Smt.B.M.R. Prasanna Latha

Additional Junior Civil Judge

III Addl District Complex, Nandyal · Kurnool · Andhra Pradesh

Smt.B.M.R. Prasanna Latha, Additional Junior Civil Judge, is posted at III Addl District Complex, Nandyal, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2,461 court orders on record since 2020. 30 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, PRC cases.

2,461

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/632/2020 Acquitted

S.H.O NDL Traffic vs Vssyed mabusa

16 Aug 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NANDYAL.

Present:- B.M.R. Prasanna Latha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal.

Tuesday, the 16 th day of August, 2022.

C.C.No.632 of 2020

Between:

State Rep.by the Inspector of Police, Nandyal Traffic P.S. ..… Complainant.

Versus

Syed Mabusa, S/o Syedbai, 64 years, Anjuman Street, Nandyal town, Rider of Motor cycle bearing No.AP 39 BK 0484. .…. Accused.

This case is coming before me on 12.8.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri T.Thulasi

Reddy and Smt.G.Subba Lakshmi, Advocates for the accused, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Nandyal Traffic P.S has filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.5/2020 for the offence u/s 338 of IPC r/w 181 of M.V Act.

2. The averments of the charge sheet in a nutshell are that :

The De-facto complainant-D.N.Bhaskar is the injured and resident of Chapirevula village. On 7.3.2020 at 9.30 hours L.W.1 left Chapirevula on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 21 AJ 2002 to bring medicines and reached

Tirumala Punish Hospital, Sanjeevanagar Gate, Nandyal. There he parked his motor cycle besides the hospital. While crossing the road to go to Med Plus

Medical store at 10.30 hours one motor cycle bearing No.AP 39 BK 0485 came towards Srinivasa Centre driven by the accused himself in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and dashed against him. As a result, 2

L.W.1 fell down and received injuries on his right knee, right shoulder and right elbow. Then L.W.1 to shifted was Government Hospital, Nandyal for treatment. L.W.3 and L.W.4 witnessed the incident. On the report of L.W.1 a case in the above said crime was registered and investigated into. On 12.3.2020 L.W.6-Head Constable arrested the accused and released him on self bail. After receipt of wound certificate and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Hence, the charge.

3.The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under sections 338 of IPC against the accused.

4.On the appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

5. The accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C for the accusations levied against him in Telugu for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 6 were examined and

Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. Thus the closure of the evidence of the prosecution.

7.After the completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enabling him to explain the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied the incriminating evidence. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

8.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

9.Now the points for determination is:

“Whether the Prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the Accused caused accident and hurt to P.W.1 an offence punishable under section 338 of Indian Penal Code r/w 181 of M.V.Act?”

Point:-

10. P.W.1-N.Bhaskar deposed that he is doing Electronic Works. On 7.3.2020 at 10.30 am he stopped his motor cycle bearing No.AP 21 AJ 2002 at Tirumala Punith Hospital and parked it there. While he was crossing the road to go to medical shop, the accused came on his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn and hit him to his right leg. As a result, he fell down and his hand was broken. He sustained fractured injury to his right hand and also sustained cut injury of never to his right leg. The passers bye came and called his son in law L.W.2-

A.Babu. L.W.2 shifted him to the Government Hospital, Nandyal. P.W.1 came to know about the name of the accused as Sayed Mabu Sa. The accused came in TVS vehicle bearing No.AP 39 KB 0485. Ex.P.1 is his statement given to the police. Police examined him.

11. P.W.2-Akil Babu deposed that on 7.3.2020 at 10.30 am his uncle (P.W.1) called him over phone and informed about his meeting accident at

Tirumala Puneeth Hospital. Then immeidately he went to the spot and noticed his uncle was on the road with swelling injuries to his right leg and right hand. Then he shifted him to the Government Hospital, Nandyal where police recorded his statement.

12. P.W.3 turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C statement is marked as

Ex.P.2.

13. P.W.4 turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C statement is marked as

Ex.P.3.

