Smt. Venkata Vahini Malleboina

1

IV ACJ(JD), MTM OS No.395/2022 Dt.21.04.2025

In the Court of IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Machilipatnam

Present: Smt. M.V.VAHINI VI Addl.Civil Judge(Junior Division), Machilipatnam

Monday, this the 21st day of April, 2025

OS No.395/2022

Between Ravi Naga Suresh, S/o.Vijaya Sivaramakrishna Prasad, aged about 35 years, R/o.Chodavaram Village, Pedana Mandal …… Plaintiff

And

Kagitha Veera Venkata Nagaraju, S/o.late Venkateswara Rao, aged about 45 years, R/o.Gandhinagar, Machilipatnam …… Defendants

This suit is presented before me for final hearing on 16.04.2025 in the presence of Sri.S.Balaji Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri.G.V.Ramana, Advocate for the defendant and upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court has delivered the following

J U D G E M E N T:-

1. This suit is filed basing on six promissory notes for recovery of

Rs.8,15,990/- from the defendant with subsequent interest at rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.7,91,200/- and for the costs of the suit.

2. The case of the plaintiff in brief: That the plaintiff being Agriculturist sold 500bags of paddy weighing 22350 kgs for Rs.3,85,458/- to the defendant in a Lorry bearing No.AP27X2034 weighed at Likita nilaya weigh bridge, Pedana.

On 10.04.2022, the plaintiff sold 375 bags of paddy each bag worth

Rs.1,350/- weighing 16115 kgs for Rs.2,88,630/- , to the defendant in Lorry bearing No.AP08T5335 at Chodavaram weighed at Likita nilaya way bridge, Pedana. Again the plaintiff sold 519 bags of paddy 2

IV ACJ(JD), MTM OS No.395/2022 Dt.21.04.2025 for Rs.4,22,004/- each bag weighing 45 kgs and worth Rs.1,380/- delivered to the defendant in Lorry bearing No.APTY3208 weighed at

Likita nilaya way bridge, Pedana and the defendant agreed to pay within 15 days from the date of loading as per the custom prevailing in the area and that the ryth has to wait for 15 days to get the money from the paddy agent as such the plaintiff waited till the end of April 2022. The plaintiff further submitted that there was transactions between the plaintiff and defendant that he used to sell the paddy to the defendant and the defendant used to pay the amounts within 15 days. Thereafter the plaintiff has been demanding him to pay the total amount of Rs.10,95,500/- including earlier dues since January 2022.

The defendant requested him to wait till June as he had given paddy to the Government but the Government not given any amount to him.

The defendant voluntarily executed promissory notes for said transactions and he wrote a chit mentioning that he received three

Lorries of paddy on three occasions and total liability of

Rs.10,95,500/- and balance of Rs.1,30,200/- is added with the existing liability and in total Rs.12,26,200/-. Out of Rs.12,26,200/-, the defendant paid Rs.3,50,000/- through bank and the remaining balance is of Rs.8,91,200/-. Out of Rs.8,91,200/-, he paid cash of

Rs.1,00,000/- and the remaining balance is of Rs.7,91,200/- . On 17.06.2022, at the house of the defendant, he executed six promissory notes each for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of plaintiff in the presence of G.Naga Seshu Babu being elder settled the matter between them. Still the defendant is liable to pay Rs.7,91,200/- and he promised to the plaintiff that he will pay the amount by 20.07.2022.

On 20.07.2022, when the plaintiff requested him to pay, he did not pay the balance amount due to the plaintiff. The defendant is liable to pay Rs.7,91,200/- from 20.04.2022 and their oral understanding is that the defendant has to pay 12% interest from 20.04.2022. But the defendant failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.7,91,200/- to the plaintiff. Hence, this suit.

3

IV ACJ(JD), MTM OS No.395/2022 Dt.21.04.2025

3.Denying the material averments of the plaint, the defendant filed written statement and contended inter alia that the plaintiff sold the paddy in different occasions. Previously there arose disputes between the brother-in-law of the plaintiff and the defendant, in the year 2021 regarding to the paddy business in Chodavaram Village, Pedana

Mandal and then the defendant purchased the paddy from the plaintiff and paid entire consideration amount after selling the paddy through his account and also from their millers and by way of cash, thereafter also there was dispute between the defendant and 1st attestor/brother- in-law of plaintiff to take revenge on him and defame his name, the plaintiff and his brother-in-law harassed the defendant by filing this suit against him by created and fabricated the suit promissory notes.

At the time of payment, the plaintiff gave a stamp receipt in favour of defendant. The stamp affixed on this suit promissory note age of ink and paper used goes to show that the suit promissory note was fabricated. The execution of alleged promissory notes were not proper and valid. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim the interest and it is very high and the suit is liable to be dismissed. There is no cause of action. Hence prays to dismiss this suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the Plaintiff sent paddy bags to Defendant on three occasions:-

a). 500 bags of paddy weighing 22350 Kgs worth an amount of Rs.3,85,458/-

b). 375 bags of paddy weighing 16115 Kgs worth an amount of Rs.2,88,630/-

c). 519 bags of paddy each bag containing 45Kgs worth an amount of Rs.4,22,004/- on that Defendant fell due of Rs.10,95,500/- to be paid to the Plaintiff.

4

IV ACJ(JD), MTM OS No.395/2022 Dt.21.04.2025

2. Whether Defendant executed six promissory notes of Rs.1,00,000/- each in favour of plaintiff after making Part payment on the due amount of Rs.10,95,500/- for the remaining balance of the debt of Rs.7,91,200/- ?

3. Whether 06 promissory notes are forged as alleged by the Defendant?

4. Whether the 06 promissory notes are true valid and supported by consideration?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from defendant?

6. To What relief?

5. During the trial of the case, on behalf of plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1(i) to A1(iv), A2 to A4 were marked. On defendant side, DW.1 was examined.

6.Heard. Perused the record.

7. The plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1. During the cross

Examination he stated in Chowdavaram Village, Ac.1.00 of land yields 40 bags of paddy, in Tallapalem Village Ac.1.00 of land yields 25 bags of paddy. The transaction of the paddy between PW.1 and the defendant is of the Rabi Season. Harvesting and selling of the paddy takes place in between December to January for the Rabi Season, it may even extend till the yielding of the black gram crop. In Tallapalem

Village the second crop of black gram was not cultivated. He loaded the paddy bags in to the lorry sent by the defendant but he do not know where those bags were delivered. He does not knew the names of the drivers who came in those lorries. The defendant was not with them while loading the paddy bags in to lorry, but his assistant was present there. Except his oral evidence, he did not file any document to show that the defendant is a paddy dealer. The entire paddy bags were cultivated by him they were loaded into 03 lorries but He does 5

IV ACJ(JD), MTM OS No.395/2022 Dt.21.04.2025 not remember how many bags were loaded in to each lorry. When confronted with a slip containing the information with the number of the vehicle and the No. of bags loaded into each lorry, witness admitted that in one vehicle 500 bags loaded in other vehicle 375 bags were loaded and in another vehicle 519 bags were loaded. The defendant is not owner to the said lorries. He is unable to call any of the lorry drivers to come to the court as a witness and give the evidence that he was sent by the defendant as he does not knew any of them. He denied that he loaded and sent the paddy in lorries to the defendant on 01.04.2022, 16.04.2022 and 24.04.2022. He stated that, he is unable to call the lorry drivers and owners to come as a witness as he had not loaded and sent the paddy. Except his oral demands, he had not served any legal notice to defendant seeking payment for the paddy. He admitted that prior to filing of this suit, the defendant transferred an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to his account,he had not furnished any documents regarding the transaction of the said amount Rs,3,50,000/-. He filed this suit for an amount of

Rs.7,91,200/-. He filed six promissory notes along with the plaint and each promissory note was executed for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The defendant have to give me a total sum of Rs.7,91,200/- but the six promissory notes are executed for Rs.6,00,000/- only as the defendant promised to pay the remaining amount. He filed this suit the principal amount as Rs,7,91,200/- instead of the Rs.6,00,000/- from the six promissory notes. He denied that his suit is not valid as he filed the suit with the principal amount as Rs.7,91,200/- where as filed only six promissory notes executed for only Rs.6,00,000/-. He knew the defendant filed the written statement. The contents of the written statement are not true. PW.1 not mentioned that the contents of the written statement are false in his chief affidavit. He denied that, he loaded the paddy to the defendant and they were delivered to him on the said dates and he does not own Ac.10.00 of agricultural land and do not cultivate AC.20.00 of land as lease. Except his oral request, no 6

IV ACJ(JD), MTM OS No.395/2022 Dt.21.04.2025 mediations were held before the elders. He denied that, the defendant is not a paddy dealer and he filed this false suit using forged documents in order to harass defendant out of previous disputes. He is ready to send the Ex.A1(i) to A1(vi) to the expert opinion if required.

He knew one Gantasala Balagangadhara Sastri of the Chowdavaram

Village, he is the priest in Shivalayam Temple and he is the scribe of

Ex.A1(i) to A1(vi). The said promissory notes were executed at the office of the defendant around 10.00AM. PW.1 and the scribe came to the office of the defendant. He knew the office of the defendant but he does not knew its door no. and address particulars. he does not remember in the Ex.A1(i) to A1(vi) the place of their execution was mentioned or not. He does not remember whether the date of transaction of the paddy was mentioned on the promissory notes or not. He knew the scribe for about 12 to 15 years. He does not knew what he studied up to. He could call the scribe to examine in as a witness before this court as he is a known person to PW.1. PW.1 denied that, the promissory notes were not executed in 2022 in the month of June but they were filled a day before filing of this court. The witness said that the promissory notes were executed on 17.06.2022 and he filed the suit on 25.07.2022. He denied that, he filed the suit without much gap not without serving any legal notice to the defendant as the promissory notes were forged ones and PW.1 is not entitled to any relief based on the promissory notes, the suit is not valid as proper cause of action do not arise and the suit is not valid as

PW.1 not shown the proper calculation.

8. PW.2 in his cross examination stated that PW1 is not a relative to him. Defendant is also not a relative or friend to him and he does not knew PW1 belongs to which place and the occupation of PW1. No one asked him to present as a witness in this case. PW.2 did not engaged any advocate. PW1 stated him the contents drafted in his chief examination affidavit. He admitted that PW1 got prepared his chief 7

IV ACJ(JD), MTM OS No.395/2022 Dt.21.04.2025 examination affidavit and requested him to appear as a witness before the court and depose the same as in affidavit and hence he came as a witness to state the things that were in his knowledge. PW.2 knew the personal issues involved in this suit. He denied that he does not knew anything about this suit and he came as a witness upon the request of

PW1 as he is his relative. PW.2 put his signatures on 07 or 08 promissory notes as attestor on the request of PW1. He does not knew basing on how many promissory notes this present suit is filed.

9. DW.1 in his cross examination stated that since 20 years he is doing paddy business. Since for about 5 to 6 years he stopped purchasing paddy from plaintiff. He does not knew where Likitha

Nithya weigh bridge is situated. The paddy DW.1 purchased from the villagers of Chodavaram and Kuduru were weighed at the

Venkatadatta weigh bridge but not at Likitha Nithya weigh bridge.

There were disputes between the plaintiff and DW.1. The disputes were due to politics but not because of monetary transactions. When confronted with the signatures on the Ex.A(i) to A(vi) the defendant denied they are not his signatures. DW.1 not purchased any paddy that was transported in the vehicles with Nos.3708, 5335 and 2034.

He denied that, the plaintiff transported to the paddy through the above said vehicles numbers and in-turn, DW.1 executed the promissory notes as consideration.

Issue No.1

10. The plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1. PW.1 filed his chief affidavit reiterating the contents of the plaint. Through PW.1, Exs.A1(i) to A1 (iv), A2 to A4 were marked. As per PW.1, the defendant executed six promissory notes each for Rs.1,00,000/- towards the payment of the amount for the paddy supplied to the defendant. Here the initial burden is on the PW.1 to prove that he supplied paddy to the defendant on three occasions ie., 1). 500 bags of paddy on 01.04.2022 8

IV ACJ(JD), MTM OS No.395/2022 Dt.21.04.2025 whose net weight is 22350 kgs in vehicle bearing No.AP27X2034, 2).

375 bags of paddy on 16.04.2022 whose net weight is 16115 kgs in vehicle bearing No.AP05TT5335, 3). 519 bags of paddy on 24.04.2022 in vehicle bearing No.AP TY3208. To substantiate that PW.1 supplied paddy to defendant, he filed Ex.A2 to A4 i.e., the weighbridge receipts of Likhitha nitya weigh bridge.

11. As per the chief affidavit, the PW.1 mentioned three occasions of transporting paddy to the defendant, for the sake of convenience, the same is tabulated as follows:

Table No.1

Transac- Date No. of Bags Vehicle No. Cost of Amount

tion No. each Bag mentioned by

PW.1

1.01.04.2022500AP27X2034Rs.1,300/-Rs.3,85,458/-

2.10.04.2022375AP08T5335Rs.1,350/-Rs.2,88,630/-

3. -Nil-519APTY3208Rs.1,380/-Rs.4,22,004/-

Rs.10,95,500/- Total:

The correct total of the transactions (Rs.3,85,458/- + Rs.10,96,092/-

Rs.2,88,630/- + Rs.4,22,004/-)

Based on Exs.A2 to A4 and the contents of the chief affidavit, the same above transactions with correct mathematical calculations (amount based on the no. of bags and cost of each bag) tabulated as follows:

Table No.2

Transac- Date No. of Vehicle No. Cost of Total cost of the

tion No. Bags each Bag paddy Bags

supplied

1.01.04.2022500AP 27 X 2034Rs.1,300/-Rs.6,50,000/-

2.16.04.2022375AP 05 TT 5335Rs.1,350/-Rs.5,06,250/-

3. 24.04.2022519AP TY 3208Rs.1,380/-Rs.7,16,220/-

Total: Rs.1872470/-

9

IV ACJ(JD), MTM OS No.395/2022 Dt.21.04.2025

12. As per the chief affidavit of PW.1 and Ex.A2 to A4, there are typographical errors and also wrong mathematical calculations in terms of calculating the cost of paddy transported. PW.1 stated that as per the custom prevailing in the area, the ryth has to wait for 15 days to get money from the paddy agent. The defendant also admitted that previously he used to purchase paddy from PW.1 but due to some disputes, he stopped buying paddy from PW.1 which shows that previously there are transactions between PW.1 and the defendant. In such case , even based on Ex.A2 to A4, there are paddy transactions between the Plaintiff and defendant.

Issue No.2 to 5

13. This suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,15,990/- which is the principal and interest on Rs.7,91,200/- which the defendant is due to the plaintiff towards the amount for purchase of paddy. Somehow PW.1 stated that defendant is liable to pay

Rs.10,95,500/- which also includes earlier dues since January 2022 and as a final settlement for previous dues of Rs.1,30,200/- which means a total of Rs.12,26,200/- (the calculation of Rs.10,95,500/- +

Rs.1,30,200/- = Rs.12,25,700/-). PW.1 stated that out of that due amount, the defendant paid Rs.3,50,000/- through bank and

Rs.1,00,000/- cash by hand. He even admitted the same during his cross examination regarding the payment of Rs.3,50,000/- through bank but he did not furnish any document in support of the same.

After the above said two transactions of Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-, the balance amount is Rs.7,91,200/-, then in the presence of G.Naga Seshu

Babu/PW.2, the defendant settled the matter with PW.1 and executed six promissory notes each for Rs.1,00,000/- on 17.06.2022 at the house of defendant mentioning the purpose as towards the previous dues on paddy purchase. PW.2 stated that he was present at the time of selling paddy to the defendant on 01.04.2022, 10.04.2022 and also for the 3rd transaction.

Defendant executed six promissory notes on 17.06.2022 in favour of PW.1 in the presence of PW.2. During cross examination, PW.2 stated that neither 10

IV ACJ(JD), MTM OS No.395/2022 Dt.21.04.2025

PW.1 nor the defendant is a relative to him and he came to the court to state the things which were in his knowledge. PW.2 also admitted that there are personal issues involved in this suit and PW.1 got prepared his chief affidavit. PW.2 also stated that he signed on 7 or 8 promissory note as attestor on the request of PW.1 but he do not know based on how many promissory notes this suit is filed.

14. Therefore, this court arrives to conclusion that the assertion made by PW.1 through his chief examination and pleading can safely be accepted, having considering the above said oral and documentary evidence, it is held that the plaintiff has prima-facie discharged his burden and thus a presumption under Section 118 of

NI Act overwhelms the scene. Hence the burden gets shifted on to the defendant to rebut such presumption that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated one, but the defendant had failed to discharge such burden by adducing any evidence. Thus it can be said plea of the defendants gets negativated that the plaintiff had forged and fabricated the suit promissory note to get wrongful gain and that it can be said that the defendant has taken such a plea only to avoid probable decree and delay it as far as possible.

15. That apart, a careful perusal of the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 would show that the defendant failed to elicit anything to dis- credit their testimonies regarding the execution of Ex.A1(i) to (vi)/ promissory notes by the defendant. Thus, the depositions of P.Ws.1 and 2 should be relied upon so far as to extent of the 6 promissory notes. As said, the defendant simply denied the execution of Ex.A1 (i) to (vi), but failed to take any steps in order to challenge Ex.A1 (i) to (vi) for Expert opinion as being false and fabricate documents. Since the plaintiff succeeded in his attempt to bring into record the primary facts relating to execution of promissory notes he is entitled for the benefit of presumption available under section 118(a) of N.I. Act, con- 11

IV ACJ(JD), MTM OS No.395/2022 Dt.21.04.2025 sequent thereto, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount based upon the 6 promissory notes as prayed for.

16. Now, as it is suit for promissory note, it is essential to consider the Section 4 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Under Section 4 of N.I

Act, the promissory note is defined to be an instrument in writing (not being a bank-note or a currency-note) containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument.

17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, this court holds that Ex.A1(i) to (vi)/suit promissory notes satisfies the above conditions, as required under Section 4 of NI Act. For the above reasons, this court presumes under Section 118 of NI Act that the suit promissory notes were executed for valid consideration and it is true, valid and binding on the defendants. No evidence is adduced by the defendant to prove his defence. Therefore, this Court finds issues

Nos.2 to 5 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

18. Issue No.6: In the result, the suit is partly decreed with proportionate costs directing the defendant to pay the sum of Rs.6,07,890/- to the plaintiff with the interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter @6% per annum till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only).

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 21st day of April, 2025.

Sd/-M.V.VAHINI

IV Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division) Machilipatnam.

12

IV ACJ(JD), MTM OS No.395/2022 Dt.21.04.2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Oral Evidence

For plaintiff For defendant: PW.1: R.Naga Suresh DW.1: K.V.V.Nagaraju PW.2: G.N.Seshu Babu

Documentary Evidence

For plaintiff For defendant: -Nil- Ex.A1: (i to vi) Six promissory notes dt.17.06.2022 executed by the de- fendant in favour of the plaintiff Ex.A2: Weighment receipts dt.01.04.2022 in Lorry No.AP27Y2034 Ex.A3: Weighment receipts dt.16.04.2022 in Lorry No.AP08T5335 Ex.A4: Weighment receipts dt.20.04.2022 in Lorry No.APTY3208.

Sd/-M.V.VAHINI

IV Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division)

Machilipatnam.

JFCM, MTM1 CC No.788/2019 Dt.24.04.2025

In the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class Spl.Mobile Court for Trial of Cases

under PCR Act-cum- IX Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class , Machilipatnam

Present: Smt. M.V.VAHINI

Judl.Magistrate of I Class Spl.MobileCourt for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-IX Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Machilipatnam

Thursday, this the 24th day of April, 2025.

CC No.788/2019

Between The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedana Police Station, Krishna District ….… Complainant

And

Ponnuru Subramaneswarao, S/o Nagamalleswarao, 40 years, Kuchikayalalanka village of Gudlavalleru mandal. Driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TX 2727.

…... Accused

This case is presented before me on 22.4.2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Smt.B.Sneha for the State and of Sri.K.Gopala Krishna, Advocate for accused; upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following

J U D G E M E N T:-

1. The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedana police station filed a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.31/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief as follows On 22.1.2019 at about 6.00 PM the brother of complainant/LW.1/Teku Paideswararao i.e., the deceased namely

Prabhukumar returned to his village on his bike bearing No.AP 07 BS 5409, when he reached outskirts of the Chennuru village near the

Banappa Cheruvu, at that time one lorry bearing No.AP 16 TX 2727 coming from his opposite direction i.e., Bantumilli side to Mudinepalli village side, the driver of the lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, without blowing horn and thus the

JFCM, MTM2 CC No.788/2019 Dt.24.04.2025 driver of the lorry lost control over the lorry and dashed against the bike of the deceased in opposite direction. As a result of which, the deceased received grievous injuries. One Bylapati Yesu informed the same to the complainant through phone. Then LW.6/Chennuri Yesu,

LW.10/Putta Petru shifted the injured to the Government General hospital, Gudivada for medical treatment. The doctor examined and declared died while shifting to the hospital. Then the complainant/LW.1 rushed to the hospital and noticed the dead body of his brother and presented report to LW.21/Sub Inspector of police,

Pedana police station. On receipt of report of LW.1, LW.21 presented registered the same in crime No.31/2019 for the offence u/section 304(A) IPC and took up investigation. During course of investigation

LW.21 visited the scene of offfence in the presence of mediators and seized the crime vehicle at the scene of offence and got drafted observation report of the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. LW.21 visited the GGH, Gudivada and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of blood relatives and inquest panchayathdars. LW.21 examined the blood relatives and recorded their statements. LW.21 also visited the scene of offence, secured the five more eye witness at the scene of offence, examined them and recorded their statements. On 10.3.2019Lw.21 served notice to accused u/section 41(A) Cr.P.C.

LW.19/Dr.VDR Kumar, CAS, Government hospital, Gudivada conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem report and opined that the cause of death of deceased due to Haemorrhagic shock due to damage tot he vital organ brain and right lung. LW.20/P.Sithapathi Rao, MVI,

Bandar Inspected the crime vehicle and issued accident report by opining that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle. LW.21 obtained MVI Report from the motor vehicle inspector and postmortem report. After completion of investigation,

Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under

JFCM, MTM3 CC No.788/2019 Dt.24.04.2025

Section 304(A) of IPC . Hence the charge.

3.This court took cognizance against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

4.On appearance of accused, this court furnished copies of case documents as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined under Section 251Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on prosecution side, PWs.1 to 11 were examined and marked Exs.P1 to P17.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C for the incriminating material deposed against him. On understanding the same, accused denounced and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both the sides.

9. Now the point for consideration is

Whether the accused caused death of the deceased by driving his

motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and thereby the

accused committed an offence under Section 304-A of IPC? If so,

whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused for

same beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point

10.To substantiate the case of prosecution, the prosecution had examined PWs.1 to 11. Pw.1 is younger brother of deceased who deposed that on 22.1.2019 at about 7.00 PM he received phone call

JFCM, MTM4 CC No.788/2019 Dt.24.04.2025 and he was informed that while his brother Prabhu Kumar is going to

Bantumilli to sell clothes, he met with an accident near

Singarayapalem, Banapu cheruvu. By the time he reached the spot his brother was already shifted to GGH, Gudivada in 108 ambulance. He rushed to hospital, the doctors informed that his brother died while under going treatment. He presented Ex.P1 report. PW.1 did not support the case of prosecution. During his cross examination, he denied his earlier statement of Section 161 of Cr.P.C/Ex.P2.

11. PW.2 is wife of deceased T.Prabhu Kumar deposed that on 22.1.2019 at about 7.00 PM he received phone call and he was informed that while her husband Prabhu Kumar is going to Bantumilli to sell clothes, he met with an accident near Singarayapalem, Banapu cheruvu. By the time he reached the spot her brother was already shifted to GGH, Gudivada in 108 ambulance. she rushed to hospital, the doctors informed that her husband died while under going treatment. PW.2 did not support the case of prosecution. During her cross examination, she denied her earlier statement of Section 161 of

Cr.P.C/Ex.P3.

12. Pws.3 to 7 and 9 are eye witnesses to the occurrence did not support the case of prosecution and during their cross examinations, they denied their earlier statements of Section 161 of Cr.P.C/Exs.P4 to

P8 and Ex.P10. PW.8 who is relative of PW.1 did not support the case of prosecution and during his cross examination, he denied his earlier statement of section 161 Cr.P.c./Ex.P9.

13. PW.10 is distant relative of deceased deposed that he came to know on one day in 2019 that Prabhu Kumar met with an accident and was admitted in GGH, Gudivada and he passed away. The next day i.e., on 23.1.2019 he went to the hospital, on request of police he acted as panchayatdar along with LW.15/Sammeta Venkata

JFCM, MTM5 CC No.788/2019 Dt.24.04.2025

Varaprasad, LW.16/Chitikile Srinivasa Rao, LW.17/Sirigiri

Nancharaiah in the presence of blood relatives of the deceased. All panchayathdars after conclusion of inquest, opined that the death was caused by heavy bleeding injury due to road accident. Ex.P11 is the inquest report. During cross examination he stated that he is not the eye witness and he was not present at the scene of offence.

14. PW.11/T.Murali, Sub-Inspector of Police had deposed that on 22.1.2019 at about 11.00 PM the complainant presented report to

LW.21/B.Abhimanyu, then LW.21 registered a case in crime

No.31/2019 u/section 304(A) IPC under Ex.P12. On 23.1.2019 LW.21 visited the scene of offence along with mediators, prepared Ex.P13 rough sketch, made Ex.P14/scene observation report, took Ex.P15 photos and CD , later he seized the crime vehicle and shifted to police station for safe custody. He examined Pws.1, 2, 6, 8 and Lw.3/Teku

Moshe, LW.4/Teku Elisha, LW.5/Kalyanam China Kanakaiah. LW.21 conducted inquest and on 25.1.2019 he received Ex.P16/postmortem report. On 26.2.2019 LW.21 received Ex.P17/MVI report from MV

Inspector on requisition. On 10.3.2019 LW.21 served 41(A) Cr.P.C., notice to accused. Later LW.21 handed over investigation to him.

PW.11 verified the entire investigation and fount it on correct lines and he laid charge sheet. In his cross examination he denied that the accused is innocent and he registered the case for statistical purpose.

15. On perusal of entire evidence on record, it shows that PWs.1 to 10 being blood relatives of the deceased and the eye witnesses of the alleged incident did not support the case of prosecution and as seen from the evidence of PWs.11 who is police official, his evidence is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution and without there being any evidence, accused cannot be convicted for the said offence.

JFCM, MTM6 CC No.788/2019 Dt.24.04.2025

16. In the light of the above discussion and due to lack of evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and thus the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

17. In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled subject to the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the stenographer, directly typed on my computer, corrected and pronounced by me in

open court, this the 24th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- M.V.VAHINI

Judl.Magistrate of I Class Spl.MobileCourt

for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-

IX Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class,

Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Oral Evidence

For prosecution For defence PW.1: T.Paideswara Rao -None- PW.2: T.K.Bramarambica PW.3: J.Lakshmi PW.4: G.Mahalakshmi PW.5: G.Krishna PW.6: Ch.Yesu PW.7: P.Petru PW.8: T.Ramesh PW.9:J.Srinivasa Rao PW.10:P.Mahalakshmudu PW.11:T,Murali, , SI of Police

Documentary Evidence

For prosecution For defence Ex.P1: Report of PW.1 -Nil- Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P4: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P5: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 Ex.P6: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 Ex.P7: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6

JFCM, MTM7 CC No.788/2019 Dt.24.04.2025

Ex.P8: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7 Ex.P9: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.8 Ex.P10: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.9 Ex.P11: Inquest report Ex.P12: FIR Ex.P13: Rough sketch Ex.P14: Scene observation report Ex.P15: Photos and CD Ex.P16: Postmortem report. Ex.P17: MVI report

Material Objects Nil.

Sd/- M.V.VAHINI

Judl.Magistrate of I Class Spl.MobileCourt

for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-

IX Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class,

Machilipatnam.

JFCM, MTM8 CC No.788/2019 Dt.24.04.2025

Calendar in CC No.788/2019 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I

Class Spl.Mobile Court for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum- IX

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class , Machilipatnam

Date of OffenceComplaintArrest ofCommence-Close ofSentence or the accusedment oftrialorder trial 22.1.201922.1.201941-A notice23.7.202422.4.202524.4.2025

Name of the Complainant The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedana Police Station, Krishna District

Name of the accused Ponnuru Subramaneswarao, S/o Nagamalleswarao, 40 years, Kuchikayalalanka village of Gudlavalleru mandal. Driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TX 2727.

Offence: Section 304-A of IPC

Finding: Found not guilty.

Result: In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled subject to the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Explanation for delay: This case was taken on file and case copies furnished to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. On 1.2.2024 accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. On behalf of prosecution PWs.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P1 to P17. On 22.4.2025 the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On 22.4.2025 arguments heard and the Judgment is pronounced on 24.4.2025. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- M.V.VAHINI

Judl.Magistrate of I Class Spl.MobileCourt

for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-

IX Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class,

Machilipatnam.

Copy Submitted to : The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

1 JFCM, MTM CC No.395/2021 Dt.17.01.2025

In the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class Spl.Mobile Court for Trial of

Cases under PCR Act-cum-IX Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class,

Machilipatnam

Present: Smt. M.V.VAHINI

Judl.Magistrate of I Class Spl.MobileCourt for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-IX Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Machilipatnam

Friday, this the 17th day of January, 2025

CC No.395/2021

Between: The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Banar Taluka police station, Krishna District

….. Complainant

And

1. Signyanam Maruti Sailesh @ Prakash, S/o.Jagannayakulu, aged about 27 years, R/o.Bantumilli Village, Bantumilli Mandal

2. Sugnanam Sujatha, W/o.Jagannayakulu, aged about 54 years, R/o.Bantumilli Village, Bantumilli Mandal

3. Chalamasetti Rajendra, S/o.Ramesh, aged about 32 years, R/o.Chinnapuram Village, Bandar Mandal

4. Puram Pandurangarao, S/o.Krishna Murthy, aged about 42 years, R/o.Chinnapuram Village, Bandar Mandal

5. Puram Venkata Naga Sai Kiran, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, aged about 24 years, R/o.2/11, SN puram, Kachavaram, Ketanakonda, Krishna District

6. Gavini Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Nagendra Rao, aged about 50 years, R/o.Chinnapuram Village, Bandar Mandal

7. Bejawada Naga Ashok Kumar, S/o.Rajendraprasad, aged about 32 years, R/o.Chinnapuram Village, Bandar Mandal

8. Nukala Punna Rao, S/o.Satyanarayana, aged about 34 years, R/o.Chinnapuram Village, Bandar Mandal (proposed to be deleted)

….. Accused

This case is presented before me on 10.01.2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Smt.B.Sneha for the State and of Sri.P.Devendra Kumar, Advocate

for accused; upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood

2 JFCM, MTM CC No.395/2021 Dt.17.01.2025 upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following

J U D G E M E N T:-

1. The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Bandar

Taluka Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.108/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief as follows: LW.2/Avula Baburao uncle of LW.1/Avula Naresh took lease of ac.02.20cents of prawn tanks from one Valisela Venkatesh and cultivated by LWs.1 and 2. Then one Gudapati Venkata

Nagalakshmi Devi purchased the same and she also gave lease to both of them and since then they cultivated the same. On 16.03.2020 at about 05:00pm, while LW.1 catching prawns in the tanks, A1 to A7 trespassed into his prawn tanks, A1 and A3 pulled the neck of LW.1 with towel, A2, A4 to A7 beat him with hands and legs and threatened to kill him as if LW.1 catch prawns in the prawn tanks. Hence LW.1 presented a report to police, basing on his report, LW.7/Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in

Cr.No.108/2020 against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, drafted rough sketch, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. Section 41-A Cr.P.C notice were served to the accused. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge.

3 JFCM, MTM CC No.395/2021 Dt.17.01.2025

3.The court took the cognizance against the accused for the offence under Sections 447, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.The accused are examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and a charge was framed against them for the offence under Sections 447, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC is read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of the trial, on behalf of prosecution,

PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material against him in Telugu, for which they denied the same.

No documents and no witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused.

7.Heard learned APP and learned counsel for accused.

8. Now the point for consideration is whether the accused

trespassed into the prawn tanks of LW.1 while he was in prawn

tanks, beat him and threatened to kill him and thereby the

accused committed offence under Sections 447, 323 and 506

r/w 34 of IPC? If so whether the prosecution has proved the

guilt of the accused for the same beyond all reasonable doubt?

4 JFCM, MTM CC No.395/2021 Dt.17.01.2025

Point:

9. To substantiate this case, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 7. PW.1/Avula Naresh had deposed that in the year of 2015, PW.1 obtained the lease of prawn tanks of Ac.2.20 cents from one Velisala Venkatesh, till 2018, he cultivated the prawns and he suffered loss so from 2019, he joined him as a partner and cultivated the prawns till December, 2021. In 2017, Velisala

Venkatesh sold his property to Bodapati Venkata Nagalakshmi

Devi, PW.6 obtained lease for seven years from Velisala Venkatesh and after the sale of the property was subsequent owner also ratified the same orally, on 16.03.2020 at about 05.00PM, A1 to

A7 came to the prawn tanks and by then they were harvesting prawns from the tanks and all of them obstructed that they should not harvest the prawns from the tanks, when PW.1 questioned the accused, they attacked PW.1, A1 and A3 pulled with a towel around his neck and the other accused beat him with hands and legs and pushed him then he fell down and the accused also threatened him that they will see the end of PW.1 if he tried to cultivate the prawns in the tanks, some of the villagers informed the police about the dispute and the accused left from there and

PW.1 presented a report/Ex.P1 to police.

10. In his cross examination he admitted that in his report and in the 161 CrPC statement he had not mentioned that his junior paternal uncle suffered loss from prawn cultivationand his uncle took lease for 07 years. He denied that the villagers called police while this incident is happening, whereas he himself called the police. He did not state the RS No. of the disputed prawn tanks but stated that there are 02 prawn tanks in an extent of Ac.2.20 cents and also denied that he did not mention the exact prawn tank where the alleged incident happened. He had not furnished 5 JFCM, MTM CC No.395/2021 Dt.17.01.2025 any lease documents obtained by his uncle to the police, not filed any documents before the court to show that we are in possession of the prawn tanks and cultivated them nor even filed any bills pertaining to the purchase of prawn seeds and their feeds. He admitted that A1 and A2 filed injunction suit in OS.No.479/2019 on the file of Ist AJCJ, Machilipatnam against him and his father and one Sugnanam Baji Sathish and Siddineni Siva Kesava Rao (LW4) regarding the same disputed land in that his father appeared as a witness and gave his evidence on behalf of all the four defendants but denied that do not know whether by the date of the offence interim orders passed in favour of the accused were in force and also whether the said suit decreed on 28.11.2023 after full trial. Subsequently regarding same property another crime was registered, in that CC. No.1184/2020 also LWs 1 to 3 are one and the same. The other witnesses cited are his friends , the security incharge for the prawn tanks, workers engaged on the prawn tanks and the agents. Siddineni Siva Kesava Rao cited as

LW4 in this case is the LW3 in CC.No.1184/2020. He denied that, at the instance of Sugnanam Satish, cousin of A1 he reported against the accused regarding the pending disputes of their ancestral property. He admitted that CC No.726/2022 is pending against him and it is a false case foisted against him but denied that ,he do not know whether FIR In crime No.82/2023 is registered against him for stealing prawns from the tanks.

11. PWs.2 to 6/Siddeneni Sivakesava Rao, Janjanam Anjaneyulu,

Saikam Seshagiri, Kanna Narasimha Swami and Avula Baburao being relative and eye witnesses to the alleged scene of offence, did not support the case of prosecution. During their cross examination, they denied their earlier statements of Section 161

Cr.P.C/Exs.P2 to P6 6 JFCM, MTM CC No.395/2021 Dt.17.01.2025

12. Further, the prosecution has examined PW.7/A.Srinivasa Rao,

Sub-Inspector of Police had deposed that on 16.03.2020 basing on report of PW.1, he registered FIR/Ex.P7 as a case in

Cr.No.108/2020 for the offence under Section 447, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A7. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch/Ex.P8, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. He served notice to the accused. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. During his cross examination he admitted that he had not gone through any property documents of disputed property and not verified any lease documents taken by

PW.1.

13. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no other evidence except the evidence of PW.1. As seen from the evidence of

PW.1, it clearly shows that except the oral assertion made by him, there is no documentary proof to show that PW.1 and his uncle were in possession of prawn tanks and he himself admitted the same during his cross examination. During the examination-in- chief, PW.1 stated that the some of the villagers called the Police where as in the Cross- examination he stated that he himself called the Police. During the Cross examination the counsel for that Accused tried to bring in to light about the property disputes between the Accused and one Sugnanam Satish by posing many questions for which the P.W.1 admitted the pending Civil litigation but denied that at the instance of the said Sugnanam Satish he lodged false case against the accused. While advancing his arguments, the cousel for the Accused filed a copy of the

Judgment in OS.No.479/2019 which is decreed in favour of A1 to impress on the issue and vehemently argued that, It is only because of the Property related issues various Criminal cases were 7 JFCM, MTM CC No.395/2021 Dt.17.01.2025 lodged against the Accused . The evidence of P.W.1 is not reliable as he himself contradicted from his statements and no corroboration with the other Witness.

14. There is no iota of evidence to convict the accused for the offence under Sections 447, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. In addition to that, except the evidence of PW.1, there is no other witness who witness to speak about alleged incident at the alleged scene of offence . The evidence of PW.7 being police officer, is not helpful to the case of the prosecution so, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sections 447, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly point is answered.

15. In the result, A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to stenographer, directly typed on my computer, corrected and pronounced by me in

open court, on this 17th day of January, 2025.

Sd/- M.V.VAHINI

Judl.Magistrate of I Class Spl.MobileCourt

for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-

IX Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class,

Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Oral Evidence

For prosecution: For defence:

PW.1: A.Naresh -None- PW.2: S.Sivakesava Rao PW.3: J.Anjaneyulu PW.4: S.Seshagiri 8 JFCM, MTM CC No.395/2021 Dt.17.01.2025

PW.5: K.Narasimha Swamy PW.6: A.Baburao PW.7: A.Srinivasa Rao

Documentary Evidence

For prosecution: For defence:

Ex.P1: Report of PW.1 -Nil- Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P4: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 Ex.P5: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 Ex.P6: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6 Ex.P7: First Information Report Ex.P8: Rough Sketch

Material Objects

Nil.

Sd/- M.V.VAHINI

Judl.Magistrate of I Class Spl.MobileCourt

for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-

IX Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class,

Machilipatnam.

JFCM Court, MTM. CC No.1407/2023 1 Dt.21.04.2025

In the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class Spl.Mobile Court for Trial of Cases

under PCR Act-cum-IX Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Machilipatnam

Present: Smt. M.V.VAHINI

Judl.Magistrate of I Class Spl.MobileCourt for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-IX Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Machilipatnam

Monday, this the 21st day of April, 2025

CC No.1407/2023

Between The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bandar Taluka Police Station ….… Complainant

And

1.Botla Malleswari, W/o Annayya, 64 years, Botlavanipalem, H/o Tallapalem village, Bandar mandal.

2.Konakalla Venkateswaramma, W/o Venkateswara Rao, 42 years, Botlavanipalem, H/o Tallapalem village, Bandar mandal.

3.Potta Uma Lakshmi Narayana, S/o Mallikarjunarao, 45 years, Proprietor of Vasavi Traders, R/o Balaramunipeta, Machilipatnam.

…... Accused 1 to 3

This case is presented before me on 17.4.2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Smt.B.Sneha for the State and of Sri G.J.Victor, Advocate for Accused no.1 and of Sri M.Venkata Ramaiah, Advocate for Accused No.2 and of Sri.A.V.V.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for Accused No.3; upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following

J U D G E M E N T:-

1. The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Bandar

Taluka police station filed a charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.282/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 7A r/w 8(e), 7(B) r/w 8(a) of AP Prohibition Act and 34(e) r/w 13 (a) &(f) of AP Excise Amendment Act, 2020.

JFCM Court, MTM. CC No.1407/2023 2 Dt.21.04.2025

2. The case of the prosecution in brief as follows That on 31.5.2022, at about 4.45 hours, on credible information, LW.5/G.Vasu, Sub-Inspector of Police along with his staff went to Botlavanipalem Village and caught the accused No.1. On enquiry, it was revealed that Accused No.2 used to purchase jaggery from Vasavi Traders of A3 which is situated at Bellamkotlu street,

Koneru center, Machilipatnam, and used to manufacture arrack at the outskirts of her village and selling the same to A1 as well as other arrack sellers. As such, A1 is selling the same to public with high rates at her village center in order to gain easy profit. Therefore police seized ID arrack from the possession of the accused no.1 and arrested A1 and A2 and registered FIR in Cr.No.282/2022 against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7A r/w 8(e), 7(B) r/w 8(a) of AP Prohibition Act and 34(e) r/w 13 (a) &(f) of AP Excise

Amendment Act, 2020. During the course of investigation, police visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. LW.3 served notice u/section 41(A) Cr.P.C., to A3. After receiving the opinion from Chemical examiner that the seized liquor was unfit for human life and after completion of entire investigation, police filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge.

3. This court took cognizance against the accused for the offence the offence punishable under Sections 7A r/w 8(e), 7(B) r/w 8(a) of

AP Prohibition Act and 34(e) r/w 13 (a) &(f) of AP Excise Amendment

Act, 2020. On appearance of accused 1 to 3, this court furnished copies of case documents under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.A charge under Section 239 Cr.P.C was framed against accused for the offence the offence punishable under Sections 7A r/w 8(e), 7(B) r/w 8(a) of AP Prohibition Act and 34(e) r/w 13 (a) &(f) of AP

Excise Amendment Act, 2020 and the same was read over and

JFCM Court, MTM. CC No.1407/2023 3 Dt.21.04.2025 explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, on prosecution side, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 and MO.1 were marked.

6. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which she denied and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both the sides.

8. Now the point for consideration is

Whether accused used to buy ID arrack illegally and sell the

same in Village for wrongful gain and thereby accused

committed offence under Sections 7A r/w 8(e), 7(B) r/w 8(a) of

AP Prohibition Act and 34(e) r/w 13 (a) &(f) of AP Excise

Amendment Act, 2020? If so, whether the prosecution has

proved the guilt of accused for the same beyond all reasonable

doubt?

Point

9. To substantiate this case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2. PW.1/G.Rama Krishna, Police Constable deposed that on 31.5.2022 at about 4.45 AM, LW.3-SI of Police received credible information regarding selling of ID arrack at Botlavanipalem Village center, Bandar Mandal, he along with other Constable proceeded to the scene of offence and found A1 by holding a plastic bottle. On enquiry, the accused NO.1 disclosed that she is selling ID arrack to the villagers for monitory gain, therefore police seized the plastic bottle from the possession of the accused. During cross examination he admitted that the scene of offence is a residential area, though they tried to secure the mediators, none came forward to act as

JFCM Court, MTM. CC No.1407/2023 4 Dt.21.04.2025 mediators and they did not serve them any notice. He further admitted that the drawing of the sample not mentioned in 161

Cr.P.C., statement.

10. PW.2/G.Vasu, SI of Police deposed that on 31.5.2022, at about 4.45 AM, he received credible information regarding illegal possession selling of ID arrack, at Botlavanipalem Village center, Bandar

Mandal, PW.2 with his staff proceeded to the said place and found the accused NO.1 by holding one plastic bottle of capacity 02 liters filled with ID arrack and the accused confessed that due to financial crisis, she is selling ID arrack for monitory gain. He further deposed that A1 purchased ID arrack from A2. A2 purchased jaggery from A3 for manufacturing of ID arrack. Therefore police seized02 liters of

ID arrack from the possession of the accused No.1 and prepared occurrence report/Ex.P1 and basing on it, FIR/Ex.P2 was registered in Cr.No.282/2022 against the accused for the offence under

Sections 7A r/w 8(e), 7(B) r/w 8(a) of AP Prohibition Act and 34(e) r/w 13 (a) &(f) of AP Excise Amendment Act, 2020. During investigation, police sent the sample of seized ID arrack for chemical analysis through letter of advise/Ex.P3 and received analysis report/Ex.P4 and MO.1 is unexpended portion of the sample received from chemical analyst. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. In his cross examination by learned counsel for A2 he admitted that there are no signatures of any of the witnesses or accused person and seal on sample and the scene of offence is not specifically mentioned. He did not inform any of the revenue officials or village volunteers and other stake holders.

He further admitted they did not secure mediators and they did not serve them any notice. He categorically stated that there is one month delay of sending the sample for analysis. He further admitted that he is the informant and the investigation officer in the present

JFCM Court, MTM. CC No.1407/2023 5 Dt.21.04.2025 case. During cross examination by learned counsel for A3, PW.2 stated that as jaggery is an intoxicating item, possession of jaggery is not an offence and no permission is required either from police department or from the excise department from the domestic sale of jaggery.

11. On perusal of entire evidence on record, no mediator was examined at the time of seizure. When coming to the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2, who are police officials, is only formal in nature.

Moreover, PW.2, who allegedly lead searches, himself was acted as

Investigation officer in this case as stated by him. Hence, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, being police officials, has to be scrutinized with great caution as they may have interest to get conviction with a view to make their investigation fruitful. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 cannot be believed and accepted to be true as PW.2 failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under law for arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from her. Hence it is held that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 7A r/w 8(e), 7(B) r/w 8(a) of AP Prohibition Act and 34(e) r/w 13 (a) &(f) of AP Excise Amendment Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence, accused are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

12. In the result, accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 7A r/w 8(e), 7(B) r/w 8(a) of AP

Prohibition Act and 34(e) r/w 13 (a) &(f) of AP Excise Amendment

Act, 2020 and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property if any, shall be

JFCM Court, MTM. CC No.1407/2023 6 Dt.21.04.2025 destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed by stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this 21st day of April, 2025.

Sd/- M.V.VAHINI

Judl.Magistrate of I Class Spl.MobileCourt

for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-

IX Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class,

Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Oral Evidence

For prosecution: For defence: PW.1: G.Ramakrishna, PC-1786 -None- PW.2: G.Vasu, SI of police

Documentary Evidence

For prosecution: For defence: Ex.P1: Occurrence report -Nil- Ex.P2: First Information Report Ex.P3: Letter of advise Ex.P4: Analysis report

Material Objects MO.1: Unexpended portion of the sample received from chemical analyst.

Sd/- M.V.VAHINI

Judl.Magistrate of I Class Spl.MobileCourt

for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-

IV Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class,

Machilipatnam.

JFCM Court, MTM. CC No.1407/2023 7 Dt.21.04.2025

Calendar in CC No.1407/2023 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I

Class Spl.Mobile Court for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-

cum-IV Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Machilipatnam

Date of OffenceComplaintArrest ofCommence-Close ofSentence or the accusedment oftrialorder trial 31.5.2022 31.5.2022A1 and A2-23.12.202411.4.202521.04.2025 2.6.2022 A3-41-A notice

Name of the Complainant The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bandar Taluka Police Station

Name of the accused 1.Botla Malleswari, W/o Annayya, 64 years, Botlavanipalem, H/o Tallapalem village, Bandar mandal. 2.Konakalla Venkateswaramma, W/o Venkateswara Rao, 42 years, Botlavanipalem, H/o Tallapalem village, Bandar mandal. 3.Potta Uma Lakshmi Narayana, S/o Mallikarjunarao, 45 years, Proprietor of Vasavi Traders, R/o Balaramunipeta, Machilipatnam.

Offence: Sections 7A r/w 8(e), 7(B) r/w 8(a) of AP Prohibition Act and 34(e) r/w 13 (a) &(f) of AP Excise Amendment Act, 2020

Finding: Found not guilty.

Result: In the result, accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 7A r/w 8(e), 7(B) r/w 8(a) of AP Prohibition Act and 34(e) r/w 13 (a) &(f) of AP Excise Amendment Act, 2020 and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for delay: This case was taken on file and case copies furnished to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. On 16.7.2024 accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. On behalf of prosecution PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked and MO.1 marked. On 16.04.2025 the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the arguments heard and the Judgment is pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- M.V.VAHINI

Judl.Magistrate of I Class Spl.MobileCourt

for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-

IX Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Machilipatnam. Copy Submitted to : The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

C.C.1368 of 20231Dt:09.08.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS

SPL.MOBILE COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER P.C.R.ACT–CUM–

IX JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS–CUM–IV ADDL CIVIL

JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), MACHILIPATNAM

PRESENT:- Smt.M.V.Vahini,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court,

Machilipatnam

Friday, the 09 th day of August,2024.

C.C.No.1368 of 2023

The State, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Bandar Taluka Police Station,

(Cr.No.234/2023 of Bandar Taluka P.S) ... Complainant.

Versus

A1.Bakka Venkateswara Reddy, S/o. Ranga Reddy, Hindu, aged about years,

A2.Marri Durga Sivaji, S/o. Nagaraju Reddy, aged about 28 years, Hindu

A3.Bakka China Venkateswara Reddy, S/o.Vakala Reddy, aged about 23 years, all are Kothareddipalem, H/o Gokavaram Village, Bandar Mandal … A1 to A3.

This case is presented before me on 06.08.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri.M.V.Ramaiah, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Bandar Taluka Police Station, has filed Charge sheet against the A1 to A3 for the offences punishable u/Secs. 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Amendment

Act, 2020, alleging that, on 08.07.2023 at about 3:30 P.M, the S.I of

Police along with his staff proceeded towards Gokavaram Village,

Bandar Mandal, they found the A1 to A3 in possession of one plastic can containing about 10 liters of ID arrack in that, when the attempt to secure independent witnesses failed, the said

C.C.1368 of 20232Dt:09.08.2024 contraband was seized from the possession of A1 to A3 under the cover of a mediators report and that the accused persons were arrested. Adverting to the above, basing the occurrence report a case in Cr.No.234/2023 of Bandar Taluka Police Station u/sec.

7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Amendment Act,2020 registered and on completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed.

Cognizance

2. The case is taken on file against the A1 to A3 for the offence punishable u/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P.AmendmentAct,2020.

3. On appearance of the A1 to A3 the copies of documents as required u/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. furnished.

4. The accused examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, thereby Charges under sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Amendment Act 2020 framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They denied the charge.

5. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 and 2, Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and M.O.1 unexpended portion of the sample of illicit liquor were marked. The evidence of LW.1-

K.Hari Prasad, ASI of Police Station is given up by the learned

A.P.P.

06.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution, for which, they denied and reported no defence evidence.

Arguments:

C.C.1368 of 20233Dt:09.08.2024

7. The Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence available on record, is sufficient thereby requested the court to proceed the case against the accused persons accordingly.

8. The defence counsel argued that, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the A1 to A3 and prayed for acquittal.

9. Now, the point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A3 for

charge under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition

Amendment Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

Analysis of evidence and marshaling of facts :

10. This Court has perused the material available on record, verified the depositions of the witnesses, considered the arguments of both sides and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter.

11. In this case, the A.S.I of Police is examined as P.W.3 and that P.W.1 is the Constable. In their evidence-in-chief they have given their evidence in tune with the records of the prosecution.

Through P.W.2, Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1 received in evidence.

12. On perusal of cross-examination the following facts emerged that from the scene of offence is Gokavaram Village outskirts,

Bandar Mandal and one can expect the people all along, and that the deputed A.S.I of Police, though entrusted the duty of securing mediators, failed, but to prove the said fact he has not filed any report thereto, and that, admittedly the Police party has not measured the contraband.

13. On conglomeration of the above evidence what emerges clear, is that the alleged scene is situated at Gokavaram Village outskirts, Bandar Mandalthat the scene is laid in a residential area. The prosecution failed to secure the support of independent witnesses for the search of the accused and seizure of contraband.

C.C.1368 of 20234Dt:09.08.2024

The attempt of the Police party in deputing the A.S.I of Police to secure mediators and his return in vain, has become futile when the deputed A.S.I of Police failed to file the report of non-availability of mediators. If at all there is force in the contention of the Police party that it has tried to secure mediators and failed, they ought to have filed the occurrence report of the deputed A.S.I of Police as to whom he contacted and where and that he failed to secure the mediators. In the absence of such mediator report, the alleged attempt of the Police party to secure mediators and proceeding against the accused basing the mediator report appears to be doubtful virtually. In this way of the matter, there is doubt in the case of prosecution. The doubt further precipitated when the Police party based the case against the A1 to A3 on conjectures and surmises, in the sense, the Police party has not measured the contraband. In the absence of measure thereto, the allegation that the accused found in possession of about 05liters of illicit liquor cannot stand to the scrutiny of this Court. In this way of the matter also, the case of the prosecution has become doubtful.

14. It is well settled law that the complainant cannot be permitted to act as Investigating Officer against the accused. If he himself is the Investigating Officer, the entire concept of independent and unbiased investigation would be jeopardized. If the complainant is the Investigating Officer, it has adversely affects the credibility of prosecution case. In this case PW.3 is the complainant and Investigating Officer. PW.2 is independent witness, he turned hostile in this case. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 are not worthy of credit. The prosecuting agency failed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 100 of Cr.P.C.

Consequently, this court is inclined to hold that the prosecution has failed in bringing home the guilt of the accused persons for the charge framed against the A1 and A2 under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act,2020 and hence, accused is entitled for an order of acquittal on the ground of benefit

C.C.1368 of 20235Dt:09.08.2024 of doubt. Point is answered accordingly in favour of the A1 and A2 and against the prosecution.

16. On conglomeration of the above discussion, the Court is of the view that the case of prosecution filled with doubts and that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 are not inspiring the confidence of this

Court to proceed against the A1 to A3. Hence, the point is answered holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the A1 to A3 beyond all reasonable doubt.

17. In the result, this Court found the A1 to A3 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Amendment Act, thereby acquitted them under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. A1 to A3 are set at liberty. Their bail bond shall be cancelled after six months(6)each under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Order relating to case property:

In this case, the MO.1 one sample bottle shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed by the Personal Assistant directly to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 09 th day of August,2024.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, MACHILIPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF : PROSECUTION :

P.W.1 : G.Madhu Sudhana Rao, P.C.597 of Bandar Taluka P.S P.W.2 : K.Chanakya, S.I of Police, Bandar Taluka P.S For Defence:None //Exhibits marked//

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 : Occurrence report Ex.P2: Original FIR Ex.P3: Letter of advice Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis report For Defence : Nil

//Material objects marked //

M.O.1: Unexpended portion of sample of illicit liquor

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, MACHILIPATNAM

C.C.1368 of 20236Dt:09.08.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT: MACHILIPATNAM

Calender in C.C.No.1368 of 2023

Complainant The State: Rep., by SHO, Bandar Taluka Police Station Represented by Assistant Public Prosecutor AccusedBakka Venkateswara Reddy and others Represented by Sri.M.V.Ramaiah

FORM-B Date of Offence08.07.2023 Date of First Information Report08.07.2023 Date of Charge sheet25.11.2023 Date of framing of charges07.03.2024 Date of commencement of evidence 02.05.2024 Date of which judgment is reserved07.08.2024 Date of the judgment09.08.2024 Date of sentencing order, if any08.08.2024

Judl.Magistrate of First Class-

Spl.Mobile Court, Machilipatnam

Accused RankName of theDateDateOffencesWhetherSentePeriod of theaccusedofofchargesacquittednceof accusArrestReleswith orimposDetent ededconvictededion onUnder Bailgone during trial for purpo se of Sectio n 428 Cr.P.C ., ------UnderAcquitted Acquit---- AccusA1.BakkaSectiontal ed7(A)r/w Venkateswa 8(e)of ra Reddy, A.P.Prohiti S/o. Ranga on Reddy, Amendmen A2.Marri t Act, 2020 Durga Sivaji, S/o.

C.C.1368 of 20237Dt:09.08.2024

Nagaraju Reddy, A3.Bakka China Venkateswa ra Reddy, S/o.Vakala Reddy all are Kothareddi palem, H/o Gokavaram Village, Bandar Mandal

RankNameNATURE OF

EVIDENCE

P.W.1G.Madhu Sudhana Rao P.C.597 of Bandar Taluka P.S

P.W.2K.Chanakya,Investigation Officer, S.I of Police, Bandar Taluka P.S

B. Defence Witness, if any:

RankNameNATURE OF

EVIDENCE

-----------

C. Court evidence if any: RankNameNature of Disposal

--- ---- ---

Explanation for delay:Nil

Judl.Magistrate of First Class-Spl.

Mobile Court, Machilipatnam Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl District Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam