Smt Ms. B. Deepti

I Addl JCJ cum JMFC

Kodangal, JCJ Court Complex · Vikarabad · Telangana

Smt Ms. B. Deepti, I Addl JCJ cum JMFC, is posted at Kodangal, JCJ Court Complex, Vikarabad, Telangana, India. 98 court orders on record since 2017. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, MC cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/174/2015 Acquitted

B. anjaneyuluH.c. 670 of Ps. Bomraspet mandal vs Hatkar balraj

27 Oct 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KODANGAL

Present: Smt. B. Deepthi., Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Court, Mahabubnagar FAC JMFC Kodangal.

Friday, this the 27th day of October, 2017

C.C. No.174 of 2015

Between: State: Sub Inspector of police, Bomraspet. Crime No. 137/2017. …Complainant AND Hatkar Balraj S/o. Balakistaiah, age 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Erupumalla village of Bomrasept Mandal. ….Accused

This case is coming on 13102017, before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri J. Gopal, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri. B. Prabhakar advocate for Accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following___

J U D G M E N T

The SubInspector, Bomraspet filed a case against the accused in

Cr. No. 137/2014 of his station alleging that accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968.

2.The case of prosecution, in brief, is that, on 17.12.2014 at about 7:00 pm, B. Anjaneyulu, H.C of Bomraspet as per the instruction of his officer along with PC 2468 and PC 2586, PC 880 and PC 2625 went to

Erupumalla village. While he was so going to Erupumalla village near the house of Hatkar Balraj, he found that illicit liquor was being sold at higher prices without licence outside the shop of Hatkar Balraj. It was alleged that then he along with PC No.2468 rushed to Erupumalla village and HC No. 670 secured presence of two respectable panchayathdars and then proceeded to the kirana shop of Balraj and HC 670 found on search that Balraj was selling illicitly distilled liquor in the premises of his Kirana shop. Then HC 670 seized one 1) Four bottles of knockout beer 2) Seven bottles of mini knockout beer 3) Five AC premium quarter bottles 4) Five Royal Gems whisky bottles 5) Two MC diet mate quarter bottles under cover of panchanama. Out of the said contraband 1) Two knockout beer bottles 2) Two Mini knock out beer bottles 3) Two AC

C.C. No.174 of 2015 Page 2 of 7 premium quarter bottles 4) Two Royal Gems quarter bottles 5) Two MC diet mate quarter bottles was separately taken as by affixing panch chits to send those bottles to FSL under cover of panchanama and after completion of panchanama the seized bottles were taken to PS on 17.12.2014 at 8:00 pm, Basing on the strength of panchanama PW4 registered a case in Cr.No. 137/2014 for the offence U/sec. 34 (a) of AP

Excised Act 1968 and he took up investigation. During the course of investigation PW4 examined and recorded the statement of PW1 at police station. Reportedly, the further investigation was done by LW7 G.

Raghavender SI of police Bomraspet. LW7 examined and recorded statements of LW2 S. Ramesh, LW3 Yadagiri. Thereafter LW7 served 41A Cr.PC notice on the accused. Thereafter LW7 forwarded the samples drawn under cover of panchanama to FSL. And after receipt of

CE report he laid charge sheet.

3.This Court took the cognizance of the offence U/Sec. 34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act against the Accused, on dt.2342015. On appearance of

Accused, copies of documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the

Cr.P.C. were furnished to him.

4.Accused was examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C., for which, he denied. A Charge framed U/Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined PWs1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. MO.1 to MO.5 were marked. Learned

APP had givenup the evidence of LW2 S. Ramesh, PC 880, LW3 B.

Yadagiri PC 2625 and LW7 Sri. Raghavender, SI of police, Bomraspet.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused was examined

U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, for which, he pleaded all such evidence is false and reported no defence.

7.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8.Now the point that arises for determination is___

Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of Accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond

C.C. No.174 of 2015 Page 3 of 7 all reasonable doubt?

9.Point: In order to establish its case, as already noted, prosecution has examined PWs1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. PW1 is panch witness for the seizure panchanama, PW2 and PW3 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence Cum Seizure Panchanama. PW4 is Ist Investigating Officer of the case. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are signatures of

PW2 and PW3 on scene of offencecumseizure panchanama. Ex.P3 is

FIR, Ex.P4 is seizure Panchanama and Ex.P5 is CE report. MO.1 is sample bottle of Knockout beer of 650 ml. MO.2 is mini Knockout beer,

MO.3 is AC premium whiskey, MO.4 is Rayal Gems whiskey and MO.5 is

MC diet mate whisky.

10.PW1 testified that on 17.12.2014, on the instructions of LW7 SI of police Bomraspet he along with LW2 Ramesh and LW3 Yadagiri proceeded to Erupumalla village along with LW6 HC 670. He testified that when he reached the house of Hatkar Balraj the accused fled away.

On seeing them accused fled away. He testified he called two pach witnesses that i.e., PW2 and PW3 and held search of premises and found 1) Two knockout beer bottles 2) Two Mini knock out beer bottles 3)

Two AC premium quarter bottles 4) Two Royal Gems quarter bottles 5)

Two MC diet mate quarter bottles and PW4 conducted seizure panchama in the presence of PW2 and 3.

During cross examination he testified that on reliable information sale of IMFL bottles LW7 instructed them to search the house of accused, he testified that no duty passport was allotted to him to conducted the raid at the scene of offence. He testifies that on the same day of offence at about 8:00 pm his statement was recorded by LW7. He testified that he cannot say the names of neighbours of scene of offence.

He testified that the accused was running from Kirana shop house.

PW2 testified that police Bomraspet did not conduct any scene of offence cum seizure panchanama in his presence. He testified that at about 2 years back, police obtained his signature on white papers when he went to Grampanchayat office Erupumllla village. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW2 on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama.

PW3 testified that police Bomraspet did not conduct scene of offence cum seizure panchaama in his presence. At about 2 years b ack

C.C. No.174 of 2015 Page 4 of 7 police obtained his signature on white papers. However he admitted that the panchanama bears his signature vide Ex.P2. but he did not know the contents of panchanama.

PW4 testified that he has been working as HC Bomraspet. On 17.12.2014 at about 7:00 pm on reliable information he along with PW 1, LW2 S. Ramesh, LW3 Yadagiri went to Namdarpur village near the house of accused. He testified that the accused was found selling IML without licence. He testified that he secured presence of PW1 and 2 and seized the contraband. After he had taken two samples out of each brand and affixed panch chits in order to send them to FSL and he testified that one sample of each brand was deposited in court. He testified that on returning police station he suomoto registered a case in Cr.no.

137/2014 for the offence U/sec, 34 (a) of AP excise act and took up investigation. And he handed over case file to LW7 G. Raghavender SI of police Bomraspet and deposited the sample bottles before the court.

He testified that thereafter LW7 recorded statement of LW2 S. Ramesh and LW3 Yadagiri. He contended that LW7 issued 41A Cr.PC notice to the accused and after receipt of CE report he laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec. 34 (a) of AP Excise Act. Ex.P3 is FIR,

Ex.P4 is seizure panchanama, Ex.P5 is CE report. MO.1 is the knock out beer bottle, MO.2 is Mini knock out beer bottle, MO.3 is Ac premium bottle, MO.4 is Royal Gem whiskey bottle, MO.5 is MC died mate whiskey bottle.

During cross examination he testified that he had not filed any documents to show that the scene of offence is owned by the accused. He testified that he did not seize the licence of accused to run Kirana shop.

He testified that PW2 and 3 are not inhabitants of the locality of scene of offence.

On perusal of entire material evince available on record I find that the panch witnesses for seizure did not support the story of prosecution.

LW2 and LW3 who allegedly accompanied PW1 were not examined by the prosecution for the reasons better known. PW2 and PW3 are admittedly not inhabitants of the locality of scene of offence. Prosecution did not file any document to prove that the scene of offence was owned by the accused. Prosecution had not filed any proceeding the rest of

C.C. No.174 of 2015 Page 5 of 7 contraband was deposited with Dy. Commissioner of Proh. & Excise, therefore I am opinion that there is no material is on record in connect with accused with offence. Therefore in the light of discussion supra, therefore, I am opinion that it is not safe to believe act upon the sole testimony of PW1 who is police constable without independent corroborative evidence.

15.In addition, LW7 Investigating Officer did not attempt to transfer the case file to P&E, SHO, Kodangal, as the offence alleged attracts punishment under A.P Excise Act. It is the prime argument of counsel for defence that LW7 Sri. Raghavender, SI of police, Bomraspet is not having any authority under rule 3 of AP Excise (Power and Duties) Rules, 1972, to do investigation of the offence under AP Excise Act. At this stage, it is pertinent to re produce Rule 3 of AP Excise (Power and

Duties) Rules, 1972 for better understanding as hereunder.

Rule 3: Powers to arrest without warrant, to seize

articles liable for confiscation and to make searches:

(1) Any Excise Officer not below the rank of a SubInspector, any police officer of and above the rank of an Inspector and any officer of the Revenue Department of and above the rank of a Deputy Tahasildar having jurisidiction over the place may:

a) Arrest without warrant any person found committing an offence punishable under sections 34, 35, 36 or 37.

b) Seize and detain any excisable or other articles which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under the Act or any other law for the time being in force relting to excise revenue; and

c) Detain and search any person upon whom and any vessel, raft vehicle, animal, package, receptacle or covering in or upon which he may have reasonable cause to suspect any such article to be.

(2) The officers of the Government employed in the Revenue Department exerting the power under Section 53, shall however follow the procedure prescribed in Sections 59 and 60 and make over the case for investigation by an Excise Officer under sections 57 and 58 and for prosecution under section 61 of the Act.

From the above, it is crystal clear that the police officer below the rank of Inspector is not having any authority to do investigation of the offence under AP Excise Act.

C.C. No.174 of 2015 Page 6 of 7

The counsel for defence relied upon the ratio's laid down by the APEX court in:

K.Muhammed V/s K. Sukumaran reported in 2001 Crl.LJ 1664

& in Varkey V/s State of Kerla 1993 (I) KLT 72 “A division bench of Kerla High Court held the trial held by the

Sessions court on a compliant filed by an incompetent person

must be treated as nonest as it was done without jurisdiction.

Hence, the charge laid by CI of police who was incompetent to investigation and filed the charge sheet under the provisions of the Act has only to be treated as nonest”.

In State of M.P V/s Sriram Singh reported in 2000 Crl.LJ 1401

the APEX court held at page 1404 of Crl. L.J. that “Procedural delays and technologies of law should not be permitted to defeat the object sort to be achieved by the Act ….......... As the charge sheet had been laid by an incompetent person, it is liable to be quashed”.

16.As uniformly held by the APEX court in several cases and as per the ratio's laid down above, this court holds that when special

Investigating Agency, i.e., Excise Department is having exclusive authority to do investigation under AP Excise Act, the charge sheet filed by LW7 SI of police, Bomraspet is totally invalid and beyond his authority. As such, the charge sheet laid by LW7 ASI of police is considered to be nonest.

In the light of discussion supra I am inclined to extend benefit of doubt of accused.

19.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is accordingly acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months from today, as prescribed under Sec. 437A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 to MO.5 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the typist on my chamber system, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 27th day of October, 2017.

C.C. No.174 of 2015 Page 7 of 7

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KODANGAL

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1: K. Shyam Kumar. None. PW2: Akula Ramulu. PW3: B. Srinivas. PW4: Sri. Anjaneyulu, HC 670 of PS Bomraspet.

Documents Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Signature of PW2 Akula Ramulu, on Scene of offenceCum Seizure panchanama. Ex.P2: Signature of PW2 B. Srinivas, on Scene of OffenceCum Seizure panchanama. Ex.P3: First Information Report. Ex.P4: Seizure panchanama. Ex.P5: CE. Report.

For Defence: Nil

Material Objects Marked MO.1 is the knock out beer bottle. MO.2 is Mini knock out beer bottle. MO.3 is Ac premium bottle. MO.4 is Royal Gem whiskey bottle. MO.5 is MC died mate whiskey bottle.

JFCM

OS/51/2017

Balakistaiah Goud vs Vinjamuri Lalappa

27 Oct 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KODANGAL

Present: - Smt. B. Deepthi Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Proh. & Excise Court, Mahabubnagar FAC. JCJ Kodangal

Friday, this the 27th day of October, 2017

O.S. No.51 of 2017

Between: Balakistaiah Goud S/o. Narsaiah Goud @ Chinna Narsaiah, age 70 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Renivatla village of Maddur Mandal.

… Plaintiff.

And

1.Vinjamuri Lalappa S/o. V. Nagappa, age 42 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2.Vinjamuri Anjilappa S/o. Nagappa, age 40 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3. Vinjamuri Nagulu S/o. Nagappa, age 36 years,Occ: Agriculture, All R/o. Renivatla village of Maddur Mandal.

… Defendants

This suit has come up for final hearing on 20-10-2017 for disposal in the presence of Sri. A.V. Anand, advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants having received summons failed to appear before the court and was set exparte on dt.24-7-2017 and upon perusing the material on record the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The facts of the plaint or briefly stated as follows:-

1.The plaintiff contended that he is absolute owner and pattadar and possessor of Sy.No. 83/C admeasuring Ac.1-15 grts, situated in

Renivatla village of Maddur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District which is hereinafter called as suit scheduled property. He contended that originally the land stood in the name of father of plaintiff by name

Chinna Narsaiah. He contended that he filed CC copies of Pahanies for the fasli 1420 and 1421 dt. 8.6.2017, he also contended that his father

Chinna Narsiah died 6 years back and after his father is death the land was mutated in his name in the revenue records and after elaborate enquiry by revenue officials succession proceedings No.

ROR/B/387/2014 dt:10.6.2014 were issued. He also contended that he had filed the proceedings issued by revenue authorities. He contended that the plaintiff had been issued pattadar pass book and title deed for the suit schedule land by the revenue authorities. He went on to contend that he availed crop loan by depositing the original title deed.

O.S. No.51 of 2017Page 2 of 4

He contended he has been possession and enjoyment of suit land and to prove his claim he had filed form No.1-B ROR dt.08/6/2-17 CC of pahani for the fasli years 1422, 1423, 1424, 1425 and 1426 all dt.

8.6.2017.

2.Plaintiff averred that the defendant did not have any right or interest over the suit schedule property and defendants have land towards the western side of the suit schedule land. He alleged that on 6.6.2017 and on 7.6.2017 when the plaintiff was cleaning the suit land, the defendants obstructed the work and threatened the plaintiff not to clean the land. He contended that plaintiff could resist the attempt of the defendant with help of Kothagalla Chandrappa and Mala Kistappa and other villagers of Renivatla village. He contended that taking advantage of the old age of the plaintiff defendants are trying disposes plaintiff. He contended that plaintiff is entitled to the exclusive possession and enjoyment of suit scheduled land.

3.The defendants failed to enter appearance despite receipt of summons. Hence D-1 to D-3 were set exparte on 24.7.2017.

4.Now the point for consideration split whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against defendants and his men, servant, henchmen and gents.

5.Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and he examined on his behalf PW-2 . To prove his claim plaintiff relied on Ex.A-1 to A-10. Ex.A- 1 is CC of pahani for the fasli 1420 for Sy.No. 83/C, Ex.A-2 is CC of pahani for the fasli 1421 for the Sy No. 83/C, Ex.A-3 is CC of ROR,

dated 8.6.2017, Ex.A-4 is pattadar pass book of plaintiff, Ex.A-5 is CC of

pahani for the fasli year 1422 for Sy.No. 83/C, Ex.A-6 is CC of phani for fasli 1423 for Sy.No. 83/C, Ex.A-7 is CC of pahani for the fasli year 1424 for Sy.No. 83/C, Ex.A-8 is CC of pahani for the fasli year 1425 for Sy.No.

83/C, Ex.A-9 is CC of pahani of the fasli year 1426 for Sy.No. 83/C, A-10 is Certified copy issued by Tahasildar dt. 16.6. 2017.

6.PW-1 reiterated the contents of plaint in his examination in chief therefore I am the opinion that reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in lieu of examination in chief would be redundant.

7.PW-2 deposed that knew the plaintiff and the defendant and he

O.S. No.51 of 2017Page 3 of 4

also knew about the suit schedule land. He deposed that plaintiff is the pattadar and possessor of suit schedule land in Sy.No. 83/C ad measuring Ac. 1-15 gts. He contended that defendants have no rights in the suit schedule land and they are interfering with possession of plaintiff over suit schedule land. He deposed that on 6.6.2017 and on 7.6.2017 he had witnessed defendants interfering with possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule land and defendants threatened the plaintiff that they would disposes plaintiff. He deposed that he has witnessed the incident along with one Mala Kistappa and other villagers of Renivatla village.

8.It is the contention of plaintiff that he inherited the suit schedule land situated in Sy.No. 83/C to an extent of Ac. 1-15 gts which is situated in Renivatla village of Maddur Mandal from his father namely

Chinna Narsaiah. To prove his claim he relied on Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-10 on perusal of documents filed by the plaintiff i am of the opinion that as per Ex.A-1 i.e., CC of pahani for the fasli year 1420 the father of plaintiff is the pattadar and possessor of suit schedule land; as per

Ex.A-2 CC of pahani for the fasli year 1421 the father of plaintiff is the pattadar and possessor; as per Ex.A-3 which is CC of 1-B ROR the plaintiff is the pattadar of the suit schedule land and he acquired it by inheritance; Ex.A-4 is pattadar pass book of plaintiff which shows that plaintiff has land in Sy.No. 83/C to an extent of Ac. 1-15 gts and the plaintiff is owner of the land; as per Ex.A-5 which is CC of pahani for the fasli year 1422 the plaintiff is the owner of Sy/No. 83/C to an extent

Ac. 1-15 gts; as per Ex.A-6 CC of pahani for the fasli year 1423 plaintiff is the pattadar and possessor of Sy.No. 83/C to an extent Ac.

1-15 gts; as per Ex.A-7 CC of pahani for the fasli year 1424 plaintiff is pattadar and possessor of land to an extent Ac. 1-15 in Sy.No. 83/C; as per Ex.A-8 CC of pahani for the fasli year 1425 plaintiff is pattadar and possessor of land to an extent Ac. 1-15 in Sy.No. 83/C; as per Ex.A-9 is

CC of pahani for the fasli year 1426 plaintiff is pattadar and possessor of land to an extent Ac. 1-15 gts in Sy.No. 83/C; Ex.A-10 is Certificate issued by Tahasildar Maddur dt. 16.6.2017 the suit schedule land situated in the outskirts of Renivatla village in Sy.No. 83/C to extent of

Ac. 1-15 gts belongs to the plaintiff.

9.The light of discussion supra I am of the opinion that plaintiff proved his case that he is in possession of suit schedule property even

before the institution of the suit and has been in possession and

O.S. No.51 of 2017Page 4 of 4

enjoyment of suit schedule property. As there is no evidence on record which would rebut the evidence of plaintiff. I am of the considered opinion that as the evidence of PW-1 is left unchallenged and unrebutted. The plaintiff has proved that he is in settled possession property and he is entitled to the injunction against the defendant.

10.Therefore i direct defendant to restrain himself and his henchmen, agents, servants from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over suit schedule property i.e., land situated in Sy.No. 83/C to an extent Ac. 1-15 gts situated Renivatla village of

Maddur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

Typed to my dictation by the typist on my personal laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 27th day of October, 2017.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KODANGAL.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: PW-1: Balakistaiah Goud. None.

PW-2: Chandraiah.

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A-1 to A-10. Ex.A-1 is CC of pahani for the fasli 1420 for Sy.No. 83/C

Ex.A-2 is CC of pahani for the fasli 1421 for the Sy No. 83/C

Ex.A-3 is CC of ROR, dated 8.6.2017,

Ex.A-4 is pattadar pass book of plaintiff,

Ex.A-5 is CC of pahani for the fasli year 1422 for Sy.No. 83/C

Ex.A-6 is CC of phani for fasli 1423 for Sy.No. 83/C,

Ex.A-7 is CC of pahani for the fasli year 1424 for Sy.No. 83/C

Ex.A-8 is CC of pahani for the fasli year 1425 for Sy.No. 83/C

Ex.A-9 is CC of pahani of the fasli year 1426 for Sy.No. 83/C

A-10 is Certified copy issued by Tahasildar dt. 16.6. 2017.

For Defendant:- Nil.

JCJ

CC/228/2012 Acquitted

Uradi, Balaraj vs Gonela, Bandeiah

27 Oct 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KODANGAL

Present: - Smt. B. Deepthi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Proh. & Excise, Mahabubnagar, FAC, JMFC Kodangal

Friday, this the 27th day of October, 2017

CC. No. 228 of 2012

Between: State: Sub Inspector of Police, Kosgi. Crime No. 85 of 2012. …Complainant AND Gonela Bandaiah S/o. Narsaiah, age 32 years, Caste: SC Madiga, Occ: Driver of APSRTC, R/o. Gatsingapur village of Pargi Mandal.

... Accused

This case is coming on 20-10-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri J. Gopal, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri T. Karunkar Reddy, advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following__

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kosgi Police Station filed this case in

Crime. No. 85 of 2012 alleging that the accused had committed the offence punishable under Sections 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2.The conspectus of the case of prosecution is on 6.10.2012, at about 1:0 pm the defacto complainant U. Balraj lodged a report alleging that on 6.10.2012 at about 12:40 pm, he was proceeding on his motor bike with his mother namely Venkatamma in order to drop her vegetable in Market in Kosgi, It was alleged that while he was no proceeding to the market on the way near Ramalayam X road, one RTC bus bearing No. AP11Z 5166 came at high speed in rash (or) negligent manner and had hit his motor cycle, due to which his mother fell on the road and the front tyre of the bus ran over her head and she died on the spot. Basing on afore mentioned facts that was set out in the report LW-9 Ram Laxmaiah, ASI of police, registered a case in Cr.No.

85/2012 for the offence 304-A of IPC.

3.During the course of investigation, LW-9 P Rama Laxmaiah examined PW-1 to PW-4 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he visited scene of offence and conducted scene of offence pachanama and had drawn rough sketch in the presence of LW-5 K. Sattamma, LW- 6 M Venkataiah and thereafter conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of LW-5 and LW-6. Reportedly, thereafter he referred the body to Govt. Civil Hospital, Kodangal for postmortem examination.

Reportedly, LW-9 shifted Crime vehicle i.e, RTC bus fro m the scene and parked it in police station for safe custody. On 9.10.2012, LW-10 Mohd.

Munawar Shareef arrested the accused and sent him to Hon’ble Court for judicial custody. The Medical officer i.e., LW-7 Dr. Baswaraju held

PME over the dead body and certified that the death was due to “Shock with hemorrhage by fracture of upper occipital and mandiwal bone” due bus accident. Thereafter, LW-8 MVI Mahabubnagar inspected the vehicle and certified that the accident was not due to mechanical defect.

4.This Court took cognizance of the offence U/Sec. 304-A of IPC against accused, on 9-11-2012. On appearance of accused, copies of documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 were furnished to him.

5.Accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation levelled against him U/Sec.304-A of IPC, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined PW-1 to

PW-4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5.On 20.10.2017 learned APP had given up the evidence of LW-5 Kotha Sathyamma, LW-6 Madugu

Venkataiah, LW-7 Dr. Baswaraj CAS, Govt. Hospital, Kodangal, LW-8 Sri.

S. Chandra Shekar, MVi, LW-9 Sri. P. Ram Laxmaiah, ASI of police Kosgi,

LW-10 Sri. Md. Munawar Shareef, SI of police, Kosgi

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, no incriminating evidence appeared against accused, thus, examination as contemplated under section 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

8.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is_

Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of accused for the offences under Sec. 304-A of IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

10.Point: As already noted, to establish its case, prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. PW-1 is the

CC. No. 228 of 2012

3 defacto complainant and son of deceased. PW-2 to PW-4 are the eye witnesses. Ex.P1 is the report filed by PW-1. Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 are 161

Cr.PC statement of PW-1 to PW-4.

11. PW-1, son-eye witness testified that at about 5 years back, when he was coming along with deceased Venkatamma from Kosgi bustand on a bike, a bus which came in opposite direction had hit his motor bike and his mother fell down and she died on the spot. He testified that he sustained injuries to his right shoulder. He testified that he did not know the number of the bus which caused the accident and also the name of the driver of the bus. He testified that on suspicion he lodged a report against accused. Ex.P1 is the report Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.PC statement of witness.

12. PW-2 eye witness, deposed that he did not witness the accident and he did not know anything about the case. Ex.P3 is 161 Cr.PC statement of witness.

13. PW-3 testified that he did not witness the accident. Ex.P4 is 161

Cr.PC statement of witness

14. PW-4 testified that he did not witness the occurrence and he did not know the crime number and he did not know the name of the drive of crime vehicle. Ex.P5 is 161 Cr.Pc statement of witness.

15. To prove an offence under section 304-A of IPC it is imperative to prove that a person has caused death of another person by his rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide

16. On appreciation of entire material evidence available on record I find that PW-1 who took the deceased on his bike did not support the case of prosecution. PW-1 is allegedly the eye witness. PW-2 cited as eye witness did not support the case of prosecution, PW-3 and PW-4 had also not supported the case of prosecution as all the prosecution witnessed turned antagonistic the case of prosecution the learned App took leave of court to put those questions in the nature cross examination by virtue of sec. 154 Indian Evidence Act r/w 162 of Cr.PC.

Despite cross examination he could not elicit anything besides getting

Ex.P1 to P5 marked. On perusal of entire material evidence on record I did not find iota of incriminating evidence against accused, to believe that he death of decease. caused the by his rash or negligent driving.

In view of discussion supra I hold that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused 304-A of IPC..

17. In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence under

Section 304-A of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today as provided U/Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist in chamber computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 27th day of October, 2017.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KODANGAL

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:For Defence: PW-1: Smt. Uradi Balraj. None

PW-2: Smt.Vislavath Saritha

PW-3: Madugu Anjilaiah

PW-4: Putti Dasharath

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1 is the report filed by PW-1 Uradi Balraj.

Ex.P2 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1 Uradi Balraj.

Ex.P3 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2 Vislavath Saritha.

Ex.P4 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-3 Madugu Anjilaiah.

Ex.P5 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-4 Putti Dasharath.

For Defence: -Nil-

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

JMFC

CC/581/2015 Acquitted

Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector SHO Kodangal vs Musti Kistappa

27 Oct 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KODANGAL

Present: - Smt. B. Deepthi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Proh. & Excise, Mahabubnagar, FAC. JMFC Kodangal.

Friday, this the 27th day of October, 2017

C.C. No. 581 of 2015

Between: State: Sub Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector, Kodangal.

…Complainant AND

Musti Kistappa S/o. Bandeppa, age 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Vittlapur village of Damaragidda Mandal. ….Accused

This case is coming on 20-10-2017, before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri J. Gopal, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri Baswaraju, advocate for Accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following___

J U D G M E N T

The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Kodangal filed this case against accused vide PCOR No. 107/2015-16, of his station alleging that accused had committed the offence punishable under Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, On 29-4-2015 at about 5:30 pm, PW-2 received reliable information about the sales of

IML liquor bottles in front of accused house at Vitlapur village of

Damaragidda Mandal. Immediately, PW-2 along with his staff members proceeded to village by securing PW-1 and PW-3 as panch witnesses.

When they all reached the suspected house, found a person selling

IML. On search of the premises PW-2 found 8 bottles of OC whisky each of 180 ml. PW-2 had drawn two samples each of 350 ml. under cover of panchanama by pasting sign chits. Remaining contraband produced

before the Dy.Commissioner of Proh. & Excise, Mahabubnagar for

confiscation. Basing on panchanama, PW-2 registered case in

PCOR.No.107/15-16, dt. 29.4.2015 U/sec. 34 (a) of AP Excise Act. PW-2 deposited the sample bottles before the court vide CPR No.201/15 dt.

26.5.2015, with a request to send one of the samples for chemical analysis. The CE report vide No.3330/2015/5, dt.26.5.2015 denotes that the sample contains Alcohol and is an Indian liquor. On 5.5.2015,

PW-2 issued sec. 41-A Cr.Pc notice to the accused. On completion of investigation, PW-2 laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec. 34 (a) of AP Excise

3.This court took cognizance of the offence U/Sec. 34(a) of AP

Excise Act against accused, on dt. 16-12-2015. On appearance of accused copies of documents as contemplated U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

were furnished to him.

4.Accused was examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C., for which, he denied the offence. A charge framed U/Sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. M.O.1 is sample bottle of 350 ml IML.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, for which, he pleaded all such evidence is false and reported no defence.

7.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8.The point for determination is__

Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of accused for the offence U/Sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.Point:- In order to establish its case, as already noted, prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-3 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P4. MO-1 is sample bottle of toddy. PW-1 and PW-3 are the panch witnesses for Scene of Offence-Cum-Seizure Panchanama. PW-2 is the

Investigating Officer of the case. Ex.P1 is the signatures of PW-1 on scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama, Ex.P2 is PCOR, Ex.P3 is

Scene of Offence-Cum-Seizur panchanama and Ex.P4 is CE report.

10.On perusal of prosecution of evidence, though PW-2 had deposed that he conducted panchanama in the presence of PW-1 and PW-3 panch witnesses, they did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. In their evidence, PW-1 and PW-2 deposed that Excise

CC. No. 581 of 2015

3 police did not conduct any panchanama with regard to the seizure of alleged contraband from the possession of accused. They further stated that excise police obtained their signatures/thumb impression on white papers, without disclosing the purpose. Except admitting PW- 1 signature, i.e., Ex.P1 on panchanama, PW-1 and PW-2 did not state anything against the accused. Hence, Ex.P3 panchanama remains doubtful.

11. Basing on the panchanama, PW-2 P&ESI registered a case against the accused. Evidence of PW-3 Investigating officer is replica of his charge sheet. From his cross-examination, learned counsel for defence elicited that PW-2 did not mention the boundaries of scene of offence and failed to examine the neighbours from whom he learnt the particulars of accused. It is the prime suggestion of counsel for defence that PW-3 did not conduct panchanama in the presence of PW-1 and

PW-3 panch witnesses. The said suggestion was denied by PW-2, but, turning hostile of panch witnesses creates doubt upon the reliability of evidence of PW-2. As rightly pointed out the counsel for defence, PW-2 did not examine the accompanying staff members and their signatures were not obtained on panchanama, showing their visit to the scene of offence. Admittedly, PW-2 did not deposit the samples before the court within 24 hours. In these circumstances, argument of defence attracts the attention of this court. If really, PW-2 visited the scene of offence nothing would prevent him from mentioning the boundaries or land marks of the scene of offence to identify it.

12.Now, it is clear that except the evidence of PW-2 interested witness, prosecution does not have any other evidence on record.

Testimony of PW-2 has left too much to be desired by the court and he failed to establish the case by producing any credible material as to the ownership or possession of scene of offence house by the accused.

Moreover, he failed to mention the boundaries or house number of scene of offence. Turning hostile of PW-1 and PW-3 panch witnesses and not depositing the samples before the court within the prescribed time, definitely goes against the prosecution. More so, PW-2 failed to examine any neighbours of the scene or accompanying staff members to show possession of IML by the accused.

13. In these circumstances, when the seizure of alleged contraband itself is not established by the prosecution . In that view of the matter, this Court opines that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence with which he is charged and accordingly entitled to benefit of doubt.

14.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence under

Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is accordingly acquitted under

Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months from today, as prescribed under Sec. 437-A of

Cr.P.C. MO-1 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the typist on my chamber system, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 27th day of October, 2017.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Kodangal

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW-1: Ladugu Chandrappa. None.

PW-2: K.E Nathaniedl, P&ESI

PW-3: Boddu Hanmanthu

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW-1 L.Chandrappa on scene of offence-cum- seizure Panchanama, dt: 29-4-2015.

Ex.P2: PCOR, dt: 29-4-2015.

Ex.P3: Scene of offence-cum-seizure Panchanama, dt: 29-4-2015.

Ex.P4: CE Report, dt: 9-6-2015.

For Defence:

-Nil- Material Objects Marked

MO-1 sample bottle of 350 ml toddy.

CC/468/2016 Acquitted

S. Laxmi @ vijay Laxmi vs S. Arun kumar

15 May 2017

Order Record 92 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
STC/36/2016	Kosgi Polistation vs Valpali Basi Reddy	28 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
OS/51/2017	Balakistaiah Goud vs Vinjamuri Lalappa	27 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/174/2015	B. anjaneyuluH.c. 670 of Ps. Bomraspet mandal vs Hatkar balraj	27 Oct 2017	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/228/2012	Uradi, Balaraj vs Gonela, Bandeiah	27 Oct 2017	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/581/2015	Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector SHO Kodangal vs Musti Kistappa	27 Oct 2017	Judgement	Acquitted
MC/34/2014	Baikadi Govindamma vs Baikadi Venkatramulu @ Ramulu	27 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
MC/43/2017	puspalatha vs Venkatesh	27 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
STC/30/2012	J. Malappa vs Pedda Kurva Basanthappa	27 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/50/2016	Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector SHO Kodangal vs B. Chandrppa	20 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/609/2016	Prohibition Excise Station Kodangal vs Naykoti yallappa	20 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
PRC/31/2016	Mamatha vs Kavali venkataiah @ Venkatesh	20 Oct 2017	Order	—
CC/14/2012	smt, Nakali, anitha vs Ravi and Srinivas	13 Oct 2017	Order	—
CC/172/2014	Koora Padmamma vs Koora Venkat Ramulu	13 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/521/2016	Prohibition Excise Sub Inspector, Kodangal vs Kosgi Yadaiah	13 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/12/2011	Brungi Naga Laxmi vs Morambai Anjaneyulu	09 Oct 2017	Order	—
CC/12/2011	Brungi Naga Laxmi vs Morambai Anjaneyulu	09 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
OS/50/2011	Pichakuntla Mudappa vs Rachur, Sayappa	06 Oct 2017	Order	—
OS/52/2011	Rachur Mogulappa vs Pichakuntla Muddappa	06 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
OS/54/2011	Pichakuntla Hanmamma vs Rachur Mogulappa	06 Oct 2017	Order	—
CC/4/2017	Bhee pasha vs Amed Khan	06 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/124/2012	Govindamma vs Md. Ibrahim	06 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/145/2012	Elmakanti Ramulamma vs Kurmani Mogulappa	06 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/157/2012	Mohammed Azeem vs Marepally Ravinder Reddy	06 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
CC/204/2012	T. Radhamma vs Syed imtiyazali	06 Oct 2017	Judgement	—
PRC/9/2017	Kolla Narsimulu vs Kolla Basnath @ Basanthappa	06 Oct 2017	Order	—
PRC/16/2017	Peetla Kistamma vs Aruna	06 Oct 2017	Order	—
CC/337/2015	Patel anjilaiah vs Nyadhari, Chinna Madharaiah	04 Oct 2017	Order	—
CC/123/2015	Sri. malela Narendar vs Baikadi anjaneyulu	22 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/225/2013	ps. Maddur vs Neerati Ramdas	22 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/295/2016	Yerrajidi Laxmi vs Karrejidi Srinivas	22 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/372/2015	Proh. and excise SI Kodangal vs Banupally Padmamma	22 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/389/2016	Prohibition and Excise SI SHO Kodangal vs Mudhavath Nandya Naik	22 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/416/2016	ohibition Excise S I Kodangal vs Yaragolla sailu	22 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/423/2016	ohibition Excise S I Kodangal vs Yargolla Sailu	22 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/495/2016	Prohibition and Excise Sub inspector Kodangal vs Kethavath Babu Naik	22 Sep 2017	Order	—
CC/553/2016	prohibitation of Si of kodangal vs Edgi narasimu	22 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/640/2016	c vs Naddiminti pakeeriah Goud	22 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/641/2016	Prohibition Excise Station Kodangal vs Edigi Pakeeraiah	22 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
OS/24/2010	Edigi, narsaiah vs Edigi, Pedda Hanmaiah	15 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/165/2010	Azam Khan vs Akber Khan	15 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/189/2016	SI of police Excise Kodangal vs Edigi Parvathamma	15 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/291/2013	Cr. Bhanu Murthy vs Baindla Krishna @ Modham Krishna	15 Sep 2017	Order	—
CC/311/2016	Prohibition of Exise Kodangal vs Vislavat Narayanna	15 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/388/2016	Prohibition and Excise SI SHO Kodangal vs Pakeerappa	15 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/392/2016	Prohibition and Excise SI SHO Kodangal vs Number Devendarappa	15 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/415/2016	Prohibition Excise S I Kodangal vs Dorepally Satyanarayanna	15 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/419/2016	ohibition Excise S I Kodangal vs Edigi Narsimulu	15 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/518/2015	Prohibition Excise Station Kodangal vs Kurva Anjaneyulu	15 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/632/2016	Prohibition Excise Station Kodangal vs Telugu venkatamma	15 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/643/2016	Prohibition Excise Station Kodangal vs Talla Laxmi	15 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/644/2016	Prohibition Excise Station Kodangal vs Telugu venkatamma	15 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
OS/98/2016	Putti srinivas vs Putti venkatappa	09 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/9/2014	Mothukunta Hanmanthu vs Renivatla Neelappa	09 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/31/2016	Sri Mothi Singh vs Penjari Shakeel Pasha	09 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/52/2017	Jangeri Anjilamma vs S.K. Younus	09 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/65/2012	Smt. Basagalla Mallamma vs Pichakuntla Pandu	09 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/163/2014	Gundlakunta Shamulu vs Zahaeer Abbas	09 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/168/2017	Vadde Sujatha vs Dathu	09 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/211/2016	Babu Nasamma vs Dabhu Apappa@ Chandrappa	09 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/225/2017	Uppari Anjilappa vs Naikoti Chinnaiah	09 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/230/2017	K. Hanmanthu vs Raju Naik	09 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
CC/539/2016	Vadla Narahari chary vs MD Maqbool Ahmed	09 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
MC/26/2016	Reshama Begam vs MD Raffi	09 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
MC/41/2016	Shobarani vs M.Bhaskar	09 Sep 2017	Judgement	—
DVC/5/2017	Ch.Saraswathi vs G.Mahesh	16 Aug 2017	Order	—
CC/91/2013	Bagari, Chenamma vs Byagari, Venkataiah	15 May 2017	Judgement	—
CC/468/2016	S. Laxmi @ vijay Laxmi vs S. Arun kumar	15 May 2017	Order	Acquitted
CC/658/2016	Kurva Nagendramma vs Kurva Srinivas	15 May 2017	Judgement	—
OS/31/2016	Narsappa vs Jogu Hanmappa	08 May 2017	Judgement	—
CC/296/2016	Prohibition and Excise Sub inspector Kodangal vs Kukkala Mogulaiah	24 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
OS/20/2015	B. Narsamma vs Budiga Ananthappa	08 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
CC/2/2013	Kothapally Anjilamma vs Nakka Bala Kistaiah	08 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
CC/6/2015	Md. Mahamood vs Md. Musthafa	08 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
CC/10/2017	Kasha Laxmi vs Nakka Narsamma	08 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
CC/43/2013	B.VEnkatamma vs Kotha Anand @ Nandu	08 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
CC/47/2014	Buddam Venkatamnma vs Badam Yellappa	08 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
CC/58/2014	Mala Anandam vs Mala Vijaya Kumar	08 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
CC/124/2013	Md. Ghousuddin vs K. Ramulu	08 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
CC/139/2012	Kummari Pedda Balaiah vs Kummari Parvathamma	08 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
CC/142/2016	Sri, Kuthali Venkatesh@ Venkataih vs Banda Chandraiah	08 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
CC/173/2013	Chinna Bugappa vs P. Venkatramulu	08 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
CC/213/2014	Vadde Venkat Ramuloo vs Maddur Anjaneyuloo	08 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
CC/234/2014	Md. Mustafa vs Rukkoddin	08 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
CC/335/2016	Nakka Narsamma vs Kase Jamulamma	08 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
DVC/4/2016	Pallevoni Laxmi vs Pallevoni sailu	08 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
MC/6/2016	Pallevoni Laxmi vs Pallevoni sailu	08 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
MC/12/2017	Govinolla Kousalya vs Govinolla Bheem Reddy	08 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
MC/13/2017	Medari Mallamma vs Medari Ravinder	08 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
MC/17/2017	Puura Jayasri vs Purra Chennaiah	08 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
STC/21/2015	Kummari Parvathamma vs Kummari Venkatappa	08 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
CC/270/2014	Kerelli Ravi Kumar vs Guni Ananthaiah	07 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
CC/452/2015	Kavali. Anitha vs Neerati Suresh	22 Mar 2017	Order	—

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Oct 2017		29
Sep 2017		41
Aug 2017		1
May 2017		4
Apr 2017		22
Mar 2017		1

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt Ms. B. Deepti handled?

Smt Ms. B. Deepti has handled 98 court orders since 2017 at Kodangal, JCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 13 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt Ms. B. Deepti hear?

Based on available records, Smt Ms. B. Deepti primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Kodangal, JCJ Court Complex.

Where is Smt Ms. B. Deepti currently posted?

Smt Ms. B. Deepti is posted as I Addl JCJ cum JMFC at Kodangal, JCJ Court Complex, Vikarabad, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt Ms. B. Deepti available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Smt Ms. B. Deepti are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt Ms. B. Deepti dispose cases?

Smt Ms. B. Deepti disposes approximately 13 cases per month, based on 98 orders handled over their tenure at Kodangal, JCJ Court Complex.

Since when is Smt Ms. B. Deepti serving?

Smt Ms. B. Deepti has been serving at Kodangal, JCJ Court Complex since 2017.

Case Types

CC 73%

OS 8%

MC 8%

PRC 5%

STC 3%

DVC 2%

Posting History

Aug 2017 — Oct 2017

I Addl JCJ cum JMFC · 71 orders
Mar 2017 — May 2017

Prl JCJ cum JMFC · 27 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 4

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. Ambati Pranaya

Prl JCJ cum JMFC

0 orders

← View all judges at Kodangal, JCJ Court Complex

Smt Ms. B. Deepti

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KODANGAL

C.C. No.174 of 2015

J U D G M E N T

Rule 3: Powers to arrest without warrant, to seize

articles liable for confiscation and to make searches:

K.Muhammed V/s K. Sukumaran reported in 2001 Crl.LJ 1664

In State of M.P V/s Sriram Singh reported in 2000 Crl.LJ 1401

KODANGAL

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KODANGAL

J U D G M E N T

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KODANGAL.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KODANGAL

J U D G M E N T

KODANGAL

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KODANGAL

C.C. No. 581 of 2015

J U D G M E N T

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTAFIRST CLASS

KODANGL

ORDER

Smt Ms. B. Deepti

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KODANGAL

C.C. No.174 of 2015

J U D G M E N T

Rule 3:­ Powers to arrest without warrant, to seize

articles liable for confiscation and to make searches:­

K.Muhammed V/s K. Sukumaran reported in 2001 Crl.LJ 1664

In State of M.P V/s Sriram Singh reported in 2000 Crl.LJ 1401

KODANGAL

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KODANGAL

J U D G M E N T

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KODANGAL.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KODANGAL

J U D G M E N T

KODANGAL

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KODANGAL

C.C. No. 581 of 2015

J U D G M E N T

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTAFIRST CLASS

KODANGL

ORDER

Rule 3: Powers to arrest without warrant, to seize

articles liable for confiscation and to make searches: