A.Anitha

Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate,Peddapuram

Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Peddapuram (Taluka) · East Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

A.Anitha, Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate,Peddapuram, is posted at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Peddapuram (Taluka), East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2,535 court orders on record since 2014. 14 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

2,535

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/43/2015 Acquitted

SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE vs Achanta Rajababu @ Rajanna

16 Aug 2018

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE: PEDDAPURAM.

Present: Smt. A.Anitha, Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate. Thursday, the 16th day of August, 2018. C.C.No.43/2015 Between:

The Inspector of Police

Peddapuram Circle...... Complainant

Vs.

1. Achanta Rajabu @ Rajanna, S/o Sriharirao, Age: 45 years, Caste: Kapu, China Brahmadevam village, Peddapuram Mandal.

2. Achanta Manikyam, W/o Rajababu @ Rajanna, Caste: Kapu, China Brahmadevam village, Peddapuram Mandal.

3. Achanta Sesharao, S/o Gurrayya, Age: 25 years, Caste: Kapu, China Brahmadevam village, Peddapuram Mandal.

4. Achanta Venkateswararao @ Venkanna, S/o Veerabhadram, Age: 29 years, Caste: Kapu, Car driver, China Brahmadevam village, Peddapuram Mandal.

5. Akula Ramakrishna, S/o Apparao, Age: 50 years, Caste: Kapu, G.Medapadu village, Samalkot Mandal. …. Accused 1 to 5.

This case having come up for hearing before me on 14-08-2018 in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri Sk.Vallibabu, Advocate for the accused 1 to 5 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The accused 1 to 5 are tried for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 447, 365 and 506 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, (herein after referred as the I.P.C for brevity).

2.The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that L.W.1 Batchala Raju is resident of Valuthimmapuram village of Peddapuram mandal. L.W.1 Batchala Raju along with L.W.2 Pilli Rajarao and L.W.3 Chilakapati Suryaprakash took the agricultural land situated in C.B.Devam village of Peddapuram Mandal, in an extent of Ac.8.56 cents from L.W.6 Pantham Sridurga Bhavani and L.W.7 Samarla

Venkatalakshmi Rangarao for lease and cultivating the same since two years.

While so, on 23-12-2013 at about 10:00 p.m, when L.W.1 Batchala Raju, L.W.2 Pilli

Rajarao and L.W.3 Chilakapati Suryaprakash along with coolies L.W.4 Gortha China

Katayya and L.W.5 Jonnakanti Adinarayana were present in the thatched hut (Makam shed) existing in the said land, A1 to A5 and some others armed with stout sticks and trespassed into the leased land, went to the said thatched hut called L.W.1 Batchala Raju in abusive language to come out the makam shed and when L.W.1 Batchala Raju came out, A1 further abused L.W.1 Batchala Raju in

2

filthy language and questioned as to why L.W.1 Batchala Raju came from Valu

Thimmapuram and cultivating the disputed land even though he warned L.W.1

Batchala Raju previously not to attend the cultivation in the said land and so questioning, A1 threatened L.W.1 Batchala Raju to kill L.W.1 Batchala Raju by hacking with knife on the pretext that L.W.1 Batchala Raju filed cases agaisnt him and so threatening, A1 encouraged to push L.W.1 Batchala Raju into the car and

A1beat L.W.1 Batchala Raju with hands and kicked with legs on his chest, while A3 to A5 beat L.W.1 Batchala Raju with hands indiscriminately and pushed into the car forcibly and A2 slapped L.W.1 Batchala Raju questioning as to why he filed cases against A1. On seeing the same, L.W.2 Pilli Rajarao, L.W.3 Chilakapati Surya

Prakash, L.W.4 Gortha China Katayya and L.W.5 Jonnakanti Adinarayana when tried to rescue L.W.1 Batchala Raju, the accused pushed them forcibly by abusing in filthy language and abducted L.W.1 Batchala Raju, L.W.1 Batchala Raju suspecting that the accused may kill him on the way, requested the accused to permit him to pass urinals and when the accused stopped the car, L.W.1 Batchala Raju got down the car and escaped. On that, L.W.1 Batchala Raju presented a report to police and L.W.18 B.Anjaneyulu, the sub-inspector of police registered the same as first information report in Cr.No.293/2013 for the offences punishabvle under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 447, 365 and 506 r/w 149 of the I.P.C. After completion of entire investigation, L.W.19, B.Siva Krishna, the sub-inspector of police filed the charge sheet against the accused 1 to 5 for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 447, 365 and 506 r/w 149 of the I.P.C.

3.After perusing the material on record, the case is taken on file for the offences punishable sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 447, 365 and 506 r/w 149 of the

I.P.C against A1 to A5.

4.On appearance of A1 to A5, copies of case documents are furnished to A1 to A5 under section 207 Cr.P.C, (herein after referred as Criminal Procedure Code for brevity).

5.Subsequently, A1 to A5 are examined under section 251 Cr.P.C explaining the substance of accusation for the offences punishable sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 447, 365 and 506 r/w 149 of the I.P.C, in Telugu, to which A1 to A5 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

6.In the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and the Exs.P1 and P2 are marked. As the prime witness did not support the case of prosecution and in such circumstance, the examination of other witnesses would not serve any purpose, the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is permitted to give up examination of L.Ws.2 to 19 and prosecution evidence is closed. As there is no incriminating evidence against A1t o A5, the examination of A1 to A5 under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for

A1 to A5 and perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on record.

