Sri.V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy

IAJMFC,ADONI. 1 CC NO.531-14

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADONI

C.C.NO.531/2014

1Date of offence27-7-2014 2Date of complaint27-9-2014 3Date of apprehension of the 20-1-2016 accused 4Date of release on bail31-7-2014 5Date of commencement of trial3-10-2016 6Date of close of trial17-2-2017 7Date of Judgment 2-3-2017

Calender and Judgment in C.C.NO. 531/2014

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

ComplainantState : Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Adoni III Town P.S.. (Cr.No.106/2014) AccusedAbdul Rajack @ Vali, aged 45 years, s/o Hajarath Sha, Khoonimohalla Veedhi, Adoni town.

OffenceCriminal intimidation and uttering any word or making any gesture intneded to insult the modesty of a woman,etc. Section of U/S 506 and 509 of IPC Law FindingAccused is found not guilty Sentence or In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge orderU/S 506 and 509 of IPC . He is accordingly acquitted U/S 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force till six months from 2-3-2017 as per the Section 437-A Cr.PC.

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADONI.

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief-Judicial Magistrate-cum-

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

IAJMFC,ADONI. 2 CC NO.531-14

IN THE COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

THE FIRST CLASS, ADONI.

Present: Sri V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

First Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Adoni.

Thursday, this the 2nd day of March, 2017.

CALENDER CASE NO.531/2014

State : Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Adoni III Town P.S.... Complainant

vs

Abdul Rajack @ Vali, aged 45 years, s/o Hajarath Sha, Khoonimohalla Veedhi,

Adoni town... Accused.

This case is coming on 23-2-2017 for hearing before me in the presence of the Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Hajee A.Raza

Ahmed, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, this Court delivered the following :

::JUDGMENT ::

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Adoni III Town P.S., filed a charge sheet against the accused alleging that he has committed offence punishable U/S 506,509 of IPC in Cr.No.106/2014 of his Police Station.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under :

(a) That the accused used to put his ice cream cart infront of the house of PW.1 (G.Mehaboob Bee) situated besides his house. On 27-7-2014 at 10 a.m., when she chastised the accused for putting ice cream cart infront of her house, the accused grew wild against her and scolded her abusing in filthy language like “yeme Lanja, Edi Yemaina Nee Babugari Rodda” and so abusing, the accused threatened her with dire consequences to see her end if she intervenes in the matter of keeping ice cream cart.

IAJMFC,ADONI. 3 CC NO.531-14

(b)Upon the complaint of PW.1, PW.6 (P.Shankaraiah), the then

Sub-Inspector of Police, Adoni III Town P.S., registered a case in Cr.No.106/2014

U/S 506,509 of IPC and investigated into. PW.6 arrested the accused on 31-7-2014 and sent him for judicial remand. After completion of investigation,

PW.6 filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the case.

3. This Court took cognizance of the case against the accused for the offence U/S 506 and 509 of IPC.

4. On the appearance of the accused, he was supplied with copies of documents. He was earlier examined U/S 251 of Cr.PC., explaining him the substance of accusation for the offense U/S 506 and 509 of IPC in Telugu. He denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. PW.1 is the defacto-complainant; PW.2 to PW.5 are relatives of PW.1 and eye-witnesses; PW.6 is the Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is the statement of PW.1 given to Police; Ex.P2 is the First Information Report in

Cr.No.106/14 of Adoni III Town PS.; Ex.P3 is the rough sketch of scene of offence.

6. While preparing examination U/S 313 of Cr.PC., it is noticed that charge for the offence U/S 509 of IPC has not been framed against the accused as the punishment for the offense U/S 509 of IPC attracts warrant procedure. As such, on 21-2-2017, the accused is examined U/S 239 of Cr.PC., in view of amendment for the punishment of offence U/S 509 of IPC., and he denied the offence. A charge

U/S 506 and 509 of IPC against the accused was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried. The learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor reported no further evidence and filed memo to that effect.

IAJMFC,ADONI. 4 CC NO.531-14

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined U/S 313 of Cr.PC., explaining him the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in Telugu. The accused denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7. Heard arguments of both counsels and perused the material available on record both oral and documentary evidence.

8. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge U/S 506 and 509 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

9.To bring home the guilt against the accused for the said charges, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW6 and placed reliance on documents Ex.P1 to

Ex.P3 documents.

10. The argument of the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor in brief is that the accused abused PW.1 and insulted her modesty when she asked him to remove his ice-cream cart kept infront of her house. The evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by PW.2 to PW.5 on all material particulars. PW.6 Investigating

Officer done prompt investigation in this case. Therefore, the prosecution has established its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is liable for punishment.

11.On the other hand, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused in brief is that PW.1 foisted a false case against the accused keeping in mind differences with the wife of the accused and the accused never abused PW.1 in filthy language and he never threatened her. The learned counsel further submitted that the PW.1 to PW.5 are inter-related and interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be believed in the absence of any other independent evidence. He further submitted that there are inconsistency between the

IAJMFC,ADONI. 5 CC NO.531-14

evidence of PW.1 to PW.5 and PW.1 did not speak the words with which she was alleged to be abused by the accused. In view of the above circumstances, the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.

12.Before going to discuss rival contentions, it is appropriate to go through the evidence on record.

13.The defacto-complainant G.Mehaboob Bi is examined as PW.1. She deposed that about 2 years back, one day, the accused kept your ice cream cart in her vacant site situated at her house. When she asked the accused to keep the ice cream cart aside from her site, for which he grew wild and abused her in filthy language. The accused came upon her with a stick to beat her. Then, she went to

Adoni III Town P.S.,and gave oral statement to police, which they reduced it into writing under Ex.P1 statement.

14.In her cross-examination, PW.1 deposed that the house of the accused is adjacent to her house. She admitted that her house is located in the residential area. She stated that she can not say how many persons have gathered at the time of the galata. She stated that the galata went on for two hours. She denied the suggestion that she foisted false case against the accused as there are differences between her and the wife of the accused.

15.The brother of PW.1 by name G.Jilani Basha is examined as PW.2. He deposed that in the year 2014, one day at 8 a.m., the accused kept his ice cream cart near to his house and his sister PW.1 went and asked the accused to keep his ice cream cart near to his house. The accused grew wild against PW.1, abused her in filthy language. PW.1 went to Adoni III Town P.S., and gave oral statement, which was reduced into writing by police.

16. In his cross-examination, PW.2 stated that the distance between his

IAJMFC,ADONI. 6 CC NO.531-14

house and the house of the accused is 5 feet. He admitted that they did not produce any record before the police to show that the place where the accused had kept his ice-cream cart is belonging to them. His house is located in residential area. He stated that the galata took place from 8 a.m., to 1 p.m. None of the public have assembled at the time of galata. He stated that he can not say the names of the persons who came to rescue PW.1.

17. The sister of PW.1 by name G.Ghousiya is examined as PW.3. She deposed that about two years back, one day at about 9.30 to 1 p.m., the accused has kept his ice cream cart infront of their house, for which her sister PW.1 took an objection and asked him to remove the ice cream cart infront of their house.

But the accused became angry and abused PW.1 in filthy language and tried to beat her. Then, they informed the accused that they were giving complaint to police, but the accused did not remove the ice cream cart infront of their house.

18.In her cross-examination, PW.3 deposed that she was present at her in-laws house at the time of incident. The distance between her house and the house of PW.1 is about 50 to 60 yards. She went to the place of incident after hearing cries of PW.1. She denied to the suggestion that they foisted false case against the accused due to disputes between the wife of the accused and PW.1.

19.The sister of PW.1 by name Rabiya is examined as PW.4. She deposed that about two years back, one day at about 9.30 to 11 a.m., the accused had kept his ice cream cart infront of their house, for which her sister PW.1 took an objection and asked the accused to remove the ice cream cart infront of their house. But he became angry and abused PW.1 in filthy language and tried to beat her and threatened her. Then, PW.1 went to Police Station and lodged report with police.

20.In her cross-examination, PW.4 deposed that she accompanied PW.1 along with PW.2 and PW.5 to Police Station to give complaint.

IAJMFC,ADONI. 7 CC NO.531-14

21.The brother of PW.1 by name G.Roshan is examined as PW.5. He deposed that about two years back, one day at about 9 a.m., while he was present at his house, the accused came and kept his ice cream cart near to their house, for which his sister PW.1 asked him to keep aside the cart, for which the accused picked up quarrel and abused PW.1 in filthy language. The accused came upon their house with a view to beat his sister PW.1. Then, PW.1 went to

Police Station and lodged report with police.

22.In his cross-examination, PW.5 deposed that the house of the accused is far away from his house. They gave documents to police so as to show that the place where the ice cream cart is kept, belongs to them. Her sister PW.1 went to

Police Station by 12 noon. He can not say how many persons gathered at the time of incident. He denied the suggestion that they foisted false case against the accused as they have differences with the accused and his wife.

23. The Investigating Officer by name Sri P. Shankaraiah, the then Sub-

Inspector of Police, Adoni III Town PS., is examined as PW.6. He deposed that on 27-7-2014 at 1 p.m., while he was present in the Police Station PW.1 to PW.3 came and preferred her oral statement which was reduced into writing as Ex.P1 statement, which he registered as a case in Cr.No.106/14 U/S 506, 509 of IPC under Ex.P2 First Information Report. He took up investigation, visited the scene of offence, prepared Ex.P3 rough sketch and examined witnesses, recorded their statements. On 31-7-2014 on credible information of the accused at his house, he along with his staff went there and arrested him after informing grounds of arrest and forwarded the accused to judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

24.During his cross-examination, PW.6 deposed that PW.1 did not furnish any documents to him to show that the vacant site where the accused alleged to have parked his ice cream cart belongs to them. PW.1 to PW.5 are near relatives.

IAJMFC,ADONI. 8 CC NO.531-14

He stated that he tried to examine independent witnesses at the place of incident,but none were available at that time.

25.A careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, it reveals that PW.1 stated that when she asked the accused to remove ice cream cart kept in her site, the accused grew wild and abused her and threatened her with dire consequences. No doubt, the evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by the evidence of

PW.2 to PW.5 in all material particulars. Admittedly, PW.1 to PW.5 are near relatives and interested witnesses. In the absence of any independent evidence, the evidence of PW.1 to PW.5 has to be scrutinised carefully. It is the evidence of

PW.1 to PW.6 that the place of offense is located amidst residential area and there was gathering of public at the time of galata. The evidence PW.1 and PW.5 is to the effect that they cannot say how many persons gathered at the time of incident. PW.2 stated in his evidence that PW.1 was rescued by the surrounding persons. The Investigating Officer also stated that he tried to examine independent witnesses, but none were available at that time. Thus, non- examination of independent witnesses is fatal to the case of the prosecution, as even though the place of arrest is located in residential area and there was gathering of public.

26. As seen from the evidence, there are inconsistency in between the evidence of PW.1 to PW.5. PW.1 to PW.5 stated that PW.1 went to Police Station to lodge complaint. Whereas, PW.6 stated that PW.1 to PW.3 came to Police Station and PW.1 gave Ex.P1 statement. PW.1 and PW.5 stated that they produced documents to show that the place on which the accused placed his ice cream cart belongs to them. Whereas, PW.2 to PW.4 stated that they did not produce any record before police to that effect and PW.6 Investigating Officer also categorically stated that PW.1 did not furnish any documents to him to show that the vacant site where the accused alleged to have parked his ice cream cart is belonging to them.

IAJMFC,ADONI. 9 CC NO.531-14

27.It is the contention of the learned defence counsel that PW.1 did not specifically utter the words with which the accused abused her so as to attract the offense U/S 509 of IPC and the evidence of PW.1 to PW.5 is silent about threatening of PW.1 by the accused with dire consequences. Thus, the offences

U/S 506 and 509 IPC are not attracted and the accused is entitled to acquittal.

28.As seen from the evidence available on record, it is the evidence of

PW.1 to PW.5 that the accused abused PW.1 in filthy language, but none spoke as to the specific words uttered by the accused in abusing the PW.1. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 to PW.5 is not at all sufficient so as to attract the ingredients for the offense punishable U/S 509 of IPC as pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused. It is equally does not find place in their evidence that the accused criminally intimidated PW.1. Moreover, it is suggested to witnesses that PW.1 foisted false case against the accused in view of disputes between PW.1 and the wife of the accused and the accused. In view of the above circumstances and inconsistency between the PW.1 to PW.5, creates doubt in the mind of the Court as to credit worthiness of the prosecution case and the argument of the learned defence counsel finds force.

29.In view of my foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused for the offense U/S 506, 509 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

30.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge U/S 506 and 509 of IPC . He is accordingly acquitted U/S 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force till six months from 2-3-2017 as per the Section 437-A Cr.PC.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 2nd day of March, 2017.

Sd/-Sri V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy)

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADONI.

IAJMFC,ADONI. 10 CC NO.531-14

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT:FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1 : G.Mehaboob Bi -NIL- PW.2 : G.Jeelani Basha PW.3 : Ghousia PW.4 : Rabia PW.5 : G.Roshan PW.6 : P.Shankaraiah, Sub-Inspector of Police

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P1/3-10-2016 : Statement of PW.1 to Police. Ex.P2/17-2-2017 : First Information Report in Cr.No.106/14 of Adoni III Town P.S. Ex.P3/17-2-2017 : Rough sketch of scene of offence.

FOR DEFENCE : -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/-(Sri V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy)

IAJMFC,Adoni //true copy//

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADONI.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ADONI.

Present: Sri V. Vijay Kumar Reddy Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni. Monday the 30th day of November, 2015

O.S. No.48/2015

Between:

Corporation Bank, a body corporate instituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition) and Transfer of undertakings Act 1980, having its Head Office at Mangalore, and among others a Branch Office at Sadapuram, represented by its Branch Manager (Present) K. Raja Babu, S/o Late K. Sreeramulu, aged about 55 years, Hindu, R/o Sadapuram, Adoni- 518 302. …. Plaintif

And

C. Narasimhulu, S/o C. Narasimhulu, aged about 47 years, Devibetta village, Adoni Mandalam. …. Defendant

Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,846/-being the principal and interest due under a loan taken by defendant, executed an agreement of guarantee in favour of the bank on behalf of defendant and for costs. on 20-9-2005 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.15,000/- and executed a demand promissory note and also a registered equitable mortgage in favour of plaintif bank agreeing to repay the same with interest at 9% compounded quarterly and also executed demand promissory note by depositing original title deeds and on the same day the defendant executed guarantee agreement deed agreeing to repay the loan with a minimum interest at 10.50% with quarterly rests. Inspite of several demands made by the plaintif bank, the defendant has failed to liquidate the outstanding amount as on 31-3-2013 and an amount of Rs.13,846/- is outstanding as per account extract on 14-11-2006. The defendant also executed acknowledgments of debt on 1-6-2008 and 20-5-2011.

Plaint presented on 31-5-2014 and filed on 10-3-2015.

Jurisdiction value of Rs. 13,846/- and Court fee of Rs. 1026/-is paid u/Sec.31 and 20 of the A.P.C.F. and Suit Valuation Act. (Excess C.F. of

Rs.30/- is not to be taxed)

Cause of action for the suit arose at Adoni on 20-9-2005 the date of execution of pronote and also deposit of title deeds and on 1-6-2008 and 20-5-2011 the dates of acknowledgment of debt.

This suit coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri H.M. Shivakumar Swamy, Advocate for the plaintif and the defendant having remained ex parte and the counsel for the plaintif filed a memo stating that the suit may be dismissed as not pressed and this court doth order and decree :

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;

2. that there is no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 30th day of November, 2015.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADONI.

MEMO OF COSTS

Plaintif Defendant Rs. Ps. Rs. Ps.

1. Stamps on plaint 1026-00

2. Stamps on vakalat 2-00 Exparte

3. Stamps on process 65-00

4. Publication charges 500-00

5. Advocate fee -Nil- (not certified) --------------- 1593-00 ---------------

SCHEDULE

The schedule lands situate in the Registration of the District of

Kurnool and Sub Registrar District of Adoni and in the village limits of

Devibetta village and Adoni Mandalam to the following boundaries, particulars.

Survey No. 148/B Paiki Extent : 1.95 acres.

Boundaries:-

East: Lands of Chakali Pedda Narasimhulu West: Lands of Vatta Shankrappa North : Road South: Lands of Begari Nagamma.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADONI.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ADONI.

Present: Sri V. Vijay Kumar Reddy Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni. Monday the 30th day of November, 2015

O.S. No.48/2015

Between:

Corporation Bank, a body corporate instituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition) and Transfer of undertakings Act 1980, having its Head Office at Mangalore, and among others a Branch Office at Sadapuram, represented by its Branch Manager (Present) K. Raja Babu, S/o Late K. Sreeramulu, aged about 55 years, Hindu, R/o Sadapuram, Adoni- 518 302. …. Plaintif

And

C. Narasimhulu, S/o C. Narasimhulu, aged about 47 years, Devibetta village, Adoni Mandalam. …. Defendant

Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,846/-being the principal and interest due under a loan taken by defendant, executed an agreement of guarantee in favour of the bank on behalf of defendant and for costs. on 20-9-2005 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.15,000/- and executed a demand promissory note and also a registered equitable mortgage in favour of plaintif bank agreeing to repay the same with interest at 9% compounded quarterly and also executed demand promissory note by depositing original title deeds and on the same day the defendant executed guarantee agreement deed agreeing to repay the loan with a minimum interest at 10.50% with quarterly rests. Inspite of several demands made by the plaintif bank, the defendant has failed to liquidate the outstanding amount as on 31-3-2013 and an amount of Rs.13,846/- is outstanding as per account extract on 14-11-2006. The defendant also executed acknowledgments of debt on 1-6-2008 and 20-5-2011.

This suit coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri H.M. Shivakumar Swamy, Advocate for the plaintif and the defendant having remained ex parte and the counsel for the plaintif filed a memo stating that the suit may be dismissed as not pressed and this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Counsel for plaintif filed a memo stating that suit is dismissed as not pressed. Hence, suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 30th day of

November, 2015.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADONI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif : For Defendant:

-None- -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

-Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

-Nil-

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADONI.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ADONI.

Present: Sri V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy, Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni. Tuesday the 1st day of December, 2015

O.S. No.213/2015

Between:

G.C. Somi Reddy, S/o Late G. Narayana Reddy, Hindu, aged about 65 years, Rtd. Employee, Gudipadu village, Guduru Mandal, Kurnool District. …. Plaintif

And

Boya Marenna, S/o Boya Thikkanna, Hindu, aged about 55 years, agriculturist, Kambaladinne village, Peddakadabur Mandal, Kurnool District. …. Defendant

Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 28-8-2012 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif for Rs.75,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum. Interest is claimed at 12% p.a. as the defendant is not an agriculturist. Inspite of several demands and requests the defendant did not pay any amount.

Finally the plaintif also got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 24-8-2015 inspite of that the defendant has not pay any amount.

Plaint presented on 28-8-2015 and filed on 1-9-2015. Jurisdiction value of Rs. 1,02,000/- and Court fee of Rs.3,526/- is paid u/Sec.20 of the A.P.C.F. and Suit Valuation Act (Excess C.F. of Rs.34/- is not to be taxed).

Cause of action for the suit arose on 28-8-2012 the date of execution of pronote and borrowed amount of Rs.75,000/- by the defendant from the plaintif at Doddimekala and Kambaladinne villages of Peddakadabur Mandal.

This suit coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri B. Adiseshappa, Advocate for the plaintif and of Sri

M.K.Gururaja Rao and Sri T.L.V. Sharma, Advocates for the defendant and the counsel for the plaintif filed a memo stating that the suit may be dismissed as not pressed and this court doth order and decree :

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;

2. that there is no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 1st day of December, 2015.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADONI.

MEMO OF COSTS

Plaintif Defendant

Rs. Ps. Rs. Ps.

1. Stamps on plaint 3526-00

2. Stamps on vakalat 2-00 2-00

3. Stamps on process 65-00 -

4. Advocate fee -Nil- -Nil- (not certified) (not certified) --------------- 3593-00 ---------------

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADONI.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ADONI.

Present: Sri V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy, Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni. Tuesday the 1st day of December, 2015

O.S. No.213/2015

Between:

G.C. Somi Reddy, S/o Late G. Narayana Reddy, Hindu, aged about 65 years, Rtd. Employee, Gudipadu village, Guduru Mandal, Kurnool District. …. Plaintif

And

Boya Marenna, S/o Boya Thikkanna, Hindu, aged about 55 years, agriculturist, Kambaladinne village, Peddakadabur Mandal, Kurnool District. …. Defendant

Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 28-8-2012 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif for Rs.75,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum. Interest is claimed at 12% p.a. as the defendant is not an agriculturist. Inspite of several demands and requests the defendant did not pay any amount.

Finally the plaintif also got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 24-8-2015 inspite of that the defendant has not pay any amount.

This suit coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri B. Adiseshappa, Advocate for the plaintif and of Sri

M.K.Gururaja Rao and Sri T.L.V. Sharma, Advocates for the defendant and the counsel for the plaintif filed a memo stating that the suit may be dismissed as not pressed and this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Counsel for plaintif filed memo stating that suit is dismissed as not pressed. Hence suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 1st day of

December, 2015.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADONI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif : For Defendant:

-None- -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

-Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

-Nil-

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADONI.

Daily Status

In the Court of :Additional Junior Civil Judge

Case No. :CC/0000479/2016 Sri Mallikarjuna Fin. rep.by B.Paramesh Vs M.Veerabadri

Date : 03-03-2017

Presence: Sri Mallikarjuna Fin. rep.by B.Paramesh,Sri K.Abdul Rasheed,M.Veerabadri, Business: In view of the orders in Crl.MP.No. /2017 dt.3.3.2017, the complaint is dismissed as withdrawn. The accused is acquitted U/s.257 Cr.P.C., for the offence U/s.138 of NI Act. Nature of Disposal: ACQUITTAL Disposal Date: 03-03-2017

Additional Junior Civil Judge

Daily Status

In the Court of :Additional Junior Civil Judge

Case No. :CC/0000217/2013 A.Madhusudhan Vs S.V.Manjunath

Date : 03-03-2017

Presence: A.Madhusudhan,Assistant Public Prosecutor,S.V.Manjunath,Sri T.Nagaraju and Sri R.Ravi Swamy, Advocates,

Business: In view of the orders in Crl.MP.No. /2017 dt.3.3.2017, the complaint is dismissed as withdrawn. The accused is acquitted U/ s.257 Cr.P.C., for the offence U/s.138 of NI Act.

Nature of Disposal: ACQUITTAL

Disposal Date: 03-03-2017

Additional Junior Civil Judge