14. P.W.5-Dr.Sakeb deposed that on 7.3.2020 at 10.30 am he examined Bhaskar at 10.15 am and found the following injuries which are noted by him in the wound certificate. 1. Pain right thigh and 2.

complaining of paid right wrist and also swelling. He opined that the injury

No.2 is grievous in nature. The x-ray found fracture. He issued wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P.4.

15. P.W.6-S.Ramappa deposed that on 7.3.2020 on receipt of MLC intimation he went to Governmetn Hospital, Nandyal and there he recorded the statement of P.W.1, L.W.2 and later registered the case in Cr.No.5 of 2020 u/s 337 of IPC and sent FIR to the Court. Then he went to the scene, prepared rough sketch after examining it. He examined L.W.3 and L.W.4 and that on 12.3.2020 he served notice u/s 41-A of Cr.P.C to the accused and then he handed over the CD file to CI of Police. Ex.P.5 is the FIR and Ex.P.6 is the rough sketch.

16. The learned APP submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 is well corroborated with that of his complaint and FIR and well supported by the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.3 and P.W.4 turned hostile tot he case. P.W.5 the

Doctor who deposed about the injuries. Learned APP further submitted that

Though there is small deviation in the evidence of P.W.5 with that of the evidence of P.W.1, there is corroboration which supports the case of the prosecution. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 are marked. It is further submitted that though 5

P.W.3 and P.W.4 turned hostile that will not vitiate the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has established the guilt of the accused and hence, prayed the court to convict the accused.

17. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the chief examination of P.W.1 is not corroborating with that of his cross examination and also with that of other witnessess i.e., P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6. The eye witnesses turned hostile to this case. The wounds mentioned in the wound certificate by P.W.5 who is Doctor which are contrary to that of the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 himself fell down and sustained injuries and foisted this false case against the accused. Hence, pleaded to acquit the accused.

18. P.W.1 has deposed that on 7.3.2020 at 10.30 am while he was coming from Chapirevula-SD on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 21 AJ 2002 and stopped his vehicle at T.P.Hospital and parked the same and while crossing the road to go to medical shop, the accused came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn and hit him on his right leg. P.W.2 who is nephew of P.W.1 deposed that he received phone call from P.W.1 at 10.30 am who informed him that he met with an accident and he immediately went there.

19. P.W.3 and P.W.4 remained hostile and resailed to their own conversion in 161 Cr.P.C statement. So, here except P.W.2 nobody supported the evidence of P.W.1 in the manner of accident or their presence at the scene of offence. So, regarding the commission of offence except P.W.1 nobody is there to support P.W.1.

20. Coming to the injuries sustained by P.W.1 he stated that he fell down and his hand was broken and sustained fractured injury to his right 6 hand and he also sustained cut injury of never of his right leg. P.W.2 stated that he noticed his uncle fell down on the road with swelling injuries to his right leg and right hand. But he did not state that P.W.1 sustained fractured injury and cut injury of nerve. P.W.5 who is Doctor in this case deposed that she found injury No.1, pain right thigh to complaining of pain right wrist and swelling and that she advised for X ray and it is found in the x-ray that there is fracture in parietal ribs was surrounded of soft tissue swelling. Here the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborating with that of the evidence of the Doctor as P.W.1 stated that he sustained injury to his right hand and specified the place whereas the Doctor stated that he sustained fracture on his wrist.

P.W.1 stated that he sustained cut injury in his right leg. Whereas the Doctor did not mention any findings for the said injury in the wound certificate which shows that the injuries stated by P.W.1 and the Doctor Wound certificate are not corroborating with each other and are not supported with wound certificate Ex.P.4 and none others supported the case of the prosecution. As such the version of P.W.1 remained un-supported. P.W.1 deposed that he was examined in the hospital by the police, recorded his statement. P.W.2 deposed that the police examined him and recorded his statement. But he did not state anywhere that he was examined.

21. P.W.6 who is the IO in this case has admitted that he did not mention in the charge sheet as to when he recorded the statement of L.W.2.

But stated that he examined L.W.2 in the hospital. IO further admitted that he prepared the statement of L.W.3 and L.W.4 in the police station. P.W.2 deposed that he stopped his vehicle at T.P.Hospital and parked the same while crossing the road in the opposite way to go to medical shop, the accused came and hit him He admitted in his cross examination that there is 7 a divider in between the road he crossed. P.W.2 stated that the scene of offence is towards right side of the road and he found his uncle byke parked towards right side of the road. Here there is contra version between P.W.1 and P.W.2. While P.W.1 is stating that he is going in opposite to the road but by mistake P.W.2 is stating that the scene of offence is right side of the road which makes scene of offence non believable by this court that there is no clarity as whom to believe the same, as P.W.1 is stating one version and

P.W.2 is stating opposite version, as when the byke itself is parked at the right side and when P.W.1 is going in opposite direction which means it is left side, to which version it should be believed, is not clear as can be seen from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2.

22. P..W.5 is the Doctor in this case who deposed before this court that she examined the injured but the wounds which are mentioned in the wound certificate are not corroborating with that of the evidence of P.W.1. Hence, the medical evidence also is not supporting P.W.1 in this case.

23. P.W.1 deposed that he came to know the name of the accused through the persons gathered there. P.W.2 stated that he did not see the accused at the scene of offence in his cross examination. When P.W.2 shifted

P.W.1 to the hospital from the scene of offence, the question of not seeing the accused by P.W.2 or not knowing the accused is false, if at all really the accused is at the scene of offence. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 is not supported by any of the witnesses. The evidence of P.W.1 who is said to be the injured alone can be taken into consideration if it is not shaken or trustworthy. But in this case, the chief examination and cross examination of

P.W.1 itself is not corroborating. Hence, basing on the shaken evidence and 8 also basing upon the evidence of the Investigation Officer alone this court is not inclined to convict the accused.

24. For the foregoing discussion and in the above facts and circumstances of this case, this court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence charged beyond all reasonable doubt.

25. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offense punishable U/s Sec.338 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/s 255 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be treated as bail bonds U/s 437 (A) of Cr.P.C to appear before the higher Court as and when such Court requires in respect of any appeal or petition against the judgment of this

Court and the same shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment dt.16.8.2022.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 16th day of August, 2022

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal

Appendix of Evidence

(Witnesses examined for) Prosecution Defense

PW1: Nandyal Bhaskar -None- PW2: Akil Babu

PW3: S.K.Shaikshaw.

PW4: P.Eswar.

PW5: Dr.Saba

PW6: S.Ramappa.

Exhibits marked for

For Prosecution

Ex.P1: Complaint of P.W.1

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4

Ex.P4: Wound Certificate

Ex.P5: FIR.

Ex.P6: Rough sketch.

For Defense : NIL

Material objects marked for Prosecution Defence -Nil- .

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal // True copy // 10

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NANDYAL

C.C.No.632/2020

1. Date of offence07.03.2020

2.Date of report or Complaint07.03.2020

3.Date of apprehension of the accused12.03.2020

4.Date of release on bail12.03,2020

5.Date of commencement of trial21.02.2022

6.Date of close of the trial27.07.2022

7.Date of sentence of order 16.08.2022

8.Explanation of delay and remarks -

ComplainantState: Represented by: Inspector of Police, Nandyal Traffic P.S. AccusedSyed Mabusa, S/o Syedbai, 64 years, Anjuman Street, Nandyal town, Rider of Motor cycle bearing No.AP 39 BK 0484. Offence U/s 338 of IPC

FindingAccused found not guilty. Sentence In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offense punishable U/s Sec.338 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/s 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be treated as bail bonds U/s 437 (A) of Cr.P.C to appear before the higher Court as and when such Court requires in respect of any appeal or petition against the judgment of this Court and the same shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment dt.16.8.2022.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool.

// True copy // Nandyal

CC/80/2022 Acquitted

SHO Nandyal TalukUPS vs Guru vijay Kumar

19 Sep 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NANDYAL.

Present:- B.M.R. Prasanna Latha, Prl.Jr.Civil Judge, Nandyal FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal.

Monday, the 19 th day of September, 2022

C.C.No.80/2022

---

State: Represented by: Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandyal Taluk U.P.S.

... Complainant

-Vs-

Guru Vijay Kumar @ Boya Vijay Kumar, 39o uyears, S/o Venkata Subbaiah, R/o Kotha Kottala, Kanala village, Nandyal mandal, Nandyala district.

... Accused.

This case is coming before me on 16.9.2022 for final hearing in the presence of learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri T.Thulasi Reddy, Sri S.Maddilety Reddy, B.K.Nagamalleswar, A.Purushotham and Sri Y.Venkateswara Reddy, Advocates for the accused, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration and having perused the material on record, this Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T :

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandyal Taluk U.P.S has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.194 of 2021 for the offence under Section 8 (b) (i) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

2. The basic facts of the prosecution case is as follows:-

On 7.5.2021 at 17.45 hours SI of Police and his staff on information reached near the house of the accused at Kotha Kottala, Kanala village,

Gadivemula mandal and found the accused there who tried to run away on seeing thke police party but in vain. After detention and on verification of the can, the accused was found in possession of 10 liters of ID arrack which is un-fit for human consumption and that the SI of Police arrested the accused, drawn the samples and seized the property under the cover of Police

Proceedings. Basing on the police proceedings SI of Police registered the case Cr.No.194 of 2021 of Nandyal Taluk U.P.S and investigated into the matter. After receipt of analysis report and after completion of entire investigation, SI of police filed the charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3.On perusal of record, this Court taken cognizance of offence under Section 8 (b) (i) of A.P.Prohibition Act against the accused and issued summons to the accused.

4. On appearance of accused copies of case documents were furnished to her as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused wasexamined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and he denied the committing of offence. Hence, a charge under Section 8 (b) (i) of

A.P.Prohibition Act was framed against him and the contents of the charge was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial on behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 and

P.W.2 was examined, Exs.P1 to P5 and M.O.1 are marked. The evidence of

L.Ws 2 to 4 and L.W.6 was given up by the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor.

7. On closure of Prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The substance of incriminating material was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence is closed.

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the defence. Perused the material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for

the offence punishable under Section 8 (b) (i) of A.P. Prohibition Act,

beyond all reasonable doubt?”

Point:- 10. In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined L.W.1-R.Ravi Prakash Reddy as P.W.1 and L.W.5-B.Rama Krishnudu as P.W.2. Ex.P1 to Ex.P.5 and M.O.1 is marked. Ex.P.1 is the signature of

P.W.1 on the police proceedings. Ex.P.2 FIR, Ex.P.3 letter of advice and Ex.P.4 is the chemical analysis report. M.O.1 is the sample bottle.

11. To establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 by name P.W.1-R.Ravi Prakash Reddy deposed that on 7.5.2021 at 5.15 pm hours he along with other police staff proceded to

Kanala village and found the accused there with a plastic can, that on seeing them the accused tried to run away but they caught hold of the accused, that on enquiry and on verification of the plastic can it contained 10 liters of I.D arrack, that his SI sent one PC to a nearby village for fetching mediators but 3 in vain, that his SI has drawn the sample for chemical analysis, arrested the accused and seized the property under the cover of Police proceedings.

Ex.P.1 is his signature on the police proceedings.

He denied that his SI never sent any constable to any village nor made any effort to fetch the mediators. He denied the police proceedings did not contain about the particulars of its scribe. He denied that his SI obtaind the signature of the accused in police station without seizing any contraband/liquor from him. He denied that statement by accused in police proceedings is not true and created by them in order to implicate the accused in this case. He denied that the accused never present at the scene of offence at any point of time. He denied that he foisted a false case against the accused who is an innocent agricultural coolies. He denied to the suggestion that he is deposing false in the chief examination against the accused. He admitted that there is a lock down at the time of their raids.

He admitted that the police proceedings did not contain about the names and identity particulars of the elders who refused to act as mediators.

12. P.W.2-B.Rama Krishnudu, SI of Police deposed that on 7.5.2021 at 5.45 pm he along with his staff proceeded to Kanala village and found the accused there with a plastic can, that on seeing them the accused tried to run away but in vain, that on examintion of the can it contained 10 liters of

I.D arrack that he sent PC for fetching mediators but in vain, that he drew the samples of ID arrack, seized the property and arrested the accused under the cover of Police Proceedings and basing on it he registered the case in

Cr.No.194 of 2021 u/s 8 (b) (i) of APP Act, that he served 41-A notice on the accused, that he sent FIR to the Court and sample to R.E.L, Kurnool, that later after receipt of chemical analysis report he filed charge sheet. Ex.P.2 is the

Police proceedings, Ex.P3 is FIR, Ex.P.4 is letter of advise and Ex.P.5 is

Chemical analysis report, M.O.1 is sample bottle in C.P.R.No.686 of 2021.

4 During cross examination, P.W.1 denied that the scene of offence is a busy locality. He denied that SI of Police not served any summons for mediators. He denied to the suggestion that he never visited the scene of offence and never seized any contraband/liquor from the possession of the accused. He denied that he prepared the police proceedings at the police station as it could not possible for them to type and print the same within the time mentioned in police proceedings. He denied to the suggestion that he signed in the police proceedings which was prepared at the police station.

He admitted that the police proceedings did not contain about the names and identity particulars of the elders who refused to act as mediators.

13. The contention of the counsel for the accused is that the police has failed to follow the seizure proceedings and hence the accused is innocent and thereby prays the court to acquit the accused by giving benefit of doubt.

However the police failed to secured the mediators from the village. In addition to that no separate seizure list is prepared by the police at the time of seizure of the case property. Further after perusal of the charge sheet which is filed against the accused for the offence 8 (b) of A.P.P Act. The prosecution ought to have established that the case property is seized from the possession of the accused. In the present case on hand the accused was 5 apprehended. As per Sec 100 of Cr.P.C.- Persons in charge of closed place to allow search:” before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do”. The basic principle is that whenever search and seizure is conducted in a open place the police ought to have secured independent mediators from the scene but the police failed to secure independent mediators from the scene in the present case on hand.

Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt to prove that the accused was in possession of the property and was selling, buying the said case property. No other documents are also on record to substantiate the contention of the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of ID arrack on that day and selling the same in open market.

15. Therefore, under the light of the above discussion this court is of the opinion that as the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused and also there are procedural irregularities which are fatal to the case of prosecution, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec 8 (b) of A.P.Prohibition Act and he is acquitted u/sec 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused sall be treated as bail bonds u/sec 437 (A) of Cr.P.C to appear before the higher court as and when such court requires in respect of any appeal or petition against the Judgment of this court and the same shall be in force for a period of six months from this date 19.09.2022. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time from the date of this judgment i.e.,19.09.2022.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 19h day of September, 2022.

Prl.Jr.Civil Judge, Nandyal FAc/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal 6

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution For Defence

P.W.1 : R.Ravi Prakash ReddyNone P.W.2 : B.Rama Krishnudu.

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:- Defence:-

Ex.P1 : Signature of P.W.1 on Police Poceedings Ex.P.2 : Police Proceedings. Ex.P3 : FIR. Ex.P4 : Letter of advice Ex.P5 : Chemical analysis report

Material Objects

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

M.O.1 is sample bottles in C.P.C.No.686 of 2022

Prl.Jr.Civil Judge, Nandyal FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal 7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NANDYAL

C.C.No.80/2022

1. Date of offence07.05.2021

2.Date of report or Complaint07.05.2021

3.Date of apprehension of the accused07.05.2021

4.Date of release on bail18.05.2021

5.Date of commencement of trial14.09.2022

6.Date of close of the trial14.09.2022

7.Date of sentence of order 19.09.2022

8.Explanation of delay and remarks-

ComplainantState: Represented by: Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandyal Taluk U.P.S. Accuseduru Vijay Kumar @ Boya Vijay Kumar, 39o uyears, S/o Venkata Subbaiah, R/o Kotha Kottala, Kanala village, Nandyal mandal, Nandyala district. Offcence8 (b) (i) of A.P.P Act. FindingAccused is found not guilty. Sentence In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec 8 (b) (i) of A.P.Prohibition Act and he is acquitted u/sec 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be treated as bail bonds u/sec 437 (A) of Cr.P.C. to appear

before the higher court as and when such court requires in

respect of any appeal or petition against the Judgment of this court and the same shall be in force for a period of six months from this date 19.09.2022. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time from the date of this Judgment i.e., 19.09.2022.

Prl.Jr.Civil Judge, Nandyal FAc/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool.

CC/1836/2021 Acquitted

SHO of Nandyal Taluk PS vs Kodathalapalli Mahesh and another

16 Aug 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NANDYAL.

Present:- B.M.R. Prasanna Latha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal.

Tuesday, the 16 th day of August, 2022

C.C.No.1836/2021

---

State: Represented by: Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandyal Taluk U.P.S.

... Complainant

-Vs-

1. Kodathalapalli Mahes, 32 years, S/o Michel, R/o Y.S.R.Nagar, Nandayl mandal, Nandyal district.

2. Nandavaram Madhu @ Madhu, 34 years, S/o Maddilety, R/o Harijana Peta,

Nandyal town, Nandyal district. ... Accused.

This case is coming before me on 16.8.2022 for final hearing in the presence of learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri G.Subba Lakshmi, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration and having perused the material on record, this Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T :

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandyal Taluk U.P.S has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.459 of 2020 for the offence under Section 8 (b) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

2. The basic facts of the prosecution case is as follows:-

On 21.6.2020 at 18.00 hours SI of Police and his staff reached near 2nd water tank of Y.S.R.Nagar, Nandyal and found the accused 1 and 2 in possession of white coloured plastic can and some persons around them. On seeing the police all the persons ran away. Then the police detained the accused herein. On verification of the plastic can cover it contained 10 liters of

ID arrack. Then the SI of Police drawn the sample, arrested the accused 1 and 2 and seized the property under the cover of Police proceedings. Basing on it,

SI of Police registered the case in Cr.No.459 of 2020 for the offense u/s 8 (b) of

A.P.P Act and investigated into. After completion of investigation and after receipt of analysis report, SI of police filed the charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3.On perusal of record, this Court taken cognizance of offence under 2 Section 8 (b) of A.P.Prohibition Act against the accused and issued summons to the accused.

4. On appearance of accused No.1 and No.2 copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated upnder Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused No.1 and No.2 wereexamined under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

and he denied the committing of offence. Hence, a charge under Section 8 (b) of

A.P.Prohibition Act was framed against them and the contents of the charge was read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.P1 to P5 and M.O.1 are marked. The evidence of L.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 5 was given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

7. On closure of Prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 and No.2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The substance of incriminating material was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which they denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence is closed.

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the defence. Perused the material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the

***offence punishable under Section* 8(b) *of A.P. Prohibition Act, beyond all***

reasonable doubt?”

POINT:- 10. In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined L.W.2-S.Venkateswarluas P.W.1 and L.W.5-P.Sudhakar Reddy as

P.W.2. Ex.P.1 is the signature of P.W.1 on the police oproceedings, Ex.P2 is

Police Proceedings, Ex.P.3 is the First Information Report, Ex.P.4 is the Office copy of letter of advice and Ex.P5 is the Analysis Report. M.O.1 is one sample bottle. O.2 is one auto

11. To establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.W.1-S.Venkateswarlu, PC and he deposed that on 21.06.2020 at 3 18.00 hours he along with other police staff proceeded to Kundu Bridge near

Edga, Gadivemula road, Nandyal mandal, and found the accused there with a plastic can that on seeing them the accused tried to run away, that they surrounded and caught hold of the accused, and that on verification of the plastic can the accused were found in possession of 10 I.D liquor, that his SI sent one PC to a nearby village for fetching mediators but in vain, that his SI has drawn the sample for chemical analysis, that his SI arrested the accused and seized the property under the cover of Police Proceedings. Ex.P.1 is his signature on the police proceedings.

During cross examination, P.W.1 denied that the scene of offence is a busy locality. He denied that SI of Police not served any summons for mediators. He denied to the suggestion that he never visited the scene of offence and never seized any contraband/liquor from the possession of the accused. He denied that he prepared the police proceedings at the police station as it could not possible for them to type and print the same within the time mentioned in police proceedings. He denied to the suggestion that he signed in the police proceedings which was prepared at the police station. He denied that his SI never sent any constable to any village nor made any effort to fetch the mediators. He denied the police proceedings did not contain about the particulars of its scribe. He denied that his SI obtaind the signature of the accused in police station without seizing any contraband/liquor from him. He denied that statement by accused in police proceedings is not true and created by them in order to implicate the accused in this case. He denied that the accused never present at the scene of offence at any point of time. He denied that he foisted a false case against the accused who is an innocent agricultural coolies. He denied to the suggestion that he is deposing false in the chief examination against the accused. He admitted that there is a lock down at the time of their raids. He admitted that the police proceedings did not contain about the names and identity particulars of the elders who refused to act as mediators.

12. P.W.2-P.Sudhakar Reddy, SI of Police deposed that on 21.6.2020 at 6.00 pm he along with his staff proceeded to Y.S.R.Nagar and found the accused there with a plastic cover, that on seeing them the accused tried to run away but in vain, that they produced the accused before him, that on examintion of the can the accused were found in possession 10 liters of ID 4 arrack in total, that he sent PC for fetching mediators but in vain, that he drew the samples of ID arrack, arrested the accused and seized the property under the cover of Police Proceedings and basing on it he registered the case in

Cr.No.459 of 2020 u/s 8 (b) of APP Act, that he sent FIR to the Court and produced the accused before this Court for remand and sent sample to R.E.L,

Kurnool for analysis, that he served 41-A Cr.P.C notice, that after receipt of chemical analysis report and he filed charge sheet. Ex.P.2 is the Police proceedings, Ex.P3 is FIR, Ex.P.4 is letter of advise and Ex.P.5 is Chemical analysis report. M.O.1 is sample bottle in C.P.R.No.171 of 2020.

During cross examination he denied to all the suggestion put forth by the learned counsel for the defence. He denied to the suggeston that he did table investigaiotn. He denied that he never visited the scene of offence, seized the contraband and drew any samples, prepared Police Proceedings/panchanama at the PS itself. He denied to the suggestion that he obtained signatures of

P.W.1, constables and accused in the police station on the Police

Proceedings/Panchanama. He denied to the suggestion that he has not sent constable to the village for fetching mediators. He denied to the suggestion that he implicated the accused in this case. He denied to the suggestion that this case is foisted against the accused who is innocent agricultural coolie. He denied to the suggestion that sample bottle is created by him for the purpose of this case. He denied that he is deposing false in the chief examination against the accused.

13. The contention of the counsel for the accused is that the police has failed to follow the seizure proceedings and hence the accused is innocent and thereby prays the court to acquit the accused by giving benefit of doubt.

14. After perusal of the material available on record and evidence brought on record, other than the official witnesses there is no other independent witness brought on record by the prosecution. It is admitted in the cross-examination of the S.I. of police that the scene of offence is a busy locality and the incident occurred in the day and no mediators were secured. However the police failed to secured the mediators from the village. In addition to that no separate seizure list is prepared by the police at the time of seizure of the case property. Further after perusal of the charge sheet which is filed against the accused for the offence 8 (b) of A.P.P Act. The prosecution ought to have 5 established that the case property is seized from the possession of the accused.

In the present case on hand the accused was apprehended. As per Sec 100 of

Cr.P.C.- Persons in charge of closed place to allow search:” before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do”. The basic principle is that whenever search and seizure is conducted in a open place the police ought to have secured independent mediators from the scene but the police failed to secure independent mediators from the scene in the present case on hand.

