Sri. A. Venkateshwar Reddy

ORIGINAL

PAaelSCNo.42/I3 -:INTHECOURTOFTHEI-ADDL.SESSIONSJUDGE::

ADILABAD.

Present:SriA.VenkateshwaraReddy, I-Addl.SessionsJudge,Adilabad.

Wednesday,the37dayofApril,2043.

S.C.No.42/20i3No.42/2

(OncommittalbySriK.AjeshKumar,B.Com.,LL.B.,Additional

JudicialMagistrate ofFirstClass,Nirmalbyhisorder,dated8..20i2

inPRC.92/20i2incrimeNo.90/2042ofP.S.Khanapur.)

Nameofthecomplainant: CircleInspectorofPolice,Khanapur.|

Nameanddescription ofthe|:GodiselaBheemaiahS/oDubbaiah,

accused.|aged60years,Caste:Mala,Occ:| |VillageServant,R/oBavapurvillage! ||ofKhanapurMandal.

|Offenceschargedunder|302IPC.

‘sectionbean7TE

[2९३of theaccused| Notguilty.| Findingofthecourt.::Noeguilty.| | ||vIntheresult,Ifindaccusednot)

Sentence/Order.

|guiltyfortheoffencepunishable,

|undersection302of IndianPenal.

|Codeandheisacquittedofthe ||sameU/sec.235(4)Criminal ProcedureCode. TheSuperintendentofDistict \Jail,Adilabad,isherebydirectedto releasetheaccusedforthwith,ifnot ‘requiredinanyothercase |Mos.ito7shallbedestroyed ||।onexpiryofappealtime|

||

\Nameofthecounselfor:

SriB.Praveen,Addl.Public | prosecutionSn?=||Prosecutor Nameofthecounselfor):SriN.Rajeshwarrao,Advocatefor) accused=____|accused.(SB)

Thiscasehasbeen finallyheard on7,4,2073inthepresenceofSri B.Praveen,Addi.PublicProsecutor for the Stateand SriN.RajeshwarRao, Advocate(StateBrief) foraccusedandhavingstoodforconsiderationtill thisday,thiscourtdeliveredthefollowing:--

JUDGMENT

_ere

:335~TheStaterepresentedbyCircleInspectorofpolice,Khanapur

“hasfiledthis,caseagainsttheaccusedallegingthathehas

:4

committedtheoffencepunishableundersection302ofIndianPenal

pel

हCodeandthe:sdmewastakenonfileundersamesectionoflawbythe

»learnedAdditionalJudicialMagistrateofFirstClassatNirmal

ORIGINAL

2SC]00.42/3

2)Brieffacts:५है

TheaccusedisresidentofBavapurvillageofKhanapurMandal, workingasvillageservant.ThedeceasedNarsavvawashiswife.

Theywereblessedwiththreesonsandallofthemaremarriedand theystartedlivingseparatelyfromtheirparents.Theirelderson

Rajannadied.ThedeceasedwasamemberofDwakraGroupoftheir villageandabout45dayspriortotheincident,sheobtainedaloanof

Rs.20,670/-fromDwakraGroupandgaveittoherhusband(accused) forconstructionofahouse,buttheaccusedaddictedtobadvices, spentanamountofRs.0,000/-outofit.Onthatthedeceased questionedtheaccusedforspendingsuchhugeamountforhisbad vices.Thenhepickedupaquarrelwiththedeceasedandbeather severelyandalsoboregrudgeagainsther,waitingforanopportunity toeliminateher.Whilesoon4.8.20i2atabout3p.m.,whenthe accusedwasreprimandedbythedeceasedandtheirsonafter returningbacktohome,heagainpickedupaquarrelwiththe deceasedandatabout4p.m.,asperhisplan,hekilledthedeceased withanaxebycausingseverebleedinginjuriesonherbacksideand overneckandthroat.ThisincidentwaswitnessedbyPW2minor daughterofdeceasedRajanna.OntheinformationgivenbyPW2,

PWigaveareporttothepolice,thiscasewasregisteredand investigatedinto.Inthecourseofinvestigation,effectedthearrestof accused,his’confessionstatementwasrecorded.6iCrPCstatements ofPws.to3werealsorecorded.Theincriminatingmaterialwassent .,Hyderabad,whereintheexperthasdetectedhumanbloodand

58909omtheincriminatingmaterial.Investigationdiscloses

E५atesChak

jithattheaccusedHascommittedthesaidoffencepunishableunder

-ySection.302ofIndian’PenalCode.

४i( «५6learnedwAdditionalJudicialMagistrateofFirstClass,Nirmal५54परj eex)i जे:gety८

afterfollowingaterequiredU/Secs.207and209ofCriminal

aees:२09६ rs

ORIGINAL

3SCNo.42/I3 2xProcedureCodecommittedthecaseoftheaccusedtothecourt० learnedPrincipalDistrictandSessionsJudgevidePRC.No.92/20i2.

ThiscasewasmadeovertothiscourtvideSC.42/203fordisposalas perlaw.

4.Thatonappearanceoftheaccused,anduponperusalofthe record,hewasenquiredwithhisrequirementforlegalaidcounsel, accordinglyherequestedforappointmentofStateBriefcounsel.Sri

N.RajeshwarRao,AdvocateisappointedasStateBriefcounselto defendtheaccused.Afterhearingonbothsidesandonperusalof record,achargefortheoffencepunishableU/Sec.302ofIndianPenal

Codewasframedagainstaccused,readoverandexplainedtohimin hisvernacularlanguage,hepleadednotguiltyandclaimstobetried.

5.Duringthetrial,onbehalfoftheprosecution,inall,Pws.4toi areexaminedand8).7-toEx.P-4andMos.ito7aremarkedand reportedclosureofprosecutionevidence.

6.Thereupontheaccusedwasexaminedundersection3i3

CriminalProcedureCodwithregardtoincriminatingevidenceand circumstancesfoundagainsthim.Hedeniedthesaidevidenceand reportedhehasnodefenceevidence.

eyHeardonbothsides.

8.Nowthepointstoodforconsiderationis:

-<-~~~Mihethertheprosecutionisabletoestablishtheguilt ofthe.accusedfortheoffencepunishableU/sec.302ofIPC

“hasallegedbeyondreasonabledoubts?

हies|%

The'caseiftheprosecutionisthatthedeceasedisthewifeof

Xeaccused:and’theybelongtoBavapurvillage.Pws.i,4andLate

SaaahetSS

TaPy

ORIGINAL

4SCNo.42/I3

Rajannaaretheirsons.About45dayspriortothedeathofdeceased,* shehasobtainedanamountofRs.20,670/-asaloanfromDwakra

Groupandgaveittotheaccusedforconstructionofahouse,buthe misusedthesaidamountandspentawayRs.0,000/-outofitforhis badvices.ThedeceasedinformedthesametoPwi,hereprimanded theaccused.Sincethentheaccuseddecidedtoeliminatethe deceased.Accordinglyonii.8.20i2atabout4p.m.,hekilledher withMO.2axe.

i0.Preciselytheprosecutionhasreliedonthefollowingevidenceto bringhometheguiltoftheaccused..

ll.Pw.iisthedefactocomplainantandsecondsonofthedeceased

andaccused.PW2isthemincrgantofdebeasedRajanna.PW3isthe

widowofRajanna,whoistheeldestsonofdeceasedandaccused.

PW4isanothersonofdeceasedandaccused.PW5isthe

Photographer.PW6isthehouseownerwheretheallegedincident tookplace.PW7isthepanchwitnessforinquestandCDF.Pws.8and 9arethepanchwitnessesforconfessionandseizure.PW40isthe doctor,whereasPW4istheinvestigationofficer.

i2.PWihastestifiedthatthedeceasedNarsavvadiedon 4.8.20i2.Thaton0.8.29i2thedeceasedcametohimand डेदGets: informedhimthatshe:get-anamountofRs.20,670/-asDwakragroup memberandshegaveittotheaccused,buthespentanamountof