9.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A5 for the offences punishable sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 447, 365 and 506 r/w 149 of the I.P.C, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. Point for determination:

The defacto complainant examined as P.W.1 testified that at about two years ago, he took the land of L.W.6 Pantham Sridurga Bhavani on lease and cultivating the same, that during that period at noon hours, while he was in the said filed, eight unknown persons attacked him, damaged the trees in that field and threatened him for taking the said land on lease and that he went to the police station and the police obtained his Ex.P1 signature on report. P.W.1 went even t o the extent of denying the contents of the report that has set the criminal law into action and deposed that he was never examined by the police. Although the reason for P.W.1 not supporting the case of the prosecution is crystal clear from the admission by P.W.1 that he compromised with A1 to A5 and the statement of P.W.1 recorded by the investigating officer in the course of investigation is marked as the

Ex.P2 , the fact that remains is that no cogent and inspiring evidence has come on record to believe the case of prosecution that A1 to A5 committed acts attracting the charges leveled against them. Hence, the only finding that can be arrived at is that the prosecution failed to prove that A1 to A5 committed acts attracting the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 447, 365 and 506 r/w 149 of the I.P.C. As a consequence the court is of the finding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A1 to A5 for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 447, 365 and 506 r/w 149 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, the point is

4

determined.

12. In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 447, 365 and 506 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and are accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of A1 to A5 shall stand cancelled.

Typed to dictation to Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 16th day of August, 2018.

ADDL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

PEDDAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W.1: 14-08-2018 : Batchala Raju For defence: Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : 24-12-2013: Signature of P.W.1 on the report. Ex.P2 : 24-12-2013: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 For Defence : Nil.

AJFCM.

5 CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:: PEDDAPURAM::

PRESENT: Smt. A. Anitha, Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate. Thursday, the 16th day of August, 2018

C.C.No.43/2015

Date of Offence:23-12-2013 Complaint:24-12-2013 Appearance of accused:22-11-2017 Arrest of the accused 30-12-2013

Released on bail:10-01-2014

Commencement of trial:14-08-2018

Closure of trial:14-08-2018

Sentence/Order:16-08-2018

Reasons for delay:Accused summons pending since 07-04-2015 and copies furnished to the accused on 22- 11-2017 and also non production of witnesses.

Name of the complainant:The Inspector of Police Peddapuram Circle.

Name of the accused:1. Achanta Rajabu @ Rajanna, S/o Sriharirao, Age: 45 years, Caste: Kapu, China Brahmadevam village, Peddapuram Mandal.

2. Achanta Manikyam, W/o Rajababu @ Rajanna, Caste: Kapu, China Brahmadevam village, Peddapuram Mandal.

3. Achanta Sesharao, S/o Gurrayya, Age: 25 years, Caste: Kapu, China Brahmadevam village, Peddapuram Mandal.

4. Achanta Venkateswararao @ Venkanna, S/o Veerabhadram, Age: 29 years, Caste: Kapu, Car driver, China Brahmadevam village, Peddapuram Mandal.

5. Akula Ramakrishna, S/o Apparao, Age: 50 years, Caste: Kapu, G.Medapadu village, Samalkot Mandal.

Offence:under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 447, 365 and 506 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

Plea of the accused :A1 to A5 pleaded not guilty.

Finding:A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 447, 365 and 506 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

Sentence:In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 447, 365 and 506 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and are accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of A1 to A5 shall stand cancelled.

Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Peddapuram.

6

Copy submitted to the Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

CC/255/2018 Acquitted

Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Appikoda Maridayya

20 Aug 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE ::

PEDDAPURAM::

PRESENT: Smt. A. Anitha, Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate. Monday, the 20thday of August, 2018.

CALENDER CASE NO.255/2018

Between

The State., rep by the S.H.O.,

Prohibition and Excise Police station, Peddapuram.….. Complainant

Vs.

Appikonda Maridayya,

S/o Satyam, Age: 52 years,

Caste: Settibalija,

Jaggampeta village and mandal. ….. Accused.

This case having come up for hearing before me on 16-08-2018 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri

P.Sugunarao, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The accused is tried for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of the

Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, (herein after referred as the A.P. Excuse Act for brevity).

2. The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that on 11-09-2017 at about 8:00 p.m., while L.W.1, G.Venkatalakshmi, prohibition and excise inspector, along with her staff, including L.W.2 K.Ramachandrarao and L.W.3

V.V.Ramanarao, prohibition and excise constables, were patrolling for prohibition and excise offences, and by the time they reached near the accused shop situated in Jaggampeta village limits of Jaggampeta Mandal, found the accused under suspicious circumstances carrying 180 ml. liquor bottles eleven in number, six Men’s club classic whisky, one Officers choice reserve whisky and four Every day whisky. On query, the accused revealed his identity and stated that he purchased the eleven liquor bottles of 180 ml. from unknown persons to sell it for profit. On that, L.W.1, G.Venkatalakshmi, prohibition and excise inspector, informed the accused that it is an offence under the A.P.Excise Act and arrested the accused, besides seizing the eleven liquor bottles. Further,

L.W.1, G.Venkatalakshmi, prohibition and excise inspector, sealed all the bottles and affixed identity slips on the bottles vide the special report drafted at the place of offence. On the basis of the special report, L.W.4, P.S.Rambabu, prohibition and excise sub-inspector, Peddapuram, registered as first information report in Cr.No.342/2017 and forwarded the sample for chemical analysis. The chemical examiner analyzed sample and placing reliance on the chemical analysis report that the samples contain Indian made liquor, and after completion of entire investigation, L.W.4 P.S.Rambabu, prohibition and excise sub-inspector, Peddapuram, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act.

