Smt V.Veera Naga Venkata Lakshmi

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADONI.

PRESENT: Smt.V.V.N.V.Lakshmi,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

Tuesday, the 14 th Day of November, 2023

C.C.No.15/2020

Between : State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Kosigi Police Station.

.... Complainant

and

1.Girni Govaihgari Rajoli Yellappa, S/o.Bheemaiah, Aged 60 years,

2.Muddamma, W/o.Yellappa, Aged 55 years,

3.Anjaneyulu, S/o.Yellappa, Aged 35 years,

4.Narasamma, W/o.Anjaneyulu, Aged 30 years,

5.Ramesh, S/o.Yellappa, aged 30 years,

6.Ambanna, S/o.Yellappa, Aged 26 years,

7.Mallesh, S/o.Yellappa, Aged 28 years,

8.Reddappa @ Venkatesh, S/o.Bhimaiah, Aged 55 years,

9.Ramesh, S/o.Bheemaiah, Aged 50 years,

All are the residents of Rajoli Village, Manvi Mandal, Karnataka State.

.... Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 26-10-2023 in the presence of APP for State and of Sri.A.Lakshminarayana, Advocate for A1 to A9; and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

01. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kosigi Police Station, filed charge sheet against A1 to A9 in Crime No.135/2019 for the offences punishable under

Sections 323, 354, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. of Kosigi

Police Station.

2

02. In brief, the case of the prosecution as unfolded in the charge sheet is stated as follows:

That L.W.1-Nadigeni Buddamma is resident of Kosigi village and her marriage was performed with A1 about 35 years ago. They lived happily for 25 years and thereafter A1 started harassing LW.1 for additional dowry, for which LW.1 filed case against A1 and his relatives at Adoni

Court. Thereafter A1 accepted to give Ac.6.36 acres of land, share in flour mill house and share in open site to LW.1. LW.1 compromised the case in Lok Adalath. But after passing of one year, A1 did not stand on his promise to give property to LW.1 as per condition and A1 to A9 refused to give their share of property. While so, on 9-8-2019, LW.1 went to the accused and they abused her in filthy language and threatened LW.1 with dire consequences that they will come to her house and kill her and her children. On 13-8-2019 when LW.1 was sleeping in her house along with her children at mid night, A1 to A9 went to the house of LW.1 and beat her with hands and legs and caught hold of her hands, dragged her out of the house, cut her tali, torn her blouse and pulled her saree. On hearing her cries, LWs.2 to 5 came there and on seeing them, accused went away.

03. Basing on the complaint of LW.1, LW.6-A.Dhanunjaya, Sub

Inspector of Police, Kosigi Police Station, registered it as a case in

Cr.No.135/2019 u/Secs.323, 354 and 509 r/w. 34 of IPC and Sec.156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and examined LWs.1 to 5 and recorded their statements and drafted rough sketch of scene of offence and then he served Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C. notice to A1 to A9. After completion of investigation, she filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

3

04. This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections Secs.323, 354 and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC.

05. After appearance of the accused case copies and relevant documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

06. Accused were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charge under

Sections Secs.323, 354 and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.

Act was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

07. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 on its behalf. No defence witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW.5.

08. After completing the evidence of prosecution, the accused were examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., in respect of the incriminating evidence available in the prosecution evidence. The substance of the incriminating evidence was read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu, to which accused denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence on their side.

09. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of A1 to

A9 beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under

Sections 323, 354 and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC?

4

Point:

10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that it is the case where

A1 to A9 beat PW.1 with hands and legs and caused injuries, dragged the saree of PW1 and threatened P.W.1. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P3. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is consistent and certainly supported the case of the prosecution. The oral evidence adduced by the prosecution is corroborated were documentary evidence Exs.P1 to P3. No contradictions were elicited during the cross examination of PWs.1 to 4 nor confronted to PW.5. Thus, prosecution by examining P.Ws.1 to 5 and by exhibiting P1 to P3 established its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable u/Secs.323, 354 and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and hence, prayed this Hon’ble Court to convict the accused.

11. Defence counsel argued that accused were falsely implicated in this case due to previous disputes. PW.2 himself admitted that this foisted against accused for the purpose of property. P.Ws.2 to 4 are planted witnesses. There is delay in filing the report and same was not explained by the prosecution. Further P.Ws.2 to 4 are relatives of PW.1 and the evidence of PW.1 was not corroborated with any evidence of independent witnesses. Thus, prosecution failed bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable u/Secs.323, 354 and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and hence prayed this Hon’ble Court to acquit the accused.

Accused relied upon the case law in S.Inderjeet Singh V. State of

Andhra Pradesh dated 3-12-2012 of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., at para Nos.9 and 13, it was held that, 5

9.“The complaint was lodged on 13-10-1999, at about 16 hours.

The incident was alleged to have occurred on 13-10-1999 at about 10.15 am. There is no proper explanation forthcoming for the delay caused in lodging the complaint.

13. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant-A2 are not just and proper and also not based on a sound reasoning and therefore, the conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside.”

12. In brief, it is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 is the wife of

A1. P.W.1 filed a Case against A1 and same was compromised and award was passed in Lok Adalath. Even after one year, A1 did not give her share as per condition. On 9-8-2019, PW.1 went to accused and asked for the share in the property and A1 to A9 abused her and threatened her. On 13-8-2019, when PW.1 was sleeping in the house along with her children in the mid night, A1 to A9 went to the house of

PW.1, beat PW.1 with hands and legs, caught hold of her hairs, dragged her out of the house, cut her thali, torn her blouse and pulled her saree.

She raised cries. On hearing her cries, P.Ws.2 to 4 and LW.5 came to the scene of offence and rescued her.

13. In support of case of prosecution, PW.1 deposed that her marriage was performed with A1 at about 30 years ago. They lived happily for 25 years. After 25 years, she demanded A1 for property. Then she filed case against A1 for property and the said case was compromised when

A1 agreed to give the land. Then she went to her husband and asked for the said land, he refused to give the land. Then she came to her parents’ house at Kosigi and started residing in a house adjoining to her parents’ house. At about 3 ½ years ago, at 9.30 pm, A1 to A9 came to their 6 house at Kosigi and caught of her hair and beat them with hands and legs. They pulled her saree. She raised cries and L.Ws.2 to 5 came to her and rescued her. Accused went away. Since Police did not register her case, she came to Court and lodged private complaint. Court referred the private complaint to Police and Police registered her case.

P.w.2 deposed that PW.1 is his junior paternal aunt. In the year 2019, at about 11.00 pm, A1 to A9 came to the house of P.W.1, A1 to A9 removed the saree of PW.1, and sacred thread in the neck of PW.1 was removed. P.W.1 raised cries and himself and LWs.2, 4 and 5 went to the scene of offence. On seeing them, A1 to A9 went away. During cross examination, PW.2 deposed his house and the house of P.W.1 were intervened by one house. He admitted the suggestion given by defence counsel that this case was filed by PW.1 since A1 did not register the land as per the agreement in favour of P.W.1 and her children.

P.w.3 deposed that PW.1 is his sister. At about four years ago, in the year 2019, during night hours, when his sister was sleeping in the house, A1 to A9 came to the house of PW.1, threatened her, dragged her and beat her out of the house by caught holding of her saree.

P.W.4 deposed that PW.1 is his sister. At about four years ago, when

PW.1 was in her house, A1 to A5 and four others trespassed in the house of PW.1, beat PW.1, dragged her saree and blouse and threatened PW.1.

On hearing the cries of PW.1, himself, LWs.3 to 5 went to the house of

PW.1 and accused ran away from the scene of offence. During the cross examination, he deposed that his house and house of PW.1 are intervened by three houses.

P.W.5 deposed that on 4-10-2019, he registered the case, issued FIR, examined the witnesses and drafted rough sketch. During cross 7 examination, PW.5 deposed that on 13-8-2019, PW.1 did not come to the

Police Station and did not lodge report. He admitted the suggestion that

LWs.2 to 5 are relatives of P.W.1.

14. It is the case of the prosecution that when PW.1 went to the house of accused and questioned accused for her share in the property on 9-8-2019, accused abused her like anything and threatened her that they will kill her and her children. P.Ws.2 to 4 did not depose that they accompanied P.W.1 to the house of A1 on 9-8-2019. P.W.1 who is the sole witness to the incident on 9-8-2019 did not depose any fact against accused that when she questioned the accused for share of her land, accused threatened her and abused her on 9-8-2019. Thus, prosecution utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence u/Sec.506 of IPC and hence, accused are entitled for acquittal for the offence u/Sec.506 of IPC.

15. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13-8-2019, A1 to A9 went to the house of P.W.1, beat PW.1 with hands and legs, caught hold of her hair, dragged her out of the house, cut her Thali, torn her blouse and pulled her saree. She raised cries. On hearing her cries, L.Ws.2 to 5 went to her and on seeing them accused went away. Even according to the case of the prosecution, PWs.2 to 4 are not direct witnesses to the alleged incident. PW.1 also deposed that A1 to A9 came to her house, caught hold of her hair, beat them with hands and legs, they also pulled her saree, she raised cries and then PWs.2 to 4 came to her and rescued her. As per the evidence of PW.1 also P.Ws.2 to 4 are the hearsay witnesses to the alleged incident. It is the case of the prosecution that on seeing P.Ws.2 to 4, A1 to A9 went away. According to the evidence of 8

P.Ws.2 to 4 they have seen A1 to A9 at the scene of offence. PW.1 did not depose any facts that accused 1 to 9 cut her Thali, dragged her out of the house and torn her blouse. Thus, PW.1/victim herself did not support the case of the prosecution in clear terms.

16. It is the contention of the accused that there is delay of more than one month in lodging the complaint. PW.1 during her evidence deposed that she went to the Police Station and Police did not register her complaint, hence she lodged private complaint before the Court. On perusal of record, PW.1 sent complaint to the Superintendent of Police,

Kurnool on 16-8-2019 through post and same was received by the office of the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool on 20-8-2019. Private Complaint was filed before the court on 04-04-2019. There is delay of 14 days in lodging the private complaint which is unexplained by the prosecution.

Admittedly, there are previous disputes and ill feelings between the parties. Further, PW.2 admitted that this case was filed by PW.1 since A1 did not register the land as per agreement in favour of PW.1 and her children. This evidence of P.W.2 turned fatal to the case of the prosecution creating cloud upon the whole case of prosecution. Further,

PWs.2 to 4 are the relatives of P.W.1 and no independent witness supported the case of prosecution. PW.1 deposed that the offence took place at 9.30 pm. PW.4 deposed that his house and house of PW.1 is intervened by three houses. Thus, the offence took place not at mid night hours and scene of offence house is situated in residential area but no independent witness was examined by Police nor examined by the Court which strengthens the argument of the defence that this case was falsely foisted against the accused for the purpose of property. Thus, prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for 9 the offences punishable u/secs.323, 354 and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and accused are entitled for acquittal. Point is answered in favour of the accused.

17. In the result, A1 to A9 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354 and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquittedunder Sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused are ordered to be in force for a period of six months along with the surety bonds as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Un-marked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated and Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14 th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- Smt.V.V.N.V.Lakshmi

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant For Defence

Pw1: Nadigeni Buddamma None Pw2: Mare Eraiah Pw3: Dubba Veera Reddy Pw4: Nadigeni Narsi Reddy PW5: A.Dhanunjaya, Sub Inspector of Police, Kosigi Police Station.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant For Defence

Ex.P.1: Private complaint of PW.1. Nil Ex.P.2: FIR. Ex.P.3: Rough sketch.

Material Objects

-Nil-

Sd/- Smt.V.V.N.V.Lakshmi

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

10

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: ADONI.

C.C.No.15/2020

1 Date of Offence 13-08-2019 2 Date of Complaint 04-04-2019 3 Date of apprehension of the accused Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice issued. 4 Date of release on bail -- 5 Date of Commencement of Trial 17-04-2023 6 Date of Close of Trial 17-10-2023 7 Date of Judgment 14-11-2023

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.15/2020

On the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

Complainant Sub Inspector of Police, Kosigi Police Station, Cr.No.135/2019 of Kosigi P.S. Accused 1.Girni Govaihgari Rajoli Yellappa, S/o.Bheemaiah, Aged 60 years,

2.Muddamma, W/o.Yellappa, Aged 55 years,

3.Anjaneyulu, S/o.Yellappa, Aged 35 years,

4.Narasamma, W/o.Anjaneyulu, Aged 30 years,

5.Ramesh, S/o.Yellappa, aged 30 years,

6.Ambanna, S/o.Yellappa, Aged 26 years,

7.Mallesh, S/o.Yellappa, Aged 28 years,

8.Reddppa @ Venkatesh, S/o.Bhimaiah, Aged 55 years,

9.Ramesh, S/o.Bheemaiah, Aged 50 years,

All are the residents of Rajoli Village, Manvi Mandal, Karnataka State. Section of Law U/Secs. 323, 354 and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC.

Finding A1 to A9 are found not guilty for the offence U/Secs.323, 354 and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC. Sentence of In the result, A1 to A9 are found not guilty for the offences Order punishable under Sections 323, 354 and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquittedunder Sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused are ordered to be in force for a period of six months along with the surety bonds as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Un-marked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. // True /

Sd/- Smt.V.V.N.V.Lakshmi

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

-MAISTRATE OF I-CL AS S

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief-Judicial Magistrate-Cum-

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

ADONI 11

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADONI.

PRESENT: Smt.V.V.N.V.Lakshmi,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

Wednesday, the 15 th Day of November, 2023

C.C.No.603/2022

Between : State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Isvi Police Station.

.... Complainant

and

Boya Gorrela Veeresh, S/o.Nagappa, Aged 39 years, Gajjahalli Village, Holagunda Madnal.

.....Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 14-11-2023 in the presence of A.P.P. for State and of Sri.B.Veeresh, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

01. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Isvi Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.24/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 337 ,338, 304-A of IPC and Section 181 of MV Act.

02. In brief, the case of the prosecution as unfolded in the charge sheet is stated as follows:

That the deceased Vadde Mallikarjuna is resident of Gajjahalli village and he is living by doing coolie works. While so, on 17-3-2022, at about 08.00 hours, the accused went to the house of the deceased and took the deceased on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 39 FA 5471 to go to Adoni as rider of the motor cycle and on the way at about 10.30 hours, when they 2 reached near Sree Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple on Adoni-Siruguppa road after Santhekudluru village, the accused being the driver of the two wheeler drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and while crossing the ahead going auto dashed against the opposite coming motor cycle of LW.6-Thalla Ashok Kumar bearing registration No.AP 39 DC 2655 which is coming from Siruguppa to Adoni. As a result, the deceased who is the pillion rider of the motor cycle fell down from the motor cycle and received bleeding injuries and died on the spot. L.W.7-Chakali Linganna and LW.8-Golla Vinay were also fell down form their motor cycle and received injuries.

Basing on the written complaint of L.W.6, LW.15-B.Obulesu, Head

Constable 620 of Isvi Police Station registered it as a case in Crime

No.24/2022 u/Secs.337, 304-A of IPC. During the course of investigation, on 17-3-2022, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased

Vadde Mallikarjuna in the presence of inquest panchayathdars, examined

LWs.1 to 9 and recorded their statements and forwarded the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination. Thereafter, LW.15 drafted rough sketch of scene of offence and on 24-4-2022 he served Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C. notice to the accused and the accused did not have driving license, sec.181 of M.V. Act is added.

L.W.14-Dr.Naveen Kumar, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Area

Hospital, Adoni who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased issued post mortem examination report by opining that the cause of death is due to head injury and the injuries received by LWs.6 and 8 are grievous in nature and the injuries received by LW.7 are simple 3 in nature and after receiving the wound certificates, LW.15 added the section of law 338 of IPC to this case.

L.W.13-J.Anil Kumar, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Adoni who inspected the crime vehicle opined that there are no mechanical defects of the crime vehicle.

After completion of investigation, L.W.16-Smt.L.Vijaya Lakshmi, Sub

Inspector of Police, Isvi Police Station filed charge sheet in this case.

Hence, the charge.

03. This case was taken on file against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC.

04. After appearance of the accused, case copies and relevant documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

05. The accused was examined under Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. Substance of accusation is read over and explained to the accused for the offences under Secs.337, 338 and 304-A of IPC, to which the accused denied the commission of the offence and claimed to be tried.

06. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 on its behalf. No defence witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused. The

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.Ws.2 to 5,9, 13 to 16.

07. The examination u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as there is no incriminating material in prosecution evidence appeared against the accused.

4

08. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material available on record, both oral and documentary evidence.

09. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the accused drove the Hero HF Deluxe Vehicle bearing

No.AP 21 39 FA 5471 rashly or negligently and caused the death

of the deceased Vadde Mallikarjuna, and caused injuries to LW.6-

Thalla Ashok Kumar, LW.7-Chakali Linganna and LW.8-Golla Vinay

and whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable

under Sections 337, 338, 304-A of IPC?

Point:

10. To prove the case of the prosecution, they have examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked.

11. P.W.1 deposed that her husband died in an accident at about one year ago but she does not know how the accident occurred, she does not know who caused the accident and she does not know the person standing in the court. P.W.2 deposed that at about one year, he went to the hospital and at the instructions of the Police, he signed on some papers, he does not know its contents and he does not know the accused.

P.Ws.3 and 4 deposed that at about one year, they went to the hospital and at the instructions of the Police, they signed on some papers, they do not know its contents. P.W.5 deposed that he does not know anything about the facts of this case, at about one year ago, he signed on some papers at Police Station and he does not know its contents.

P.Ws.6 and 7 deposed that they do not know the accused and they do not know anything about the facts of this case, Police did not examine them.

5

12. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17-3-2022 at about 08.00 hours near newly constructing Sree Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple on Adoni – Siruguppa road on crossing the Santhekudluru village, accused being the driver of the motor cycle bearing No.AP 39 FA 5471 drove the motor cycle rashly or negligently and caused an accident, but on perusal of prosecution evidence, P.W.1 deposed deceased her husband and her husband died in an accident but she do not know how the accident occurred and she does not know who caused the accident. P.Ws.2 to 4 deposed that at about one year ago, they went to the hospital, at the instructions of Police, they signed on some papers but they do not know its contents. P.Ws.5 to 7 deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of this case.

From the above evidence adduced by the prosecution, this Court certainly holds that accident was occurred, the deceased Vadde

Mallikarjuna died due to the injuries. Now, the question arises is who drove the vehicle. P.W.1 deposed that her husband died in an accident but she does not know who caused the accident. P.Ws.2 to 4 are inquest panchayatdars. P.Ws.5 to 7 deposed that they does not know anything about the facts of this case. None of the above witnesses deposed against the accused that he drove the vehicle rashly or negligently. In spite of cross examination by Assistant Public Prosecutor, nothing worthwhile was elicited in favour of prosecution from the cross examination of P.Ws.1 to

7. In view of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor given up all other witnesses. Absolutely there is no evidence on record that accused drove the motor cycle rashly or negligently and caused accident . Prosecution failed to establish the guilt 6 of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences u/Secs. 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. Point is answered in favour of the accused.

13. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338, 304-A of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused are ordered to be in force for a period of six months along with the surety bonds as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15 th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- Smt.V.V.N.V.Lakshmi

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant For Defence

Pw1: Vadde Lakshmi None Pw2: V.Ravi Pw3: Nagendra Pw4: Vadde Hanumanthu Pw5: Thalla Ashok Kumar Pw6: Chakali Linganna Pw7: Golla Vinay

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant For Defence

Ex.P.1: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1. Nil.

Ex.P.2: Signature of P.W.2 on the inquest report of deceased/Vadde Mallikarjuna.

Ex.P.3: Signature of P.W.3 on the inquest report of deceased/Vadde Mallikarjuna.

Ex.P.4: Signature of P.W.4 on the inquest report of deceased/Vadde Mallikarjuna.

Ex.P.5: Signature of PW.5 on the report.

7

Ex.P.6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P.7: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.6.

EX.P.8: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.7.

Sd/- Smt.V.V.N.V.Lakshmi

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

8

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

ADONI.

C.C.No.603/2022

1 Date of Offence 17-03-2022 2 Date of Complaint 17-03-2022 3 Date of apprehension of the Accused Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice served 4 Date of release on bail -- 5 Date of Commencement of Trial 09-10-2023 6 Date of Close of Trial 14-11-2023 7 Date of Judgment 15-11-2023

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.603/2022

On the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

Complainant Sub Inspector of Police, Isvi P.S. Cr.No.24/2022 of Isvi Police Station. Accused Boya Gorrela Veeresh, S/o.Nagappa, Aged 39 years, Gajjahalli Village, Holagunda Madnal. Rider of Hero HF Deluxe bearing registration No.AP 39 FA 5471. Section of Law U/Secs.337, 338 and 304-A IPC.

Finding Accused is found not guilty for the offence u/Secs.337, 338, 304-A of IPC. Sentence of In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A Order of IPC, accordingly accused is acquittedof the same under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused are ordered to be in force for a period of six months along with the surety bonds as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Un- marked case property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

// True /

Sd/- Smt.V.V.N.V.Lakshmi

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

OF I-CLASS

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief-Judicial Magistrate-Cum-

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool. ADOI

9

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADONI.

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

Wednesday, the 08th Day of November, 2023

C.C.No.253/2022

Between : State: The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Peddathumbalam, Police Station. .... Complainant

and

Boya Narasappa, s/o.Late Boya Eranna, Aged about 27 years, r/o.Mantriki village, Adoni Town.

.... Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on this day i.e., on 08-11-2023 in the presence of A.P.P. for State and of Sri.T.Prabhakar Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Peddathumbalam Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No.148/2021 for the offence punishable u/ Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of APP Act.

02. In brief, the case of the prosecution as unfolded in the charge sheet is stated as follows:

On 24.08.2021 at about 18.30 hours, Lw.1 B.Sudhakar PC 2988,

LW.2 T.Saranappa PC 3273 and LW.3 G.Chandra SI of Police of

Peddathumbalam police station were left the Police Station and they reached in front of accused house, Mantriki village, Adoni mandal and found one person standing with a plastic can infront of his house, and on seeing Police, accused tried skulk away from the place, then they caught hold of the accused. Then L.W.3 enquired the accused, and the accused revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he used to purchase liquor bottles from unknown person of Karnataka state at lower rates and selling them in their village for higher rates. Then LW.3 sent LW.1 to procure mediators, but 2 after some time LW.1 returned and stated that no one come forward to act as mediators. Thereafter, L.W.3 opened the bag and found 5 liters of ID arrack. Then LW.3 took 1-180 ml as sample and seized remaining contraband under the cover of Police Proceedings.

Basing on the Police Proceedings, LW.3 registered a case in

Cr.No.148/2021 u/Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of APP Act. LW-3 arrested the accused.

After completion of investigation, L.W.3 filed charge sheet in this case.

Hence, the charge.

03.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of APP Act.

04. After appearance of the accused, case copies and relevant documents was furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973.

05.The accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. and a charge under section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of APP Act, was framed against the accused and the contents of the charge was read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.No.1 on its behalf. Assistant Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.W.2.

07.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under

Sec.313 of Cr.P.C.,and the incriminating evidence from the testimonies of

P.Ws.1 and 2 were read over and explained to him, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

08.Heard the learned APP for State and the learned counsel for accused.

3 09. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the accused possessed or sold any arrack in

contravention with the provisions of A.P. Prohibition Act or any

rule/notification or order without license or permit and thereby

committed any offence punishable u/Sec.7(A) r/w. 8(e) of

A.P.Prohibition Act?

Point:

10. The learned APP fairly contended that the matter may be decided on merits. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel contended that the prosecution failed to follow the procedure for search and seizure of alleged contraband and that no efforts were made to secure independent witnesses, that itself shows the police foisted false case against the accused for their statistical purpose and as there is no testimony of independent witness, a benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused and they may be acquitted.

11. Section 7(A) r/w. 8(e) read as follows as hereunder:

7(A) : Prohibition of production etc., of arrack. - The production, manufacture, storage, possession, collection, purchase, sale and transport of arrack is hereby prohibited.

8(e) contravenes the provisions of section 7-A shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend up to eight years and with fine which shall not be less than [rupees two lakhs for the first offence and which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs for the second offence.].

12. According to the prosecution case, accused possessed I.D. arrack and tried to sell the same in contravention of provisions of Prohibition Act and thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec.7(A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act.

13. P.Ws.1 and 2 in their evidence staunchly supported the case of prosecution. P.W.2 deposed that basing on Ex.P1, he registered the crime, arrested the accused and after receiving analysis report, he filed charge sheet.

4

14. Prosecution's case is that the accused confessed that the accused possessed I.D. arrack. This part of evidence deposed by P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the confession cannot be received into evidence because of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, wherein it is clearly stated that confession made to a Police Officer is not admissible. This part of evidence with regard to confession either in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 or in Ex.P.1 is held inadmissible. According to Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 every person is competent to testify. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 clearly supported the prosecution case and remained unshattered as to the facts witnessed by them.

15. P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically deposed that they witnessed the possession of I.D. arrack by the accused and they seized the same. But, according to

Section Sec.23 of A.P. Prohibition Act, the police at the time of seizure of property, must follow the procedure enshrined in Section 100(4) of

Cr.P.C. i.e., the police shall secure the presence of independent witnesses and during their presence as mediators, the police shall seize the contraband. But, there is no piece of evidence on record that police tried to secure the presence of independent witnesses. No reason was specified either in the charge sheet or in the prosecution evidence for non-issuance of written notices to the persons around the scene of offence. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that, the non-presence of independent witnesses creates doubt as to the genuineness of case of prosecution. The failure of the prosecution to comply Section 23 of A.P. Prohibition and Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. adds strength to the argument on behalf of the accused that a hefty attempt was made by the police to drag the accused into the web of alleged crime.

16. No independent witnesses were present and were examined in this case. Except police officials, no other independent evidence supported the 5 prosecution case. Ex.P3 and Mo.1 merely shows that the contraband seized is illicitly distilled liquor, that itself does not mean that the accused possessed or sold the same. In these circumstances, this court is of opinion that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of police officials and to convict the accused. Therefore, this Court opines that, prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for Acquittal.

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

U/Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of APP Act, and accordingly, he is acquitted under

Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused is ordered to be in force for a period of six months along with surety bonds as per Section 437-

A of Cr.P.C. Mo.No.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 08th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- Smt.V.V.N.V.Lakshmi

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant For Defence

Pw1: B.Sudhakar PC 2988 -None- Peddathumbalam Police Station Pw2: G.Chadra SI of Police Peddathumbalam P.S.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant For Defence:

Ex.P.1: Police Proceedings. Nil Ex.P.2: F.I.R. Ex.P.3: Chemical Analysis report. Ex.P.4: Destruction Police Proceedings.

Material Objects

M.O.1: one Sample bottle 180 ml of ID arrack.

Sd/- Smt.V.V.N.V.Lakshmi

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

ADONI.

C.C.No.253/2022

1 Date of Offence 24-08-2021 2 Date of Complaint 24-08-2021 3 Date of apprehension of the accused 09-01-2023 4 Date of release on bail

27-08-2021

5 Date of Commencement of Trial 02-11-2023 6 Date of Close of Trial 03-11-2023 7 Date of Judgment 08-11-2023

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.253/2022 on the file of II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

Complainant Sub-Inspector of Police, Peddathumbalam Police Station Cr.No.148/2021 of Peddathumbalam Police Station. Accused Boya Narasappa, s/o.Late Boya Eranna, Aged about 27 years, r/o.Mantriki village, Adoni Town. Section of Law U/Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of APP Act. Finding Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of APP Act. Sentence of Order In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of APP Act, and accordingly, accused is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused are ordered to be in force for a period of six months along with surety bonds as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Mo.No.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. // True /

Sd/- Smt.V.V.N.V.Lakshmi

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADONI.

CIAL MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief-Judicial Magistrate-Cum-

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADONI.

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

Wednesday, the 08th Day of November, 2023

C.C.No.154/2021

Between : State: The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Kowthalam, Police Station. .... Complainant

and

Harijana Eranna, s/o.Late Eranna, Aged about 30 years, r/o.Upparahal village, Kowthalam mandal.

.... Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on this day i.e., on 08-11-2023 in the presence of A.P.P. for State and of Sri.T.Prabhakar Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kowthalam Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No.174/2020 for the offence punishable u/ Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act.

02. In brief, the case of the prosecution as unfolded in the charge sheet is stated as follows:

On 29.06.2020 at about 12.30 hours, Lw.1 K.Jameer Basha PC 3485, and LW.2 K.Gopal ASI of Kowthalam police station were left the Police

Station and they reached near accused house of Upparahal Village,

Kowthalam Mandal and found one person with a plastic bag, and on seeing

Police, accused tried skulk away from the place, then they caught hold of the accused. Then L.W.2 enquired the accused, and the accused revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he used to purchase liquor bottles from unknown person of Karnataka state at lower rates and selling them in their village for higher rates. Then LW.2 sent LW.1 to procure mediators, but after some time LW.1 returned and stated that no one come forward to act 2 as mediators. Thereafter, L.W.2 opened the bag and found 22-90 ml of

Original Choice Deluxe Whisky tetra packets. Then LW.2 took 1-90 ml as sample and seized remaining contraband under the cover of Police

Proceedings.

Basing on the Police Proceedings, LW.3 C.C.Nagarjuna Reddy, SI of police registered a case in Cr.No.174/2020 u/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act. LW-2 served 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused. After completion of investigation, L.W.3 filed charge sheet in this case. Hence, the charge.

03.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act.

04. After appearance of the accused, case copies and relevant documents was furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973.

05.The accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. and a charge under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, was framed against the accused and the contents of the charge was read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.No.1 on its behalf. Assistant Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.W.3.

07.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under

Sec.313 of Cr.P.C.,and the incriminating evidence from the testimonies of

P.Ws.1 and 2 were read over and explained to him, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

08.Heard the learned APP for State and the learned counsel for accused.

3 09. Now the point for determination is:

Whether accused possessed or sold any intoxicant in

contravention of provisions of Excise Act without any valid license or

permit and thereby committed offence punishable under section

34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968?

Point:

10. The learned APP fairly contended that the matter may be decided on merits. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel contended that the prosecution failed to follow the procedure for search and seizure of alleged contraband and that no efforts were made to secure independent witnesses, that itself shows the police foisted false case against the accused for statistical purpose and as there is no testimony of independent witness, a benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused and he may be acquitted.

11. Section 34(a) read as follows as hereunder:

Penalties for illegal import etc:-Whoever, in contravention of this Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed there under or any of any license or permit granted or issued under this Act:-

a)Imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant, established or continued under this Act shall on conviction be punished.

12. According to the prosecution case, accused possessed liquor packets and tried to sell the same in contravention of provisions of Excise Act and thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

13. P.Ws.1 and 2 in their evidence staunchly supported the case of prosecution. P.W.2 deposed that basing on Ex.P1, he registered the crime, served 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused and after receiving analysis report and LW.3 filed charge sheet.

14. Prosecution's case is that the accused confessed that he possessed the liquor without a valid license or permit. This part of evidence deposed by

P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the confession cannot be received into evidence because of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, wherein it is clearly stated 4 that confession made to a Police Officer is not admissible. This part of evidence with regard to confession either in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 or in Ex.P.1 is held inadmissible. According to Section 118 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 every person is competent to testify. The evidence of

P.Ws. 1 and 2 clearly supported the prosecution case and remained unshattered as to the facts witnessed by them.

15.P.Ws. 1 and 2 categorically deposed that they witnessed the possession of liquor by the accused and he seized them. But, according to

Section 59 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, the police at the time of seizure of property, must follow the procedure enshrined in Section 100(4) of

Cr.P.C. i.e., the police shall secure the presence of independent witnesses and during their presence as mediators, the police shall seize the contraband. P.W.1 admitted in his cross examination admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality. But, there is no piece of evidence on record that police tried to secure the presence of independent witnesses. No reason was specified either in the charge sheet or in the prosecution evidence for non-issuance of written notices to the persons around the scene of offence. The failure of the prosecution to comply Section 59 of A.P. Excise

Act and Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. adds strength to the argument on behalf of the accused that a hefty attempt was made by the police to drag the accused into the web of alleged crime.

16. No independent witnesses were present and were examined in this case. Except police officials, no other independent evidence supported the prosecution case. Ex.P3 and Mo.1 merely shows that the contraband seized is Indian made liquor, that itself does not mean that the accused possessed or sold the same. In these circumstances, this court is of opinion that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of police officials and to convict the accused. Therefore, this Court opines that, prosecution failed to establish 5 the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for Acquittal.

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

U/Sec.34(a) A.P. Excise Act, and accordingly, he is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused is ordered to be in force for a period of six months along with surety bonds as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Mo.No.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 08th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- Smt.V.V.N.V.Lakshmi

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant For Defence

Pw1: K.Jameer Basha PC 3485 -None- Kowthalam Police Station

Pw2: K.Gopal ASI 1583 Kowthalam P.S.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant For Defence:

Ex.P.1: Police Proceedings. Nil Ex.P.2: F.I.R. Ex.P.3: Chemical Analysis report. Ex.P.4: Destruction Police Proceedings.

Material Objects

M.O.1: One sample tetra packet 90 ml of Original Choice Deluxe Whisky.

Sd/- Smt.V.V.N.V.Lakshmi

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

ADONI.

C.C.No.154/2021

1 Date of Offence 29-06-2020 2 Date of Complaint 29-06-2020 3 Date of apprehension of the accused 06-09-2022 4 Date of release on bail 41-A Cr.p.C. notice 5 Date of Commencement of Trial 13-12-2022 6 Date of Close of Trial 28-03-2023 7 Date of Judgment 08-11-2023

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.154/2021 on the file of II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

Complainant Sub-Inspector of Police, Kowthalam Police Station Cr.No.174/2020 of Kowthalam Police Station. Accused Harijana Eranna, s/o.Late Eranna, Aged about 30 years, r/o.Upparahal village, Kowthalam mandal. Section of Law U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Finding Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Sentence of Order In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) A.P. Excise Act, and accordingly, accused is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused are ordered to be in force for a period of six months along with surety bonds as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Mo.No.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. // True /

Sd/- Smt.V.V.N.V.Lakshmi

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADONI.

