Assistant Food Controller, Zone-III, D.No.6-11-60, 11/2, Arundelpet, Guntur. …. Complainant.

And:

Langam Venkatanarayana, S/o.Seshadri, 75 years, Proprietor of M/s.Hotel L.V.R., Main road, Sattenapalli Town, Guntur District.

…… Accused.

This case is coming on 22-04-2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri V.Papa Rao, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G E M E N T

1)The Food Safety Officer, Guntur Distirct, Zone-III filed complaint against the accused for the offence U/Sec.3(1)(zz), 26(2) (I) of Food

Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Regulations 3.1.2(1) (6) of FSS (Food

Products & Food Additives) Regulations, 2011.

2)The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that:

On 08.05.2013 at about 1.15 PM, PW1-Sappa Srinivas, Food

Safety Officer along with L.W.2 visited and inspected the business premises of the accused running under name and style as M/s.Hotel

L.V.R. situated at Main road, Sattenapalli, Guntur district and found accused was present and transacting the business. Then PW1 secured 2 the presence of one independent witness/LW2 and in the presence of accused and LW2, PW1 inspected the said hotle and found Red gram dall in open gunnuybag with other food articles and on enquiry, the accused disclosed that it is Red gram dall stock about 10 Kgs gunny bag, the red gram dall using preparation of food items in this hotel for sale to public for human consumption and failed to disclose its source of supply. Then PW1 suspected that the quality of said Red gram dall and purchased 4 Kgs of dall by paying its cost of Rs.240/- as demanded by the accused and obtained a cash receipt and issued a notice in Form-VA intimating his intention of sending the so purchased

Red gram dall to the public Analyst, Nacharam, Hyderabad for analysis purpose. Then the so purchased 4 Kgs of Red gram dall was divided them into four equal parts i.e, each part 1 Kgs Red gram dall placed into 4 clean, dryand empty pet jars and caps were closed air tightly and tide with thread and sealed with sealing wax on each part and affixed four labels dully filled in with particulars of the sample and

Code No.007A/03624/2013 on each sample part by means of gum.

Further on each sample container a paper slip of the size issued and seized by the Gazetted Food Inspector, Local Health Authority, Guntur bearing code No. and serial No.007A/03624/2013 was affixed on each sample part separately running around from bottom to top by means of gum. Further on each sample part, the signature of the accused was taken in such a manner both paper slip and wrapper cover carries a part of his signature. Finally each sample part was secured by means of strong twin thread above and across and four seals were affixed one on the top, one on the bottom, one on the either side of sample packet using specimen impression seal of him and sealing wax duly observing one of the seal covers the knots of the thread. As the witness expressed his inability to reduce the process of sampling under a cover 3

Panchanama. PW1 himself drafted the Panchanama in Telugu read over and made hear upon accused and witness and obtained their signatures.

On 08.05.2013 one part of the sample along with a copy of

Memorandum in Form-VI in a sealed packet was sent to the Food

Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad by Regd., parcel vide postal receipt No.CRN653999510IN along with another copy of memorandum in Form -VII having the specimen impression seal of him which is used to seal. The remaining two parts of the sample along with 2 copies of memorandum in Form-VII in a sealed packet were handed over to the

Designated Officer, Guntur District under an acknowledgment dated 08.05.2013.

After causing the analysis the Food Analyst sent the report in

Form B which was received by him on 17.05.2013 and the same was received by PW1 through Local (Health) Authority vide report

No.245/2013, dt.17.05.2013 where in the public Analyst opined that “ the sample contains added Synthetic Colour, it is therefore unsafe”.

The details of the case were sent to the Director of State Food (Health) Authority who after perusing the records and connected material therein accorded written consent to launch prosecution against the accused in the interest of Public health vide Later

Rc.No.830/F3/2013, dt.07.08.2013 which was received by PW1 from

the Local (health) Authority.

Therefore, it is established that the accused person have committed an offence U/Sec.3(1)(zz), 26(2) (I) of Food Safety and

Standards Act, 2006, Regulations 3.1.2(1) (6) of FSS (Food Products &

Food Additives) Regulations, 2011. Thus it is humbly prayed to the

Hon'ble court to punish the accused person suitable according to law.

4

3)This complaint was taken on cognizance of the offence punishable U/Sec. U/Sec.3(1)(zz), 26(2) (I) of Food Safety and

Standards Act, 2006, Regulations 3.1.2(1) (6) of FSS (Food Products &

Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 against the accused by my learned

Predecessor in the office.

4)On appearance of the accused before this court, copies of documents furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5)The accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for which accused denied the offence punishable U/Sec.U/Sec.3(1)(zz), 26(2) (I) of Food

Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Regulations 3.1.2(1) (6) of FSS (Food

Products & Food Additives) Regulations, 2011, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

6)To prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution in all examined only one witness as PW1 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to P17 documents.

7)After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating evidence appearing against him and the plea of accused is one of total denial. When he call upon to enter upon defence evidence, he did not choose to examine any defence witnesses and got marked no documents on behalf of defence.

8)Heard the arguments on both sides.

9) Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. U/Sec.3(1) (zz), 26(2) (I) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Regulations 3.1.2(1) (6) of FSS (Food Products & Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 ?

5

10)In this case PW.1 is the Food Safety Officer and who filed this case and filed complaint.

11)To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined PW1-

Sappa Srinivas, Food Safety Officer, deposed in his evidence that on 08.05.2013 at about 1.15 PM he visited the premises of L.V.R Hotel,

Main road, Sattenapalli along with L.W.2 and conducted inspection and found the accused was transacting the business and then the accused revealed his identity and inspected the Kitchen and store room and found red gram dall in open gunny bag with other food articles and he enquired, the accused disclosed that he using the red gram dall in his hotel for preparation of curries and other food articles for sale to public for human consumption and then he suspected the quality and purchased the 4 Kgs of red gram dall out of 10 Kgs and paid the cost of the 4 kgs of Rs.240/- to the accused and obtained cash receipt and later he sent the sample to the Food Analyst, State Food Laboratory,

Hyderabad for analysis and Analyst sent the report bearing

No.245/2013, dt.17.05.2013 and opined that the the sample contains added Synthetic color, it is unsafe. On perusal of details submitted by the Food Safety Designated Officer, Guntur district, the

Commissioner, Food Safety has accorded permission to launch prosecution against the accused U/s.3(1)(zz) and 26(2)(I) of FSS Act, 2006 Regulation 3(1)(2) (1)() of FSS Act, 2011. Ex.P.5 is cash receipt, dt.08.05.2013, Ex.P.6-Form -VA notice, Ex.P.7 Label on container, dt.08.05.2013, Ex.P.8 is panchanama, Ex.P.9 is Form VI memorandum, dt.08.05.2013, Ex.P.10 is intimation copy, Ex.P.11 is postal receipt, dt.08.05.2013, Ex.P.12 is postal receipt, dt.08.05.2013, Ex.P.13 acknowledgment, Ex.P.14 is Food Analyst report, Ex.P.15 notice, Ex.P.16 6 is postal receipt, Ex.P.17 is RC No.830/F3/2013, dt.07.08.2013. After receipt of prosecution sanction orders, he filed complaint against the accused for the offences U/s.3(1)(zz)(viii), 26(2)(i), 27(1) of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006.

12)Coming to the appreciation of evidence., Section 11 of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Food Inspector for taking sample for food for analysis. The food inspector is required:

11. Procedure to be followed by Food Inspectors:

(1) when a food Inspector takes a sample of Food for analysis, he shall.

(a) give notice in writing then and there of his intention to have it so analysed to the person from whom he has taken the sample and to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14-A.

(b) except in special cases provided by rules under this

Act, divided the sample then and there into 3 parts and mark and seal or fasten up each part in such a manner as its nature permits and take the signature of thumb impression of the person from whom the sample has been taken in such place and in such manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that where such person refuses to sign or put his thumb impression, the Food Inspector shall call up0on one or more witnesses and taken his or their signatures or thumb impressions, as the case may be, in liew of the signature or thumb impression of such person.

(c) i) send one of the parts for analysis to the public analyst under intimation to the local (Health) authority; 7 ii) send the remaining tow parts to the Local (Health) authority for the purposes of Sub- Section (2) of this section and sub-Sections (2-A) and (2-E) of Section13.

13)The learned APP for prosecution argued that the prosecution examined P.W.1 and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.17 documents were marked and proved the prosecution case and requested the court to convict the accused according to law.

14)The learned defence counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

He further argued that the Food Inspector filed a case against the accused. He further argued that P.W.1 never filed any documentary evidence to show that the accused is running M/s. L.V.R Hotel in

Sattenapalli Town. He further argued that the prosecution failed to produce the neighbouring owners of the scene of offence. He further argued that there is no signatures of the accused on the label. He further argued that the samples are taken in the presence of L.W.2 but

L.W.2 did not examined to give his evidence. He further argued that

P.W.1 himself scribed the mediator report. He further argued that no licence/trade license /current bill to filed to prove the case. He further argued that Food Inspector has not follow the procedure to prove the case. He further argued that there is a different of opinion in two opinion, P.W.1 himself scribed the mediators report. Hence he prays the court to acquit the accused.

15)The learned counsel for accused relied upon the decision reported in;

1979 FAJ, Page 55, Andhra Pradesh High Court

(S.B), J. Muktadar, M.Mohammad- Prevention

of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 – Rule 14 –

8

Mandatory - Its non-compliance by not using

clean and dry bottles for the samples taken

for analysis vitiates the trial and entitles the

accused to an acquittal.

16)The learned APP further relied upon the decision reported in

1977 FAJ,552, Punjab and Haryana High Court,

(S.B), M.R. Sharma, J. Niadar – Prevention of

Food Adulteration Act (37 of 1954) – Section 16-

Petitioner convicted for selling adulterated milk

– No evidence to show that the three bottles

were cleaned before the samples of milk were

put into them – Further one of the prosecution

witnesses being a tea vendor was likely to be

under the influence of the Food Inspector – As

such the prosecution case is established and the

petitioner is acquitted.

17)The learned defence counsel argued that the prosecution failed to produce the samples before the court and as such the accused is deprived of his valuable right to make a request to the court for getting the samples re-analyzed by Central Food Laboratory which is fatal to the prosecution case.

18)This court relied on decision report in 2007 (3) ALT Crl. 350 AP.

It is submitted, the alleged steel bowl containing 10 kgs of gunny bag contains with Red gram dalla and on enquiry accused disclosed that the red gram dall was prepared as food item in his hotel and then filled into the food item and dall items for sale to the public for human consumption and failed to disclose its source of supply. Then PW1 suspected the quality of said Red gram dall and purchased 4 Kgs of

Red gram dall by paying its cost Rs.240/- as demanded by the accused and obtained a cash receipt is appears to be false and concocted and 9 as such the case of the prosecution is liable to be rejected.

19)The prosecution miserably failed to produce the samples before the Hon'ble Court in order to avail the mandatory provision to send the samples to Central Public Analyst, which is fatal to the prosecution case.

20)The prosecution has examined PW.1. His evidence is to the effect that PW.1 is the Food Safety Officer and who filed charge sheet, he admitted that he did not examine mediators in this case. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to L.W.2 who present at the time of conducting raid. There is no evidence available on record to fix the accused to the case of prosecution. There is no iota of evidence on record against the accused. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

21)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.3(1)(zz), 26(2) (I) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Regulations 3.1.2(1) (6) of FSS (Food Products & Food Additives)

Regulations, 2011 and he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 30 th day of April, 2019.

Sd/-V.Gopala Krishna

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SATTENAPALLI.

10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: None PW1Sappa Srinivas

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1Gazette notification vide G.O.Ms No.243 Ex.P.2Attested copy of Rc.No.571/F3/2013 Ex.P.3G.O.Ms.No.320, dt.27.10.2011 Ex.P.4G.O.Ms.No.101, dt.16.01.2013 Ex.P5Cash receipt, dt.08.05.2013 Ex.P.6Copy of the form – VA notice, dt.08.05.2013 Ex.P.7Label on the container, dt.08.05.2013 Ex.P.8Panchanama, dt.08.05.2013 Ex.P.9Copy of the Form –VI, dt.08.05.2013 Ex.P.10Intimation copy, dt.08.05.2013 Ex.P.11Postal receipt, dt.08.05.2013 Ex.P.12Postal receipt, dt.08.05.2013 Ex.P.13Acknowledgment, dt.08.05.2013 Ex.P.14Food Analyst report, dt.17.05.2013 Ex.P.15Notice U.R.2.4.2(6) to the FBO, By DO, Guntur, dt.22.05.2013 Ex.P.16Postal receipt, dt.23.05.2014. Ex.P.17Analysis report, dt.07.08.2013. For Defence: - NIL -

Material Objects NIL

Sd/-V.Gopala Krishna

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SATTENAPALLI.

11

Calendar and Judgment

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: SATTENAPALLI.

CALENDAR CASE NO: 239/2014

Date of offence: 08.05.2013

Complaint: 08.07.2014

Apprehension: 225.02.2016

Release on bail : --

Commencement of trial: 10.06.2016

Close of trial : 22.04.2019

Sentence or order : 30.04.2019

Explanation for delay: -- Name of the Complainant: The State rep. by : The Food Safety Officer, Guntur District. O/o.Assistant Food Controller, Zone-III, D.No.6-11-60, 11/2, Arundelpet, Guntur.

Name of the Accused: Langam Venkatanarayana, S/o.Seshadri, 75 years, Proprietor of M/s.Hotel L.V.R., Main road, Sattenapalli Town, Guntur District.

Offence : U/Sec.3(1)(zz) (v) (x)(xi), 21, 26(2) and 27(1) of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products & Food Activities) Regulations, 2011

Finding : Found not guilty,

Sentence:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.3(1)(zz), 26(2) (I) of Food Safety and

Standards Act, 2006, Regulations 3.1.2(1) (6) of FSS (Food Products &

Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 and he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/-V.Gopala Krishna

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SATTENAPALLI.

Copy submitted to : 1)The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: SATTENAPALLI

Present: Sri V.Gopala Krishna, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli

Wednesday, this the 24th day of April, 2019

C.C.No. 161 /201 8

Between:

The State rep. by : Sub-Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli Town P.S …. Complainant.

And:

Shaik Shabbier, S/o.Nagul, 22 years,

R/o.Gangireddypalem village, Machavaram Mandal.

Rider of Bajaj Discover motor cycle bearing No.AP 07 AZ 4182 … Accused

This case is coming on 17-04-2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri P.S.Raju, S.A.Raheem, Advocates for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G E M E N T

1) The accused is charged for the offence punishable

U/Sec.304-A IPC, sec.181, 196 of M.V.Act in Cr.No.315/2017 of

Sattenapalli Town Police Station.

2)The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that:

The deceased/Shaik Allabhakshu is the resident of

Sattenapalli Town and lives as Carpenter and he has got two sons i.e, defacto complainant/ P.W.1/Shaik Karimulla who is the elder son of deceased and P.W.2-Shaik Karimulla who is the younger son of deceased. About two years back the wife of deceased by name (Silarbi ) was died, since then the deceased stayed with P.W.2. Every day morning, the deceased has a habit of going to Mosque for prayer.

On 24.11.2017 in the morning time the deceased went to mosque in 2

Narasaraopet road, Sattenapalli Town and stood on the road margin in front of mosque to go inside mosque for prayer at about 5.30 AM. At that time the accused being the rider of Bajaj Discover motor cycle bearing No.AP 07 AZ 4182, drove it in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn proceeding from Narasaraopet to Sattenapalli in wrong route and hit the deceased and ran away. As a result, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained bleeding injuries to his head and right leg. P.W.6, P.W.7 witnessed the incident. Immediately the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Sattenapalli, from there shifted to GGH, Guntur for better treatment. While undergoing treatment the deceased was succumbed to his injuries.

On the receipt of hospital intimation, L.W.14-G.V.Kumar, ASI of police, GGH OP P.S visited the hospital and recorded the statement of

P.W.1 and forwarded the same along with death intimation of deceased to SHO of Sattenapalli Town PS on the point of jurisdiction.

Basing on it, L.W.15-P.Ram Babu, SI of police registered a case in

Cr.No.315/2017, U/s.304-A of IPC and recorded the statements of witnesses and visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and during the course of investigation and on 18.12.2017 L.W.15 arrested the accused and released him on station bail. After receipt of

Postmortem certificate and after completion of investigation, the accused drive the crime vehicle without having any valid driving licence and used to un-insured vehicle and used to vehicle without effective registration in his name. After completion of investigation,

L.W.15/ SI of police, fled the charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge.

3

3)This case was taken on cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, sec.181, 196 of M.V.Act, against the accused by my learned predecessor in the office.

4) On appearance of the accused before this court, the copies of documents was furnished to him which is required u/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5) The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C on the contents of documents. For which the accused denied the charge sheet allegations U/s.304-A IPC, sec.181, 196 of M.V.Act, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

6)To prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution in all examined Nine witnesses as PW.1 to P.W9 and got exhibited Exs.P.1 to

P.6 documents and on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution failed to produce the evidence of L.W.9, L.W.11 to L.W.15, hence their evidence was given up by learned APP

7)After closure of complainants evidence accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating evidence appearing against them and the plea of accused are one of total denial. When he was called upon to enter upon defence evidence, he did not choose to examine any defence witnesses and not marked any documents on behalf of defence.

8)Heard the arguments on both sides.

9)Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A IPC, sec.181, 196 of M.V.Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

4

10) To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW.1-Sk.Karimula,whois elder sonof deceased/Sk.Allabakshu, deposed in his evidence that every day morning his father going to Mosque for prayer, at about one year back on one day at about 5.00 AM his father went to Mosque in

Narasaraopet road in Sattenapalli town, at about 8.00 AM he came to know that one motor cyclist hit against his father and sustained injuries and immediately his father was shifted to Government hospital, Sattenapalli, from there to GGH, Guntur. While undergoing treatment his father was succumbed to his injuries on the same day.

Ex.P.1 is his report to police.

11) To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW.2-Sk.Karimula, who is younger son of deceased/Sk.Allabakshu, deposed in his evidence that every day morning his father going to Mosque for prayer, at about one year back on one day at about 5.00 AM his father went to Mosque in

Narasaraopet road in Sattenapalli town, at about 8.00 AM he came to know that one motor cyclist hit against his father and sustained injuries and immediately his father was shifted to Government hospital, Sattenapalli, from there to GGH, Guntur. While undergoing treatment his father was succumbed to his injuries on the same day.

12) To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examinedPW.3-Sk.Bude,whoisbrotherof deceased/Sk.Allabakshu, deposed in his evidence that every day morning his brother going to Mosque for prayer, at about one year back on one day at about 5.00 AM his brother went to Mosque in

Narasaraopet road in Sattenapalli town, at about 8.00 AM he came to 5 know that one motor cyclist hit against his brother and sustained injuries and immediately his brother was shifted to Government hospital, Sattenapalli, from there to GGH, Guntur. While undergoing treatment his father was succumbed to his injuries on the same day.

13) To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW.4-Sk.Nagul Meera, who is younger brother of deceased/Sk.Allabakshu, deposed in his evidence that every day morning his father going to Mosque for prayer, at about one year back on one day at about 5.00 AM his father went to Mosque in

Narasaraopet road in Sattenapalli town, at about 8.00 AM he came to know that one motor cyclist hit against his father and sustained injuries and immediately his father was shifted to Government hospital, Sattenapalli, from there to GGH, Guntur. While undergoing treatment his father was succumbed to his injuries on the same day.

14) To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW.5-Sk.Mansoor, who son of P.W.3, deposed in his evidence that every day morning his senior paternal uncle/deceased going to Mosque for prayer, at about one year back on one day at about 5.00 AM his senior paternal uncle went to Mosque in

Narasaraopet road in Sattenapalli town, at about 8.00 AM he came to know that one motor cyclist hit against his senior paternal uncle and sustained injuries and immediately the deceased was shifted to

Government hospital, Sattenapalli, from there to GGH, Guntur. While undergoing treatment the deceased was succumbed to his injuries on the same day.

6

15) To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW.6-Mattapalli Srinu, P.W.7-Sk.Masthan Vali, P.W.8-

Sk.Ashraf Ahmad, who are the neighbours of the scene of offence and direct eye witnesses, mediators for arrest and seizure., they deposed that they do not know anything about the case facts and they did not support the case of the prosecution. Hence they were declared as hostile by the learned A.P.P. In their cross-examination they denied their sec.161 Cr.P.C statements recorded by police.

16) To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.W.9- G.Vijya Babu, painter, deposed in his evidence that on 24.11.2017 morning police called him and L.W.9, L.W.11-

D.Swami Naik to the scene of offence near Mazeed situated

Narasaraopet road in Sattenapalli and found one motor cycle i.e, Bajaj

Discover motor cycle bearing No.AP 07 AZ 4182 hit against the deceased and they noticed the boundaries and police drafted

Ex.P.5/scene observation and they attested on it. On the next day on 25.11.2017 police also called him along with L.W.9, L.W.11 to GGH,

Guntur, in their presence police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased/Sk.Alla Bakshu and they notice injuries and opined that the deceased died in a motor cycle accident and drafted

Ex.P.6/inquest report and they attested on it.

17)Coming to the appreciation of the evidence, Section 304-A

IPC reads as follows:-

Section 304-A IPC causing death by negligence:

“whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either 7 description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both”.

18)From over all the evidence of prosecution, the prosecution is relied up on the evidence of PW.1 to P.W.9. According to their evidence PW.1, P.W.2 are the sons of deceased. P.W.3 to P.W.5 are the relatives of the deceased. P.W.6 to P.W.8 who are the eye witness failed to identify the accused as the driver of crime vehicle and also that they do not know the accused and they came to know about the accident while they were present at their houses and witnesses came to hospital directly and found that the deceased received injuries in an accident, as a result the deceased received severe injuries and the deceased died.

19)In the cross examination PW.1 deposed that police never examined him in this case and he do not know the contents of

Ex.P.1/statement and police obtained his signature on a white paper.

Not only that according to PW.1 to P.W.5 they are not eye witnesses at the time of accident. PW.6 to PW.8 who are the alleged eye witnesses at the time of accident. The evidence of PW.6 to PW.8 who are the eye witnesses, blood relatives and inquest mediators turned hostile against the prosecution. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, P.W.9 are not corroborated with each other and their evidence is silent with regard to the persons of themselves who claim as eye witness at the place of accident. P.Ws.1 to 5, P.W.9 failed to identify the accused as the driver of crime vehicle. The L.W.13-Dr.Chandra Sekhara Rao who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued

Postmortem certificate and opined that the deceased died due to head injury associated with fracture both bones of right leg. Admittedly, the

Investigation Officer/L.W.15 failed to conduct the Test Identification parade of the accused after he was arrested before the police in the 8 presence of eye witnesses. As PW.1 to PW.9 are failed to identify the accused as driver of crime vehicle, it cant be said that there is no identification regarding the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Admittedly the prosecution failed to examine the L.W.9-Shaik

Mahaboob, L.W.11-DharavathSwami Naik, L.W.12-T.Uma Maheswar Rao,

MVI, who inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI report and

L.W.13-Dr.Chandra Sekhar who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and L.W.14-G.V.Kumar, ASI of police who forwarded the statement of P.W.1 and death intimation to L.W.15 and L.W.15-

P.Ram Babu, SI of police who filed the charge sheet to give evidence.

The non-examination of above witnesses is fetal to prosecution case.

20)Coming to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle, deceased/Shaik Allabhakshu, eye witness did not say anything regarding the rash and negligent driving as they came to know about the accident after the deceased received injuries. PWs.1 to 9 including eye witnesses did not say anything regarding the rash and negligent driving on the part of accused and they do not know the number of the crime vehicle also. In such circumstances “ no inference “ can be drawn regarding the rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle on the part of the accused at the time of alleged accident.

21) Coming to the other aspect the deceased/ Shaik Allabhakshu is not in dispute that he received injuries in the accident, but the fact that whether the injuries are direct result of the accident has to be seen.

But the prosecution failed to examine the Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the crime vehicle to know whether the accused has valid driving licence or not as on the date of accident.

9

22)From the discussion above all the prosecution failed to connect the nexus between the accident and death of deceased in bringing home the guilty of accused. Hence, accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

23)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, sec.181, 196, 192(1) of M.V.Act, and he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 24th day of April, 2019.

Sd/-V.Gopala Krishna

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SATTENAPALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:None P.W.1Shaik Karimulla P.W.2Shaik Karimulla P.W.3Shaik Bude P.W.4Shaik Nagul Meera P.W.5Shaik Mansoor P.W.6Mattupalli Sreenu P.W.7Shaik Mastan Vali P.W.8Shaik Md.Asharaf P.W.9Garikapati Swami Naik

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil.

Ex.P.1Report of P.W.1 Ex.P.2161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6 Ex.P.3161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7 Ex.P.4161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.8 Ex.P.5Signature of P.W.9 on scene observation report Ex.P.6Signature of P.W.9 on inquest report Material Objects – Nil –

Sd/-V.Gopala Krishna

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SATTENAPALLI.

10

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SATTENAPALLI.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No. 161/2018 DATE OF :- Offence: 24.11.2017 Complaint: 24.11.2017 Apprehension of accused: 18.12.2017 Released on bail: 18.12.2017 Commencement of trial: 13.11.2018 Close of trial: 17.04.2019 Sentence or order: 24.04.2019

Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of witnesses Name of the Complainant: State: Sub-Inspector of police, Sattenapalli Town P.S. (Cr.No.315/2017) Name of the accused

Shaik Shabbier, S/o.Nagul, 22 years,

R/o.Gangireddypalem village, Machavaram Mandal.

Rider of Bajaj Discover motor cycle bearing No.AP 07 AZ 4182

Offence : U/s.304-A IPC, sec.181, 196 of M.V.Act.

Finding : Found not guilty U/s.304-A IPC, sec.181, 196 of M.V.Act.

Sentence : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, sec.181, 196 of M.V.Act, and he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/-V.Gopala Krishna

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATTENAPALLI.

Copy submitted to : 1)The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Guntur.

// True copy //

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATTENAPALLI.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SATTENAPALLI.

Present: Sri. V. GOPALA KRISHNA,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli,

FAC:Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.

Thursday, the 25 th day of April, 2019

ORIGINAL SUIT No.79/2018

Between: Veerla Veeramma W/o. Saidaiah, Hindu, aged 55 years, cultivation, R/o. Pedanemalipuri village , Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District , Sattenapalli P.J.C.J.C. … Plaintiff.

And

Syed Rasool S/o. Mohiddin, Muslim, aged 45 years, business, R/o. Pedanemalipuri village , Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District , Sattenapalli P.J.C.J.C. … Defendant.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 9.4.2019 in the presence of the learned counsel for the plaintiff Sri. V. Papa rao and learned counsel for the defendant Sri. N.S. Chakravarthi, having heard and after perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:- :: J U D G E M E N T ::

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of suit promissory note debt of Rs.2,78,660/- being principle and interest due under two promissory notes dt.9.9.2015 and 1.7.2017 executed by the defendant for Rs.1,00,000/- each in her favour, agreeing to repay the same with an interest @24% p.a. and subsequent interest and costs.

2) The pleadings of the plaintiff in brief :

The Plaintiff pleads that, the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- from her on 9.9.2015 and in token thereof executed “A” marked promissory note with his own hand writing at Pedanemalipuri village of Rajupalem

Mandal and again borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from her on 1.7.2017 and executed “B” marked promissory note in her favour at Pednemlalipuri village of

Rajupalem agreeing to repay the same either to the plaintiff or her order on demand with interest @24% p.a. respectively. Inspite of repeated oral demands made by plaintiff personally and through mediators, defendant failed to discharge the promissory note debt. The plaintiff got issued registered notice dt.27.3.2018 to the defendant to discharge the promissory notes debt but in vain.

2

Hence, he was constrained to file the suit.

3) The suit Summons was served on the Defendant. He entered appearance

before the court and resisted the suit claim and filed his written statement.

4) Pleadings of the defendant in brevity: Apart from denying the averments in the plaint, defendant pleads that, he borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff under A marked promissory note with highly excess rate of interst at Rs.60% p.a. i.e. Rs.5/- per hundred per month. But it was mentioned in A marked promissory note @24% p.a. only as per the demand made by the plaintiff at the time of borrowing the amount. But when the limitation is going to be ended the plaintiff again obtained another promissory note with date 1.7.2017, which was filed as B marked promissory note as if consideration has been passed, with his own hand writing by making a false promise stating that the interest will be calculate @24% p.a. on principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on “A” marked promissory note. The plaintiff without showing the A marked promissory note created hungama that its time has been lapsed and pressured upon and got obtained “B” marked promissory note with dt.1.7.2017. In fact no attestors were present at the time of A and B marked promissory notes. No consideration has been passed from the plaintiff to him under B marked promissory note. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to him and since the plaintiff and himself are relating to same village , he approached her and enquired about the notice allegations, dt.27.3.2018 but by the time also she lured him with sweet words. But all of sudden she filed the suit with false allegations. At last, he sought to dismiss the suit with costs.

5) Basing on the rival contentions of the parties, the following issues are settled for trial.

ISSUES:

1) Whether the suit promissory notes, dt.9.9.2015 for Rs.1,00,000/-

and dt.1.7.2017 for Rs.1,00,000/- are true, valid and binding on the

3 defendant ?

2) Whether the “B” marked promissory note is not supported by consideration?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for ?

4) To what relief ?

6) a) Plaintiff to substantiate her case got examined herself as P.W.1 and the attestors of suit promissory note as P.W.2 & PW3, apart from exhibiting Ex.A-1 to

Ex.A4 namely “A” marked promissory note for Rs.1,00,000/- dt.9.9.2015 ; “B” marked promissory note for Rs.1,00,000/- dt.1.7.2017; Office copy of registered notice dt.27.3.2018 and postal receipt dt.27.3.2017.

b) On the other hand, defendant got examined himself as D.W.1. No documents are marked on behalf of the defendant.

7) Heard. Perused the material on record .

8) Now, the points for the determination are:-

9) ISSUES NO -1 and 2:- a) It is the case of plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under Ex.A-1 and Ex.A2 each and executed

Ex.A1 and A2 suit promissory notes in her favour, but the defendant failed to discharge the same.

b) Plaintiff in support of her case got examined herself as P.W.1 and the attestors of Ex.A-1 and Ex.A2 as P.W.2 and PW3. Plaintiff filed her chief- examination affidavit stating that, defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- on 9.9.2015 & 1.7.2017 each , in the presence of PW2 and PW3 the attestors. She deposed that, as defendant failed to discharge Ex.A-1 and Ex.A2 suit promissory notes, she was constrained to file the suit. Thus, plaintiff has reiterated the plaint pleadings in her chief-examination affidavit. During the cross-examination of P.W.1 the learned counsel for the defendant tried to elicit that, on the date of Ex.A2, plaintiff did not lend the amount to the defendant and he is not having the consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- on the date of Ex.A2 but of in vain as P.W.1 denied the same. During cross-examination PW1 admitted that both the attestors on Ex.A1 and A2 are one and the same and the interest column mentioned on Ex.A1 and A2 is Rs.2/- per annum and she issued legal notice to the 4 defendant on 27.3.2018 . She further admitted that prior to filing of the suit , defendant is residing at Piduguralla and he has not send the notice to the defendant to his Piduguralla address and she has send the notice to the defendant at his residence situated in her village. PW1 deposed that she mentioned in the notice that defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from her and executed promissory note and he has to discharge the suit promissory note amount. After receiving notice, the defendant and some other person approached the PW1 and asked him to take the land instead of suit promissory note amount and she refused the said proposal of defendant. The attestors of Ex.A1 and A2 are not relatives of PW1 and the defendant himself scribed Ex.A1 and A2. She further deposed that Ex.A1 and A2 were executed in the morning at about 10.00 a.m. and plaintiff himself called PW2 and PW3 to act as attestors. Thus, nothing material was elicited during the cross-examination of P.W.1 to discard her testimony.

c) Nextly, the evidence of P.W.2 and PW3. P.W.2 and PW3 are the attestors of Ex.A-1 and A2. They filed their chief-examination affidavits by stating that, defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each from the plaintiff on 9.9.2015 and 1.7.2017 and executed Ex.A1 and A2 with his own hand wring. They further stated that, defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff in their presence. Thus, P.W.2 strengthens the case of the plaintiff. Though, P.W.2 and

PW3 were subjected to cross-examination, their evidence on the material aspects of borrowing of amount by the defendant from the plaintiff and execution of Ex.A- 1 and A2 Suit Promissory notes by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff remained unshaken. P.W.2 in his cross-examination had voluntarily stated that, defendant called him and Madasu Saidaiah (PW3) on the date of execution of

Ex.A1 and A2 to act as witnesses on 9.9.2015 and 1.7.2017. He further deposed that defendant is his friend and the transaction under Ex.A1 at about 10.00 and the transaction under Ex.A2 at about 4.00 pm., or 5.00 p.m. and in their presence consideration under Ex.A1 and A2 were passed. Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 reinforces the case of the plaintiff.

During cross-examination PW3 deposed that he signed as attestor on two 5 promissory notes i.e. Ex.A1 and A2 and he was present at the time execution of

Ex.A1 and A2 between plaintiff and defendant and he further deposed that while he was sitting at temple in his village, the defendant came to him and requested him to act as attestor on Ex.A1 and A2. Thus, the PW3 supports the case of the plaintiff.

c) The above discussion relating to the testimonies of P.W.'s 1 to 3 demonstrates that, defendant borrowed amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A-1 and Ex.A2 suit Promissory notes respectively in favour of the plaintiff. Now, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove the same.

d) The defendant pleads that, in fact he borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- only from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. but the plaintiff used to charge the interest @60% per annum but the plaintiff did not allow him to made endorsement on the back of the promissory note. He further pleads that he executed Ex.A2 –promissory note on 1.7.2017 when the plaintiff demanded him to execute another promissory note as limitation is going to ended under Ex.A1.

There is no consideration was passed under Ex.A2 promissory note and no attestors were present at the time of execution of Ex.A1 and A2 and plaintiff assured him that she return the promissory notes at the time of payment of principle amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest. Except the self-serving testimony of defendant, no corroborative evidence was produced before this Court to establish the pleadings of the defendant. D.W.1 during his cross-examination, has admitted that he executed Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff with his own hand writing agreeing to repay the amount with interest @24% p.a. and there is no part payment endorsement on the back side of Ex.A2.

DW1 deposed that the limitation for filing of the suit basing on the promissory note is about 3 years.

10. On perusal of evidence of DW1 and PW1 to PW3, it is an admitted fact 6 that Ex.A1 and A2 promissory notes were executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff. But it is the contention of the defendant that no consideration was passed under Ex.A2 and it is only executed for the purpose of limitation on demand made by the plaintiff. On perusal of Ex.A1 it was executed on 9.9.2015 and the limitation period is 8.9.2018 but not 1.7.2017. The defendant failed to explain as why he executed another promissory note on 1.7.2017. Hence the plea of the defendant is not considered. It is the another contention of the defendant that plaintiff used to collect interest at rate of Rs.5/- per month for hundred but in

Ex.A1 promissory note , the interest was mentioned at rate of Rs.2/- per month per hundred.

11. During cross-examination DW1 admitted that there is no documentary evidence to show that PW1 demanded to pay the promissory note debt with interest @ 60% p.a. and in general if any person paid part payment of promissory note , the same may be endorsed on the back side of the said promissory note and used to obtain receipt also. DW1 further admitted that he did not mention in his chief examination –affidavit that when and where PW1 forced to execute another promissory note on 1.7.2017. so also he did not gave any report to police against the plaintiff on the allegation that she forcibly obtained Ex.A2 promissory note from the defendant . DW1 further admitted that there are no disputes between him and attestors . Even the defendant did not issue reply notice to the plaintiff denying Ex.A2 was not supported by consideration. During cross- examination of DW1- he admitted that he himself executed Ex.A1 and A2. Though the learned counsel for the defendant put suggestion to PW1 that defendant paid the entire amount under Ex.A1 on the installment basis as such defendant has no liability to discharge the suit promissory note amount to the plaintiff. But the defendant did not take plea that he discharge the debt under Ex.A1 promissory note. Hence, defendant is liable to pay the suit promissory note amount to the plaintiff.On the other hand the defendant utterly failed to prove that no consideration was passed under Ex.A2.

In the light of the above said discussion, this Court holds that, the suit promissory note Ex.A-1 and A2 are true, valid and binding on the defendant 7 .

Accordingly, Issues No.1 and 2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

12) ISSUE NO.3: In view of findings in Issues No.1 and 2, this Court holds that, plaintiff is entitled for the suit relief.

12) ISSUE No.4: In view of findings in Issues No.1 and 2, the suit is to be decreed with costs.

13) RESULT:- In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.2,78,660/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the Suit, till the date of the decree and thereafter at 6% per annum on theprincipal sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of the decree, till the date of realization of the decree.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me the operative portion of the Judgment in the open court, this the 25th day of April, 2019.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC: Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :-

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:- P.W.1:Veerla Veeramma D.W.1:Syed Rasool P.W.2:Tirumalasetty Rambabu P.W.3: Madasu Saidaiah

DOCUMENTS MARKED :- For Plaintiff:- Ex.A1: - “A” marked promissory note for Rs.1,00,000/- dt.9.9.2015

Ex.A2:-“B” marked promissory note for Rs.1,00,000/- dt.1.7.2017

Ex.A3: Office copy of registered notice dt.27.3.2018

Ex.A4: Postal receipt dt.27.3.2017

For Defendant:- - NIL- I AJCJ

P.J.C.J., Sattenapalli.

8