3. The case is taken on file for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents are furnished to the accused under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code, (herein after referred as the Cr.P.C for brevity).

5. Subsequently, the accused is examined, explaining the charge framed under section 240 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and the

Exs.P1 to P4 are marked, besides the material objects M.Os.1 to 11.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence against him that has come on record through the prosecution witnesses, which the accused denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused and perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on record.

9.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. Point for determination:

The prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused examined P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.1 testified that on 11-09-2017 at about 8:00 p.m, while she was proceeding on raid along with L.W.2 K.Ramachandrarao and L.W.3

B.V.Ramanarao were reached the shop of the accused at Jaggampeta, they found the accused in possession of eleven 180 ml. liquor bottles, six of Mens club whisky, one of Officers choice reserve whisky and four of Every day whisky, that P.W.1 herself seized them vide the Ex.P1 and obtained the signature of the accused on the slips affixed to the M.Os.1 to 11 and that subsequently P.W.2 took further investigation in this case. Corroborating P.W.1,

P.W.2 deposed that he registered the Ex.P1 as Ex.P2 and after receipt of the

Ex.P4 expert opinion, he filed the charge sheet. In the course of cross- examination, P.W.1 admitting that the alleged place where he caught the accused is accessible to public, denied the suggestions that the accused never committed the alleged offence. When admittedly the alleged scene of offence is accessible to public and the alleged time of alleged offence being at 8:00 p.m, and not odd hours, there appears every possibility of availability of civilians at the alleged scene of offence. But, no independent witness other than the complainant personnel is examined.

11.Although P.W.1 deposed that he deputed L.W.2 K.Ramachandrarao, a constable for securing the presence of mediators, neither the said constable is examined nor any document is filed to the effect of asking any third party to act as mediator or refusal of that third party to act so. Thus, except the self serving testimony of complainant men, no independent witness is examined as to seizure of the alleged contraband the M.Os.1 to 11, from the accused.

Hence, in the absence of any corroborative evidence from independent source as to the recovery of the alleged Liquor bottles from the possession of the accused, the Court do not find it safe to conclude affirmatively on the basis of the self serving testimonies of complainant men that the accused committed the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act. As a consequence, the Court is of the finding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act, beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is determined.

12.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and is accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The material objects M.Os.1 to 11 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the personal assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 20th day of August, 2018.

Sd/- A.Anitha,

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution : P.W.1 : 01-08-2018: G.Venkatalakshmi, Excise Inspector.

P.W.2 : 09-08-2018: P.S.Rambabu, Excise Sub Inspector.

For Defence :None.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution :

Ex. P1 : 11-09-2017: Special Report

Ex. P2 : 11-09-2017: Original FIR in Cr.No.342/2017 of Excise

Station, Peddapuram.

Ex. P3 : 11-09-2017: Letter of advice

Ex. P4 : 22-11-2017: Chemical analysis report.

For Defence : Nil.

Material Objects Marked

M.Os.1 to 6 : Mens club classic whisky bottles 180 ml each.

M.O.7: Officers choice reserve whisky bottle 180 ml.

M.O.8 to 11 : Every day whisky bottles 180 ml. each.

Sd/- A.Anitha,

A.J.F.C.M.

//TRUE COPY//

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

PEDDAPURAM.

Present: Smt. A.Anitha, Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Monday, the 20th day of August, 2018.

CALENDER CASE NO.255/2018

Date of Offence: 11-09-2017 Complaint:11-09-2017 Appearance of accused:14-06-2018 Arrest of the accused : 11-09-2017 Released on bail: 18-09-2017 Commencement of trial:01-08-2018 Closure of trial:09-08-2018 Sentence/Order:20-08-2018 Reasons for delay: No delay. Name of the complainant:The station house officer, Prohibition and Excise police station, Peddapuram.

Name of the accused:Appikonda Maridayya, S/o Satyam, Age: 52 years, Caste: Settibalija, Jaggampeta village and mandal. Offence:under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty.

Finding: The Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

Sentence :In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and is accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The material objects M.Os.1 to 11 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Peddapuram. Copy submitted to the Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

CC/257/2018 Acquitted

Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Bugatha Nukaraju

20 Aug 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: PEDDAPURAM::

PRESENT: Smt. A. Anitha, Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate. Monday, the 20th day of August, 2018.

CALENDER CASE NO.257/2018

Between The State., rep by the S.H.O.,

Prohibition and Excise Police station, Peddapuram.….. Complainant

Vs.

Bugatha Nukaraju, S/o Gurrayya, Age: 48 years, Caste: Naga vamsam, Gandepalli village,

Gandepalli Mandal. ….. Accused.

This case having come up for hearing before me on 16-08-2018 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri M.Rambabu, Legal aid counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The accused is tried for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of the

Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, (herein after referred as the A.P. Excise Act for brevity).

2. The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that on 24-01-2017 at about 6:00 p.m., while L.W.1, P.N.Subrahmanyam, prohibition and excise sub-inspector, along with his staff, including L.W.2 G.V.V.S.N.Murthy, prohibition and excise constable, were patrolling for prohibition and excise offences, and by the time they reached near auto junction at Singarampalem road in Gandepalli village limits, found the accused under suspicious circumstances carrying 180 ml. liquor bottles eleven in number, out of them seven are Officers choice reserve whisky and four are Men’s club fine whisky. On query, the accused revealed his identity and stated that he purchased the eleven liquor bottles of 180 ml. from unknown persons to sell it for profit. On that, L.W.1,

P.N.Subrahmanyam, prohibition and excise sub-inspector, informed the accused that it is an offence under the A.P.Excise Act and arrested the accused, besides seizing the nine liquor bottles. Further, L.W.1, P.N.Subrahmanyam, prohibition and excise sub- inspector, sealed all the bottles and affixed identity slips on the bottles vide the special report drafted at the place of offence. On the basis of the special report, L.W.1,

P.N.Subrahmanyam, prohibition and excise sub-inspector, Peddapuram, registered as 2 first information report in Cr.No.38/2017 and forwarded the sample for chemical analysis. The chemical examiner analyzed sample and placing reliance on the chemical analysis report that the samples contain Indian made liquor and after completion of entire investigation, L.W.1, P.N.Subrahmanyam, prohibition and excise sub-inspector,

Peddapuram, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act.

3.The case is taken on file for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents are furnished to the accused under section 207 Criminal procedure code, (herein after referred as the

Cr.P.C for brevity).

5. Subsequently, the accused is examined, explaining the charge framed under section 240 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and the Exs.P1 to P4 are marked, besides the material objects M.Os.1 to 11.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused and perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on record.

9.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. Point for determination:

The only witness examined by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, is P.W.1. P.W.1 testified that 24-01-2017 at about 6:00 p.m, while he was 3 proceeding on raid along with L.W.2 G.V.V.S.N.Murthy and two other constables reached near auto junction at Gandepalli village, they found the accused in possession of eleven liquor bottles, seven of officers choice reserve whisky and four of Men’s club fine whisky liquor bottles, that P.W.1 himself seized them vide the Ex.P1 and obtained the signature of the accused on the slips affixed to the M.Os.1 to 11, that he registered the Ex.P1 as Ex.P2 and that subsequently after receipt of the Ex.P4 expert opinion, he filed the charge sheet. In the course of cross-examination, P.W.1 admitting that the place where he caught the accused is busy area, denied the suggestion that the accused never committed the alleged offence. When admittedly the alleged scene of offence is busy area and the alleged time of alleged offence being at 6:00 p.m, and not odd hours, there appears every possibility of availability of civilians at the alleged scene of offence. But, no independent witness other than the complainant personnel is examined.

11.Although P.W.1 deposed that he deputed L.W.2, G.V.V.S.N.Murthy, a constable for securing the presence of mediators, neither the said constable is examined nor any document is filed to the effect of asking any third party to act as mediator or refusal of that third party to act so. Thus, except the self serving testimony of complainant men, no independent witness is examined as to seizure of the alleged contraband the

M.Os.1 to 11, from the accused. Hence, in the absence of any corroborative evidence from independent source as to the recovery of the alleged liquor bottles from the possession of the accused, the court do not find it safe to conclude affirmatively on the basis of the self serving testimonies of complainant men that the accused committed the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act. As a consequence, the court is of the finding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is determined.

12.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and is accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The material objects M.Os.1 to 11 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the personal assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 20th day of August, 2018.

Sd/- A.Anitha,

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution :

P.W.1 : 09-08-2018: P.N.Subrahmanyam, Excise Sub Inspector. For Defense :None. Exhibits marked For Prosecution : Ex. P1 : 24-01-2017: Special Report Ex. P2 : 24-01-2017: Original FIR in Cr.No.38/2017 of Excise Station, Peddapuram. Ex. P3 : 24-01-2017: Letter of advice Ex. P4 : 25-02-2017: Chemical analysis report. For Defense : Nil. Material Objects Marked

M.Os.1 to 7: Officers choice reserve whisky bottles 180 ml. each

M.Os.8 to11: Men’s club fine whisky bottles 180 ml. each

Sd/- A.Anitha,

A.J.F.C.M.

//TRUE COPY//

AJFCM, PEDDAPURAM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

PEDDAPURAM.

Present: Smt. A.Anitha, Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Monday, the 20th day of August, 2018.

CALENDER CASE NO.257/2018

Date of Offence: 24-01-2017 Complaint:24-01-2017 Appearance of accused:15-06-2018 Arrest of the accused : 24-01-2017 Released on bail: 26-01-2017 Commencement of trial:09-08-2018 Closure of trial:09-08-2018 Sentence/Order:20-08-2018 Reasons for delay: No delay. Name of the complainant:The station house officer, Prohibition and Excise police station, Peddapuram.

Name of the accused:Bugatha Nukaraju, S/o Gurrayya, Age: 48 years, Caste: Naga vamsam, Gandepalli village, Gandepalli Mandal.

Offence:under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty.

Finding: The Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

Sd/- A.Anitha,

Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Peddapuram.

Copy submitted to the Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

//TRUE COPY// 6

AJFCM, PEDDAPURAM.

CC/251/2017 Acquitted

S.I. Of police vs Devarapalli Suribabu

21 Aug 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE: PEDDAPURAM.

Present: Smt. A.Anitha, Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Tuesday, the 21st day of August, 2018 C.C.No.251/2017 Between:

State: The Sub- Inspector of Police,

Gandepalli Police Station. ...Complainant

Vs.

Devarapalli Suribabu, S/o Rayudu, Age: 30 years, Caste: Kapu, Uppalapadu village, Gandepalli Mandal. ….Accused

This case having come up for hearing before me on 20-08-2018 in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri P.Sugunarao, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The accused is tried for the offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian

Penal Code, (herein after referred as I.P.C for brevity).

2.The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that L.W.1 Grandhi

Satyanarayana is resident of Uppalapadu village of Gandepalli Mandal. On the night of 28/29-12-2015 at about 12:30 a.m, when L.W.1 Grandhi Satyanarayana was present at the house of L.W.4 Kola Rambabu, the accused asked L.W.1 Grandhi

Satyanarayana to provide liquor for his consumption. Then L.W.1 Grandhi

Satyanarayana advised the accused to attend the welfare of his wife and children properly by working hard and not to neglect them. On that, the accused grew wild against L.W.1 Grandhi Satyanarayana, abused L.W.1 Grandhi Satyanarayana in filthy language and beat L.W.1 Grandhi Satyanarayana with a stick on his head and caused bleeding head injury. On seeing the incident, L.W.4 Kola Rambabu admonished the accused and informed the matter to L.W.2 Grandhi Srinu through phone. On knowing the same, L.W.2 rushed to the spot and took L.W.1 Grandhi Satyanarayana to the police station and L.W.1 Grandhi Satyanarayana presented a report to the police and

L.W.10 R.Jabez Paul, the Assistant sub-inspector of police registered the same as first information report in Cr.No.200/2015 for the offence under section 324 of the I.P.C.

After receiving the wound certificate of L.W.1 Grandhi Satyanarayana as the injuries are grievous in nature, L.W.11, N.Rajani Kumar, the sub-inspector of police altered the section of law from 324 of the I.P.C to section 326 of the I.P.C and after completion of entire investigation, L.W.11, N.Rajani Kumar, the sub-inspector of police filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 326 of the I.P.C.

3.After perusing the material on record, the case is taken on file for the offence punishable under sections 326 of the I.P.C against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents are furnished to the accused under section 207 Cr.P.C, (herein after referred as Criminal Procedure Code for brevity).

5.Subsequently, the accused is examined explaining the charge framed under section 240 Cr.P.C, for the offence punishable under section 324 of the I.P.C, in Telugu, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and the Exs.P1 and P2 are marked. As the prime witness did not support the case of prosecution and in such circumstance, the examination of other witnesses would not serve any purpose, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is permitted to give up examination of L.Ws.2 to 11 and prosecution evidence is closed. As there is no incriminating evidence against the Accused, the examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused and perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on record.

8.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 326 of the I.P.C, beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. Point for determination:

The defacto-complainant examined as P.W.1 testified that at about two years ago at about 8 O’ clock during night hours, some person beat with a stick on his head, resulting in bleeding injury, that immediately he was taken to the police station and that in the police station he had put the Ex.P1, his signature on a drafted paper, but he does not now its contents. Further, P.W.1 went even to the extent of denying the contents of the report that has set the criminal law into motion and that he was never examined by the police. Although, the reason for P.W.1 not supporting the case of the prosecution is crystal clear from his admission that he compromised with the accused and the statement of P.W.1 recorded by the investigating officer in the course of investigation is marked as Ex.P2, the fact that remains is that no cogent and inspiring evidence has come on record to believe the case of prosecution that the accused committed acts attracting the charge leveled against him. Hence, the only finding that can be arrived at is that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused committed act attracting the offence punishable under section 326 of the I.P.C. As a consequence, the court is of the finding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 326 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, the point is determined.

10.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and is accordingly acquitted under section 248(1)

Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked non valuable property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal period. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of the appeal period.

Typed to dictation by my personal assistant, corrected and pronounced by me on 21st day of August, 2018.

Sd/- A.Anitha,

ADDL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE

PEDDAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: P.W.1: 20-08-2018 : Grandhi Satyanarayana

For defence : Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: 29-12-2015 : Signature of P.W.1 on the report. Ex.P2: 29-12-2015 : 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.1

For Defence: Nil.

Sd/- A.Anitha,

AJFCM. //TRUE COPY//

AJFCM, PEDDAPURAM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

PEDDAPURAM.

Present: Smt. A.Anitha, Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Tuesday, the 21st day of August, 2018 CALENDER CASE NO.251/2017 Date of Offence:28/29-12-2015 Complaint:29-12-2015 Appearance of accused:13-07-2017 Arrest of the accused : 04-01-2016 Released on bail: 04-01-2016 Commencement of trial:20-08-2018 Closure of trial:20-08-2018 Sentence/Order:21-08-2018 Reasons for delay: Due to non production of witnesses Name of the :The Sub- Inspector of Police, complainantGandepalli Police Station.

Name of the accused:Devarapalli Suribabu, S/o Rayudu, Age: 30 years, Caste: Kapu, Uppalapadu village, Gandepalli Mandal.

Offence:under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code

Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty. Finding: The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

Sentence :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and is accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked non valuable property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal period. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of the appeal period.

Sd/- A.Anitha,

Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Peddapuram. Copy submitted to the Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram. //TRUE COPY//

AJFCM, PEDDAPURAM.

OS/109/2016

Polina Satyanarayana vs Kammila Subbarao

01 Oct 2016

HE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIC dges

UNIOH CIVIL JUDGE. RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present SmtA Anitha.

Additional Junior Civil Judge, lualamahendravaram,

AC) Prl. Junlor CivIl Judge, Ralamahendravaram

Saturday, the 1" day of october, 201b

0.5.No.109/2016

Su

BglweeV Plaintiff

okagatydnarayana

And

Defendant Kammila Subba Rao This suit having come on 22-9-2016 for hearing before me In the presence of Sri JV. Subbarao, Advocate for the pluintiff and the delendant set exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having sto0d over for consideration till this day, this court made the following

UDG MENI

The suit is filed for recovery of an amount of RS.2,30,925/- on the foot of a promissory note. The averments of the plaint in brief are that on 4-2-2013, the defendant 2. borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintif to meet agricultural expenses and poultry business, and agreeing to repay the same together with interest at the rate of Rs.1.50 per cent per month, executed the suit promissory ade by the plaintiff, the defendant issued a note on the even date. On demands cheque bearing No.101078 of Union Bank of India for Rs.1,00,000/- on 8-4-2014 in favour of plaintiff towards part satisfaction of the debt. But, on presentation of

before the State Bank of India, A.P.P. Mills Branch,

the said cheque Rajamahendravaram for collection, the same was dishonoured by the Union Bank of India with an endorsement, "Insufficient funds" on 11-4-2014. On that, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 5-5-2014 through his counsel to the defendant calling upon him to pay the amount covered under the cheque and the defendant having come to know the contents of the said notice returned the same. In consequence, the plaintiff filed complaint under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act against the defendant on the file of Ill Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram and the same is pending. As the

debt is undischarged, the plaintiff is cstrained to file the suit for recovery of the

amount covered under the suit promissory note

The defendant though got ed his vakalat, did not choose to file the

written statement within time, resulting in setting him exparte on 13-6-2016.

Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled for

recovery of the sult claim and if so, to what relief?

The plaintiff to substantiate his claim, examined himself as PWiand got

marked the Exs A.1 and A.2

Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the evidence,

oral and documentary, on record

7. POINT

W.l testified that on 4-22013. the defendant borrowed an amount or

NS,S0.000/ and agreeing to repay the same with interest at the id te

ps., per cent per month, executed the Ex.A.1, and despite repedled

demands. the defendant failed to pay the amount. The testimony of Pw.1 coupled with the Exs.A.1 and A 2. which remained totally unchallenged and without any anomalies apparent from the face of it, substantially prove the case of Pw.1 that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on 4-2-2013 and executed the Ex.A.1 agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, but despite repeated demands, though issued a cheque, the same was dishonoured, and the liability is unliquidated. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit claim. As to subsequent interest. pendente lite and future, as the purpose of borrowing the amount is for poultry business, besides agricultural expenses, the court having regard to inflation and decline of the value of rupee in the economy with the passage of time, finds it just and reasonable to grant interest on the principal amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit tillrealization. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8. In the light of the finding of this court that the plaintiff proved his claim for the suit amount, the suit has to be decreed. 9 In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.2,30,925/- and the plaintiff is entitled for

3 erest on the principal amount of nS.1,50,000/- at the rate of 6% p.a. from the

date of filing of the suit till realization.

Typed to my dictation by the

the open court this the 1" dav of the open court this the 1s day of October, 201 enographer, corrected and pronounced by me in

CA. ANITHA)

Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

(FAC) Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Rajamahendravaram.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

None

P.W.1: Polina Satyanarayana

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1/Promissory note dt.4-2-2013

Ex.A.2/0ffice copy of legal notice dt.5-5-2014

For Defendant: Nil

A. ANITHA)

A.J.C.J.

(FAC) PJ.CJ.

Order Record 2,295 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/251/2017	S.I. Of police vs Devarapalli Suribabu	21 Aug 2018	Judgement	Acquitted
MC/8/2016	Sunkara Uma Maheswari vs Sunkara Vishnu	21 Aug 2018	Other	—
CC/255/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Appikoda Maridayya	20 Aug 2018	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/257/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Bugatha Nukaraju	20 Aug 2018	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/43/2015	SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE vs Achanta Rajababu @ Rajanna	16 Aug 2018	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/239/2018	Prohibition and Excise S.I, Peddapuram vs Pithani Suribabu	16 Aug 2018	Judgement	—
CC/245/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram station vs Vijjana Kumari	16 Aug 2018	Judgement	—
CC/397/2018	The prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Peddapuram vs Kurukuri Naga Murali Krishna	16 Aug 2018	Judgement	—
CC/421/2018	S.I of police, Peddpuram PS vs Gondesi Suresh kumar@ Francis	16 Aug 2018	Other	—
CC/100343/2014	INSPECTOR OF POLICE vs Pinapala Venkatesh	16 Aug 2018	Judgement	—
PRC/2/2018	S.I of police, Jaggampeta PS vs Pendem Yesubabu	16 Aug 2018	Other	—
CC/256/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Thalari Balaraju	14 Aug 2018	Judgement	—
CC/100365/2014	SUB-INSPECTOOR OF POLICE vs Pala Narayana murthy	13 Aug 2018	Judgement	—
CC/100668/2016	Sub-Inspector of police vs NImmagadda Srinivas @ Srinu	13 Aug 2018	Judgement	—
MC/1/2018	Vipparthi Nagamani vs Vipparthi Apparao	13 Aug 2018	Order	—
PRC/15/2017	Inspector of police, Jaggampeta circle vs Gollavilli Sartyanarayana@ Annavaram	10 Aug 2018	Other	—
CC/275/2014	SHO Rangampeta vs Thipirisetti Sreenu	08 Aug 2018	Judgement	—
CC/660/2015	State- Represented by Officer in charge vs Komarthi Jyothi	08 Aug 2018	Judgement	—
CC/100329/2014	SUB-INSPECTOOR OF POLICE vs Medasani Rambabu	08 Aug 2018	Judgement	—
CC/100655/2013	Officer in charge vs Korangi Uma Mahesh @ uma	08 Aug 2018	Other	—
PRC/24/2017	C.I of police, Peddapuram PS vs Grandhi Siva Suryadeep@Siva	08 Aug 2018	Other	—
CC/248/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram station vs Andru Suvarnaraju	07 Aug 2018	Judgement	—
CC/415/2015	State Sub inspector of police vs Eapu Sathibabu	07 Aug 2018	Judgement	—
CC/100458/2012	State Sub Inspector of Police vs THONDA MOGALALU	07 Aug 2018	Other	—
CC/101045/2013	Ms.Asmitha Microfin Limited vs Koduri Madavi	07 Aug 2018	Other	—
CC/242/2018	Prohibition and Excise S.I, Peddapuram vs Godatha Rambabu	06 Aug 2018	Judgement	—
CC/254/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Chithrada Shankar	06 Aug 2018	Judgement	—
CC/490/2015	State represented by sub inspector of police vs Vejendla Nageswararao	06 Aug 2018	Other	—
CC/506/2015	State represented by inspector of police vs Penta venkatarao alias Venkataraju	06 Aug 2018	Judgement	—
PRC/1/2018	S.I of police, Jaggampeta PS vs Bondada Veerababu	06 Aug 2018	Order	—
CC/247/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram station vs Dhara Srinivas	03 Aug 2018	Judgement	—
CC/100107/2013	Inspector of Police vs Allada Devendranadh	03 Aug 2018	Judgement	—
CC/100585/2012	INSPECTOR OF POLICE vs NARLA NAGA MANI	03 Aug 2018	Judgement	—
PRC/6/2018	C.I of police, Peddapuram PS vs Gadi Narayanamurthy@Babulu	03 Aug 2018	Order	—
CC/100099/2014	State - Sub Inspector of Police vs Tadepalli Dorababu	02 Aug 2018	Judgement	—
CC/100009/2014	Inspector of Police vs Domberi Thirupathi	01 Aug 2018	Judgement	—
CC/101000/2013	Ms.Asmitha Microfin Limited vs Bikkina Kasi Viswanadh	01 Aug 2018	Other	—
PRC/4/2018	S.I of police, Gandepalli PS vs Bikkina Krishna	01 Aug 2018	Order	—
CC/271/2016	sub inspector of police vs Ganisetti Krishna	31 Jul 2018	Judgement	—
CC/100315/2012	Inspector of Police vs Pampana Suribabu @ Veera Venkata SuryaNarayanaMurt	31 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/100432/2016	Proh and Excise Inspector vs Peetha Satyanarayana @ Sathibabu	31 Jul 2018	Judgement	—
PRC/8/2018	S.I of police, Jaggampeta PS vs Jinnala Apparao@Anil	31 Jul 2018	Order	—
CC/100169/2013	SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE vs Muppidi China Sathibabu @ Sathibabu @ yera Sathiyy	25 Jul 2018	Judgement	—
PRC/5/2018	S.I of police, Gandepalli PS vs Mallabathula Venkataraju@Srinu@Chinnana	25 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/500/2015	State represented by sub inspector of police vs Seerapu Suribabu Reddi	24 Jul 2018	Judgement	—
CC/258/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Yadala Manga	20 Jul 2018	Judgement	—
CC/672/2015	Ms Krishi Rasayan Exports private limited vs Ms sree Lakshmi venkateswara agencies	20 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/100351/2013	Sub Inspector of police vs Vsvadisela srinu	20 Jul 2018	Judgement	—
MC/34/2015	Hanumandta Madhavi vs Hanumandla Durga Prasad	20 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/405/2015	Sub-inspector of police vs Kurukuri Padmaraju	19 Jul 2018	Judgement	—
CC/8/2016	Nekkanti Ram Prasad vs Lakamana Uma Maheswara Rao	18 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/99/2015	Kondamuri Rajendra prasad vs Thammana lakshmi kalyani	18 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/238/2014	Sub-Inspector of Police vs Narla Satyanarayana	17 Jul 2018	Judgement	—
CC/176/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Peetha Nukaraju	16 Jul 2018	Judgement	—
CC/412/2017	Sub Inspector of police, Peddapuram PS vs Khandavalli Daveedu	16 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/81/2018	Prohibition and Excise station, Peddapuram vs Ubha Srinu	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/96/2018	Prohibition and Excise vs Geddada China Arjuna Rao	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/102/2018	Prohibition and Excise vs GeddadaChina Arjuna Rao	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/261/2018	S.I of police, Rangampeta PS vs Yalla Rambabu	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/287/2018	Phobition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Koripalli Durga parasad	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/288/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Vemu Venkatarao	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/289/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Ketha Appalaraju	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/290/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Pilli Rambabu	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/291/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Sammangi Veerababu	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/292/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Dammu Durga	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/293/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Palika Pantamma@Chinni	14 Jul 2018	Order	—
CC/294/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Ganja Srinivasarao@Srinu	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/295/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Vadlapatri Nagamani	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/296/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Bathina Sivayya	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/298/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Anchuri Lakshmi	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/304/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Pampana Venkatalakshmi	14 Jul 2018	Order	—
CC/305/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Bakka Suribabu	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/306/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Vasamsetti veeravenkaramana	14 Jul 2018	Order	—
CC/307/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Bakka Suribabu	14 Jul 2018	Order	—
CC/308/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Ketha Srinu	14 Jul 2018	Order	—
CC/309/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Penkey Nageswarrao	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/310/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Batla Gangaraju	14 Jul 2018	Order	—
CC/311/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Pilli Satyanarayana	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/312/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Kanapureddy Venkateswarrao	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/313/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Chintapalli Pentaya	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/315/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Vadisela veerraju	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/316/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Chintakula Veerababu	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/317/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Penkey Venkatalakshmi	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/318/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Masimukkala Vijaykumar	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/319/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Kota veerraju	14 Jul 2018	Order	—
CC/320/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Senapathi Govindaraju	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/321/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Pilli Venkateswarrao	14 Jul 2018	Order	—
CC/323/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Chittiboina Trimurtulu	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/324/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Cheepuri Dhanaraju	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/326/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Bugatha Nookaraju	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/327/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Pallapati Srinu	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/328/2018	Prohibition and Excise SI, Peddapuram vs Devapati RAjababu	14 Jul 2018	Order	—
CC/331/2018	Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector vs Mande Krishna	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/332/2018	Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector vs Medisetti Suribabu	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/333/2018	Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector vs Geti Chandrayya	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/334/2018	Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector vs Doddi Appanna	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/336/2018	Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector vs Kosetti Srinu	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/337/2018	Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector vs Chikkala Rambabu	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/338/2018	Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector vs Perimala Srinu	14 Jul 2018	Other	—
CC/339/2018	Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector vs Pilli Nagamani	14 Jul 2018	Other	—

Showing 100 of 2,295 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Aug 2018		40
Jul 2018		135
Jun 2018		29
May 2018		37
Apr 2018		44
Mar 2018		59
Feb 2018		155
Jan 2018		69
Dec 2017		206
Nov 2017		57
Oct 2017		61
Sep 2017		230

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has A.Anitha handled?

A.Anitha has handled 2535 court orders since 2014 at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Peddapuram (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 50 orders per month.

What types of cases does A.Anitha hear?

Based on available records, A.Anitha primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Peddapuram (Taluka).

Where is A.Anitha currently posted?

A.Anitha is posted as Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate,Peddapuram at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Peddapuram (Taluka), East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by A.Anitha available online?

Yes. 14 judgments by A.Anitha are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does A.Anitha dispose cases?

A.Anitha disposes approximately 50 cases per month, based on 2535 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Peddapuram (Taluka).

Since when is A.Anitha serving?

A.Anitha has been serving at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Peddapuram (Taluka) since 2014.

Case Types

CC 51%

OS 32%

EP 12%

PRC 2%

MC 2%

DVC 1%

A 1%

RCC 0%

Posting History

May 2017 — Aug 2018

Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate,Peddapuram · 1,404 orders
Nov 2015 — Oct 2016

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. · 326 orders
Jun 2014 — May 2017

I ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. · 805 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 4

Other Judges at this Court

Lakkoju Devi Ratna Kumari

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram

3,288 orders

G. Bullemma

Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate,Peddapuram

2,900 orders

Dr.K.Deepa Dyva Krupa

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,Peddapuram

960 orders

N.Saraswathi

VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Kakinada

8 orders

← View all judges at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Peddapuram (Taluka)