,000/fromitforhisbadvices.Onthisagainon4.8.2042at

\

about3“p.m.,”thedeceasedandaccusedcametohim,thenhe

jconvincedbothofthemandsentthemawayandonthesameday

‘between4.to5p.m.,hecametoknowthattheaccusedkilledthe

iJ eceasedwithanaxe.Accordinglyhegaveareporttothepoliceasin

y

ORIGINAL

2)SCNo.42/l(@)

Ex.P-landhis64CrPC statementwas alsorecordedasinEx.P-2)

Butinthecrossexamination,thiswitnesshastotallysupportedthe defenceversionstatingthathedoesnotknowwhetherhismotherhas gotthesaidamountas Dwakragroupmemberandthatonthedateof deathofhismother,hewasnotinthehouse and thedeceasedhas not complainedanythingtohimagainsttheaccused and onlyhaving noticed the deceasedinapoolofblood,hegaveareportto the police asinEx.P-iandthathisstatementundersection64CrPCwasgiven only atthe instance of policeandthathewastutoredbythepolice to giveevidencebeforethecourt.

i3.PW2iscitedaseyewitnesstotheoccurrenceofincident.She hascorroboratedthetestimonyofPWiandalsostatedthatshewent intotheportionofhergrandparentsandfoundtheaccusedhacking thedeceasedwithaxeonherneckandrunningaway.Shealso noticedthedeadbodyofdeceasedinapoolofblood.Heri64CrPC statementismarkedasEx.P-3.Butinthecrossexamination,this witnessdidnotsupporttheprosecutioncaseandclearlyadmittedthat shedidnotwitnesstheincidentandshedidnotinformtoPWiorher motherandherstatementundersection64CrPCwastutoredbythe police,shewasnotexaminedbythepoliceandthatherstatement

beforethecourtisaproductoftutoringbythepolice.Shehas

positivelyadmittedthattheaccuseddidnotkillthedeceasedandheis “not-responsibleforherdeath.

Prod~4.>PW3isthemotherofPW2.Thoughinherevidenceinchief

॥ik=a3

rroboratedthetestimonyofPW2,inthecross }basDom3/hk idLadHi४ \“+examination/thjswitnessstatedthatonthedateofdeathofdeceased, f२३JCJ

ORIGINAL

6SCNo.42/3 memberofDwakragroupmemberandthattheaccusedisnotsuch'eal habitofconsumingliquorandthedeceasedandaccusedledhappy maritallife,shewasnotexaminedbythepoliceandherstatement undersection64ofCrPCisaproductoftutoringbythepolice.She haspositivelystatedthattheaccusedisnotresponsibleforthedeath ofdeceased.

i5.PW4istheyoungersonofdeceasedandaccused.Thoughinhis evidenceinchiefexamination,corroboratedthetestimonyofPws.ito 3,inthecrossexaminationitisadmittedbyhimthat theaccusedis notresponsibleforthedeathofhismother,policedidnotexamine him,hehasnotstatedtothepoliceagainsthisfatherandhisfatheris notinthehabitofconsumingliquor.Thiswitnessstatedthathewas not inthevillageat thetimeof deathofhismotherandhedoesnot knowhowshedied.

i6.Pws.ito4areclosebloodrelativesofthedeceasedandaccused beingsons,daughterinlawandgranddaughter.Thoughinitiallythey havestatedagainsttheaccused,inthecrossexamination,theyhave clearlytestifiedthattheaccusedisnotresponsibleforthedeathof deceased.PW2istheonlyeyewitnesscitedandexaminedbythe

Prosecution.Sheisachildwitness.Aftersatisfyingaboutherability tounderstandthequestionsandtogiverationalanswers,Oathwas administered.Butinthecrossexaminationshehassupportedthe defenceversion.Thusonaconjointreadingoftheoralevidenceof

PWSb7t0=4_inchiefexaminationandincrossexamination,noneofthe

a

nesséshavesupportedtheprosecutioncaseandinthecross

{गणtheynavestatedthattheaccusedisnothavinganybad

vifp

+eS.andheisnovresponsibleforthedeathofdeceased

ORIGINAL

Bsa.7NemA)

i*.7.PWSisthePhotographer,whoobtainedphotographsofthedead r bodyofdeceased.PW6isthehouseowner,wheretheallegedincident occurred.Boththewitnesseshavenotstatedanythingagainstthe accused.PW6haspositivelystatedthathedoesnotknowthefactsof thecase,hewastutoredbythepolicetogiveevidenceinchief examinationandhedoesnotknowhowthedeceaseddied.

i8.PW7isthepanchwitnessforinquestandCDF.Thiswitnesshas statedthatbythetimehewenttoseethedeadbodyofthedeceased, policeconductedEx.P-7inquestpanchanamaandEx.P-8CDFandhis signatureswereobtainedandhedoesnotknowthecontentsofEx.P-7 andP-8.Pws.8and9arethepanchwitnessesfortheconfessionof accusedandseizureofMO.axe,butboththewitnessesturned hostileandtheydidnotsupportthecaseofprosecution.Thoughthey werecrossexaminedatlength,nothingiselicitedinfavourofthe prosecutiontoholdthathewasdeposingfalseundertheinfluenceof theaccused.PW40isthedoctor,heldautopsyoverthedeadbodyof thedeceasedandissuedEx.P-0PMEreport.Itispertinenttonote thatthedeathandcauseofdeathisnotindisputeandnowthepoint isonlywhethertheaccusedistheassaultofthedeceased.Inthat viewofthematter,inmyconsideredopinion,theevidenceofPWi0 andtherecitalsinEx.P-0aresufficienttoestablishthedeathand causeofdeathofthedeceased.

PWistheinvestigationofficer.HereceivedEx.P-from?५४॥१,

ee

:&977thenCIofpolice.Itistestifiedbythiswitnessthatheisteredthiscaseandsinceitisagravecrime,handedoverCDfile

Sa‘

cay

hasassisted.to,LWi8infurtherinvestigation,heldinquestoverthe *{¢gk<क4७०

‘deadbodyofthedeceasedandphotographedthesame,itwasreferred

Ny६०PME.©ThiswitnessfurtherstatedthatLW48filedarequisitionfor

“alLtey

ORIGINAL

8SC]90.42/3

recording64CrPCstatementsofwitnesses,accordinglythesoe

statementsofPws.ito3asunderEx.P2toP-4arerecorded.Hehas alsostatedabouttheconfessionofaccusedinthepresenceofLWi8.

ItispertinenttonotethatPWiihasonlyregisteredthiscase,issued

FIRasinEx.P-i.Thoughitistestifiedbyhimthatheassistedthe investigationofficer,thereisnorecordtothateffectexceptabald assertionofPWi.ItisLWi8,whorecordedthestatementsof witnesses,heldinquestoverthedeadbodyandCDF,effectedthe arrestofaccused,recordedhisconfessionstatementandalsogavea requisitionforrecordingstatementsofPws.ito3undersection64of

CrPC.,butthiswitnessLWi8isnotexaminedstatingthathewasheld inBandobust.FurtherboththepanchwitnessesPws.8and9didnot supportthecaseofprosecutionwithregardtotheconfessionof accusedunderEx.P-3andseizureofMO.axe,MO.2Dhothiand

MO.3fromthepossessionoftheaccused.Thusnonexaminationof

LW8thethenCIofpoliceisalsofataltotheprosecutioncase.

20.Section299ofIPCdefinestheoffenceofculpablehomicide.

Therearetwoclassesofculpablehomicides,i)Culpablehomicide amountingtomurderknownassimplymurder,ii)culpablehomicide notamountingtomurder.

2i.Section300ofIPCdealswithmurder,butitdoesnotdefine murderandonlysetsoutcircumstanceswhenculpablehomicide amountstomurderandwhenitdoesnotamountstomurder.

AChiminalintentionandknowledgeisnecessaryingredientofboth.The

«difference.lies.inthedegreeofcriminality.Inmurderthereisgreater

feisstheintentionorknowledgethaninculpablehomicidenotamountingto

icol4> itotsa \‘Murder,°महाisanaggravatedformofculpablehomicide.

ORIGINAL

9SCNo.42/] yeInthepresentcase,?2७४।gaveareportbasedontheinformation giventohimbyPws.2and3,butboththewitnessesturnedhostile andtheydidnotsupportthecaseofprosecution.PW4isnotadirect eyewitnesstotheoccurrenceofincident.Eventoestablishthe motivepartagainsttheaccused,PWididnotsupportthecaseof prosecution.ExceptPW2,thereisnootherdirecteyewitnessestothe occurrenceofincidentandthiswitnessPW2turnedhostileanddidnot supportthecaseofprosecution.Therefore,theprosecutionhasto necessarilyrelyonthecircumstantialevidenceonly.

23.Inacasebasedoncircumstantialevidence,itissettledlawthat thecircumstances,fromwhichtheconclusionoftheguiltisdrawn, mustbeconclusiveinnature.Moreover,allthecircumstancesshould becompleteandthereshouldnotbeanygapleftinthechainof evidence.Therefore,theprovedcircumstancesmustbeconsistent onlywiththehypothesisoftheguiltoftheaccusedandtotal inconsistencywithhisinnocence.Thecircumstancesfromwhichan inferenceoftheguiltoftheaccusedissoughttobedrawnmustbe cogentlyandconfirmlyestablishedandthereshouldbeadefinite tendency,unerringlypointingouttowardstheguiltoftheaccused.

24.TheHon'bleApexCourtinBaldevSinghVs.StateofHaryana 2009(i)ALD(Crl.)95SChasreiterated the wellsettledprinciplesas conditionprecedentbeforepassingaconvictionbasedon circumstantialevidence.

aS

THreforeanalyzingtheevidenceinthebackgroundsetout

aboveand‘tested\nesame on thetouchstonesof theprincipleslaid

‘\by 'Horble2reCourt,intheabovedecisiontheinescapable

|a

)conéltision‘that‘Coluldbe arrivedisthattheprosecutionisnot ableto

कदvef

ORIGINAL

0SCNo.42/I3 establishtheunbrokenchainofcircumstancesanditcannotbesaid.* withallhumanpossibilitythatthecrimeisonlycommittedbythe accusedandnoneelse.ThereforeIamnotinclinedtorelyonthe circumstanceswhicharenotconsistenttoestablishthehypothesisof theguiltoftheaccusedexcludingthehypothesisofhisinnocence.

26.Thoughitisnearlyimpossibleinanycriminaltrialofthepresent daytoprovealltheelementswithscientificprecision,theburdenof proofisalwaysontheprosecutiontoproveitscasebeyondreasonable doubtonthebasisofacceptableevidence.Itisnodoubtamatterof recordthatsuchaghastlymurdershouldnotgounpunishedand theremayalsobeanelementoftruthinthecaseofprosecution againsttheaccused.Consideredasawholethecaseofprosecution maybetrue,butinbetween“maybetrue”and“mustbetrue”,there isinevitablyalongdistancetotravelandwholeofthisdistancemust becoveredbytheprosecutionbylegal,reliableandunimpeachable evidencebeforetheaccusedcanbeconvicted.Butinthecaseon handthereisnosuchconvincingreliableandacceptableevidence.The -circumstancesandthesuspicionraisedagainsttheaccusedcannotbe reliedupontobaseaconvictionagainstthem.

27.Therefore,inthebackdrop oftheabovelegalposition,andin thefactualmatrixdiscussedabove,Iamoftheconsideredopinion thatthecircumstancesreliedonbytheprosecutionareneitherfully establishednorconsistentwiththehypothesisoftheguiltofaccused

Sxudingthehypothesisofhisinnocence.Therefore,theaccusedis

entitled.for.benefitofreasonabledoubt.Accordinglythepointis /‘ /,»answeredinfavoukoftheaccusedandagainsttheprosecutionholding ‘thattheprosecutionhasmiserablyfailedtoestablish:theguiltofthe

accusedfor.the34punishableundersection302ofIndianPenal

ORIGINAL

SCNo.42/(5)

ll

428.

Intheresult,Ifindtheaccusednotguiltyfortheoffence punishableundersection302ofIndianPenalCodeandheisacquitted forthesameundersection235(i)ofCriminalProcedureCode.

TheSuperintendentofDistrictJail,Adilabadisherebydirectedto releasetheaccusedforthwith,ifnotrequiredinanyothercase.

Mos.ito 7shallbedestroyedonexpiryofappealtime.

DictatedtoPersonalAssistant,transcribedandtypedbyhim.

Correctedandpronouncedbymeintheopen courtonthisthe3”dayof

April,2073,I Addl.Le

SESSIONS

ADILABA

APPENDIXOFEVIDENCE

WITNESSESEXAMINED

For Prosecution:ForDefence:

PWiGodiselaLaxman/LW2 Pw2GodiselaAkhila/LW2None Pw3GodiselaLaxmi/LW3 Pw4GodiselaSrinivas/LW4 PW5J.PhaninderKumar/LW7 PW6GodiselaChinaVenkati/LW8 PW7DasariGundaMallaiah/LWi4 २७8Marampalli50०॥9/-५3 Pw9GadguNarsaiah/LW4 २७00 00.८५GopalaKrishna PWit=J.Ramu,STofpolice.

EXHIBITSMARKED

&«0Complaintby?॥॥! Ex.P264CrPCstatementof१७४!NIL Ex.P364Cr.P.CstatementofPW2 Ex.P464CrPCstatementofPw3 Ex.P5(5)photosbyPW5 Ex.P6CDofEx.P-5byPWS Ex.RZ_InquestpanchanamabyPw7

KL.Ex.P8“COEbyPW7

FSeEx.P9-.SignatureofPW8onconfessionand fi’-seizure'panchanama

ee:Ex.P0

|ExPies

mete

\~EXxPI3

0छद4

ORIGINAL.

I2SCNo.42/3

me

A MaterialObjectsmarked:_

l)Axe

2)Dhoti

3)Banian

4)Controlearth

5)Bloodstainedearth -6)Bloodstainedblouse BloodstainedSaree

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE FAMILY COURT-CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS COURT: ADILABAD.

Present: Sri. A. Venkateshwar Reddy I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad. FAC: Judge, Family Court-Cum-IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Thursday the 4th day of April, 2013

OP 16/2012

Between:-

Smt. Kotnak Saroja Address – W/o kotnak Sudhakar, Age.33 years, Occ.Assistant Accounts officer, in ITDA, Utnoor, R/o.H.No.1-03-115, Shanthi nagar, Adilabad. ….Petitioner // And //

1) Kotnak Sudhakar Address – S/o late k.Bheem Rao, Age.38 years , Occ: Un-employee, R/o utnoor by the side of MRO office, Utnoor presently residing at Asifabad. R/o Marsakola Tirupathi Teacher, Near H.No. 2-163211,Narsimha Traders Cement and Steel shop, Komram Bheem Chowrastha , Asifabad.

.…Respondent

This Petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri. P. Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri., Advocate for respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

ORDER

This is a petition filed under section 7 of the Family Court Act, 1984 r/w Rules 5 {D} {ii} of A.P. Family Courts Rules, 2005 by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband, seeking for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce

dated 14.05.2011. Today both the parties present, heard they have agreed for living

together amicably as wife and husband. They have also filed a joint memo to the effect that the disputes are amicably resolved between them out side the court. To that effect endorsement is also made in the petition. Accordingly in view of joint memo and also in view of endorsement made by the petitioner stating that she is not pressing the petition. This FCOP is dismissed as not pressed in view of settlement out side the court.

Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4 th day of April, 2013.

FAC:Judge, Family Court-Cum-IV Addl.

District and Sessions Judge,

Adilabad.

Dt: 01-04-2013

CMA/1/20111 / 1

TSFC010002192011

IN THE COURT OF THE Judge Family Court-cum-IV

Addl. District and Sessions Judge:

Present: Judge Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, ____ day, this the __ day of ____, 20__

CMA/1/2011

Between:

Sirpur Paper Mills Limited, Address: a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office 5-9-2211, 1st Floor, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad-63, Represented by its Chief Administrative Officer, Sri Ch.Seetharamaiah.

… Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

Ms. FLSmidth Private Ltd., Address: Formerly FLD Smith Minerals Pvt. Ltd., FLSmidth House, 34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam-Rajiv Gandhi Salai-, Chennai-603101.

2:Sri Justice M.Jagannadha Rao-Retired

Age: 0 Occupation : 3-6-281B. 2nd Floor Above State Bank of India Himayat Nagar Hyderabad.

3:Sri Justice T.Somsasundaram Age: 0 Occupation : 11686

Dt: 01-04-2013

CMA/1/20111 / 1 15th Street H-Block Annanagar West Chennai-600 040.

4:Sri Justice D.Dasaratharama Reddi-Retired

Age: 0 Occupation : Sri Ramachandra-164 Srinagar Colony Hyderabad.-500073 … Defendent/Respondent Counsel for Petitioner : C.Sudhakar Reddy and S.Rajan,Advocate Counsel for Respondent : Goli Thirupati,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

This case is suomoto advanced today. As per the orders of Prl. District and Sessions Court, Adilabad vide Proc.Dis.No.1409/2013,

dated 18-03-2013 on the point of territorial jurisdiction the CMA is

transfer to the court of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge {FTC}, Asifabad. Take notice on request Under Order VII Rule 10-A CPC that the parties shall appeal before that court on 18-04-2013. Registry shall transmit the records duly indexed to that court.

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 01-04-2013

Judge Family Court-cum-IV

Addl. District and Sessions

Judge

(Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)

Dt: 01-04-2013

AS/11/20121 / 1

TSFC010001432012

IN THE COURT OF THE Judge Family Court-cum-IV

Addl. District and Sessions Judge:

Present: Judge Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, ____ day, this the __ day of ____, 20__

AS/11/2012

Between:

Ramkishore Soni Address: So.Satyanarayan Soni, Age.38 years, Occ.Business, Ro.H.No.1-3-144, Potti Sriramulu Chowrastha, Sirpur Kigaznagar, Dist.Adilabad.

… Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

Bandi Veera Goud Address: So.Malla Goud, Age.77 years, Occ.Business, Ro.H.No.1-2-226, Sirpur Kagaznagar, Dist.Adilabad.

2:Bandi Purushotham @ Purushotham Goud Age: 0 Occupation : So.Bandi Veera Goud Age.47 years Occ.Business Ro.H.No.1-2-226 Sirpur Kagaznagar Dist.Adilabad … Defendent/Respondent Counsel for Petitioner : Narendra R. Choudhari,Advocate Counsel for Respondent : Y.Vishnu Bhagwan,Advocate

Dt: 01-04-2013

AS/11/20121 / 1

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

This case is suomoto advanced today. As per the orders of Prl. District and Sessions Court, Adilabad vide Proc.Dis.No.1409/2013,

dated 18-03-2013 on the point of territorial jurisdiction the Appeal

Suit is transfer to the court of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge {FTC}, Asifabad. Take notice on request Under Order VII Rule 10-A CPC that the parties shall appeal before that court on 18-04-2013. Registry shall transmit the records duly indexed to that court.

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 01-04-2013

Judge Family Court-cum-IV

Addl. District and Sessions

Judge

(Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)

Dt: 21-11-2012

CRLMP.BAIL/100947/20121 / 1

TSAD000019032012

IN THE COURT OF THE Spl Judge for SCs STs Act

Cases:

Present: Spl Judge for SCs STs Act Cases, The 21st day of November, 2012

CRLMP.BAIL/100947/2012

Between:

A1. Korthe Nagesh Address: So. Rajaiah, Age 22 years, Caste. Koya, Occ. Coolie, Ro. Bibra Village, Mdl. Dahegaon, … Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

State of A.P. through P.S. Dahegaon Address: P.S. Dahegaon, Rep. by Publice Prosecutor, Adilabad.

… Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for Petitioner : K. Ajay Kumar,Advocate

Counsel for Respondent : Public Prosecutor,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

: Heard, Order pronounced in open court vide separate typed one. In the

Dt: 21-11-2012

CRLMP.BAIL/100947/20121 / 1 result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail on execution of personal bond for Rs. 10,000/- for like sum with two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned judicial magistrate of first class Sirpur -T with a condition to appear before the SHO of PS Dahegaon every sunday between 8 to 11 AM for a period of two months here in after.

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 21-11-2012 Spl Judge for SCs STs Act Cases (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)