CIAL MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief-Judicial Magistrate-Cum-

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADONI

Present: Smt. V.V.N.V.Lakshmi, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni

Monday, the 20 th day of November, 2023

O.S.No.330/2021

K.Raghavendra Rao, S/o.K.Venugopal Rao, Hindu, Aged about 30 years, resident of Tirumala Nagar, Adoni. …Plaintiff

Versus

Bannuru Mabu Saheb, S/o. Bannuru Hussainappa, Muslim, aged about 36 years, resident of Shanthi Estate, Adoni. … Defendant

This suit coming on this day i.e., 17-11-2023 before me in the presence of Sri.T.Mallikarjuna Rao, Sri.M.A.Nabi and Sri.P.Nagendraiah,

Advocates, for the plaintiff and the defendant set exparte; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

01. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff praying this Hon’ble Court to pass a decree in his favour for recovery of suit amount of Rs.2,75,260/- from the defendant along with the interest thereon.

THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE PLAINTIFF CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS:

02. That 26-4-2021, the defendant has borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and executed A- promissory note in favour of the plaintiff.

On 04-5-2021, again the defendant has borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and executed B- promissory note in favour of the plaintiff.

2

In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay the suit promissory notes debt. Hence, the suit.

03. Paper Publication filed. Defendant called absent. No representation.

Hence, Defendant set exparte on 4-9-2023.

04. To prove his case, plaintiff examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 and

A2.

05. Heard arguments on plaintiff side.

06. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit promissory notes debt along with interest there on as prayed for?

Point:

07. In brief, it is the case of the plaintiff that on 26-4-2021 and on 04-5-2021 the defendant has borrowed amounts of Rs.1,50,000/-,

Rs.1,00,000/- respectively under ‘A’, ‘B’ suit promissory notes agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and failed to repay the same. To prove her case, plaintiff has examined P.W.1. P.W.1 in his evidence supported the case of plaintiff in all respects. Defendant failed to cross examine P.W.1 and the evidence of P.W.1 remained un-challenged. In support of his case, plaintiff also exhibited Exs.A1 and A2 before this Court.

Ex.A1 is the original promissory note dated 26-4-2021 for Rs.1,50,000/-,

Ex.A2 is the original promissory note dated 4-5-2021 for Rs.1,00,000/- reflecting that the defendant has borrowed the said amounts from the plaintiff under two suit promissory notes. Defendant failed to contest the matter and the documentary evidence in this case stood un-shattered. From the un-challenged testimony of P.W.1 coupled with documentary evidence

Exs.A1 and A2, this Court holds that the plaintiff established his case that on 26-4-2021 and on 4-5-2021 the defendant has borrowed amounts of 3

Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- respectively under ‘A’, ‘B’ suit promissory notes and failed to repay the same along with interest and hence, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as claimed for. Point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

08. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.2,75,260/- together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit to till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree to till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-) respectively.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 20 th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- Smt.V.V.N.V.Lakshmi

II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Adoni.

Appendix of Evidence

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW1: K.Raghavendra Rao Exparte

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Original Promissory note for Rs.1,50,000/- dated 26-4-2021 in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A2: Original Promissory note for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 04-5-2021 in favour of plaintiff.

For Defendant: Exparte.

Sd/- Smt.V.V.N.V.Lakshmi

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.

4

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADONI

Present: Smt. V.V.N.V.Lakshmi, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni

Monday, the 20 th day of November, 2023

O.S.No.330/2021

K.Raghavendra Rao, S/o.K.Venugopal Rao, Hindu, Aged about 30 years, resident of Tirumala Nagar, Adoni. …Plaintiff

Versus

Bannuru Mabu Saheb, S/o. Bannuru Hussainappa, Muslim, aged about 36 years, resident of Shanthi Estate, Adoni. … Defendant

The present suit was filed by the plaintiff praying this Hon’ble Court to pass a decree in his favour for recovery of suit amount of Rs.2,75,260/- from the defendant along with the interest thereon.

Plaint presented on 07-10-2021, L.R.P. on 11-10-2021 and numbered on 20-10-2021. Jurisdiction Value of the suit is Rs.2,75,260/- and Court fee of Rs.7,652/- (Rs.4126/- + Rs.3526/-) is paid u/Sec. 20 of APCF & SV

Act, 1956.

Cause of action arose on 26-4-2021 and 04-5-2021, when the defendant borrowed the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed two promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff and on all the subsequent dates when the plaintiff demanded the defendant to repay the debt amount.

This suit coming on this day i.e., 17-11-2023 before me in the presence of Sri.T.Mallikarjuna Rao, Sri.M.A.Nabi and Sri.P.Nagendraiah, Advocates, for the plaintiff and the defendant set exparte; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth ordered and decreed as follows:

DECREE

1)That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant; 5

2)That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.2,75,260/- together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree to till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-) respectively;

3)That the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff Rs.27,042/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 20th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- Smt.V.V.N.V.Lakshmi

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.

Memo of Costs

For Plaintiff (Rs.) For Defendant (Rs.) ================ ================ Stamp on plaint 7652-00 0-00 Stamp on vakalat 2-00 2-00 Stamp on process 65-00 0-00 Advocate fee Nil not filed 0-00 ================ ================ Totals (Rs.) 7719-00 2-00 ================ ================

Sd/- Smt.V.V.N.V.Lakshmi

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.