Sri Venuthurumalli Raghunath

C.C.No.238/2021 1 Date- 29.12.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: ELURU ::

FAC/PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum- JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: ELURU

PRESENT: Sri V.Raghunath,

I ADDL., JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ELURU

FAC/Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Eluru

Friday, this the 29th day of December, 2023.

CALENDAR CASE No.238/2021

Between: The State Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Women Police Station, Eluru

...Complainant.

And

1. Avisetti Raju, S/o. Yesupadam, 24 years, Van Driver, Opp. CSI Church, Metta Upparagudem Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal.

2. Aviseti Anand, S/o. Yesu Padam, 27 years, Private Electrician, Opp. CSI Church, Metta Upparagudem Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal.

3. Aviseti Soudamani, W/o. Yesu Padam, 45 years, Coolie, Opp. CSI Chruch, Metta Upparagudem Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal.

… Accused.

This case coming on 22.12.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. P.Hema Latha, learned Asst., Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri K.N.Ch.Suresh Babu Advocate on behalf of the accused Nos.1 to 3 and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Women Police Station, laid a charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 in crime No.10/2021 for the offences punishable under

Sections 493, 417, 420, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code, alleging that, L.W.1-P.Rajya

Lakshmi studied up to intermediate and has been working as Block in-charge, Sri

Chaitanya Junior College, Vijayawada. Her grand mother is a native of Metta

Upparagudem. L.W.1-P.Rajya Lakshmi fell in love with the Accused No.1 and distant relative to her. The accused NO.1 and L.W.1-P.Rajya Lakshmi loved each other from last three years and the accused NO.1 promised that he will marry her, and enjoyed her

C.C.No.238/2021 2 Date- 29.12.2023 sexually several times. On 10.12.2020, L.W.1-P.Rajya Lakshmi questioned him for marriage, the accused No.1 said that, he will marry her at Gowri Patnam church on 16.12.2020. But, he failed to do so. Again on 17.12.2020, accused NO.1 stated that, he will marry her and taken her on his motor cycle to Kotha Kondrupadu Village,

Tadepalligudem Mandal and kept her in a retired Military employee house. When questioned, accused No.1 stated that, he took the said house on rent basis. On 18.12.2020 evening at about 7.00 P.M., the accused No.1 tied Mangala Sutrams and black beeds chain in her neck and also arranged silver metlu (Toe rings) to her both leg index fingers and intimated to her that their marriage was solemnized and now they are wife and husband. Later,he enjoyed her sexually several times. When L.W.1-P.Rajya Lakshmi questioned to inform marriage before their relatives and elders and take her to their house. Then, Accused No.1 telephoned to accused No.2, who is his own brother, intimated about their marriage matter. Then, accused No.2 abused the L.W.1-P.Rajya Lakshmi in vulgar language and scolded her in filthy language. His mother Accused NO.3 also talk with the L.W.1-P.Rajya Lakshmi over phone and she also abused the L.W.1-P.Rajya

Lakshmi in filthy language and warned her severely. Later, accused NO.1 taken Rs.5,000/- and gold ring from her and brought household articles and groceries, advised that, stay in that house. On 20.12.2020, accused No.1 informed to L.W.1-P.Rajya Lakshmi that, he is going Hyderabad on Reliance company work. Later, he returned back to their house on 02.01.2021. When, the house owner(L.W.7-B.Venkata Durga) questioned for house rent and then L.W.1-P.Rajya Lakshmi informed the matter to the accused No.1 over phone, who in turn advised that, paid off the house rent and stay in that house. On 02.01.2021, the accused No.1 informed to the L.W.1-P.Rajya Lakshmi that, his parents arranged a good marriage alliance to him and they willing to give Rs.5 Lakhs dowry to him and on that, he have not intimated about their marriage matter to anyone and stated that Nee Daari

Nevu Chusuko. When questioned about the same, he disputed with her, beat her and forcibly cut away the Mangala Sutrams and black beeds chain in her neck. The accused

No.1 warned that, if she failed to go to her parents house, he will kill her and forcibly taken her to Eluru on his bike on 03.01.2021 night at 08.00 P.M., When she telephoned to her sister and intimated the above happenings to her. Then Accused No.1 forcibly taken away her cell phone and with a view to screening of the evidence i.e., his voice messages and photos and break the phone by hitting the same to the ground. The complainant

C.C.No.238/2021 3 Date- 29.12.2023 preferred to lodge a report about the occurrence for taking action against accused No.1, his mother and brother, who supported to him. In this connection, L.W.14-Sri V.Rama

Koteswara Rao, S.I of Police, Disha Women P.S, Eluru registered Crime no.10/2021 and examined victim woman, her mother and her sister and recorded their Section 161

Criminal procedure code statements. Later, L.W.14-Sri V.Rama Koteswara Rao, S.I of

Police, Disha Women P.S, Eluru visited the scene and prepared the rough sketch and he secured the presence of L.Ws.4 to 11 K.Sitha Rama Anjaneyul, K.Durga Bhavani, B.Durga

Bhavani, B.V.Durga Rao, K.Naga Mani, G.Syamala, P.Rajesh, K.Sukumar and recorded their

Section 161 Cr.P.C statements and later he issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused

Nos.1 to 3. Hence, the charge sheet.

2.On perusal of record, this Court taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 493, 420, 506 read with 34 of Indian penal code against the accused No.1 to 3 and issued summons to them.

3On appearance of Accused No.1 to 3 before this Court, the relevant copies of documents were furnished to Accused No.1 to 3 as contemplated under section 207

Criminal Procedure Code.

4.The Accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined under Section 239 Criminal Procedure

Code for the charge punishable under Sections 493, 420,506 against accused no.1 , 506 read with 34 of Indian penal code against accused no.2 and 3. Substance leveled against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 is read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1-P.Rajya Lakshmi, P.W.2-P.Swarna

Kumari, P.W.3-K.Sitha Ramanjaneyulu, P.W.4-K.Durga Bhavani, P.W.5-B.Durga Bhavani,

P.W.6-K.Nagamani, P.W.7-B.Venkata Durga Rao, P.W.8-S.Veena Madhuri Priyanka, P.W.9-

P.Sharon Rani, P.W.10-P.Rajesh, P.W.11-V.Rama Koteswara Rao (from here after all are

P.W.1 to P.W.11)and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex P.9 on its behalf, Ex.P.1: Report, Ex.P.2:

Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W3, Ex.P.3: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W4,

Ex.P.4: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W5,Ex.P.5: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of

P.W6,Ex.P.6: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W7,Ex.P.7: Scene observation report,Ex.P.8: FIR,Ex.P.9: Rough sketch. L.W.11 and L.W.13-K.Sukumar and G.Durga Rao evidence were given up by the public prosecutor. None of the witnesses were examined

C.C.No.238/2021 4 Date- 29.12.2023 and no documents were got marked on behalf of accused Nos.1 to 3. The details which are mentioned hereunder in Appendix of Evidence.

6.After closure of the prosecution side evidence the incriminating evidence that appearing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was explained to the Accused

Nos.1 to 3 U/sec.313 of Criminal Procedure Code, for which they denied the incriminating circumstances from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

7.Heard both sides. Perused the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 11 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9.

8.Now the point for determination is – “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused for

the offence punishable under Sections 493, 420,506 of Indian Penal Code

against accused no.1 and 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against

accused no.2 and accused no. 3 beyond reasonable doubt ”?

9. P O I N T:-

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that evidence of P.W.1,P.W.2,P.W.8 to P.W.11 along with Ex.P1, Ex.P.7, Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 proved the case of the prosecution and prayed to convict the accused.

10.The learned counsel for the accused argued that to acquit the accused that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt as P.W.3 to

P.W.7 did not supported the case of the prosecution, especially the P.W.7 who is the house owner in this case.

11. To prove it’s case prosecution examined P.W.1 who is the informant/ defacto complainant in this case. She deposed in her chief examination that accused is her childhood friend and thereafter they both loved each other and accused no.1 is her aunt’s son. She further deposed that accused made her believe that he will marry her and therefore they participated in sexual intercourse. Subsequently on 10.12.2020 she requested the accused to marry her, he assured that he will marry her on 16.12.2020 at

Gowripatnam Church, on that date she called him but he did not respond. But on the night of 16.12.2020 when she called the accused, he stated that they will get marry on 17.12.2020 but marriage not held on 17.12.2020 and on 18.12.2020 they went to

Kothakondrupadu of Tadepalligudem to have the marriage. The accused stated to her that they will get marriage there itself and will put up family. In the evening he tied yellow thread and wore black beads chain, kalimettelu to her and he assured her that their marriage was performed on that day and they participated in sexual intercourse. Through her phone, accused intimated to his brother that their marriage held. But her brother and

C.C.No.238/2021 5 Date- 29.12.2023 mother abused her, from that day onwards accused started harassing her. She further deposed that accused taken gold ring and Rs.5000/- from her and purchased household articles. On 22.12.2020 the accused went to Hyderabad on his company work and on 02.01.2021 the house owner demanded the rent when she asked the accused he directed her to pay the rent. In the evening of 02.01.2021 the accused removed her thalli and mettelu and directed her to go to her home as his parents saw another alliance through which he will get Rs.5,00,000/- dowry. On 03.01.2021 accused pressurized her and taken

P.W.1 to Eluru and dropped her.

11.1P.W.1 further deposed that she intimated the entire incident to her sister. P.W.1 further deposed that her brother and her sister came and taken her and accused to her sister’s house though her father’s brother called the parents of accused they did not turn up and accused broken her cellphone which have all proof and accused left her sister’s home without intimation. Therefore she went to the Eluru women police and gave Ex.P1 report. On perusal it is found that the above mentioned accused in her deposition refers to accused no.1.In cross examination the learned counsel for the accused elicited that

P.W.1 and accused are childhood friends besides relatives. In cross examination P.W.1 admitted that she omitted to state before the police that her brother and her sister taken her and accused to her sister’s home and though they called parents of accused they did not turn up and also accused left her sister’s house without intimation. The above mentioned omissions are elicited from the cross examination of P.W.11 also who is the investigating officer in this case.

12.To prove their case further prosecution has examined P.W.2 who is the mother of

P.W.1. in chief examination she deposed that, on 17.12.2020 P.W.1 came to her house situated at Dosapadu on the eve of her birthday on the same day she went to attend her job. On 03.01.2021 P.W.9 informed to her through phone that P.W.1 informed P.W.9 that accused No.1 brought P.W.1 kondrupadu village, near Tadepalligudem and took a room at there and accused No.1 tied a yellow thread to P.W.1 by saying that marriage of P.W.1 with accused No.1 was performed. P.W.2 further deposed that P.W.9 informed to her that accused No.1 also has sexual intercourse with P.W.1 in that and P.W.1 informed about their marriage to the accused No.2 through phone where accused No.2 abused P.W.1 in filthy language by saying that who is she to marry the accused No.1 and accused No.2 also stated to the accused No.1 that bring the P.W.1 to her house and leave her there.

C.C.No.238/2021 6 Date- 29.12.2023 P.W.2 further deposed that accused No.1 brought P.W.1 by force and left her at the house of her brother in law situated at Dosapadu by beating her, on the way accused No.1 forcibly took the cell phone of P.W.1 and broken the same without having any proof with the P.W.1 for their marriage and photos. P.W.2 further deposed that on the instructions of her brother-in-law, accused No.1 talked with his parents through cellphone about the marriage of P.W.1 and accused No.1 and he also asked his parents to come to Dosapadu to talk about the issue of his marriage with P.W.1, on the same day accused No.2 came to the house of her brother-in-law and took the accused No.1 to his house and there they waited for a period of 17 days but they did not come to the Dosapadu to talk about the issue of marriage of P.W.1 with accused No.1. In cross examination P.W.2 testified that

Prior to that she do not know about the love issue of P.W.1 and accused No.1. In cross examination of P.W.11 who is the investigation officer in this case the learned counsel for accused elicited that P.W.2 did not state before him that P.W.1 came to the house on 17.12.2020 with respective the birthday of P.W.1 and also P.W.2 did not stated before him that accused No.1 dropped P.W.1 in her brother in law’s house and also P.W.2 did not stated before him that accused No.2 took accused No.1 and went away from the house of her brother in law. On perusal of the entire testimony of P.W.2, it clearly shows that he came to know about the entire incident prior to 03.01.2021 through P.W.9 only.

13.Prosecution further examined P.W.3 to P.W.6, who are neighbors to the scene and witnesses to this case, basing on the prosecution version they are crucial witnesses to this case. But P.W.3 to P.W.6 did not supported the case of the prosecution and their section 161 Cr.P.C statements are marked as Ex.P2 to P5 in the cross examination by the learned assistant public prosecutor.

14.To prove the contention of P.W.1 and P.W.2 prosecution further examined P.W.7, who is the house owner of the house where accused No.1 and P.W.1 alleged lived as per the version of P.W.1 and P.W.2. As per the prosecution version, P.W.6 is a crucial witnesses to this case. But P.W.6 did not supported the case of the prosecution and his section 161

Cr.P.C statement is marked as Ex.P6 in the cross examination by the learned assistant public prosecutor.

15.Prosecution further examined one of the mediator as P.W.8 to depose about her presence while preparing scene observation report. P.W.8 testified that on 22.02.2021 on the instruction of S.I of police of Women P.S through phone, P.W.8 and L.W.13 proceeded

C.C.No.238/2021 7 Date- 29.12.2023 to P.W.7 house by the time police people were present on their request she have shown the surroundings of P.W.7 house to the police and police prepared rough sketch and also taken photographs of the scene of offence in her presence and Ex.P7-Scene observation report is prepared by police, on it P.W.8 and L.W.12 put their signatures. As per the version of P.W.8 the scene observation report,rough sketch is prepared at the house which belongs to P.W.7.

16.Prosecution further examined P.W.9 who is the sister of P.W.1 and daughter of

P.W.2. She deposed in her chief examination that on 03.01.2021 P.W.1 informed her that accused no.1 cheated her by promising her to marry and had physical contact with P.W.1 .

P.W.9 further deposed that accused No.2 abused P.W.1 in vulgar language and stated

P.W.1 to go away from the house. In cross examination P.W.9 testified that accused are her distant relatives and she came to know that P.W.1 and accused no.1 love each other through P.W.1 only . On perusal of P.W.9 evidence it clearly shows that she came to know about the alleged offence through P.W.1 only.

17.Prosecution further examined P.W.10 who is the relative of P.W.1 deposed that while P.W.10 and L.W.11 studying 8th class P.W.1 and accused No.1 used to come to see him at the hostel. He further testified that P.W.1 stated to him that accused No.1 is her lover and he also used to call accused No.1 as brother in law. P.W.10 further testified that

P.W.9 informed him that accused No.1 refused to marry P.W.1 and cheated P.W.1, P.W.9 also informed that accused No.1 tied thali to P.W.1 secretly. P.W.10 further deposed that on 03.01.2021 he took P.W.1 and accused No.1 to his house and on that day accused no.1 go away from house, later P.W.1 submitted report before police. In cross examination of

P.W.11 who is the investigating officer in this case he deposed that P.W.10 did not state

before him that P.W.1 introduced accused No.1 as her lover and also P.W.10 did not state

before him that on 03.01.2021 P.W.10 took P.W.1 and accused No.1 to P.W.10’s house and

that day accused No.1 went away from the house. On perusal of P.W.10 evidence it shows that P.W.10 came to know about the alleged offence through P.W.9 only.

18.Prosecution further examined P.W.11 who is the investigating officer in this case deposed about his investigation in this case about registering Ex.P8 – F.I.R, preparation of

Ex.P7 scene observation report and Ex.P9 rough sketch, examining of P.W.3 to P.W.6,

L.W.9, P.W.10 and L.W.11. P.W.11 further deposed about the arrest of accused No.1 and issuance of section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to Accused Nos.2 and 3 and also filing of charge

C.C.No.238/2021 8 Date- 29.12.2023 sheet. In cross examination as stated supra the learned counsel elicited the omissions of

P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.10 before P.W.11.

19.On perusal of the entire evidence on the record. P.W.1 who is the informant/defacto complainant, who is said to have been suffered for the alleged offence and deposed the same. Even though the mother and sister of P.W.1 examined as P.W.2 and P.W.9 there evidence as stated supra is a hear say evidence, they only have the knowledge of the alleged offence through P.W.1 only. Same in the case of P.W.10 who has knowledge about the alleged offence through P.W.9 only. It is not the case of P.W.2 and

P.W.9 that after came to know the incident through P.W.1 they have questioned the accused no.1. As per the case of prosecution accused No.1 and P.W.1 lead alleged marital life from 18.12.2020 to 03.01.2021 in a house at Kotha Kondrupadu. The prosecution examined the neighbours of that locality as P.W.3 to P.W.7 but there are not at all supporting the case of the prosecution. As per the prosecution version L.W.9 is also a crucial witness to this case despite of sufficient opportunity given by this court prosecution failed to take necessary steps to examine L.W.9 on their behalf and the reasons for the same are best known to them. The evidence of L.W.11 and L.W.13 is given up by the prosecution and the reasons for the same are best known to them.

20.It is admitted fact that P.W.1 and accused are relatives and they are no cordial terms between both the parties in such a case, this court is of the considered view that it is unsafe to convict the accused on the sole evidence of P.W.1 more over there are several omissions and contradictions of P.W.1 as well as P.W.2 and P.W.10 same are confronted to the investigating officer, admittedly the other alleged independent eye witnesses of locality at where the accused and P.W.1 allegedly lived together under one roof for some period are not supporting the evidence of P.W.1. The owner of the said alleged house is also not supporting the P.W.1 and all the said witnesses are turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Therefore this court is of the considered view that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused no.1 for the offence punishable U/sec.493, 420, 506 and so also for the offence punishable U/sec. 506 r/w 34 of Indian penal code against accused Nos.2 and 3. Accordingly accused are acquitted

U/sec.248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code for the said offences.

21.In the result, Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 493, 420, 506 of Indian Penal Code and so also Accused Nos.2 and 3 are

C.C.No.238/2021 9 Date- 29.12.2023

found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 506 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.248(1) of Criminal Procedure

Code., for the said offences. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a

period of six months, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 29th day of December, 2023.

Sd/- V.Raghunath

I ADDL., JUDL., I CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, 

ELURU. FAC/JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ELURU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1: P.Rajya Lakshmi - None - PW.2: P.Swarna Kumari PW.3: K.Sitha Ramanjaneyulu PW.4: K.Durga Bhavani PW.5: B.Durga Bhavani PW.6: K.Nagamani PW.7: B.Venkata Durga Rao PW.8: S.Veena Madhuri Priyanka PW.9: P.Sharon PW.10: P.Rajesh PW.11: V.Rama Koteswara Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PROSECUTION: EX.P.1: Report EX.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W3 EX.P.3: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W4 EX.P.4: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W5 EX.P.5: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W6 EX.P.6: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W7 EX.P.7: Scene observation report EX.P.8: FIR EX.P.9: Rough sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil –

Id/- V.R

I AJCJ­cum­ I AJMFC, ELURU.

FAC/PJCJ­cum­JMFC, Eluru

C.C.No.238/2021 10 Date- 29.12.2023

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL., JUDL., MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ELURU

FAC/Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

ELURU

C.C.No.238/2021

01.Date of offence:21.01.2021

02.Date of Complaint :21.01.2021

03.Date of Apprehension of the :Section 41-A Cr.P.C notice accused Nos.1 and 2

04.Release on bail :--

05.Commencement of trial:10.10.2022

06.Closure of trial:03.10.2023

07.Date of Judgment:29.12.2023

08.Explanation for delay:The cognizance of the offence under Sections 493, 420, 506 against the accused No.1 and 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused Nos.2 and 3 was taken on 22.03.2021. Copies of documents were furnished to accused Nos.1 to 3 on 30.12.2021. On 30.12.2021, accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code. On 10.10.2022 the trial was commenced and closed on the same day. During the course of trial, Pws.1 to 11 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P9 and also prosecution side evidence is closed on the same day. Hence, the examination of accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code is held on 03.10.2023; and on 22.12.2023 heard the arguments, posted for Judgment. On 29.12.2023 Judgment was pronounced

09.Name of the complainant:Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Women Police Station, in Crime No.10/2021.

10.Name of the accused:1. Avisetti Raju, S/o. Yesupadam, 24 years, Van Driver, Opp. CSI Church, Metta Upparagudem Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal.

2. Aviseti Anand, S/o. Yesu Padam, 27 years, Private Electrician, Opp. CSI Church, Metta Upparagudem Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal.

3. Aviseti Soudamani, W/o. Yesu Padam, 45 years, Coolie, Opp. CSI Chruch, Metta Upparagudem Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal.

11Offence :Under Section 493, 420, 506 of IPC against the accused No.1 and under Section 506 r/w.34 of IPC framed against the accused Nos.2 and 3

12.Plea of the accused:Not guilty

13.Finding:Found Not guilty

14.Sentences: In the result, Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 493, 420, 506 of Indian Penal Code and so also Accused Nos.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code., for the said offences. The bail

C.C.No.238/2021 11 Date- 29.12.2023 bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- V.Raghunath

I ADDL., JUDL., I CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,

ELURU. FAC/JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ELURU

Copy submitted to

Hon'ble Ist Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Eluru by way of C.D.

OS.No.111/2020 1 I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

dt.06.04.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ELURU.

Present : Sri V. RAGHUNATH,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru.

Thursday, this the 6th day of April, 2023

O.S.No.111/2020

Between:

Sri Neelisetti Eswara Rao, S/o. Nancheswara Rao, Hindu, Male, Aged 32 years, R/o. 16B-5-20, Israyelu Peta, Tangellamudi Village, Eluru, West Godavari District. …Plaintiff

And

Sri Volla Jogi Naidu, S/o. Bhogayya, Hindu, Male, aged 53 years, R/o. Narasannapeta Post, Lakshmi Gayatri Matam Street, Srikakulam District.

…Defendant

This suit coming on 21.03.2023 before me in the presence of Sri. Achanta Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri. P.P.C.Joshi, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over to this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.9,52,000/- being the principal and interest due on promissory note dt.09.09.2017 executed by defendant for Rs.6,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief facts of the plaintiff set out in the plaint as follows:

The plaintiff submitted that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only) from the plaintiff on 09.09.2017 for the purpose of family expenses and to discharge his sundry debts and on the same day the defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and agreeing to repay said amount with interest at Rs.2/- per hundred per month either to the plaintiff or his order whenever demand. In spite of several demands

OS.No.111/2020 2 I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

dt.06.04.2023 made by the plaintiff and through mediators for repayment of the debt due under the above said promissory note, but the defendant did not choose to clear off the debt due under th above said promissory note and postponing the same from time to time without any reason whatsoever. Hence, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 02.08.2019 to the defendant by demanding him to repay the pronote debt, the defendant received the said notice and got issued reply notice dated 19.08.2019 with false contents and kept quite.

3.The defendant filed a written statement by denying the allegations of the plaintiff and inter alia contending that, he is resident of

Narasannapeta and there are some financial dealings between the defendant and one Kykala Narsimhulu @ Naidu and Kykala Suresh who are the sons of Late Yerrayya of Pasaru Street, Narasannapeta Town,

Srikakulam District and during their financial dealings, the defendant surrendered empty promissory notes with signature across the revenue stamps and thumb impression to them towards collateral security and after closing of all financial dealings between them, the defendant demanded them to return the said promissory notes and other singed white papers which are in their custody but they did not return the said documents and ultimately the defendant issued registered legal notices to the said Kyakala Suresh, S/o. Late Yerrayya, and Kykala Narsimhulu @

Naidu, S/o.Late Yerrayya for return of the empty signed promissory notes on 05.09.2018 but they did not return the said documents and did not give any reply and they are searching for an opportunity to take revenge against the defendant since the defendant refused their unfair offer to sell away his house for lesser price than the existing price and the plaintiff is relative of the said Kyakala brothers, and as such they

OS.No.111/2020 3 I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

dt.06.04.2023 might have been handed over the empty signed promissory notes to the plaintiff, taking undue advantage of the possession of the said empty signed promissory notes surrendered by the defendant in the past and instigated the plaintiff to issue notice to the defendant basing on the aforesaid empty signed promissory notes and also to file this suit. He further pleaded that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time much less the amount mentioned in the plaint and the defendant has no necessity to borrow such huge amount from the plaintiff for any purpose, and he never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for the aforesaid purpose and it is not binding on the defendant. The defendant never seen the face of the plaintiff and he never visited the plaintiff’s village and the plaintiff is almost a stranger to the defendant and the defendant do not know the particulars of the alleged promissory note and there is no any relationship of debtor and creditor in between the defendant and the plaintiff and the defendant got issued reply notice demanding the plaintiff to send the copy of the alleged promissory note but the plaintiff did not send any copy of the suit promissory note till he received suit summons. The defendant had no occasion to visit the village of the plaintiff and no necessity to borrow the amount from the plaintiff by traveling more than 500 K.M., and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the execution and attestation of the suit promissory note and passing of consideration there under. The suit pronote is devoid of consideration and as such it is unenforceable and no cause of action for the suit and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed for trial by my learned predecessor.

(i) Whether the suit promissory note dt. 09.09.2017 is

true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

OS.No.111/2020 4 I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

dt.06.04.2023

(ii) Whether the suit promissory note is supported by consideration ?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit promissory note amount from the defendant as sought for ?

(iv) To what relief?

5.On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1/Neelisetti Eswara Rao,

P.W.2/Madana Poul Raju and P.W.3/Munnala Gurunadh were examined,

Exs.A.1 to A.3 were got marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1/Volla

Jogi Naidu and D.W.2/Ravada Malleswara Rao were examined and

Exs.B.1 to B.5 documents were got marked.

6.Heard both sides. Perused the pleadings, evidence and documents of both the parties.

7.Issue Nos.1 and 2:

(i) Whether the suit promissory note dt. 09.09.2017 is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

(ii) Whether the suit promissory note is supported by consideration ?

The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from him to meet his family expenses and to discharge of sundry debt and executed a demand promissory note on 09.09.2017 under Ex.A.1 in favour of the plaintiff while agreeing to repay the same with interest at Rs.2/- per hundred either to the plaintiff or his order when ever demanded. The plaintiff further pleaded inspite of repeated demands made by him, the defendant did not repay the same and on 02.08.2019 under Ex.A.2 he got issued a legal notice through his counsel, demanded the defendant to discharge the debt due under suit promissory note and the said notice was served on the defendant and the defendant got issued Ex.A.3 reply notice dated 19.08.2019 with false

OS.No.111/2020 5 I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

dt.06.04.2023 contents and kept quite and that plaintiff is constrained to file this suit.

In the present suit the contention of the defendant is that he never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff .The promissory note is a fabricated document.

8.In the present suit the defendant is disputing the execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and he pleaded the

Ex.A.1 suit promissory note is a fabricated document, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the same by adducing oral and documentary evidence. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff he got examined himself as P.W.1/Neelisetti Eswara Rao and got exhibited the original suit promissory note as Ex.A.1 dated 09.09.2017 and got exhibited Ex.A.2 office copy of legal notice dated 02.08.2019 and got exhibited Ex.A.3 original reply notice got issued by the defendant dated 19.08.2019. The plaintiff reiterated the contents of the plaint in his evidence affidavit as

P.W.1/Neelisetti Eswara Rao. In cross examination it was suggested to

P.W.1/Neelisetti Eswara Rao that the defendant had a money transaction with the Kaikala Narasimhulu and Kaikala Suresh and that the defendant repaid the said amount to them and that at the time of borrowing the said amount by the defendant, Kaikala Narasimhulu and Kaikala Suresh obtained the blank signed promissory note from the defendant and later the said Kaikala Narasimhulu and Kaikala Suresh without returning the blank signed promissory note to the defendant, they fabricated the said promissory note in his name and got filed the present suit against the defendant in his name to get wrongful gain from him. The said suggestion was denied by P.W.1/Neelisetti Eswara Rao. It is not the case of defendant that he is having enmity with the plaintiff, due to that he deposed falsehood against the defendant. In cross examination nothing

OS.No.111/2020 6 I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

dt.06.04.2023 was elicited from P.W.1/ Neelisetti Eswara Rao to discredit the testimony of P.W.1/Neelisetti Eswara Rao.

9. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined the scribe in Ex.A.1 promissory note as P.W2/M.Poul Raju. He deposed in his evidence about borrowing of amount Rs.6,00,000/- by the defendant from the plaintiff and so also execution of demand promissory note Ex.A.1 in favour of the plaintiff. As per his evidence the entire

Ex.A.1 promissory note transaction is happened in his presence and the consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- is passed under Ex.A.1 promissory note from the plaintiff to the defendant in his presence. In cross examination the evidence of P.W.2/M.Poul Raju is not disturbed on the material aspects of the case. In cross examination nothing was elicited from

P.W.2/M.Poul Raju to discredit the testimony of P.W.2/M.Poul Raju. It is not case of defendant that he is having enmity with the P.W.2/Devineni

Raja, due to that he deposed falsehood against the defendant.

10.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined another witness who is the attestor in Ex.A.1 promissory note as P.W.3/Munnala Gurunadh. He deposed in his evidence about borrowing of amount Rs.6,00,000/- by the defendant from the plaintiff and so also execution of demand promissory note Ex.A.1 in favour of the plaintiff. As per his evidence the entire Ex.A.1 promissory note transaction is happened in his presence and the consideration of

Rs.6,00,000/- is passed under Ex.A.1 promissory note from the plaintiff to the defendant in his presence. In cross examination the evidence of

P.W.3/Munnala Gurunadh is not disturbed on the material aspects of the case. In cross examination nothing was elicited from P.W.3/Munnala

Gurunadh to discredit the testimony of P.W.3/Munnala Gurunadh. It is

OS.No.111/2020 7 I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

dt.06.04.2023 not case of defendant that he is having enmity with the P.W.3/Munnala

Gurunadh, due to that he deposed falsehood against the defendant.

11.The evidence of P.W.1/Neelisetti Eswara Rao is well corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2/M.Poul Raju and P.W.3/Munnala

Gurunadh. The plaintiff is discharged his initial burden by examining himself as P.W.1/Neelisetti Eswara Rao and examined scribe of promissory note as P.W.2/ M.Poul Raju and also examined one of the attestor in promissory note as P.W.3/Munnala Gurunadh and got exhibited Exs.A.1 to A.3.

12.To dishcarge his burden defendant he examined himself as

D.W.1/Volla Jogi Naidu and he reiterated the contents of his written statement in his chief affidavit and got marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.5 as the

Ex.B.1 is the original aadhar card, Ex.B.2 is the office copy of registered legal notice got issued by the defendant’s counsel to Kaikala Suresh

dated 05.09.2018, Ex.B.3 is the postal acknowledgment of Kaikala

Suresh dated 07.09.2018, Ex.B.4 is the office copy of registered legal notice got issued by the defendant’s counsel to the Kaikala Narasimhulu alias Naidu dated 05.09.2018 and Ex.B.5 is the original postal acknowledgment of Kaikala Narasimhulu alias Naidu. In cross examination dated 07.11.2022 D.W.1/Volla Jogi Naidu stated the signature on Ex.A.1 promissory note not belongs to him but in the cross.

examination dated 19.01.2023 D.W.1/Volla Jogi Naidu admitted the signature of Ex.A1 promissory note belongs to him. He has stated two different versions in cross examinations. Therefore it shows he is suppressing the truth before the court.

13.In order to prove the defence the defendant relied on the evidence of D.W.2./Ravada Malleswara Rao. D.W.2/Ravada Malleswara

OS.No.111/2020 8 I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

dt.06.04.2023

Rao deposed in his chief affidavit that previously there are some financial dealings between the defendant and one Kykala Narasimhulu @

Naidu and Kykala Suresh during their financial dealings the defendant surrendered empty promissory notes with signature across the revenue stamps and thumb impression to the aforesaid persons towards collateral security and after closing of all financial dealings between them, the defendant demanded the said promissory notes and other signed white papers to return them but they did not return the said documents. As per the evidence of D.W.2/Ravada Malleswararao he was present at the time the defendant handed over empty promissory notes to one Kykala Narsimhulu @ Naidu and Kykala Suresh after the financial dealings when defendant asked for return of empty signed promissory note they did not returned and did not gave any reply and represented in his presence that they are searching about the promissory notes but not traced due to the threat of police for call money cases. But for the reasons best know to the defendant he failed to examine the said Kykala

Narsimhulu @ Naidu and Kykala suresh. The presence of D.W.2/Ravada

Malleswara Rao at the time of alleged handed over empty signed promissory notes by the defendants to one Kykala Narsimhulu @ Naidu and Kykala Suresh and the representation made by them in D.W.2 presence is not stated by the defendant in his written statement. There is no plea in the written statement that in the presence of D.W.2/Ravada

Malleswara Rao the defendant handed over empty signed promissory notes to one Kykala Narsimhulu @ Naidu and Kykala Suresh and one representation made by them in presence of D.W.2 with regard to the

OS.No.111/2020 9 I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

dt.06.04.2023 earlier financial transaction. Therefore it is unsafe to rely on the evidence on D.W.2/Ravada Malleswara Rao.

14.The evidence on record on proves that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 09.09.2017 and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note in the presence of the P.W.2/Madana

Poul Raju who is the scribe of Ex.A.1 promissory note and P.W.3/Munnala

Gurunadh who is the attestor of Ex.A.1 promissory note. To rebut the said evidence the defendant did not adduced any cogent evidence.

Therefore in the view of the above reasons it is clear the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant and supported by consideration. Accordingly issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

15.Issue No.3:

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit promissory note amount from the defendant as sought for ?

It was held on issue Nos.1 and 2 the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant and supported by consideration.

Therefore the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit promissory note amount from the defendant. Accordingly Issue No.3 answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

16.Issue No.4:

(iv) To what relief?

By virtue of my discussion on issue Nos.1 to 3.

IN THE RESULT, this suit is decreed with costs for an amount

of Rs.9,52,000/- and with subsequent interest 12% per annum

on Rs. 6,00,000/- from the date filing of this suit till the date of

OS.No.111/2020 10 I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

dt.06.04.2023

decree and thereafter 6% per annum on principal amount of Rs

6,00,000/- till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 06 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-V.Raghunath

I Addl. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT: PW.1 – Neelisetti Eswara RaoD.W.1: Volla Jogi Naidu PW.2 – Madana Poul RajuD.W.2:Ravada Malleswara Rao PW.3 - Munnala Gurunadh

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFF: Ex.A.1:09.09.2017The original suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff Ex.A.2:02.08.2019The office copy of legal notice got issued by plaintiff through his counsel to the defendant Ex.A.3:19.08.2019The original reply notice got issued by the defendant to his counsel

DEFENDANT : Ex.B.1:--Original Aadhar Card Ex.B.205.09.2018Office copy of registered legal notice got issued by defendant through his counsel to Kaikala Suresh Ex.B.307.09.2018The Postalacknolwedgment of Kaikala Suresh Ex.B.405.09.2018The office copy of registered legal notice got issued by defendant through his counsel to the Kaikala Narasimhulu Alias Naidu Ex.B.5--The original Postal acknowledgment of Kaikala Narasimhulu alias Naidu

Id/-V.R

I A.J.C.J.,

Eluru.

// True Copy //

Ist AJCJ., Eluru.

Plaint presented on : 24.02.2020 Plaint filed on : 02.03.2020

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ELURU.

Present:Sri V.Raghunath, Ist Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Eluru. Thursday, this the 6th day of April, 2023.

O.S.No.111 of 2020

Between:

Sri Neelisetti Eswara Rao, S/o. Nancheswara Rao, Hindu, Male, Aged 32 years, R/o. 16B-5-20, Israyelu Peta, Tangellamudi Village, Eluru, West Godavari District.

…Plaintiff

And

Sri Volla Jogi Naidu, S/o. Bhogayya, Hindu, Male, aged 53 years, R/o. Narasannapeta Post, Lakshmi Gayatri Matam Street, Srikakulam District.

…Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.9,52,000/- being the principal and interest due on promissory note dt.09.09.2017 executed by defendant for Rs.6,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a and for costs of the suit.

Cause of action: The cause of action for the suit arose on 09.09.2017, when the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff by agreeing to repay the same with the interest of Rs.2/- per hundred per month, either to the plaintiff or to his order whenever demanded, that the plaintiff made several demands personally and through mediators for repayment of the debt due under the above said promissory note, the defendant gave evasive replies, hence, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 02.08.2019 to the defendant by demanding him to repay the pronote debt, the defendant received the said notice and got issued reply notice dated 19.08.2019 with false contents, where the money transaction took place between them at the house of plaintiff at Tangellamudi Village, Eluru Mandal, W.G.Dt. Which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

Value of the suit:

The Principal amount borrowed by the defendant Rs.6,00,000-00

Add:Interest on Rs.6,00,000/- from 09.09.2017 to 19.02.2020 @ 24% per annum Rs.3,52,000-00 --------------------------- Total suit amount Rs.9,52,000-00 -------------------------- On which a Court fee of Rs.12,026/- is paid U/Sec.20, Article-I, Schedule-I of A.P.Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, by way of depositing the same in Account No.30873249904 of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Eluru in State Bank of India, Eluru.

This suit is coming on 21.03.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Achanta Vekateswara Rao, counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri. P.P.C.Joshi, Counsel for the defendant and the matter having been stood over to this day for consideration, this court doth order and decree as follows:

i) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs;

ii) that the defendant do pay a sum of Rs.9,52,000/- to the plaintiff

with subsequent interest 12% per annum from the date filing of this

suit till the date of decree and thereafter 6% per annum till the date

of realization on principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/-; and

iii) that the defendant do also pay a sum of Rs.42,098/- to the plaintiff

towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil.(No cost

memo filed)

Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 6th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-V. RAGHUNATH,

Ist Addl. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ELURU.

Memorandum of Costs

PLAINTIFFDEFENDANT

1.Vakalat2-00 No costs memo filed

2.Plaint fee12,026-00

3.Process70-00

4.Pleaders fees29,800-00

5.Type Charges100-00

6.Writing Charges100-00 TOTAL COSTS ALLOWED42,098-00

Id/-V.R.N.

JCJ.,ELURU

Note:- The parties should apply as soon as possible for return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from this date.

C.C.No.856/2022 1 I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Date- 17.01.2025 Eluru

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: ELURU ::

PRESENT: Sri V.Raghunath,

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ELURU

Friday, this the Seventeenth day of January, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.856/2022

BETWEEN:

The State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pedavegi Police Station.

...Complainant.

And

1. Chidella Pavithra Kumar, s/o. Bhimeswara Rao, aged 38 years, r/o Kothuru village, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District.

2. Chiraga Mohan Rao, S/o.Peddiraju, aged 32 years, r/o Kurama Golla Somavarappadu, Denduru village and Mandal, Driver of Tata INTRA Vehicle No.AP 39 TT0050.

3. Chidella Matha Pavani, w/o. Pavithra Kumar, aged 36 years, r/o Kothuru village, Pedapadu mandal, Owner of TATA INTRA Vehicle No.AP 39 TT-0050.

… Accused

This case coming on 10.01.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. D.Khasim, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. N.Krishna Murthy, Advocate for Accused Nos.1 to 4 and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

1.The State represented by its Sub Inspector of Police, Pedavegi Police

Station laid a charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.167/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and section 7(1) of

Essential Commodities (from here after E.C) Act alleging that L.W1/Akumarthi

Pramod Kumar has been working as Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, Pedavegi mandal. L.W2/Ch.Ranjith Kumar is working as Sub Inspector of Police and

C.C.No.856/2022 2 I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Date- 17.01.2025 Eluru

L.W3/P.Radhakrishna is working as Head constable in Vigilance and Enforcement

Department at Eluru. The accused No.1 indulged in the illegal business of purchasing PDS rice to black market on the Tata Infra vehicle No.AP39 TT-0050 belongs to his wife i.e., accused No.3 and the transportation is done through accused No.2, who is the driver of the vehicle. Accused No.1 illegally collected 38 quintals of PDS rice from the ration card holders and packed the PDS rice in 76 plastic bags (each bag contains 50 Kgs) and while shifting the same, at about 4-00

PM, when the vehicle reached the Vanguru bridge on the receipt of credible information, L.W1/Akumarthi Pramod Kumar who is checking the vehicles along with

L.Ws.2,3,6 and 7 (Ch.Ranjith Kumar, P.Radhakrishna, Gada Venkata Durgarao-

V.R.O and Kamuluri Anjiyya), who are the officials intercepted the above mentioned vehicle and seized the 38 quintals of PDS rice and the stitching machine in the presence of L.Ws.6 and 7 (Gada Venkatga Durgarao-V.R.O and Kamuluri Anjiyya) and later handed over the seized items to the MLS point-incharge on the proper acknowledgment for safe custody and later, L.W1/Akumarthi Pramod lodged a report in Pedavegi Police Station.

1(a). Basing on the report given by L.W1, L.W8 Mr.Y.V.V.Satyanarayana registered F.I.R in crime No.167 of 2022 for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and Section 7(1) of E.C Act and during the course of investigation,

L.W8Mr.Y.V.V.Satyanarayana examined L.Ws.1 to 5( Akumarthi Pramod Kumar,

Ch.Ranjith Kumar, P.Radha Krishna, Golle Raju and Sivapu Ramu) and recorded their statements. L.W8/ examined the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch.

Later, L.W8 issued section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. On 16.08.2022,

C.C.No.856/2022 3 I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Date- 17.01.2025 Eluru

L.W.8- S.I of Police handed over the seized vehicle bearing Regd. No.AP39 TT-0050 to the vehicle owner under proper acknowledgment. Hence the charge.

2.Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, my learned predecessor taken cognizance of the offence

U/s.7(1) of E.C Act, against the accused Nos.1 to 3.

3. On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 3 before this Court, the relevant copies of documents were furnished to the accused Nos.1 to 3 as contemplated under

Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code (from here after Cr.P.C).

4.Appearance and consideration, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined by my learned predecessor u/s.251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/s.7(1) of

E.C Act against the accused Nos.1 to 3, read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which, the accused Nos.1 to 3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 (A.Pramod kumar,Ch.Ranjith kumar, K.Venkata Durgarao, Y.V.V Satyanarayana) and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. Ex.P.1 is the Mediator’s report; Ex.P.2 is the Custodian receipt; Ex.P.3 is the confessional statement of Accused No.2; Ex.P.4 is the report; Ex.P.5 is the F.I.R; Ex.P.6 is rough sketch; Ex.P.7 is Proceedings of Joint

Collector and Ex.P.8 is receipt. On 26.11.2024, prosecution filed a memo along with VRO report stating that L.Ws4 and 5 are not traced and their whereabouts are not known. The evidence of L.W3 and L.W7 (P.Radhakrishna and Kamuluri

Anjiyya) was given up by the prosecution. None of the witnesses were examined

C.C.No.856/2022 4 I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Date- 17.01.2025 Eluru on behalf of the accused Nos.1 to 3. The details of which are mentioned hereunder in Appendix of Evidence.

6.On being closure of the prosecution side evidence, the incriminating circumstances that appearing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses were explained to the accused Nos.1 to 3 u/s.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C, for which the accused

Nos.1 to 3 denied the incriminating circumstances from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

7.Heard the learned Asst., Public Prosecutor for prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 to 3. Perused the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and

Exs.P.1 to P.8 and written arguments filed on behalf of the accused.

8.Now the point that would arise for determination is –

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused

Nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable U/Sec.7(1) of E.C Act beyond

reasonable doubt?

9.The learned Asst., Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.P1 to P.8 proved the case of the prosecution and prayed to convict the accused Nos.1 to 3 as per Law.

10.The Learned defence counsel argued that the P.W.1 never seized the PDS Rice from the possession of accused Nos.1 to 3 and he foisted this false case against the accused Nos.1 to 3 and Pedavegi Police did not make proper investigation in this case and laid false charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 and prayed to acquit the accused Nos.1 to 3 on benefit of doubt.

11.Heard. Perused the record. P.W.1 is the Deputy Tahsildhar, Civil

Supplies, Pedavegi Mandal, who seized the PDS rice from the possession of the

C.C.No.856/2022 5 I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Date- 17.01.2025 Eluru

Accused No.2 under the cover of Ex.P.1/ Mediator’s report. P.W.2 is the

Vigilance Police, Eluru, P.W.3 is the V.R.O, P.W.4 is the investigation officer, who registered the FIR and investigated into the case.

OBSERVATION OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PROSECUTION:

12.P.W1 deposed in his chief examination that himself, L.W2, L.W3 and two mediators i.e., L.Ws.6 and 7 went to the scene of offence on 25.05.2022 at about 4-00 PM, they observed one vehicle bearing No.AP39 TT-0050 and the driver of the vehicle confessed about the offence and also, the involvement of other accused in this case. Accused No.2 confessed before him that , on the instructions of Accused No.1, he was transporting 56 bags of PDS rice each weighed about 50 Kgs and accused No.1 also instructed him to collect PDS rice bags at Rayannapalem village and further directed to him to unload the above mentioned PDS rice in Gopalapuram Rice-Mill at East Godavari District. P.W1 further deposed that on inspecting the vehicle, they found 76 bags of PDS rice and one sewing machine and they seized the above mentioned items, in the presence of mediators. PW1 further deposed about Ex.P1/Mediator’s report and also witnessed accused No.2 in the Court hall. P.W1 further deposed about

Ex.P2/Custodian receipt, Ex.P3/Statement of the accused No.2 and

Ex.P4/Report. In the cross-examination, PW1 deposed that 30.09.2014 no license and permission is required to purchase, sale, store and transport of files.

P.W1 admitted in his cross-examination that, there are no stencil marks on the bags which they seized and he did not verified whether the seized rice is PDS

C.C.No.856/2022 6 I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Date- 17.01.2025 Eluru rice or not. P.W1 further deposed in his cross-examination that they did not enquired any dealers about the alleged loading of PDS rice.

13.P.W2 who is also a police officer deposed in his chief examination in the lines of P.W1 chief examination. In cross-examination, Pw2 admitted that there are no stencil marks on the seized rice bags. P.W3, who is the mediator in this case deposed his chief examination in the lines of P.W1 chief-examination. In cross-examination, P.W3 deposed that there are no stencil marks on the bags, which were seized. P.W4, who is the investigating officer in this case, deposed in his chief-examination about the receipt of Ex.P4 report, registering Ex.P5/FIR, preparing Ex.P6 /rough sketch, recording the statements of L.Ws.4 and 5(Golle

Raju and Sivapu Ramu) , issuance of section 41-A CrPC notice to accused.

P.W4 further deposed about Ex.P7 proceedings of the Joint Colelctor and Ex.P8 receipt. In cross-examination, P.W4 deposed the he did not forwarded any sample for chemical analysis in this case and he did not verified whether there are stencil marks on the bags, which are seized in this case.

FINDINGS OF THIS COURT BASING ON THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD:

14.Here, in this case the accused Nos.1 to 3 are not denying the seizure of the rice. But the accused Nos.1 to 3 are mainly contending that P.W.1, who is the Dy. Thahasildar, Civil Supplies at Pedavegi seized the afore said bags of rice from the possession of the Accused No.2 without having permission from the District Collector, Eluru and he foisted this false case against the accused Nos.1 to 3. In fact, the P.W.1 is the not member of the Vigilance and

C.C.No.856/2022 7 I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Date- 17.01.2025 Eluru

Enforcement Department team, he is Tahasildar, Civil Supplies at Pedavegi and the scene of offence is not situated within the Jurisdiction of the P.W.1.

15.The learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 to 3 mainly argued that since 30.09.2014 the rice is exempted from the essential commodities act and no permission is required to purchase, sale, store and transport the rice. He further argued that there is no difference between the rice and PDS rice and the prosecution has not collected any independent evidence to show that Accused

Nos.1 to 3 indulged in purchasing, transport of seized rice bags which alleged to be PDS rice from the particular dealer or from the particular persons sell the same to the public on profit basis. He further argued that the circular is issued by the Government of India and Circular is issued by the Government of A.P clearly shows that the P.W.1 is not having any authority to seize the rice from the possession of the Accused No.2 while transporting the same and the Vigilance and Enforcement Authority has no power to inspect the business units and to intercept transporting of food imports of any nature and prayed to acquit the accused on benefit of doubt.

16. In fact, 30.09.2014 rice is exempted from the Essential

Commodities Act and no permission is required to purchase, sale, store and transport the rice. Further, there is no difference between the rice, if really the alleged rice is PDS rice there is stencil mark, lot numbers of stitching, name of the miller and checked by the Inspector were mentioned on the bags of PDS rice. But, P.Ws.1 to 3 stated that there are no such stencil marks on seized rice

C.C.No.856/2022 8 I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Date- 17.01.2025 Eluru bags to establish that seized rice is PDS Rice. Further, there is neither expert nor scientific evidence to prove that seized rice is PDS rice.

17. Further, the independent witnesses in this case, i.e., L.W4/Golle

Raju and L.W5/Sivapu Ramu are not produced before this Court to record their evidence to that effect, prosecution filed Village Revenue Officer’s report by stating that the whereabouts of Lws.4 and 5(Golle Raju and Sivapu Ramu) are not known. Even they did not file any documentary proof to elicit the said fact.

Further, there is no evidence to shows that whether the stock seized by the

P.Ws.1 and 2 from the possession of Accused No.2 is the PDS rice.

18.Further, the prosecution has not produced the alleged rice before this Court and the same was not marked as a material object. Further, prosecution did not examined the person to whom the alleged seized PDS rice was handed over to elicit about Ex.P2/custodian receipt. On perusal of the record, it clearly shows that no dealer was examined in this case to prove the contention of the prosecution.

19.The seized sewing machine as stated by the prosecution is also not produced before this Court. P.W4 categorically deposed that he did not forwarded any sample of the alleged PDS rice in this case. Apart from the evidence of Pws.1 to 4, no independent witness was produced as a witness in this case. The evidence of L.Ws.3 and 7 were given up by the prosecution and the reasons for the same are best known to them.

20.Upon considering above mentioned circumstances, the evidence of

PWs1 to 3 raises so many doubts with regarding to the commission of offence by

C.C.No.856/2022 9 I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Date- 17.01.2025 Eluru the accused. Therefore, basing on the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 this Court finds it is unsafe to convict the accused and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Accused Nos.1 to 3 and against the prosecution.

21. In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the

offence punishable under Section 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act.

Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said

offence. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be in force for a period

of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed by stenographer on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17 th day of January, 2025.

Sd/-V.Raghunath

I ADDL., (JUNIOR DIVISION) CIVIL JUDGE-CUM

I ADDL., JUDL., I CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,

ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1: Akumarthi Pramod Kumar -- None -- PW.2: Ch.Ranjith Kumar. PW.3: Kada Venkata Durgarao. PW.4: Mr.Y.V.V.Satyanarayana.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Mediator’s report. Ex.P2: Custodian receipt. Ex.P3: Confessional statement of A.2. Ex.P4: Report. Ex.P5: F.I.R. Ex.P6: Rough sketch. Ex.P7: Proceedings of Joint Collector. Ex.P8: Receipt.

C.C.No.856/2022 10 I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Date- 17.01.2025 Eluru

DEFENCE: NIl

MATERIAL OBJECTS : NIL Id/-V.R I ACJ (JD) -cum- I AJMFC., Eluru

C.C.No.856/2022 11 I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Date- 17.01.2025 Eluru

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

:: ELURU ::

CALENDAR CASE.No.856/2022

01.Date of offence:25.05.2022

02.Date of Complaint :25.05.2022

03.Date of Apprehension of :41-A Cr.P.C the accused

04.Release on bail : --

05.Commencement of trial:31.03.2023

06.Closure of trial:01.08.2024

07.Date of Judgment:17.01.2025

08.Explanation for delay:The cognizance of the offence U/s.7(1) of E.C Act was taken on 12.10.2022 against accused Nos.1 to 3. Copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. On 03.02.2023, accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C and posted the matter for issue summons to L.Ws.1 to 3. The trial was commenced on 31.03.2023 and closed on 01.08.2024 and during the course of trial, PWs.1 to 4 examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 are marked and the prosecution side evidence is closed and reported no defence evidence on behalf of accused Nos.1 to 3 and under Section 313 of Cr.P.C is held on 03.01.2025 and also heard the arguments. Judgment was pronounced on 17.01.2025. Hence, the delay. The delay is due to non- production of the witnesses by the prosecution.

09.Name of the complainant:Inspector of Police, Pedavegi Police Station, in Crime No.167/2022.

10.Name of the accused:1. Chidella Pavithra Kumar, s/o. Bhimeswara Rao, aged 38 years, r/o Kothuru village, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District.

2. Chiraga Mohan Rao, S/o.Peddiraju, aged 32years,r/oKuramaGolla Somavarappadu, Denduru village and Mandal, Driver of Tata INTRA Vehicle No.AP 39 TT0050.

C.C.No.856/2022 12 I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Date- 17.01.2025 Eluru

3. Chidella Matha Pavani, w/o. Pavithra Kumar, aged 36 years, r/o Kothuru village, Pedapadu mandal, Owner of TATA INTRA Vehicle No.AP 39 TT-0050.

11Offence :U/s.7(1) of E.C Act.

12.Plea of the accused:Not guilty

13.Finding:Found Not guilty

14.Sentence: In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec.7(1) of Essential Commodities Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted u/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/-V.Raghunath

I ADDL., JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM

I ADDL., JUDL., I CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,

ELURU.

Copy submitted to

Hon'ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Eluru

in Dis.No. Dated :

OS.No.407/2019 1 I Addl. Civil Judge

dt.09.08.2024 (Junior Division), Eluru

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION):: ELURU.

Present : Sri V. RAGHUNATH,

I Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Eluru.

Friday, this the 9th day of August, 2024

O.S.No.407/2019

Between:

Chilukuri Sujatha, W/o. Harinadh, Hindu, Female, Aged 45 years, R/o. D.No.6-31, Vegiwada Village, Pedavegi Mandal, W.G.Dist., …Plaintiff

And

Mulpuri Leela Venkata Bapuji, S/o. Sri Rama Krishna Prasad, Hindu, Male, Aged 40 years, R/o. D.No.10-61, Haveli Lingapalem Village, Via Ramannagudem, Dwaraka Tiruamal Mandal, W.G. Dist., …Defendant

This suit coming on 01.08.2024 before me in the presence of Sri. K.Ganga Raju, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri. M.Lakshman Kumar, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over to this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of

Rs.9,98,833/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs Ninety Eight thousand Eight hundred and thirty three only) being the principal and interest due on promissory note dated.20.06.2017 executed by the defendant for Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs Fifty thousand only) agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief facts of the plaint as follows:

The plaintiff submitted that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs fifty thousand only) from the

OS.No.407/2019 2 I Addl. Civil Judge

dt.09.08.2024 (Junior Division), Eluru

plaintiff on 20.06.2017 for the purpose of his family expenses and discharge sundry debts and on the same day the defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and agreeing to repay said amount with interest at the rate of Rs.2/- per hundred per month, either to the plaintiff or her order whenever demand. The plaintiff further submits that in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff and through mediators for repayment of the debt due under the above said promissory note, the defendant did not choose to clear off the debt due under the above said promissory note and postponing the same from time to time without any reason whatsoever. Hence, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 01.07.2019 to the defendant by demanding him to repay the promissory note debt, and the defendant received the said notice and issued reply notice with false contents. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant filed a written statement, by denying the allegations of the plaintiff and inter alia contending that, there is no any contractual relation much less the relationship of creditor and debtor existed in between plaintiff and defendant, there is no any occasion arose for plaintiff to make several demands for the repayment of alleged debt. All the said allegations are nothing but concocted and the defendant hereby specifically denying the same. The defendant further submitted that the plaintiff willfully neglected to send the attested copy of the promissory note therefore he has every reason to believe the said promissory note is forged and fabricated. The defendant further pleaded that plaintiff has no financial capacity to lend such huge amount and the plaintiff is a distant relative to the defendant and there are family disputes between them in order to harass the plaintiff colluded with scribe and attestors and got

OS.No.407/2019 3 I Addl. Civil Judge

dt.09.08.2024 (Junior Division), Eluru

fabricated the suit promissory note for wrongful gain and prayed this

Court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed for trial by this court.

(i) Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant ? Whether the suit pronote is rank forgery ?

(ii) Whether suit pronote is not supported by consideration as pleaded by the defendant ?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for ?

(iv) To what relief?

5.On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1/Chilukuri Sujatha, P.W.2/Balusu

Lakshmana Rao and P.W.3/Alapati Gangayya Chowdary were examined,

Exs.A.1 to A.4 were got marked. On behalf of the defendant,

D.W.1/Mulpuri Leela Venkata Bapuji was examined and no documents were got marked.

6.Heard. Perused the pleadings, evidence and documents of both the parties.

7.Issue Nos.1 and 2:

(i) Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant ? Whether the suit pronote is rank forgery ?

(ii) Whether suit pronote is not supported by consideration as pleaded by the defendant ?

The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty thousand only) from the plaintiff on 20.06.2017 for the purpose of their family expenses and to discharge

OS.No.407/2019 4 I Addl. Civil Judge

dt.09.08.2024 (Junior Division), Eluru

sundry debts and on the even date the defendant had executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and agreeing to repay said amount with interest at 24% per annum with yearly rests on demand either to the plaintiff or to his order. But, In spite of several demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators the defendant did not make any payments to the satisfaction of the debt due under the above said promissory note. On 01.07.2019 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice after receipt of the said notice defendant got issued reply notice with false allegations. Thus the defendant is liable for the payment of the debt due under the above said promissory note and prayed this Court to pass decree in his favour. Hence plaintiff filed this suit.

8.On the other hand defendant pleaded that there are no any contractual relationship much less the relationship of creditor and debtor existed in between plaintiff and the defendant and pleaded that the allegations made by the plaintiff are nothing but concocted and further pleaded that the plaintiff is a distant relative to the defendant and there are family disputed between them in order to harass the defendant the plaintiff colluded with her husband, scribe and attestors and got fabricated the promissory note and filed this case. The defendant further pleaded that the promissory note is forged one and prayed this Court to dismiss the suit.

9.Plaintiff in order to prove her case she examined herself as

P.W.1/Chilukuri Sujatha (from here after P.W.1) and reiterated the contents of the plaint in her chief examination affidavit and got marked

Exs.A1 to A.4 on her behalf. Ex.A.1 is the original suit promissory note

dated 20.06.2017, Ex.A.2 is the office copy of legal notice dated

01.07.2019, Ex.A.3 is the original postal acknowledgment, Ex.A.4 is the

OS.No.407/2019 5 I Addl. Civil Judge

dt.09.08.2024 (Junior Division), Eluru

original reply notice dt. 03.08.2019. In cross examination nothing was elicited from P.W.1 to discredit the testimony of P.W.1. In cross examination it was suggested to P.W.1 that defendant never borrowed any amount from her and never executed Ex.A1 promissory note in her favour. The said suggestion was denied by P.W.1. In cross examination it was suggested to P.W.1 that the signatures of the defendant on Ex.A.1 promissory note are forged with the help of scribe and attestors. The said suggestion is denied by the P.W.1. During the cross examination of

P.W.1 the Learned Counsel for the defendant raised a suggestion that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend an amount of Rs.6,50,000/-. During the cross examination P.W.1 deposed that she brought Rs.6,50,000/- from the house to lend the same to the defendant and she also deposed that her son is getting Rs.25,000/- per month and her family has got Ac.5.00 cents of own land and her husband is doing cultivation.

10.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff the plaintiff got examined 2nd attestor in Ex.A.1 promissory note as P.W2/Balusu Lakshmana Rao (from here after P.W.2). He deposed in his evidence about borrowing of amount Rs.6,50,000/- by the defendant from the plaintiff and so also execution of demand promissory note Ex.A.1 in favour of the plaintiff. As per his evidence the entire Ex.A.1 promissory note transaction is happened in his presence and the consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- is passed under Ex.A.1 promissory note from the plaintiff to the defendant in his presence. P.W.2 deposed in his cross examination that defendant called him at the time of execution of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note on that he acted as a attestor in the Ex.A.1 suit promissory note. In cross examination the evidence of P.W.2 is not disturbed on the material aspects of the case. In cross examination nothing was elicited from P.W.2

OS.No.407/2019 6 I Addl. Civil Judge

dt.09.08.2024 (Junior Division), Eluru

to discredit the testimony of P.W.2. During the cross examination of

P.W.2 the Learned counsel for the defendant raised a suggestion that the signature on the Ex.P.1 promissory note is forged. The said suggested is denied by P.W.2.

11.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined scribe in Ex.A.1 promissory note as P.W3/Alapati Gangayya Chowdary (from here after P.W.3). He deposed in his evidence about borrowing of amount Rs.6,50,000/- by the defendant from the plaintiff and so also execution of demand promissory note Ex.A.1 in favour of the plaintiff. As per his evidence the entire Ex.A.1 promissory note transaction is happened in his presence and the consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- is passed under Ex.A.1 promissory note from the plaintiff to the defendant in his presence. In cross examination the evidence of P.W.3 is not disturbed on the material aspects of the case. In cross examination nothing was elicited from P.W.3 to discredit the testimony of P.W.3. During the cross examination of P.W.1, P.W.1 deposed that the scribe of the Ex.A.1 suit promissory note is brought by the defendant. P.W.3 also deposed in his cross examination that defendant called him to act as a scribe in the execution of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note.

12. The evidence of P.W.1 is well corroborated by the evidence of

P.Ws.2 and 3. The plaintiff is discharged her initial burden by examining herself as P.W.1 and examined the attestor in promissory note as P.W.2 and scribe as P.W.3 and got exhibited Exs.A1 to A.4 on behalf of P.W.1.

13. To discharge his burden the defendant himself examined as

D.W.1/Mulapudi Leela Venkata Naga Bapuji(from here after D.W.1). The defendant reiterated the contents of written statement in his chief examination affidavit as D.W.1. In cross examination D.W.1 deposed that

OS.No.407/2019 7 I Addl. Civil Judge

dt.09.08.2024 (Junior Division), Eluru

the signature on the Ex.A.1 suit promissory note does not belongs to him but to the surprise he deposed that the signature shown on the chief affidavit of D.W.1 is doubtful. This clearly shows the nature of the D.W.1 during the deposing his evidence before this Court. The contention of the defendant is the Ex.A.1 suit promissory note is created by forging his signature but in his cross examination he deposed that he did not gave any report against the plaintiff to the police about the alleged act done by the plaintiff with respect to the Ex.A.1 suit promissory note. But he deposed that he put the matter before the elders. D.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that he did not mentioned the recitals of reply notice that he put the matter before the elders. During the cross examination

D.W.1 deposed that himself and the plaintiff has land disputes so that the plaintiff forged the signature on Ex.A.1 suit promissory note. D.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that he did not mentioned in the recitals of reply notice about the land dispute.

14. After the D.W.1 evidence the defendant filed a petition under

Sec.45 of Indian Evidence Act for expert opinion and the same is numbered as I.A No.354/2022. After hearing both sides this Court allowed the petition by directing the defendant to appear before this Court to give his specimen signature in the open court in the presence of both parties and their counsels and further directed to file his contemporaneous signature of the relevant period of the Ex.A.1 suit promissory note before this Court. Later, defendant filed a petition under Order XVI Rule 6 to issue summons for the production of contemporaneous signatures. The same is numbered as I.A No.1/2023. After hearing the petition and on perusal of the record this Court dismissed the petition on 15.03.2023.

OS.No.407/2019 8 I Addl. Civil Judge

dt.09.08.2024 (Junior Division), Eluru

From 15.03.2023 this Court gave sufficient time to the petitioner to file the contemporaneous signature. Even though sufficient time is given petitioner/defendant failed to file the contemporaneous signatures before this Court. On 01.05.2024 the said petition filed U/Sec.45 of Indian

Evidence Act is closed. The Defendant after closure of the said petition reported no further evidence. [

15.Upon perusal of the record as stated supra plaintiff discharged her burden by examining herself, P.Ws.2 and 3 in this case. P.W.2 and P.W.3 clearly testified that on the request of the defendant they acted as attestor

No.2 and scribe during the execution of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note.

Since the plaintiff discharged her burden in this case. The burden lies on the defendant to prove his contention. As stated supra D.W.1 deposed in his cross examination that he did not filed any police report against the plaintiff for the alleged act done by the plaintiff. But, the defendant deposed that the matter is placed before the elders and those elders are not examined by the defendant and the reasons for the same are best known to the defendant. To prove his contention defendant failed to produce any cogent evidence on his behalf. It clearly shows what prevented the defendant for taking criminal action against the plaintiff were not explained by the defendant and the reasons for the same are best known to the defendant.

16.The evidence on record clearly proves about borrowing of amount of Rs.6,50,000/- from the plaintiff by the defendant and execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 20.06.2017. The evidence on record further proves in-spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay any amount

OS.No.407/2019 9 I Addl. Civil Judge

dt.09.08.2024 (Junior Division), Eluru

and the plaintiff issued the legal notice on 01.07.2019 after receiving the same the defendant as per Ex.A.3, defendant got issued reply

dt. 03.08.2019. To rebut the said evidence the defendant did not adduced

any cogent evidence. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 is consistent and cogent about the execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note after borrowing

Rs.6,50,000/- by defendant from the plaintiff.

17. Therefore in view of the above reasons the defendant did not adduced any cogent evidence to prove his contention that the suit promissory note is a rank forgery. Therefore, the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant and supported by consideration.

Accordingly, issue Nos.1 and 2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

18.Issue No.3:

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed

for ?

By virtue of discussion in Issue Nos.1 and 2 plaintiff is entitled for an amount of Rs.9,98,833/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Ninety eight thousand eight hundred and thirty three only). So far as the prayer of subsequent interest at the rate of 18% p.a from the date of suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.6,50,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs fifty thousand only) is concerned. This Court finds it is desirable to grant subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty thousand only). Accordingly, Issue No.3 is answered.

OS.No.407/2019 10 I Addl. Civil Judge

dt.09.08.2024 (Junior Division), Eluru

19.Issue No.4:

(iv) To what relief?

By virtue of my discussion on issue Nos.1 to 3.

In the result, the suit is partly decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount Rs.9,98,833 /- (Rupees

Nine Lakhs Ninety Eight thousand Eight hundred and thirty three only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 9 th day of August, 2024.

Sd/-V.Raghunath

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: PW.1 – Chilukuri Sujatha PW.2 – Balusu Lakshmana Rao PW.3 - Alapati Gangayya Chowdary

DEFENDANT:

D.W.1: Mulapuri Leela Naga Venkata Bapuji

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1:-20.06.2017The original promissory note got executed by the

OS.No.407/2019 11 I Addl. Civil Judge

dt.09.08.2024 (Junior Division), Eluru

defendant in favour of the plaintiff

Ex.A.2:01.07.2019The office copy of legal notices got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant.

Ex.A.3:--Original postal acknowledgment

Ex.A.4:03.08.2019Original reply notice

DEFENDANT : Nil

Id/-V.R

I A.C.J(J.D)

Eluru.

1 P.R.C. No.11/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: ELURU ::

PRESENT: Sri S.VASU DEV,

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), ELURU.

FAC: I ADDL., JUDICIAL., MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ELURU Wednesday, this the Fourth day of December, 2024.

P.R.C.No.11/2022

The State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Pedavegi Police Station. .. Complainant

-Versus-

1. Tera China Raja Ratnam, s/o. Punnaiah, Age 50 years, r/o Ankannagudem village, Pedavegi mandal of W.G.District.

2. Tera Ramesh @ Rambabu, s/o Raja Ratnam, aged 29 years, r/o Ankannagudem village, Pedavegi Mandal.

3. Tera Nagaraju, s/o Venkateswara Rao, aged 30 years, r/o Ankannagudem village, Pedavegi Mandal.

….. Accused

This case is coming to me on this day for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri.D.KHASIM on behalf of the state and of Sri A.V.N & Sri.G.S.K.N, Advocates for the accused and after hearing on both sides and this matter having stood over for determination till this day and this Court passed the following:

C O M M I T T A L O R D E R

1.The Inspector of Police, Pedavegi Police Station has filed Charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 3 in crime No.88/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( for short ‘IPC’).

2. The brief allegations leveled against the accused in the charge sheet are as follows:

[a]L.W1/ Yeleka Yesobu is the complainant and injured person and he is political supporter of YSRC party and Accused Nos.1 to 3 are supporters of

Telugu Desam party. There are political rivalries in between the defacto complainant cum injured and accused Nos.1 to 3. In pursuant political rivalry, the 2 P.R.C. No.11/2022 accused Nos.1 to 3 hatched a wreck and with an and on 23.02.2021 at 5-30 PM, the defacto complainant proceeding towards the house of his villager Karre

Francis on his foot and reached in front of house of the Accused No.1, on noticing the defacto-complainant, Accused Nos.1 to 3 came with an axe along with pestle and without any hesitation, attacked him by proclaiming how dare to support YSRC party and they will get rid-off him. The Accused No.1 hacked the defacto-complainant with pestle meantime he collapsed. On hearing the cries, neighbuoring persons of the scene of offence came there and on observing the same, the accused Nos.1 to 3 escaped with the booty. With the assistance of family members of defacto complainant, he was shifted to District Hospital, Eluru for treatment.

[b]Basing on the statement of L.W1 and medical intimation, L.W.13-

Sub Inspector of police of Pedavegi P.S registered a case in crime No.88 of 2021 for the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C. During the course of investigation, inspected the scene of offenec in the presence of Lws.10 and 11 ( Jangam Purna Chandra Rao and Pagadala Kumara Swamy), drawan rough sketch, drafted scene observation report and examined the witnesses as many as Lws.1 to 9 and recorded their statements under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C.

Later, on commission of offence, L.W13 arrested the accused Nos.1 to 3 and sent them to Judicial remand. The S.I of Police seized the property ie., Pachadi banda and Goddali Karra and same shall be produced at the time of trial; and after completion of investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge.

3 P.R.C. No.11/2022

3. The case was taken on file under Section 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C against Accused Nos.1 to 3. On production before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Perused the material on record. The prosecution made out prima- facie case for the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C against accused, which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Hence, the case is committed to the Court of Sessions Under section 209 (a) of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused No.1 was released on bail, as per the order of Honourable

Court of II Additional District Judge and Sessions Judge’s Court, Eluru vide

CrlMP.No.85 of 2021, dt.06.04.2021 and Accused Nos. 2 & 3 were released on

bail, as per the order of Honourable II Additional District and Sessions Judge’s

Court, Eluru vide CrlMP.No.68 of 2021, dt.16.03.2021 and furnishing sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of this Court. The accused Nos.1 to 3, who are on bail shall appear before the Court of Sessions, Eluru as and when summons has received under Section 209 (b) of Cr.P.C.

6.The Office is directed to transmit the entire case record and material objects if any to the Court of Sessions, Eluru, at an early date under Section 209

(c) Cr.P.C.

7. The Public Prosecutor is notified the committal of the case to the

Court of Sessions, Eluru under Section 209 (d) Cr.P.C.

8.When asked the accused about the means to engage an advocate on their behalf and they stated that they have means to engage counsel on their behalf.

4 P.R.C. No.11/2022

9. In the result, the case is committed to the Court of Honourable

Session, West Godavari Division, Eluru, under Section 209(a) of Cr.P.C. Accused

Nos.1 to 3, who are on bail is informed that they will appear before the

Honourable Court of Sessions as and when summons are received as provided

under Section 209(b) of Cr.P.C.

Typed by stenographer on my dictation; corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 4 th day of December, 2024.

// SD/- S.Vasu Dev//

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JD) , ELURU

FAC: I ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL///

ID/-S.V.D//

PCJ(JD), ELURU

FAC: IAJFCM, ELURU.

// True copy //

PCJ(JD) FAC: IAJFCM, Eluru 5 P.R.C. No.11/2022

TRUE EXTRACT from the Preliminary Enquiries Register in P.R.C.No.11/2022 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Eluru connected with crime No.88 /2021 of Pedavegi Police Station.

1Number of the case :P.R.C.No.11/2022 2Name of the Accused:1. Tera China Raja Ratnam, s/o. Punnaiah, Age 50 years, r/o Ankannagudem village, Pedavegi mandal of W.G.District.

2. Tera Ramesh @ Rambabu, s/o Raja Ratnam, aged 29 years, r/o Ankannagudem village, Pedavegi Mandal.

3. Tera Nagaraju, s/o Venkateswara Rao, aged 30 years, r/o Ankannagudem village, Pedavegi Mandal.

3Substance of the complaint:Under section 307 r/w 34 of IPC.

4Name of the Complainant:The Sub Inspector of Police, Pedavegi Police Station in crime No.88/2021.

5.Names of the witnesses for the prosecution:-

1.Yeleka Yesobu, s/o Simeonu, Aged 42 Years, C/SC-Mala, R/o Ankannagudem village, Pedavegi Mandal of W.G.Dist.

2.Yeleka Venkata Ratnam, s/o Simeonu, male, Aged 40 Years, C/SC- Mala , R/o Anakannagudem village of Pedavegi mandal, W.G.Dist

3.Yeleka Rani, w/o Yesobu, Aged 39 Years, C/SC-Mala, R/o Ankannagudem villge, Pedavegi Mandal of W.G.Dist.

4.Yeleke Daveedi, s/o Yesobu, Aged 22 Years, C/SC-Mala, R/o Ankannagudem villge, Pedavegi Mandal of W.G.Dist.

5.Yeleke Jaya Raju, s/o Simeonu, Aged 44 Years, C/SC-Mala, R/o Ankannagudem villge, Pedavegi Mandal of W.G.Dist.

6.Karre Francis, s/o Daveedu, Aged 38 Years, C/SC-Mala, R/o Ankannagudem villge, Pedavegi Mandal of W.G.Dist.

7.Dukkipati Maha Lakshmudu, s/o Pothu Raju, Aged 40 Years, C/SC- Madiga, R/o Ankannagudem villge, Pedavegi Mandal of W.G.Dist.

8.Tera Ganesh, s/o Seshaiah, Aged 28 Years, C/SC-Mala, R/o Ankannagudem villge, Pedavegi Mandal of W.G.Dist.

9.Karri Vijaya Kumar, s/o Daveedu, Aged 45 Years, C/SC-Mala, R/o Ankannagudem villge, Pedavegi Mandal of W.G.Dist.

6 P.R.C. No.11/2022

10.Jangam Purna chandra Rao, s/o Mutyala Rao, Aged 48 Years, C/SC- Mala, Village Revenue Officer, Ankannagudem villge, Pedavegi Mandal of W.G.Dist.

11.Ragadala Kumara swamy, s/o Nageswara Rao, aged 41 years, Kapu by caste, Village Revenue Assistant, Ankannagudem village, Pedavegi mandal of W.G.District.,

12.Dr.V.V.Narayana, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Medical Officer, Government General Hospital, Eluru.

13.Mr.T.Sudheer, Sub Inspector of Police, Pedavegi Police Station.

6. RESULT OF THE ENQUIRY : Case is committed to the Court of Sessions,

West Godavari, Eluru under Section 209 (a) Cr.P.C, for the offence under

Section 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C against the accused, which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, West Godavari, Eluru.

7. Date of Offence: 23.02.2021

8. Date of Complaint : 23.02.2021

9. Date of Apprehension : Accused No.1 was released on bail, as per the order of Honourable Court of II

Additional District Judge and Sessions

Judge’s Court, Eluru vide CrlMP.No.85

of 2021, dt.06.04.2021 and Accused Nos. 2 & 3 were released on bail, as per the order of Honourable II Additional District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Eluru vide CrlMP.No.68 of 2021. dt.16.03.2021.

10. Date of Closing Enquiry : 04.12.2024

11. Explanation for the Delay: - - // Sd/- S.Vasu Dev //

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JD), ELURU

FAC: I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ELURU.

7 P.R.C. No.11/2022

DIARY EXTRACT in P.R.C.No.11/2021 on the file of I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Eluru connected with crime.

No.88/2021 of Pedavegi Police Station.

30.05.2022A1 to A3 called present. Case copies furnished to A1 to A3. For hearing call on 8.8.2022.

08.08.2022A1 to A3 called present. Both parties not ready, time extended for hearing call on 19.9.2022.

19.09.2022A1 to A3 called present. Both parties not ready, time extended for hearing call on 5.12.2022.

05.12.2022A1 to A3 called present. A1 to A3 are directed to execute personal bonds of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties each for like sum call on 9.1.2023. 09.01.2023A1 to A3 called present. Defence counsel not ready, time extended for sureties of A1 to A3 call on 6.2.2023.

06.02.2023A1 to A3 called present. Defence counsel not ready, time extended for sureties of A1 to A3 as last chance call on 27.3.2023. 27.03.2023A1 to A3 present. For committal at request call on 13.4.2023.

13.04.2023P.O. is on Training hence reposted to 04.05.2023.

04.05.2023P.O. is on Training, hence re posted to 23.5.2023.

23.05.2023A1 to A3 present. For committal at request call on 15.6.2023.

15.06.2023A2 absent. Petition filed and allowed. A1, A3 present. For committal at request call on 28.6.2023 28.06.2023A1 to A3 present. Sureties filed. For committal call on 12.7.2023.

12.07.2023For committal call on 3.8.2023.

03.08.2023PO is on training. Hence matter posted to 29.09.2023 29.09.2023P.O is on training, Hence matter reposted to 30.10.2023.

8 P.R.C. No.11/2022 30.10.2023P.O is on training, Hence matter reposted to 16.11.2023.

16.11.2023P.O is on training, Hence matter reposted to 15.12.2023.

15.12.2023Accused No.s 1 and 3 are called present, Accused No.2 is called absent, Petition filed and allowed. For committal at request call on 28.12.2023. 28.12.2023A1 to A3 are present. For committal at request call on 12.1.24.

12.01.2024A1 to A3 called present, For committal at request call on 01.02.2024.

01.02.2024A1, A3 present and A2 absent, petition filed and allow for committal at request call on 29.02.2024.

29.02.2024Accused present. For counter at request call on 19.03.2024.

19.03.2024Accused present. For committal. At request. Call on 08.04.2024.

08.04.2024PO is on EL call on 10.05.2024.

10.05.2024A1 to A3 are called present, For committal at request call on 05.06.2024.

05.06.2024P.O is on Vacation. Hence, the matter is reposted to 28.06.2024.

28.06.2024A1 to A3 are called present, For committal at request call on 01.08.2024.

01.08.2024A1 to A3 are called present, For committal at request call on 21.08.2024.

21.08.2024P.O is on training, Hence dated to 08.10.2024.

08.10.2024P.O is on training, Hence matter posted to 12.11.2024.

12.11.2024The Presiding officer is under going training from 12.08.2024 to 16.11.2024. Hence the matter is posted to 19.11.2024.

19.11.2024Sureties filed, Returned. A1 to A3 are called present, For committal at request call on 27.11.2024.

27.11.2024A1 present A2 and A3 called absent. Petition filed and allowed. For filing sureties and hearing on committal, at request call on 04.12.2024.

9 P.R.C. No.11/2022 04.12.2024Accused Nos.1 to 3 are present. Sureties filed and same is accepted. In the result, the case is committed to the Court of

Honourable Session, West Godavari Division, Eluru, under

Section 209(a) of Cr.P.C. Accused Nos.1 to 3 who are on bail is informed that they will appear before the Honourable Court of

sessions and when summons are received as provided under

Section 209(b) of Cr.P.C. The office is directed to submit the entire case record along with the property if any to the Court of

Honourable Sessions Judge, Eluru under Section 209(c) of

Cr.P.C. Notify the committal of the case to the learned Public Prosecutor under Section 209(d) of Cr.P.C.

// Sd/- S.Vasu Dev //

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JD), ELURU

FAC: I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ELURU.

// True copy //

PCJ(JD) FAC: IAJFCM, Eluru 10 P.R.C. No.11/2022

Classification Statement in P.R.C.No.11/2022 on the file of I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Eluru connected with crime No.88/2021 of

Pedavegi Police Station.

S.No NAME OF THE WITNESS VILLAGE BATTA REMARKS

1. Yeleke YesobuAnakannagudemB–

2.Yeleke Venkat RatnamAnkannagudemB–

3.Smt. Yeleke Rami.AnkannagudemB–

4.Yeleke DaveeduAnkannagudemB–

5.Yeleke Jaya Raju.AnkannagudemB–

6.Karre Francis.AnkannagudemB–

7.Dukkipati Maha Lakshmudu.AnkannagudemB–

8.Tera Ganesh.AnkannagudemB–

9.Karri Vijaya Kumar.AnkannagudemB-

10.Jangam Purna chandra Rao-VROAnkannagudem-–

11.Pagadala Kumara Swamy-VRAAnakannagudem-–

12.Dr.V.V.Narayana-C.A.SEluru-–

13.Mr.T.Sudheer – S.IPedavegi-– // Sd/- S.Vasu Dev //

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JD), ELURU

FAC: I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ELURU.

// True copy //

PCJ(JD) FAC: IAJFCM, Eluru 11 P.R.C. No.11/2022

FORM-31

NOTICE OF COMMITMENT BY MAGISTRATE TO PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR

(See Section 209(d) of Cr.P.C.)

The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Eluru, hereby gives notice that he had committed one PRC.No.11/2022 in

Cr.No.88/2021 of Pedavegi Police Station for trial at the next Sessions; and the Magistrate hereby Instructs the Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution of the side case.

The charge against the Accused Nos.1 to 3 is that, they are punishable for offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

Dated, this 4 th day of December, 2024 .

// Sd/- S.Vasu Dev //

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JD), ELURU

FAC: I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ELURU.

Seal:

// True copy //

PCJ(JD) FAC: IAJFCM, Eluru 12 P.R.C. No.11/2022

O/o I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru. Dt. .12.2024.

From:To

S.VASU DEV,The Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Prl. Civil Judge (JD), Eluru. West Godavari District, FAC: I Addl. Civil Judge (JD)-cum- E L U R U. I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

E L U R U .

Honoured Sir,

Sub:- COURTS – CRIMINAL – I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Eluru – Submission of the Committal Order, Form-31, True Extract, Diary Extract, Classification statement in P.R.C.11/2022 on the file of I

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court - Regarding.

Ref:- Hon'ble District Court’s Circular communicated to this Court in Dis.No.5500, dated 14.06.2001.

Adverting to the above subject matter and reference cited, I have the Honour to submit herewith the Committal Order, Form-31, True Extract,

Diary Extract, Classification statement along with the record in

P.R.C.No.11/2022 on the file of this Court connected with crime No.88/2021 of

Pedavegi Police Station under Section 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C against Accused

Nos.1 to 3, which is exclusively triable by the Hon'ble Principal Sessions

Judge’s Court, West Godavari, Eluru.

Yours faithfully, // Sd/- S.Vasu Dev //

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JD), ELURU

FAC: I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ELURU. ENCL:

Committal Order, Form 31, True Extract, Diary Extract, Classification statement along with record in PRC.11/2022.