Ms.V.Sahithi

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,Kakinada

III Addl District Court Kakinada · East Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

Ms.V.Sahithi, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,Kakinada, is posted at III Addl District Court Kakinada, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,077 court orders on record since 2023. 11 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

1,077

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/999/2023 Acquitted

Sub Inspector of Police vs Gude Pavan Kumar @ Pavan

22 Dec 2023

1 Fair judgment in C.C.999/23, dt.22.12.23

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS CUM I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT KAKINADA.

Present: Kum. VASUPALLI SAHITHI I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class–cum- I.Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

Friday, this the 22 nd day of December, 2023

C.C.999/2023

Between : State: Sub-Inspector of police,

CCS, Kakinada ..Complainant

And :

Gude Pavan Kumar @ Pavan, S/o.Srinu, age 23 yrs., D.No.9-262, Kummari veedhi, Now at D.No.7-221, Pinninti vari street, Dowleswaram, Rajahmahendravaram.

.. Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 20.12.2023 in the presence of P.Raghuveer, learned A.P.P for the State and of Sri A.Venkateswarlu, Legal Aid Counsel for accused upon perusing the evidence and material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1. The accused has been arraigned before this court for the offence under sections 379 or 411 of Indian Penal code (herein after IPC).

2. The brief material averments of the prosecution case are as follows: On 06.02.2023 one Vanamadi Nookaraju (P.W.1) parked the Bajaj Pulsar 150-DTS motor cycle bearing No.AP 39B 8886 (MO.1) outside of his house duly locked. Next day i.e. on 07.02.2023 at 9.00 am he came out to go out along with his relative Oleti Sivaram Prasad and found his motor cycle missing.

2 Fair judgment in C.C.999/23, dt.22.12.23

He searched for it in and around, but in vain. Hence he submitted Ex.P1 report to the ASI of Police of CCS, Kakinada (P.W.4). Basing on it, he registered Ex.P3 FIR in CR.No.100/2023 of CCS P.S., Kakinada U/Sec.379 of IPC and conducted investigation and handed over further investigation to P.W.5.

3. During the course of investigation, P.W.5 came to know that on 25.04.2023 on credible information, P.W.3 secured the pres- ence of mediators (P.W.2) and L.W.4 Yerrajarla Priyanka and proceeded to East Railway Quarters, Rajahmahendravaram. By that time they noticed that three persons standing near the

Royal Enfield bike and they tried to escape, on seeing them.

Then P.W.3 with the help of his staff caught hold the accused.

On interrogation, the accused revealed their identity and con- fessed that they have committed theft of 28 motor cycles, in- cluding M.O.1 which was stolen by G.Pavan Kumar at Jagannad- hapuram, Kakinada. All the three accused led them to the

Quarter No.198/A of type II Quarters, Railway quarters and showed them 28 motor cycles, including M.O.1. Then

P.W.3 seized all the 28 vehicles under the cover of Ex.P2 which is the attested copy of mediators report drafted at 10.00AM and apprehended the accused and produced him before the

Hon’ble court for judicial custody in Cr. No. 75/2023. Later,

P.W.5 after knowing about the same filed P.T.Warrant in this case as the accused was arrested in Cr. No. 75/2023. After com- pletion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

4.This Court took cognizance for the offence punishable

U/sec. 379 or 411 of IPC.

3 Fair judgment in C.C.999/23, dt.22.12.23

5.On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished as contemplated U/s.207 of the Code of criminal procedure (herein after Cr.P.C).

6.Accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. Charges for the offences U/s.379 or 411 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to accused in Telugu. Accused denied all the allega- tions leveled against him, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined LW1, L.W.3, L.W.5 to L.W.7 as PWs1 to 5 respec- tively and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 besides MO1. Among them, PW1 is the defacto-complainant. PW2 is the media- tor. PW3 is officer who arrested the accused and recovered stolen property in Cr. No. 75/2023. PW4 is the investigating officer who registered FIR and examined witnesses. P.W.5 is the investigating officer who took up further investigation and filed charge sheet after completion of investigation.

Ex.P1 is the Complaint, dt.23.04.2023 of PW1. Ex.P2 is the mediators report, dt.25.04.2023 at 10.00 am. Ex.P3 is the

First Information Report and Ex.P4 is rough sketch of the scene. MO1 is Bajaj Pulsar 150-DTS motor cycle bearing

No.AP 39B 8886.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating material against him from the prosecution evidence. He denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both sides.

4 Fair judgment in C.C.999/23, dt.22.12.23

10.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt

of the accused for the offence U/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC

beyond reasonable doubt?”

11.Point :-

The evidence of PW1 shows that on 06.02.2023 at about 10.00 pm, he parked his motor cycle bearing Regis- tration No. AP 39 B 8886 (MO1) infront of his house and on the next day morning, he noticed that his motor cycle was missing and he searched for the same in and around the surroundings but in vain, then, he gave (Ex.P1) re- port to the police on 23.04.2023 and after one week po- lice informed him that his motor cycle was recovered from the accused.

12. The evidence of PW4 shows about registration of case under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, issuance of first information report i.e. Ex.P3 and preparation of rough sketch of scene of offence(Ex.P4). The evidence of PW3 shows that on 25.04.2023 he arrested accused and seized case property in Cr. No. 75/2023 along with the case prop- erty in this case (M.O.1). The evidence of P.W.5 speaks about filing of P.T.Warrant and production of the accused on execution of P.T.Warrant and filing of chargesheet after in- vestigation.

13. However, none including the accused, either disputed that PW1 is the owner of MO1, or claimed the said property as their own. In such circumstances, the Court is of the 5 Fair judgment in C.C.999/23, dt.22.12.23 view that the evidence of PW1 supported by PW4 coupled with the contents of Ex.P1 / report clinchingly establishes that MO1 belongs to PW1 and the same was stolen from his possession, beyond the reasonable doubt. Now, the dis- puted aspect is whether the accused herein has committed theft of MO1 which belongs to PW1 without his consent.

14.In this case on hand, there is no positive evidence showing that the accused has committed the offence of theft of MO1 belonging to PW1. Further, PW1 is not an eye witness to the incident. Therefore, none of the witnesses have seen the accused committing theft of MO1. Further,

PW4 also stated that basing on the report (Ex.P1) of PW1, the case was registered. Also the FIR discloses that the case was registered against an unknown miscreant. As such the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt under sec- tion 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the Accused under section 379 IPC.

15.Now, the aspect to be looked into is whether the prosecution could make out the case for the offence pun- ishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused. As already discussed above, the pros- ecution has established through the evidence of PW1 and

PW4 that MO1 was committed theft which belongs to PW1 and MO1 is the stolen property of PW1.

16.Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as fol- lows 6 Fair judgment in C.C.999/23, dt.22.12.23

Dishonestly receiving stolen property : “whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punishable with an imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both”.

17.To prove these aspects, the prosecution has examined P.W.2 and P.W.3. Among them, PW2 is the independent mediator and PW3 is the officer who arrested the accused and seized the property.

18.As per the evidence of PW3, on 25.04.2023, on re- ceipt of credible information about the accused, he se- cured presence of PW2 and LW4 by name Yerrajarla

Priyanka as mediators and thereafter, he along with his staff and mediators proceeded to East Railway Quarters,

Rajahmahendravaram. There, they caught hold the ac- cused along with two others. On enquiry, the accused revealed their identity particulars as mentioned in charge sheet and further voluntarily confessed that they have committed theft of 28 motor cycles, including

M.O.1 which was stolen by G.Pavan Kumar at Jagannad- hapuram, Kakinada. All the three accused led them to the Quarter No.198/A of type II Quarters, Railway quar- ters and showed them 28 motor cycles, including M.O.1.

Then P.W.3 seized all the 28 vehicles under the cover of

Ex.P2 which is the attested copy of mediators report drafted at 10.00AM and apprehended the accused and produced him before the Hon’ble court for judicial cus- 7 Fair judgment in C.C.999/23, dt.22.12.23 tody in Cr. No. 75/2023.

19.PW2, who acted as mediator, deposed in similar lines as that of PW3 with regard to apprehension of accused, confession and seizure of stolen property pertaining to this crime from the possession of accused. Though, PW2 was cross examined at length by the learned counsel for the ac- cused nothing was elicited from his evidence in favour of the defence. Thus, the evidence of PW2 & P.W.3 has corrob- orated with each other and consistently proved that MO1 was recovered from the possession of accused.

20.It is a well settled principle that if a person is found to be in possession of stolen property soon after the theft, it is presumed under section 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act that he is a thief or is a person keeping the stolen prop- erty being fully aware that it is a stolen property. If the ac- cused has no reasonable explanation with regard to the posses- sion of the same, his failure to offer any satisfactory explanation though not an incriminating circumstance by itself, would yet en- able an inference being drawn against him. Because the fact be- ing in the exclusive knowledge of the accused, it was for him to offer an explanation which he failed to do. Therefore, as the ac- cused failed to rebut the presumption, this court presumes that accused is receiver of stolen property knowing it to be a stolen property.

21.Further, it is also a settled principle of law that the confession made before the police officer is hit by sec- tion 25 of Indian Evidence Act, while the confession lead- 8 Fair judgment in C.C.999/23, dt.22.12.23 ing to the recovery of the property is only admissible un- der section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. In the present case also though the confession made by the accused is not admissible in evidence, in pursuance to the confes- sion made by the accused, they have seized M.O.1 at

East Railway Quarters, Rajahmahendravaram and vehi- cles were seized which is leading to recovery under

Ex.P.2 as such it is admissible in evidence.

22.To establish section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, two essential ingredients must be satisfied i.e., (1) Identifi- cation of property and (2) its possession by the accused.

Admittedly, in the present case on hand, PW1 estab- lished that MO1 belongs to him and w a s committed theft by some unknown miscreant which was recovered from the possession of accused, who could not account for the same. Hence, this Court is of the view that the prosecu- tion has established the case against the accused for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

23.In view of the above discussion, the court is of the view that though the prosecution failed to establish that the accused is the person who has committed the of- fence of theft of MO1, but it proved that MO1 is the stolen property of PW1 and the accused is found to be in posses- sion of stolen property soon after the theft without ac- counting for the same.

9 Fair judgment in C.C.999/23, dt.22.12.23

24.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the of- fence U/Sec.379 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. However he is found guilty for the offence

U/Sec.411 IPC and accordingly he is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C. M.O.1 which is in the interim custody of PW1 shall be made absolute after appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by my Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 22 nd day of December 2023, .

Sd/- V.Sahithi

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

KAKINADA

When the accused is questioned about the sentence, he stated that he is he is the sole bread winner of his family and that his family is dependent on him and thus, he pleaded mercy in imposing sentence.

On considering the facts of the case, since the accused is involved in similar offences, the Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to apply the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.

However, in view of the submissions of the accused with regard to the conditions of his family, the Court is inclined to take a balanced view in imposing the sentence.

Therefore, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. The sentences passed against the accused in the following C.Cs shall run concurrently:- 10 Fair judgment in C.C.999/23, dt.22.12.23

1. C.C.1000/2023

2. C.C.1010/2023

The period of detention undergone by the convicted/accused from 16.05.2023 to 22.12.2023 (221

days) (both days inclusive as per office note of bench

clerk) shall be set off under Section 428 Criminal Procedure

Code against his sentence of imprisonment.

The accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment to Hon’ble District and Sessions Court,

Rajamahendravaram. When he is asked about his means to prefer an appeal, he stated that he does not have means to engage counsel. He is appraised of his right to free legal aid.

Office is directed to supply free copy of the judgment to the convicted forthwith.

Typed to my dictation by my Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 22 nd day of December 2023, .

Sd/- V.Sahithi

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

KAKINADA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

P.W1: Vanamadi NookarajuNone P.W.2: Karra Bhanu Jyothi P.W.3: G.V.V.Satyanarayana P.W.4: O.Pullayya P.W.5: T.Kranthi Kumar 11 Fair judgment in C.C.999/23, dt.22.12.23

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P1/23.04.2023: Report given by P.W.1. Ex.P2/25.04.2023: attested copy of Mediators report at 10.00 am Ex.P3/23.04.2023: First Information Report in Cr.No.100/2023 Ex.P4/25.04.2023: Rough sketch

For defence :- NIL.

M.Os Marked:

M.O.1: Bajaj Pulsar 150-DTS motor cycle bearing No.AP 39B 8886

Sd/- V.Sahithi

I AJCJ CUM I AJFCM

KAKINADA

12 Fair judgment in C.C.999/23, dt.22.12.23

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS CUM I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT KAKINADA.

Present: Kum. VASUPALLI SAHITHI I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class–cum- I.Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

CALENDER CASE NO.999/2023 Date of offence:06.02.2023 Date of complaint:23.04.2023 Date of taken on file:26.06.2023 Date of apprehension of accused:16.05.2023 Date of commencement of trial:30.10.2023 (accused is in central-jail) Date of close of trial:20.12.2023 Date of sentence of order:22.12.2023 Complainant:Sub-Inspector of Police, CCS P.S. in Crime Nos.100/2023

Particulars of the accused:-

Gude Pavan Kumar @ Pavan, S/o.Srinu, age 23 yrs., D.No.9-262, Kummari veedhi, Now at D.No.7-221, Pinninti vari street, Dowleswaram, Rajahmahendravaram.

Nature of offenceU/Sec.379 or 411 IPC Accused found not guilty for the offence Finding of the courtunder Sec.379IPC and found guilty for the offence under Sec. 411 IPC.

On considering the facts of the case, since the accused is involved in similar offences, the Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to apply the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. However, in 13 Fair judgment in C.C.999/23, dt.22.12.23 view of the submissions of the accused with regard to the conditions of his family, the Court is inclined to take a balanced view in imposing the sentence.

Therefore, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under

Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. The sentences passed against the accused in the following C.Cs shall run concurrently:-

1. C.C.1000/2023

2. C.C.1010/2023

The period of detention undergone by the convicted/accused from 16.05.2023 to 22.12.2023 (221 days) (both days inclusive as per office note of bench clerk) shall be set off under Section 428

Criminal Procedure Code against his sentence of imprisonment.

The accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment to Hon’ble District and Sessions Court,

Rajamahendravaram. When he is asked about his means to prefer an appeal, he stated that he does not have means to engage counsel. He is appraised of his right to free legal aid. Office is directed to supply free copy of the judgment to the convicted forthwith.

Sd/- V.Sahithi

I AJCJ CUM I AJFCM

KAKINADA

CC/1519/2023 Convicted

Sub Inspector of Police vs Senapathula Manesh

22 Dec 2023

1 Fair judgment in C.C.1519/23, dt.22.12.23

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS CUM I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT KAKINADA.

Present: Kum. VASUPALLI SAHITHI I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class–cum- I.Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

Friday, this the 22 nd day of December, 2023

C.C.1519/2023

Between : State: Sub-Inspector of police,

CCS, Kakinada ..Complainant

And :

1. Senapathula Mahesh, S/o Srinu, A/26 years, Rachapalli (v), Prathipadu (M).

2. Gompa Varahala Babu, S/o Devudu, A/26 Yrs, R/D.No 3-51, Nathavaram(V), Anakapalli (M), Visakapatnam.

.. Accused 1 & 2

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 21.12.2023 in the presence of P.Raghuveer, learned A.P.P for the State and of Sri P.Satish Kumar, Counsel for accused upon perusing the evidence and material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1. The accused has been arraigned before this court for the offence under sections 379 or 411 of Indian Penal code (herein after IPC).

2. The brief material averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 06.02.2023 one Akula Appala Raju(P.W.1) along with

L.W.2 Naidu Veera Venkata Satyanarayana parked the Bajaj 2 Fair judgment in C.C.1519/23, dt.22.12.23

Pulsar motor cycle bearing No. AP 05 DR 2779 (MO.1) and went to GGH. After visiting relatives at about 11.30 am, they came to parking place and noticed that his motor cycle was missing. He searched for it along with L.W.2 in and around, but in vain.

Hence he submitted Ex.P1 report to the ASI of Police of CCS,

Kakinada (P.W.3). Basing on it, he registered Ex.P3 FIR in

CR.No.50/2023 of CCS P.S., Kakinada U/Sec.379 of IPC and conducted investigation and handed over further investigation to P.W.4.

3. During the course of investigation, on 16.02.2023 on credible information, P.W.4 secured the presence of mediators (P.W.2) and L.W.3 Ganti Priyanka and proceeded to Janmab- hoomi park, Kakinada. By that time they noticed that two per- sons sitting on Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle and they tried to es- cape, on seeing them. Then P.W.4 with the help of his staff caught hold the accused. On interrogation, the accused re- vealed their identity and confessed that they have committed theft of M.O.1 at GGH, Kakinada. Then P.W.4 seized the vehicle under the cover of Ex.P2 mediators reportand apprehended the accused and produced them before the Hon’ble court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

4.This Court took cognizance for the offence punishable

U/sec. 379 or 411 of IPC.

5.On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished as contemplated U/s.207 of the Code of criminal procedure (herein after Cr.P.C).

3 Fair judgment in C.C.1519/23, dt.22.12.23

6.Accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. Charges for the offences U/s.379 or 411 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to accused in Telugu. Accused denied all the allega- tions leveled against t h e m , pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined LW1, L.W.4, L.W.5 & L.W.6 as PWs1 to 4 respec- tively and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 besides MO1. Among them, PW1 is the defacto-complainant. PW2 is the media- tor. PW3 & P.W.4 are investigating officers. Ex.P1 is the

Complaint, dt.11.02.2023 of PW1. Ex.P2 is the mediators report, dt.16.02.2023. Ex.P3 is the First Information Report and Ex.P4 is rough sketch of the scene. MO1 is Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing No. AP 05 DR 2779.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C about the incriminating material against him from the prosecution evidence. He denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both sides.

10.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has established the

guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.379 or 411

of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?”

11.Point :-

The evidence of PW1 shows that on 06.02.2023 at about 10.00 am, he parked his motor cycle infront 4 Fair judgment in C.C.1519/23, dt.22.12.23 of GGH gate and went into the hospital and after re- turning back he found that his motor cycle was miss- ing and he searched for the same in and around the surroundings but in vain, then, he gave (Ex.P1) report to the police and after one week police informed him that his motor cycle was recovered from the accused.

12. The evidence of PW3 shows about registration of case under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, issuance of first information report i.e. Ex.P3 and preparation of rough sketch of scene of offence(Ex.P4). The evidence of PW4 speaks about arrest of the accused and seizure of the stolen property and filing of the chargesheet.

13. However, none including the accused, either dis- puted that PW1 is the owner of MO1, or claimed the said property as their own. In such circumstances, the Court is of the view that the evidence of PW1 supported by

PW3 coupled with the contents of Ex.P1 / report clinch- ingly establishes that MO1 belongs to PW1 and the same was stolen from his possession, beyond the rea- sonable doubt. Now, the disputed aspect is whether the accused herein has committed theft of MO1 which be- longs to PW1 without his consent.

14.In this case on hand, there is no positive evidence showing that the accused has committed the offence of theft of MO1 belonging to PW1. Further, PW1 is not an 5 Fair judgment in C.C.1519/23, dt.22.12.23 eye witness to the incident. Therefore, none of the wit- nesses have seen the accused committing theft of MO1.

Further, PW3 also stated that basing on the report (Ex.P1) of PW1, the case was registered. Also the FIR discloses that the case was registered against an unknown miscreant. As such the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt under section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the Accused under section 379 IPC.

15.Now, the aspect to be looked into is whether the prosecution could make out the case for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused. As already discussed above, the prosecution has established through the evidence of

PW1 and PW3 that MO1 was committed theft which be- longs to PW1 and MO1 is the stolen property of PW1.

16.Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as follows

Dishonestly receiving stolen property :

“whoever dishonestly receives or retains any

stolen property knowingly or having reason to

believe the same to be stolen property, shall be

punishable with an imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to three

years, or with fine or with both”.

6 Fair judgment in C.C.1519/23, dt.22.12.23

17.To prove these aspects, the prosecution has examined P.W.2 and P.W.4. Among them, PW2 is the independent mediator and P.W.4 is the investigating officer who arrested the accused and seized the property (M.O.1).

18. As per the evidence of PW4, on 16.02.2023, on re- ceipt of credible information about the accused, he secured presence of PW2 and LW3 by name Ganti

Priyanka as mediators and thereafter, he along with his staff and mediators proceeded to Janmabhumi park, Kakinada. There, they caught hold the accused.

On enquiry, the accused revealed their identity partic- ulars as mentioned in charge sheet and further volun- tarily confessed that on 06.02.2023 they committed theft of motor cycle at GGH, Kakinada and tried to sell away the same. Then P.W.4 seized the said vehicle un- der the cover of Ex.P2 mediators report, which is M.O.1 in the present case.

19.PW2, who acted as mediator, deposed in similar lines as that of PW4 with regard to apprehension of ac- cused, confession and seizure of stolen property pertain- ing to this crime from the possession of accused.

Though, PW2 was cross examined at length by the learned counsel for the accused nothing could be elicited in favour of the accused. Further, during his cross exam- ination though P.W.2 admitted that the direction in 7 Fair judgment in C.C.1519/23, dt.22.12.23 which the accused tried to escape was not mentioned was mentioned in Ex.P2 mediator’s report it is not fatal to the case and further he admitted that it is mentioned in Ex.P2 that it was drafted on the road beside Janmab- hoomi Park without mentioning the exact location, which is not fatal to demolish the case of the prosecution as the remaining evidence on record clearly establishes their case. Furthermore, though P.W.2 and P.W.3 admit- ted that it was not mentioned in Ex.P2 from which of the two accused the vehicle was seized, a perusal of Ex.P2 shows that A1 and A2 are sitting on M.O.1 by the time police reached Janmabhoomi park and they tried to es- cape on seeing police and when they are questioned separately they confessed about the theft committed by them and when they were asked to show the vehicle, both of them showed the vehicle in their possession as the property against which theft was committed. There- fore, though it is not mentioned in Ex.P2 from which of the two accused the vehicle is seized, it prima facie shows that both the accused are in possession of M.O.1 at the time of seizure, which is the main ingredient to prove section 411 I.P.C. Thus, the evidence of PW2 &

P.W.4 has corroborated with each other and consistently proved that MO1 was recovered from the possession of accused.

20.It is a well settled principle that if a person is found to be in possession of stolen property soon after the theft, it is presumed under section 114(a) of Indian 8 Fair judgment in C.C.1519/23, dt.22.12.23

Evidence Act that he is a thief or is a person keeping the stolen property being fully aware that it is a stolen property. If the accused has no reasonable explanation with regard to the possession of the same, his failure to offer any satisfactory explanation though not an incriminating circum- stance by itself, would yet enable an inference being drawn against him. Because the fact being in the exclusive knowl- edge of the accused, it was for him to offer an explanation which he failed to do. Therefore, as the accused failed to rebut the presumption, this court presumes that accused is receiver of stolen property knowing it to be a stolen property.

21.To establish section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, two essential ingredients must be satisfied i.e., (1)

Identification of property and (2) its possession by the accused. Admittedly, in the present case on hand, PW1 established that MO1 belongs to him and w a s com- mitted theft by some unknown miscreant which was re- covered from the possession of accused, who could not account for the same. Hence, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has established the case against the accused for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

22.In view of the above discussion, the court is of the view that though the prosecution failed to estab- lish that the accused are the persons who committed the offence of theft of MO1, but it proved that MO1 is the stolen property of PW1 and the accused are found to be 9 Fair judgment in C.C.1519/23, dt.22.12.23 in possession of stolen property soon after the theft without accounting for the same.

23.In the result, the accused 1 &2 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.379 of IPC and accordingly they are ac- quitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. However they are found guilty for the offence U/Sec.411 IPC and accordingly they are con- victed under section 248(2) Cr.P.C. M.O.1 which is in the in- terim custody of PW1 shall be made absolute after appeal pe- riod.

Typed to my dictation by my Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 22 nd day of December 2023, .

Sd/- V.Sahithi

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

KAKINADA

When the accused are questioned about the sentence,

Accused No.1 stated that he is a daily wage labourer and that he has to look after his old aged mother. Accused No.2 stated that he has small kids and wife to look after and that he is the sole bread winner of his family and thus, they pleaded mercy in imposing sentence.

On considering the facts of the case, age of the accused and nature of the offence, the Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to apply the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.

However, in view of the submissions of the accused with regard to the conditions of their family, the Court is inclined to take a balanced view in imposing the sentence.

10 Fair judgment in C.C.1519/23, dt.22.12.23

Therefore, the accused 1 & 2 are sentenced to undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year each for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code.

The period of detention undergone by the convicted/accused No.1 from 17.02.2023 to 22.12.2023 (309

days) (both days inclusive as per office note of bench

clerk) and accused No.2 from 17.02.2023 to 22.12.2023

(309 days) (both days inclusive as per office note of

bench clerk) shall be set off under Section 428 Criminal

Procedure Code against his sentence of imprisonment.

The accused 1 & 2 are informed of their right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment to Hon’ble District and

Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram. When they are asked

about their means to prefer an appeal, they stated that they do not have means to engage counsel. They are apprised of their right to free legal aid. Office is directed to supply free copy of the judgment to the convicted forthwith.

Typed to my dictation by my Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 22 nd day of December 2023, .

Sd/- V.Sahithi

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

KAKINADA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

P.W1: Akula AppalarajuNone P.W.2: Revu Narasimha Murthy 11 Fair judgment in C.C.1519/23, dt.22.12.23

P.W.3: O.Pullayya P.W.4: P.V.R. Murthy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P1/11.02.2023: Report given by P.W.1. Ex.P2/16.02.2023: attested copy of Mediators report at 10.00 am Ex.P3/11.02.2023: First Information Report in Cr.No.50/2023 Ex.P4/11.02.2023: Rough sketch

For defence :- NIL.

M.Os Marked: M.O.1: Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing No. AP 05 DR 2779

Sd/- V.Sathihi

I AJCJ CUM I AJFCM

KAKINADA

12 Fair judgment in C.C.1519/23, dt.22.12.23

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS CUM I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT KAKINADA.

Present: Kum. VASUPALLI SAHITHI I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class–cum- I.Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

CALENDER CASE NO.1519/2023 Date of offence:06.02.2023 Date of complaint:11.02.2023 Date of taken on file:20.10.2023 Date of apprehension of accused:16.02.2023 Date of commencement of trial:10.11.2023 (accused are in sub-jail) Date of close of trial:21.12.2023 Date of sentence of order:22.12.2023 Complainant:Sub-Inspector of Police, CCSP.S.inCrime Nos.50/2023

Particulars of the accused:-

1. Senapathula Manesh, S/o Srinu, A/26 years, Rachapalli (v), Prathipadu (M).

2. Gompa Varahala Babu, S/o Devudu, A/26 Yrs, R/D.No 3-51, Nathavaram(V), Anakapalli (M), Visakapatnam

Nature of offenceU/Sec.379 or 411 IPC Accused found not guilty for the offence Finding of the courtunder Sec.379 IPC and found guilty for the offence under Sec. 411 IPC.

When the accused are questioned about the sentence, Accused No.1 stated that he is a daily wage labourer and that he has to look after his old aged mother. Accused No.2 stated that he has small kids and wife to look after and that he is the sole bread winner of his 13 Fair judgment in C.C.1519/23, dt.22.12.23 family and thus, they pleaded mercy in imposing sentence.

On considering the facts of the case, age of the accused and nature of the offence, the Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to apply the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. However, in view of the submissions of the accused with regard to the conditions of their family, the Court is inclined to take a balanced view in imposing the sentence.

Therefore, the accused 1 & 2 are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year each for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code.

The period of detention undergone by the convicted/accused No.1 from 17.02.2023 to 22.12.2023 (309 days) (both days inclusive as per office note of bench clerk) and accused No.2 from 17.02.2023 to 22.12.2023 (309 days) (both days inclusive as per office note of bench clerk) shall be set off under Section 428 Criminal Procedure Code against his sentence of imprisonment.

The accused 1 & 2 are informed of their right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment to Hon’ble District and Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram. When they are asked about their means to prefer an appeal, they stated that they do not have means to engage counsel. They are apprised of their right to free legal aid. Office is directed to supply free copy of the judgment to the convicted forthwith.

Sd/- V.Sahithi

I AJCJ CUM I AJFCM

KAKINADA

CC/1010/2023 Acquitted

Sub Inspector of Police vs Gude Pavan Kumar @ Pavan

22 Dec 2023

1 Fair judgment in C.C.1010/23, dt.22.12..23

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS CUM I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT KAKINADA.

Present: Kum. VASUPALLI SAHITHI I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class–cum- I.Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

Friday, this the 22 nd day of December, 2023

C.C.1010/2023

Between : State: Sub-Inspector of police,

CCS, Kakinada ..Complainant

And :

Gude Pavan Kumar @ Pavan, S/o.Srinu, age 23 yrs., D.No.9-262, Kummari veedhi, Now at D.No.7-221, Pinninti vari street, Dowleswaram, Rajahmahendravaram.

.. Accused

: J U D G M E N T :

1. The accused has been arraigned before this court for the offence under sections 379 or 411 of Indian Penal code (herein after IPC).

2. The brief material averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 31.01.2023 one Kollu Satya Hari Prasad (P.W.1) parked the Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing No. AP 05 DA 3514 (MO.1) outside of his house duly locked. Later next day morning at 6.00 am., L.W.1 came out and found his motor cycle missing at 2 Fair judgment in C.C.1010/23, dt.22.12..23 parked place. He searched for it in and around, but in vain.

Hence he submitted Ex.P1 report to the then SI of Police of CCS,

Kakinada (P.W.4). Basing on it, he registered Ex.P3 FIR in

CR.No.99/2023 of CCS P.S., Kakinada U/Sec.379 of IPC and after completion of investigation he filed chargesheet.

3. During the course of investigation, P.W.4 came to know that on 25.04.2023 on credible information, P.W.3 secured the presence of mediators (P.W.2) and L.W.4 Yerrajarla Priyanka and proceeded to East Railway Quarters, Rajahmahendravaram. By that time they noticed that three persons standing near the

Royal Enfield bike and they tried to escape, on seeing them.

Then P.W.3 with the help of his staff caught hold the accused.

Quarter No.198/A of type II Quarters, Railway quarters and showed them 28 motor cycles, including M.O.1. Then

P.W.3 seized all the 28 vehicles under the cover of Ex.P2 which is the attested copy of mediators report drafted at 10.00AM and apprehended the accused and produced him before the

Hon’ble court for judicial custody in Cr. No. 75/2023. Later,

P.W.4 after knowing about the same filed P.T.Warrant in this case as the accused was arrested in Cr. No. 75/2023. After com- pletion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

4.This Court took cognizance for the offence punishable

U/sec. 379 or 411 of IPC.

3 Fair judgment in C.C.1010/23, dt.22.12..23

5.On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished as contemplated U/s.207 of the Code of criminal procedure (herein after Cr.P.C).

7.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined LW1, L.W.3, L.W.5 & L.W.6 as PWs1 to 4 respec- tively and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 besides MO1. Among them, PW1 is the defacto-complainant. PW2 is the media- tor. PW3 is officer who arrested the accused and recovered stolen property in Cr. No. 75/2023. PW4 is the investigating officer who registered FIR and examined witnesses and filed charge sheet. Ex.P1 is the Complaint, dt.23.04.2023 of PW1. Ex.P2 is the mediators report, dt.25.04.2023 at 10.00 am. Ex.P3 is the First Information Report and Ex.P4 is rough sketch of the scene. MO1 is Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing No. AP 05 DA 3514.

9.Heard both sides.

10.Now the point for consideration is :

4 Fair judgment in C.C.1010/23, dt.22.12..23

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt

of the accused for the offence U/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC

beyond reasonable doubt?”

11.Point :-

The evidence of PW1 shows that on 31.01.2023 at about 10.00 pm, he parked his motor cycle bearing

Registration No.AP 05 DA 3514 (MO1) infront of his house and on the next day morning, he noitced that his mo- tor cycle was missing and he searched for the same in and around the surroundings but in vain, then he gave (Ex.P1) report to the police on 23.04.2023 and after one week police informed him that his motor cy- cle was recovered from the accused.

12. The evidence of PW4 shows about registration of case under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, issuance of first information report i.e. Ex.P3 and preparation of rough sketch of scene of offence(Ex.P4) and production of th accused on execution of P.T.Warrant. The evidence of PW3 shows that on 25.04.2023 he arrested accused and seized case property in Cr. No. 75/2023 along with the case property in this case (M.O.1).

PW4 coupled with the contents of Ex.P1 / report clinch- ingly establishes that MO1 belongs to PW1 and the 5 Fair judgment in C.C.1010/23, dt.22.12..23 same was stolen from his possession, beyond the rea- sonable doubt. Now, the disputed aspect is whether the accused herein has committed theft of MO1 which be- longs to PW1 without his consent.

14.In this case on hand, there is no positive evidence showing that the accused has committed the offence of theft of MO1 belonging to PW1. Further, PW1 is not an eye witness to the incident. Therefore, none of the wit- nesses have seen the accused committing theft of MO1.

Further, PW4 also stated that basing on the report (Ex.P1) of PW1, the case was registered. Also the FIR dis- closes that the case was registered against an unknown miscreant. As such the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt under section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Therefore this court is of the opinion that the prosecu- tion has failed to establish the guilt of the Accused under section 379 IPC.

PW1 and PW4 that MO1 was committed theft which be- longs to PW1 and MO1 is the stolen property of PW1.

16.Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as follows 6 Fair judgment in C.C.1010/23, dt.22.12..23

Dishonestly receiving stolen property : “who-

ever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen

property knowingly or having reason to believe the

same to be stolen property, shall be punishable

with an imprisonment of either description for a

term which may extend to three years, or with fine

or with both”.

17.To prove these aspects, the prosecution has examined P.W.2 and P.W.3. Among them, PW2 is the independent mediator and PW3 is the officer who arrested the accused and seized the property.

18.As per the evidence of PW3, on 25.04.2023, on re- ceipt of credible information about the accused, he secured presence of PW2 and LW4 by name Yerrajarla

Priyanka as mediators and thereafter, he along with his staff and mediators proceeded to East Railway

Quarters, Rajahmahendravaram. There, they caught hold the accused along with two others. On enquiry, the accused revealed their identity particulars as mentioned in charge sheet and further voluntarily confessed that they have committed theft of 28 mo- tor cycles, including M.O.1 which was stolen by G.Pa- van Kumar at Jagannadhapuram, Kakinada. All the three accused led them to the Quarter No.198/A of type II Quarters, Railway quarters and showed them 28 motor cycles, including M.O.1. Then P.W.3 seized all the 28 vehicles under the cover of Ex.P2 which is the attested copy of mediators report drafted at 7 Fair judgment in C.C.1010/23, dt.22.12..23 10.00AM and apprehended the accused and produced him before the Hon’ble court for judicial custody in Cr.

No. 75/2023.

19.PW2, who acted as mediator, deposed in similar lines as that of PW3 with regard to apprehension of ac- cused, confession and seizure of stolen property pertain- ing to this crime from the possession of accused.

Though, PW2 was cross examined at length by the learned counsel for the accused nothing was elicited from his evidence in favour of the defence. Thus, the ev- idence of PW2 & P.W.3 has corroborated with each other and consistently proved that MO1 was recovered from the possession of accused.

20.It is a well settled principle that if a person is found to be in possession of stolen property soon after the theft, it is presumed under section 114(a) of Indian

8 Fair judgment in C.C.1010/23, dt.22.12..23

21.Further, it is also a settled principle of law that the confession made before the police officer is hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, while the confes- sion leading to the recovery of the property is only ad- missible under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. In the present case also though the confession made by the accused is not admissible in evidence, in pur- suance to the confession made by the accused, they have seized M.O.1 at East Railway Quarters, Rajahma- hendravaram and vehicles were seized which is lead- ing to recovery under Ex.P.2 as such it is admissible in evidence.

22.To establish section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, two essential ingredients must be satisfied i.e., (1)

23.In view of the above discussion, the court is of the view that though the prosecution failed to estab- lish that the accused is the person who has committed 9 Fair judgment in C.C.1010/23, dt.22.12..23 the offence of theft of MO1, but it proved that MO1 is the stolen property of PW1 and the accused is found to be in possession of stolen property soon after the theft with- out accounting for the same.

24.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the of- fence U/Sec.379 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. However he is found guilty for the offence

U/Sec.411 IPC and accordingly he is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C. M.O.1 which is in the interim custody of PW1 shall be made absolute after appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by my Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 22 nd day of December 2023, .

Sd/- V.Sahithi

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

KAKINADA

On considering the facts of the case, since the accused is involved in similar offences, the Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to apply the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.

However, in view of the submissions of the accused with regard to the conditions of his family, the Court is inclined to take a balanced view in imposing the sentence.

Therefore, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable 10 Fair judgment in C.C.1010/23, dt.22.12..23 under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. The sentences passed against the accused in the following C.Cs shall run concurrently:-

1. C.C.999/2023

2. C.C.1000/2023

The period of detention undergone by the convicted/accused from 16.05.2023 to 22.12.2023 (221

days) (both days inclusive as per office note of bench

clerk) shall be set off under Section 428 Criminal Procedure

Code against his sentence of imprisonment.

The accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment to Hon’ble District and Sessions Court,

Rajamahendravaram. When he is asked about his means to prefer an appeal, he stated that he does not have means to engage counsel. He is appraised of his right to free legal aid.

Office is directed to supply free copy of the judgment to the convicted forthwith.

Typed to my dictation by my Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 22 nd day of December 2023, .

Sd/- V.Sahithi

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

KAKINADA

11 Fair judgment in C.C.1010/23, dt.22.12..23

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

P.W1: Kolli Satya Hari PrasadNone P.W.2: Karra Bhanu Jyothi P.W.3: G.V.V.Satyanarayana P.W.4: T.Kranthi Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P1/23.04.2023: Report given by P.W.1. Ex.P2/25.04.2023: attested copy of Mediators report at 10.00 am Ex.P3/23.04.2023: First Information Report in Cr.No.99/2023 Ex.P4/25.04.2023: Rough sketch

For defence :- NIL.

M.Os Marked:

M.O.1: Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing No. AP 05 DA 3514

Sd/- V.Sahithi

I AJCJ CUM I AJFCM

KAKINADA

12 Fair judgment in C.C.1010/23, dt.22.12..23

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS CUM I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT KAKINADA.

Present: Kum. VASUPALLI SAHITHI I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class–cum- I.Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

CALENDER CASE NO.1010/2023 Date of offence:31.01.2023 Date of complaint:23.04.2023 Date of taken on file:28.06.2023 Date of apprehension of accused:16.05.2023 Date of commencement of trial:30.10.2023 (accused is in central-jail) Date of close of trial:20.12..2023 Date of sentence of order:22.12.2023 Complainant:Sub-Inspector of Police, CCS P.S. in Crime Nos.99/2023

Particulars of the accused:-

Gude Pavan Kumar @ Pavan, S/o.Srinu, age 23 yrs., D.No.9-262, Kummari veedhi, Now at D.No.7-221, Pinninti vari street, Dowleswaram, Rajahmahendravaram.

Nature of offenceU/Sec.379 or 411 IPC Accused found not guilty for the offence Finding of the courtunder Sec.379 IPC and found guilty for the offence under Sec. 411 IPC.

On considering the facts of the case, since the accused is involved in similar offences, the Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to apply the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. However, in 13 Fair judgment in C.C.1010/23, dt.22.12..23 view of the submissions of the accused with regard to the conditions of his family, the Court is inclined to take a balanced view in imposing the sentence.

Therefore, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under

Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. The sentences passed against the accused in the following C.Cs shall run concurrently:-

1. C.C.999/2023

2. C.C.1000/2023

The period of detention undergone by the convicted/accused from 16.05.2023 to 22.12.2023 (221 days) (both days inclusive as per office note of bench clerk) shall be set off under Section 428

Criminal Procedure Code against his sentence of imprisonment.

The accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment to Hon’ble District and Sessions Court,

Sd/- V.Sahithi

I AJCJ CUM I AJFCM

KAKINADA

CC/1000/2023 Acquitted

Sub Inspector of Police vs Gude Pavan Kumar @ Pavan

22 Dec 2023

1 Fair judgment in C.C.1000/23, dt.22.12.23

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS CUM I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT KAKINADA.

Present: Kum. VASUPALLI SAHITHI I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class–cum- I.Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

Friday, this the 22 nd day of December, 2023

C.C.1000/2023

Between : State: Sub-Inspector of police,

CCS, Kakinada ..Complainant

And :

Gude Pavan Kumar @ Pavan, S/o.Srinu, age 23 yrs., D.No.9-262, Kummari veedhi, Now at D.No.7-221, Pinninti vari street, Dowleswaram, Rajahmahendravaram. .. Accused

: J U D G M E N T :

1. The accused has been arraigned before this court for the offence under sections 379 or 411 of Indian Penal code (herein after IPC).

2. The brief material averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 03.12.2022 one Shaik Mahaboob Unnisha (P.W.1) parked her Deo DLX motor cycle bearing No.AP 39 HJ 6561 (MO.1) outside her house duly locked. Next day i.e. on 04.12.2022 at 6.00 am she saw the scooty and found missing at 2 Fair judgment in C.C.1000/23, dt.22.12.23 parked place. She searched for it along with L.W.2 in and around, but in vain. Hence she submitted Ex.P1 report to ASI of

Police of CCS, Kakinada (P.W.4). Basing on it, he registered Ex.P3

FIR in CR.No.98/2023 of CCS P.S., Kakinada U/Sec.379 of IPC and conducted investigation and handed over further investigation to L.W.7.

3. During the course of investigation, L.W.7 came to know that on 25.04.2023 on credible information, P.W.3 secured the pres- ence of mediators (P.W.2) and L.W.4 Yerrajarla Priyanka and proceeded to East Railway Quarters, Rajahmahendravaram. By that time they noticed that three persons standing near the

Royal Enfield bike and they tried to escape, on seeing them.

Then P.W.3 with the help of his staff caught hold the accused.

Quarter No.198/A of type II Quarters, Railway quarters and showed them 28 motor cycles, including M.O.1. Then

P.W.3 seized all the 28 vehicles under the cover of Ex.P2 which is the attested copy of mediators report drafted at 10.00AM and apprehended the accused and produced him before the

Hon’ble court for judicial custody in Cr. No. 75/2023. Later,

L.W.7 after knowing about the same filed P.T.Warrant in this case as the accused was arrested in Cr. No. 75/2023. After com- pletion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3 Fair judgment in C.C.1000/23, dt.22.12.23

4.This Court took cognizance for the offence punishable

U/sec. 379 or 411 of IPC.

5.On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished as contemplated U/s.207 of the Code of criminal procedure (herein after Cr.P.C).

Complaint, dt.23.04.2023 of PW1. Ex.P2 is the mediators report, dt.25.04.2023 at 10.00 am. Ex.P3 is the First Infor- mation Report and Ex.P4 is rough sketch of the scene. MO1 is Deo DLX motor cycle bearing No.AP 39 HJ 6561.

4 Fair judgment in C.C.1000/23, dt.22.12.23

9.Heard both sides.

10.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt

of the accused for the offence U/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC

beyond reasonable doubt?”

11.Point :-

The evidence of PW1 shows that on 03.12.2022 at about 10.00 pm, she parked her motor cycle bearing Reg- istration No.No.AP 39 HJ 6561 (MO1) infront of her house and on the next day morning, she noticed that her motor cycle was missing and she searched for the same along with L.W.2 in and around the surroundings but in vain, then, she gave (Ex.P1) report to the police on 23.04.2023 and after one week police informed her that her motor cycle was recovered from the accused.

No. 75/2023 along with the case property in this case (M.O.1).

13. However, none including the accused, either disputed that PW1 is the owner of MO1, or claimed the said property as their own. In such circumstances, the Court is of the view that the evidence of PW1 supported by PW4 coupled with the contents of Ex.P1 / report clinchingly establishes that MO1 belongs to PW1 and the same was stolen from her possession, beyond the reasonable doubt. Now, the 5 Fair judgment in C.C.1000/23, dt.22.12.23 disputed aspect is whether the accused herein has commit- ted theft of MO1 which belongs to PW1 without her con- sent.

PW4 that MO1 was committed theft which belongs to PW1 and MO1 is the stolen property of PW1.

16.Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as fol- lows 6 Fair judgment in C.C.1000/23, dt.22.12.23

17.To prove these aspects, the prosecution has examined P.W.2 and P.W.3. Among them, PW2 is the independent mediator and PW3 is the officer who arrested the accused and seized the property.

18.As per the evidence of PW3, on 25.04.2023, on receipt of credible information about the accused, he secured presence of PW2 and LW4 by name Yerrajarla

Priyanka as mediators and thereafter, he along with his staff and mediators proceeded to East Railway Quar- ters, Rajahmahendravaram. There, they caught hold the accused along with two others. On enquiry, the ac- cused revealed their identity particulars as mentioned in charge sheet and further voluntarily confessed that they have committed theft of 28 motor cycles, including M.O.1 which was stolen by G.Pavan Kumar at Jagannadhapuram, Kaki- nada. All the three accused led them to the Quarter

No.198/A of type II Quarters, Railway quarters and showed them 28 motor cycles, including M.O.1. Then P.W.3 seized all the 28 vehicles under the cover of Ex.P2 which is the attested copy of mediators report drafted at 10.00AM and ap- prehended the accused and produced him before the Hon’ble court for judicial custody in Cr. No. 75/2023.

7 Fair judgment in C.C.1000/23, dt.22.12.23

21.Further, it is also a settled principle of law that the confession made before the police officer is hit by sec- tion 25 of Indian Evidence Act, while the confession lead- ing to the recovery of the property is only admissible un- der section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. In the present 8 Fair judgment in C.C.1000/23, dt.22.12.23 case also though the confession made by the accused is not admissible in evidence, in pursuance to the confes- sion made by the accused, they have seized 28 vehicles including M.O.1 at East Railway Quarters, Rajahmahen- dravaram which is leading to recovery under Ex.P2 as such it is admissible in evidence.

22.To establish section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, two essential ingredients must be satisfied i.e., (1) Identifi- cation of property and (2) its possession by the accused.

24.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the of- fence U/Sec.379 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. However he is found guilty for the offence 9 Fair judgment in C.C.1000/23, dt.22.12.23

U/Sec.411 IPC and accordingly he is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C. M.O.1 which is in the interim custody of PW1 shall be made absolute after appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by my Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 22 nd day of December 2023, .

Sd/- V.Sahithi

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

KAKINADA

On considering the facts of the case, since the accused is involved in similar offences, the Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to apply the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.

However, in view of the submissions of the accused with regard to the conditions of his family, the Court is inclined to take a balanced view in imposing the sentence.

Therefore, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. The sentences passed against the accused in the following C.Cs shall run concurrently:-

1. C.C.999/2023

2. C.C.1010/2023 10 Fair judgment in C.C.1000/23, dt.22.12.23

The period of detention undergone by the convicted/accused from 16.05.2023 to 22.12.2023 (221

days) (both days inclusive as per office note of bench

clerk) shall be set off under Section 428 Criminal Procedure

Code against his sentence of imprisonment.

The accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment to Hon’ble District and Sessions Court,

Rajamahendravaram. When he is asked about his means to prefer an appeal, he stated that he does not have means to engage counsel. He is appraised of his right to free legal aid.

Office is directed to supply free copy of the judgment to the convicted forthwith.

Typed to my dictation by my Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 22 nd day of December 2023, .

Sd/- V.Sahithi

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

KAKINADA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

P.W1: Shaik MahaboobunnisaNone P.W.2: Karra Bhanu Jyothi P.W.3: G.V.V.Satyanarayana P.W.4: K.Dhanaraju

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P1/23.04.2023: Report given by P.W.1. Ex.P2/25.04.2023: attested copy of Mediators report at 10.00 am Ex.P3/23.04.2023: First Information Report in Cr.No.98/2023 11 Fair judgment in C.C.1000/23, dt.22.12.23

Ex.P4/25.04.2023: Rough sketch

For defence :- NIL.

M.Os Marked:

M.O.1: Deo DLX motor cycle bearing No.AP 39 HJ 6561

Sd/- V.Sahithi

I AJCJ CUM I AJFCM

KAKINADA

12 Fair judgment in C.C.1000/23, dt.22.12.23

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS CUM I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT KAKINADA.

Present: Kum. VASUPALLI SAHITHI I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class–cum- I.Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

CALENDER CASE NO.1000/2023 Date of offence:04.12.2022 Date of complaint:23.04.2023 Date of taken on file:26.06.2023 Date of apprehension of accused:09.05.2023 Date of commencement of trial:30.10.2023 (accused is in central-jail) Date of close of trial:20.12.2023 Date of sentence of order:22.12.2023 Complainant:Sub-Inspector of Police, CCS P.S. in Crime Nos.98/2023

Particulars of the accused:-

Gude Pavan Kumar @ Pavan, S/o.Srinu, age 23 yrs., D.No.9-262, Kummari veedhi, Now at D.No.7-221, Pinninti vari street, Dowleswaram, Rajahmahendravaram.

Nature of offenceU/Sec.379 or 411 IPC Accused found not guilty for the offence Finding of the courtunder Sec.379IPC and found guilty for the offence under Sec. 411 IPC.

On considering the facts of the case, since the accused is involved in similar offences, the Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to apply the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. However, in 13 Fair judgment in C.C.1000/23, dt.22.12.23 view of the submissions of the accused with regard to the conditions of his family, the Court is inclined to take a balanced view in imposing the sentence.

Therefore, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under

Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. The sentences passed against the accused in the following C.Cs shall run concurrently:-

1. C.C.999/2023

2. C.C.1010/2023

The period of detention undergone by the convicted/accused from 16.05.2023 to 22.12.2023 (221 days) (both days inclusive as per office note of bench clerk) shall be set off under Section 428

Criminal Procedure Code against his sentence of imprisonment.

The accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment to Hon’ble District and Sessions Court,

Sd/- V.Sahithi

I AJCJ CUM I AJFCM

KAKINADA

OS/284/2020

Dolinki Veerabhadra Rao vs Damalanka Venkateswara Rao

22 Dec 2023

1Fair judgment in O.S.284/20, dt.22.12.23

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM I

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KAKINADA

Present: Ms. VASUPALLI SAHITHI

IAddl. Junior Civil Judge cum I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate

Friday, this the 22 nd day of December, 2023

O.S.284/2020

Between: Dolinki Veerabhadra Rao, S/o.Venkata Rao, age 47 yrs., business, R/o.D.NO.6-5-2, Pathurlavari street, Samalkot... plaintif

And: Damalanka Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Pullayya, age 51 yrs., Record Assistant, Academic Section, University

college of Engineering, JNTU, Kakinada... Defendant

The suit coming before this court on 21.12.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Subrahmanyam, Sri V.V.V.S.L. Kiran, Sri M.Dhanunjaya Rao, advocates for plaintif and of Sri.T.P.R.Chandrasekhar, advocate for defendant, and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The present suit is filed based on the promissory note for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,68,238 /- along with interest and costs.

2Fair judgment in O.S.284/20, dt.22.12.23

2.Brief facts of the plaint are as follows:

Plaintif contended in his plaint that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- on 15.03.2017 from the plaintif at samalkot for the purpose of his family expenses and to discharge sundry debts and executed a demand promissory note agreeing to repay the same along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. After several demands on 14.12.2019 defendant had issued a cheque bearing

NO.346008 for Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on SBI, JNTU, Kakinada, towards part satisfaction of the amount due under the pronote. On 20.12.2019 when plaintif presented the same through his banker SBI, Samalkot, the said cheque was returned with endorsement “drawer signature difers”. Then the plaintif issued legal notice dt.26.12.2019 demanding to pay the cheque amount of Rs.4,00,000/- within 15 days of receipt of notice. The defendant received the same and kept quiet. Plaintif filed CC 129/2021 against the defendant on the file of Spl. Mobile J.F.C. Magistrate, Kakinada for the ofence under Sec.138 of N.I. Act and the same is pending. The plaintif also filed the present suit for recovery of amount due under the suit pronote.

3Fair judgment in O.S.284/20, dt.22.12.23

3.The defendant filed written statement denying the contentions of the plaint and mainly contended that the defendant never met the plaintif and never went to Samalkot hence the question of borrowing the amount and execution of the pronote will not arise and that the signature of the pronote does not belong to him. The defendant does not know the attestors and scribe of the pronote. The plaintif might have fabricated the suit pronote with the help of his henchmen by forging his signature. The defendant did not receive any amount on the suit pronote and it is not supported by consideration. As the defendant is an employee there is no necessity to borrow such huge amount. Hence he prays to dismiss the suit.

4.After hearing rival contentions of both parties the following issues were settled for trial by my predecessor on 25.10.2021:

1. Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant?

2. Whether the pronote dt.15.03.2017 for Rs.2,75,000/- is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

3. Whether the plaintif forged the signature of the defendant and filed the suit for wrongful gain?

4. Whether the suit pronote is supported by cash consideration?

5. To what relief 4Fair judgment in O.S.284/20, dt.22.12.23

5.During trial, plaintif examined himself as P.W.1 and 1st attestor of the pronote examined as P.W.2 marked Ex.A1 and

A2 on his behalf. Defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents were marked.

6.Heard and perused the material on record.

7.Issue No.1 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant?

To decide issue No. 1, the following issues are to be decided first:

8.Issue No.2 : Whether the pronote dt.15.03.2017

for Rs.2,75,000/- is true, valid and binding on the

defendant?

(i)The present suit is filed by the plaintif contending that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- on 15.03.2017 from the plaintif and executed Ex.A1 promissory note agreeing to repay the same along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. After several demands on 14.12.2019 defendant issued a cheque for Rs.4,00,000/- towards part satisfaction of the amount due. On 20.12.2019 when plaintif presented the same through his banker, the said cheque was returned with an endorsement “drawer signature difers”.

Then the plaintif issued Ex.A2 legal notice demanding to pay the cheque amount of Rs.4,00,000/- within 15 days of receipt 5Fair judgment in O.S.284/20, dt.22.12.23 of notice. The defendant received the same and kept quiet.

Plaintif filed CC 129/2021 against the defendant on the file of

Spl. Mobile J.F.C. Magistrate, Kakinada for the ofence under

Sec.138 of N.I. Act and the same is pending. The plaintif also filed the present suit for recovery of amount due under the suit pronote.

(ii)However it is the contention of the defendant that he never met the plaintif and never went to Samalkot, hence the question of borrowing the amount and execution of the pronote will not arise and that the signature of the pronote does not belong to him. The plaintif might have fabricated the suit pronote with the help of his henchmen by forging his signature. The defendant did not receive any amount on the suit pronote and it is not supported by consideration. As the defendant is an employee there is no necessity to borrow such huge amount.

(iii)When the defendant denies explicitly the execution of the suit promissory note, mainly contending that it is a fabricated document, the initial burden is on the Plaintif to prove the execution of the said document. Generally, a document can be proved by producing the same before the 6Fair judgment in O.S.284/20, dt.22.12.23 court for inspection and by examining the persons who were present at the time of execution of the document.

(iv)In the present case, to discharge the initial burden, the

Plaintif examined himself as PW1 by filing his chief examination affidavit and the contents of such affidavit were found to be similar to the contents of the plaint, hence the same is not restated at length. Plaintif, in his examination-in- chief, specifically testified about the suit promissory note transaction covered by Ex.A1 and promises contained therein regarding repayment of principal and interest.

(v)Thereafter the plaintif got examined the 1st attester of

Ex.A1 Promissory note as PW2, and he mainly stated that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- from the plaintif on 15.03.2017 and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintif and he attested on Ex.A1

Promissory note along with another attester by name

G.Satyanarayana, and it was scribed by one T.Nagaraju.

(vi)In cross-examination of PW1, he categorically deposed that two days prior to the date of the transaction defendant approached the plaintif and on 15.03.2017 the defendant came to Samalkot at 2.00 PM and the plaintif gave an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- to the defendant by way of cash at 4.00PM.

7Fair judgment in O.S.284/20, dt.22.12.23

(vii)Further, the learned counsel for the defendant had cross-examined PW2 and he categorically revealed that on 15- 03-2017 on the request of the plaintif he went to the house of the plaintif to act as attestor to the suit transaction and then the scribe has prepared the contents of Ex.A1 promissory note on which the defendant, P.W.2 and the 2nd attestor has signed and in his presence a consideration of Rs.2,75,000/- was passed on to the defendant by way of cash.

(viii) After the closure of the plaintif-side evidence, the defendant was examined as D.W.1 and he filed his chief affidavit reiterating the contents of the written statement.

During cross-examination of DW1 he admitted that the signature on the promissory note belongs to him and further admitted that he has received legal notice from the plaintif prior to the filing of the suit and has not issued any reply notice.

(ix)On careful perusal of the evidence on the record, it is clear that though the learned counsel for the defendant cross- examined the PW1 and PW2 at length, he failed to discredit their evidence in chief and nothing crucial was elicited to substantiate the contentions raised in the written statement.

Further, the evidence of PW1, PW2 coupled with documents 8Fair judgment in O.S.284/20, dt.22.12.23 marked conformity with the plaint averments and had translated the pleadings into direct evidence. Though several suggestions were given during cross-examination of PW1 and

PW2, they may not be helpful for the defence of the defendant unless they are supported by positive evidence. There is no positive evidence on the side of the defendant to believe his defence setup in written statement.

(x)Further, the defendant admitted in his evidence that the signature on the promissory note belongs to him. Hence, it is for the defendant to prove the compelling circumstances under which he signed on suit promissory note with cogent evidence, but the defendant failed to do so. Furthermore, the defendant contended in his written statement that the signature of the pronote does not belong to him, whereas he admitted in his evidence that the signature belongs to him. As such there is no consistency in the evidence of the defendant.

(xi)In light of the above foregoing reasons and discussion, it can be said that the testimony of the plaintif stood unrebutted and trustworthy throughout in light of the testimony of PW1 and PW2 and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and the

Plaintif has established that the defendant has borrowed

Rs.2,75,000/- from him under Ex.A1. Once plaintif has 9Fair judgment in O.S.284/20, dt.22.12.23 established the promissory note, it is upon the defendant to rebut the contention of the plaintif, but except the bare denial of borrowing the amount and execution of the promissory note, nothing is brought on record by the defendant to disprove the claim of the plaintif. Furthermore, admittedly, there is a registered correspondence of legal notice between the plaintif and the defendant prior to the filing of the suit, but the defendant did not comply with the demand of the plaintif which was admitted by the defendant himself in his cross examination.

(xii)Therefore, Plaintif is able to prove the execution of

Ex.A1 by physical production of the same for inspection of the court and by examining P.W.2 who is the attester of the Ex.A1 promissory note. Hence, the suit promissory note is a true and valid document binding on the defendant. Accordingly, issue no.2 is answered in favour of plaintif and against the defendant.

9. Issue No.3 : Whether the plaintiff forged the

signature of the defendant and filed the suit for

wrongful gain?

(i)The defendant in his written statement took the plea of forgery and contended that the suit pronote was fabricated, 10Fair judgment in O.S.284/20, dt.22.12.23 but he has not taken any steps to send the pronote to expert opinion for comparison. Once defendant has not taken any steps it is presumed that defendant has executed pronote in his favour. When plea of forgery was taken by the defendant it is upon him to prove the same. In view of the said point this court is relying upon the decision of Duggineni Seshagiri

Rao vs. Kottapallli Venkateswar Rao in 2001 (6) ALT 95

(DB) wherein Hon’ble High Court held that presumption arises in favour of the plaintif that the instrument was made or drawn for consideration, burden therefore lies on the defendant to rebut that presumption if he pleads forgery held – if the document was disputed or doubted, onus was on the defendant to show that document was forged because a presumption is in favour of the plaintif under Sec.118 of N.I.

Act.

(ii)In the present case as the plea of forgery was taken by the defendant, the burden is upon him to disprove the contentions of the plaintif and prove that the signature on the pronote does not belong to him. The defendant has neither filed his signatures before this court nor has not taken steps to send disputed document i.e. Ex.A1 to expert opinion for comparison to prove that the signature on the pronote does 11Fair judgment in O.S.284/20, dt.22.12.23 not belong to him. On the other hand plaintif has established that Ex.A1 was executed by the defendant and that the entire transaction took place in the presence of P.W.2. Hence presumption is in favour of plaintif under Sec.118 of NI Act.

The mere contention that the plaintif might have fabricated the suit pronote with the help of his henchmen by forging his signature does not seem to be probable. Hence, issue no.3 is answered in favour of plaintif and against the defendant.

10. Issue No.4 : Whether the suit pronote is supported by cash consideration?

(i)When once this court found that the suit promissory note was executed by the defendant, automatically the legal presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act will come into operation and until the contrary is proved and it shall be presumed that the consideration under Ex.A1 was passed.

(ii)Relating to this aspect, the Hon’ble Apex Court in

Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao Vs. Thadikonda

Ramulu Firm and others, 2008 (7) S.C.C 655 held that:

“Under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, the court is obliged to presume, until contrary is proved, that promissory note was made for consideration. Initial 12Fair judgment in O.S.284/20, dt.22.12.23 burden in this regard lies on the defendant to prove non- existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances which would lead the court to believe non- existence of consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that existence of consideration was improbable, doubtful or illegal. If the defendant fails to prove the same, the plaintif would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under Section 118(a) in his favour”.

(iii)In view of the principle laid down in the above decision if we consider the present case facts, it is for the defendant to rebut the presumption by adducing cogent evidence by way of discrediting the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 or by adducing independent evidence on his side to disprove the passing of the consideration but the defendant has failed to do the same.

The bare denial of the passing of the consideration does not appear to be any defence unless something which is probable has been brought onto the record.

(iv)Hence, by drawing the presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act coupled with un-rebutted testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and the documents marked, this court came to the conclusion that the Ex.A1 promissory note 13Fair judgment in O.S.284/20, dt.22.12.23 is supported by consideration. Accordingly issue no. 4 is answered in favour of the plaintif.

11.Issue no.1 answered: In view of the above findings on issue nos. 2 to 4, this court is of the view that the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant.

Accordingly issue no. 1 is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.

12.Issue No. 5 : To what r elief In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.4,68,233/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Eight

Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Three Only) against the defendant. The plaintif is entitled for interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on the principal sum of Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Only).

Typed to my dictation on computer, by my Personal Assistant, Corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court, this the 22nd day of December, 2023

Sd/- V.Sahithi

I ADDL. JR. CIVIL JUDGE,

KAKINADA

14Fair judgment in O.S.284/20, dt.22.12.23

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF;FOR DEFENDANT: P.W.1: Dolinki Veerabhadra Rao D.W.1: Damalaknka Venkateswra Rao P.W.2: Golla Sathibabu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1/15.03.2017: Original promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintif for an amount of Rs.2,75,000/-

Ex.A2/26.12.2019: Office copy of the legal notice

For Defendant:

NIL

Sd/- V.Sahithi

I A J C J

Order Record 1,064 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/1440/2023	Sub Inspector ofb Police vs Tulva Leela Venkata Vaikunta Vasu	12 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/228/2022	Royyala Laxmi vs Telugu Jyothi	07 May 2026	Judgement	—
CC/1801/2023	Sub Inspector of Police vs Kakar Hari Chandra Prasad	06 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/222/2022	Chelluboina Nagaratnam vs Geddam Meena Kumari	05 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/734/2022	Mullapudi Venkateswararao vs Mummidi Sriramarao	04 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/1011/2022	Canara Bank, Nagamallithota Branch, Rep. by its Authorized Attorney Jaleem Jeevanraj vs Padala Ravi Shankar	04 May 2026	Judgement	—
EP/248/2024	Nulukurthi Veera Ragha Rao vs Damalanka Venkateswara Rao	01 May 2026	Order	—
CC/137/2026	State, Sub Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Kakianda. vs Bellamkonda Siva	01 May 2026	Judgement	—
CC/2077/2021	Sub Inspectior of Plice, Disha Women PS, Kakinada. vs Meka Rajesh Kumar	30 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/1514/2023	Sub Inspector of Police vs Syed Khaja Moinuddin @ Shaik Moinuddin Babu	28 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/957/2025	Mangipudi Venkatanaga Satyaveni vs Battivalasa Damodhara Rao	24 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/101/2025	SBI Retail Assets, Rep. by its Manager Viyyaapu Sivakrishna Sagar vs Pinapothu Srinivasa Rao	23 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/274/2026	Golla Satyanarayana vs Uppada Ramana	23 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
EP/202/2018	Kajuluri Rama Venkata Jagannadha Reddy vs Bandi Suryavathi	17 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/37/2021	Nakka Lakshmi vs Naini Surya Bhagavan	17 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/236/2026	Tatikonda Apparao Naidu vs Pokkuluri Venkataraju	17 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/1284/2025	Palaparthi Abbaji Rao vs Sakala Rama Satyanarayana	17 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/639/2022	Sub Inspector of Police, Disha Women PS, Kakinada. vs Nagarapu Naga Venkata Sashank @ Sashank	17 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/1829/2021	State Sub Inspector of Police, Disha Women PS, Kakinada. vs Thonangi Nagendra	17 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
DVC/1/2022	Nagarapu Satya Sree vs Nagarapu Naga Venkata Sashank	17 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
MC/119/2021	Nagarapu Satya Sree vs Nagarapu Naga Venkata Sashank	17 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/130/2026	Pagadala Baburao vs Vedurupaka Krishna	15 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/914/2023	Sub Inspector of Police vs Sundarapalli Mahesh	15 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
EP/104/2023	Padaala Krishna Reddy vs Bocha Srinu	10 Apr 2026	Order	—
CC/940/2023	Sub Inspector of Police vs Pesingi Veerababu	10 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/153/2025	Sub Inspector of Police vs Pemmadi Seshubabu	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/1783/2022	Sub Inspector of police vs Saguturi Hema Chandan	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/387/2024	Medisetti Venkateswara Rao vs Katta Nagendra	08 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/29/2022	Sub Inspector of police, Disha Women PS, Kakinada. vs Bommithi Pavan Teja	08 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
FDP/43/2025	Kota Diwakar vs Duppalapudi Suryanarayana	08 Apr 2026	Order	—
PRC/14/2024	Sub Inspector of Police vs Mohammad Ali Bashan (A1)	06 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/89/2022	Gopi Satyaveni vs Kukkala lakshmi	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/104/2026	Bora Ramana Murthy vs Kottaluri Sunitha	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/803/2023	Dharipilli Dhanalu vs Gunapu Chandra Kala	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/183/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Women PS, Kakinada. vs Vudimudi Ravi Chandra Jayaraju	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/717/2022	State Sub Inspector of Police, Disha Women PS, Kakinada. vs Karri Apparao	01 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/125/2021	Korada Venkata Ramana vs Katakam Ravikumar	31 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/272/2025	Kaveti Krishnaveni vs Pothula Lova Kumari	31 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/347/2023	Musunuri Rambabu vs Kanjana Gopikrishna Nair	31 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/544/2020	Central bank of India , At Sarpavaram Branch, Rep. by its GPA Holder A.V.Ramanamurthy vs Senapathi Murthy	31 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/349/2018	SI of Police, Mahila PS vs Diddi Nageswararao	31 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/140/2026	Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy vs Seelam Shanmukha Rao Alias Subbarao	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/255/2020	Sanka @ Mamidi Lakshmi Renuka vs Atheesh Sanka	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/355/2020	Setti Saraswathi vs Katta Adinarayana	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
FDP/42/2025	Malladi Prasad vs Puvvula Bhaskara Rao	30 Mar 2026	Order	—
EP/349/2024	Nalamati Abbulu Chowdary vs Yeluri Venkata Siva Prasad	20 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/653/2023	Bank of Maharastra at Kakinada rep. by its Branch Manager Kukkamalla Koteswararao vs Sana Rama Krishna	20 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/938/2021	Velpuri Veerababu vs Akana Pramavathi	20 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/1319/2025	Yajjala Murali vs Sri Karthika Ilapakurty	20 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/41/2022	State Sub Inspector of Police, Disha Women PS, Kakinada. vs Bheemala Venkata Ravi Kumar	20 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/1800/2023	Sub Inspector of Police vs Beera Srinu Babu	20 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/112/2026	Gadi Srinu vs Gandisetti Durga	18 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/128/2019	Nitla Maneswararao vs Barla Sivayya	18 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/613/2024	Canara Bank rep. by its Senior Branch Manager and GPA Akondi Kanakeswarudu vs Ketha Raju	18 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/703/2022	Pala Venkateswara Rao vs Narayna Siva Kumar	18 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/1345/2025	The South Indian Bank Ltd, rep. by its PA and BM V.N.Uday Kiran Kosuru vs Polisetti Venkata Lakshmi	18 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/30/2022	Madireddi Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs Bommidi Hari Prasad	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/1163/2024	SBI Retail Assets, rep. by its Manager, Viyyaapu Sivakrishna Sagar vs Gloss Blush Beauty Parlour rep. by its Proprietrix Mamidisetti Rehana	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/616/2025	Sub Inspector of Police, Coringa PS vs Sangadi Pavan Kumar	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/860/2025	State, Sub Inspector of Police, Coringa Police Station. vs Surla Praneetha	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/1203/2020	Sub Inspector of Police, Women PS, Kakinada. vs Chetti Santosh Kumar	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/92/2021	Yedla Amruthakumar vs Jeenupati Raj Kumar	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/93/2026	Chodipalli Phani Ram vs Nakka Appanna Babu	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
FDP/5/2024	Kakara Sriramulu vs Yedida Naga Surya Venkata Satya Prasad	16 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/40/2022	Pithani Ramadas vs Vasamsetti Ananthalakshmi	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/71/2022	Manthri Satyanarayana vs Pasupuleti Srinivas	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/110/2021	Bejawada Putra Mohanrao vs M/s Sri Surya Enterprizes, rep. by its Partner Bejawada Seetharamaswamy	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/185/2023	Chodisetti Lovaraju vs Alamuri Satyanarayana Murthy	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/282/2025	Goli Krishna Murthy vs Pamu Radha Krishna	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/442/2024	Kandipalli Srinivasa Rao vs Amaladasu Swamy	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/493/2021	Vundavalli Narayanarao vs Pantham Savithri	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/931/2024	Paluri Nookaraju vs Vuppu Ram Kumar	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/946/2025	Nalla Sada Siva Vishnu Murthy vs Yelugubanti Dharmarao	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/1179/2025	Mortha Satyanandam vs Chapala Satyanarayana	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/520/2025	Sub Inspector of Police, Karapa PS vs Puram Srinu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/572/2025	Sub Inspector of Police, Karapa PS vs Palika Nagababu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/581/2024	Sub Inspector of Police vs Suresh Shenngar	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/685/2025	Sub Inspector, Coringa PS vs Malladi China Veerababu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/820/2025	State, S.I. of Police, Coringa PS vs Yalla Srirama Kanaka Durga Vara Prasad	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/30/2024	Nagam Jaggababu vs Gali Peda Babu @ Sanyasayya	13 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/143/2022	Pennada narashimha Murty vs Buddala Venkannababu	13 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/1078/2025	Narala Apparao vs Yanamadala Sathibabu	13 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/522/2025	Sub Inspector of Police, Coringa PS vs Chitapalli Venkata naga Chinta Reddy	13 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/1007/2025	Padala Sai Kiran Kumar vs Naganamudi Veeralakshmi	11 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/865/2022	Canara Bank, (Previously Syndicate Bank) vs Ganta Koteswari	10 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
EP/22/2025	Sabbella Viswanadha Reddy vs Seelam Venkateswara Prasad	09 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/55/2026	Nidharabingi Ramu vs Dhalli Somamma	09 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/513/2025	Sub Inspector of Police vs Nimmakayala Gowri Shankar	06 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
EP/24/2026	Nalam Kasturi vs Kolluboina Suribabu	05 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/752/2022	Patnala Venkata Rama Swamy vs Kintada Satish	05 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/930/2023	Jalasuthram @ Jalasuthrapu Govindamma vs Karnati Rambabu	05 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/479/2025	Sub Inspector of Police, Karapa PS vs Korla Durga Chakram	05 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/767/2025	Sub Inspector of Police, Karapa PS vs Kothuri Venkata Raju	05 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/98/2023	Sub Inspector of Police vs Dammu Siva Srinivasu @ Srinubabu	03 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/492/2025	Sub Inspector of Police vs Ballreddy Eeswara Rao	03 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/536/2025	Sub Inspector of Police, Coringa PS vs Tota Ramanayya	03 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/927/2021	State Sub Inspector of Police, Disha Women PS, Kakinada. vs Navara Satish	03 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/950/2025	State, Sub Inspector of Police, Disha WPS, Kakinada. vs Sekharamahanthi Santosh Kumar Patnaik	03 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/144/2022	State Inspector of Police, Disha Women PS, Kakinada. vs Talluri Rajesh	27 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/940/2025	Sub Inspector of Police, Coringa Police Station vs Neela Siva	27 Feb 2026	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 1,064 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		8
Apr 2026		28
Mar 2026		63
Feb 2026		29
Jan 2026		38
Dec 2025		50
Nov 2025		22
Oct 2025		29
Sep 2025		25
Aug 2025		16
Jul 2025		43
Jun 2025		39

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Ms.V.Sahithi handled?

Ms.V.Sahithi has handled 1077 court orders since 2023 at III Addl District Court Kakinada. The average disposal rate is 41 orders per month.

What types of cases does Ms.V.Sahithi hear?

Based on available records, Ms.V.Sahithi primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Domestic Violence Cases) at III Addl District Court Kakinada.

Where is Ms.V.Sahithi currently posted?

Ms.V.Sahithi is posted as II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,Kakinada at III Addl District Court Kakinada, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Ms.V.Sahithi available online?

Yes. 11 judgments by Ms.V.Sahithi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Ms.V.Sahithi dispose cases?

Ms.V.Sahithi disposes approximately 41 cases per month, based on 1077 orders handled over their tenure at III Addl District Court Kakinada.

Since when is Ms.V.Sahithi serving?

Ms.V.Sahithi has been serving at III Addl District Court Kakinada since 2023.

Case Types

CC 46%

OS 40%

EP 12%

FDP 1%

PRC 0%

DVC 0%

MC 0%

Posting History

Apr 2025 — May 2025

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,Kakinada · 1 orders
Apr 2024 — Present

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,Kakinada · 798 orders
May 2023 — Jan 2024

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,Kakinada · 266 orders
Mar 2023 — Apr 2023

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,Kakinada · 12 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 6

Convicted 1

Other Judges at this Court

Smt.G.Anandi

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Kakinada

457 orders

K Nagamani

IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Kakinada

14 orders

Sri.P.Govardhan

VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada

509 orders

Sri.B.Srinivasu

Principal Senior Civil Judge,Kakinada

6 orders

Sri.N.Vijaya babu

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge,Kakinada

657 orders

Kethavath Moti Lal

III Addl. Senior Civil Judge,Kakinada

326 orders

A.naga Malleswari

Principal Junior Civil Judge,Kakinada

1 orders

Smt.S.Mani

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,Kakinada

2,070 orders

Smt.D.Sree Devi

III Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate Court, Kakinada

3,912 orders

Ms.Nirupa Bhanj Deo

IV Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate Court,Kakinada

0 orders

Smt.Shaik Shireen

V Addl. J.F.C.Magistarte Court,Kakinada

3,923 orders

Smt.N.Usha Lakshmi Kumari

Spl. Mobile J.F.C.Magistrate Court,Kakinada

0 orders

Smt K. Sree Devi

P.O.C.S.O Court Judge Kakinada

210 orders

← View all judges at III Addl District Court Kakinada