16. In the result, the accused No.1 and No.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec 8 (b) of A.P.Prohibition Act and they are acquitted u/sec 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused sall be treated as bail bonds u/sec 437 (A) of Cr.P.C. to appear before the higher court as and when such court requires in respect of any appeal or petition against the Judgment of this court and the same shall be in force for a period of six months from this

date 16.8.2022. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time from

the date of this order i.e., 16.8.2022.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 16 th day of August, 2022.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:- P.W.1 : S.VenkateswarluNone P.W.2: P.Sudhakar Reddy

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:- Defence:-

Ex.P1 : Signature of P.W.1 on the Police proceedings Ex.P2 : Police proceedings Ex.P3 : FIR Ex.P4 : Letter of advice Ex.P5 : Chemical analysis report.

Material Objects

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

M.O.1 : One sample in C.P.R.No.171/2020. Nil

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal 7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NANDYAL

C.C.No.1836/2021

1. Date of offence21.06.2020

2.Date of report or Complaint21.06.2020

3.Date of apprehension of the accused21.06.2020

4.Date of release on bail23.11.2020

5.Date of commencement of trial30.06.2022

6.Date of close of the trial16.08.2022

7.Date of sentence of order 16.08.2022

8.Explanation of delay and remarks -

ComplainantState: Represented by: Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandyala Taluk U.P.S. Accused1. Kodathalapalli Mahes, 32 years, S/o Michel, R/o Y.S.R.Nagar, Nandayl mandal, Nandyal district.

2. Nandavaram Madhu @ Madhu, 34 years, S/o Maddilety, R/o Harijana Peta, Nandyal town, Nandyal district.. Offcence8 (b) of A.P.P Act. FindingAccused found not guilty.

Sentence In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec 8 (b) of A.P.Prohibition Act and they are acquitted u/sec 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be treated as bail bonds u/sec 437 (A) of Cr.P.C. to appear before the higher court as and when such court requires in respect of any appeal or petition against the Judgment of this court and the same shall be in force for a period of six months from this date 16.8.2022. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time from the date of this order i.e., 16.8.2022.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool.

CC/2900/2021 Acquitted

SHO, Nandyal Taluk PS vs G Nagaraju

16 Aug 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGSITRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

NANDYAL

Present:- Smt. B.M.R. Prasanna Latha,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NANDYAL

Tuesday, the 16th day of August, 2022

C.C.No.2900/2021

Between: State:– Representd by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandyal Taluk P.S.

... Complainant

AND

Gandla Nagaraju, S/o Late Sivudu, 35 years, R/o Nanandmoori Nagar, Nandyal

mandal, Nandyal district.... Accused.

This case is coming on 16.7.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri N.Babu Rao and G.Subba Lakshmi, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court passed the following.

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Nandyal Taluk P.S has filed the charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.491/2020 of Nandyal Taluk UPS for the offence under section 34 (a) of APE Excise Act.

2. The averments of the charge sheet is as follows:-

On 6.7.2020 SI of Police along with his staff on reliable information reached near Edga of Nandamoori Nagar on Nandyal-S.R.B.C Road, Nandyal and while they were conducting vehicle checking, one person came on Nandyal-

S.R.BC road with black plastic cover. On seeing the police he tried to run away but in vain. On verification of the plastic bag, he was found in possession of 10

President Medal Whisky, 5 – 9 Sea Horses Whisky, 8 Galaxy Pure Grain whisky, 3-Role model gold rum total 26 quarter bottles of 180 ml. Then the SI of police drawn the sample, seized the property and arrested the accused under the cover of Police Proceedings. Basing on the Police proceedings a case in

Cr.No.491 of 2020 u/s 34 (a) of A.P.E Act was registered and investigated into the case. After obtaining the Chemical analysis report and after completion of investigation SI of Police filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3. On perusal of record, this court took congizance of offence under section 34 (a) of APE Act and issued summons to the accused.

2 4. On appearance of the accused No.1 and No.2, copies of documents are furnished as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The Accused was examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C for the offence under

Section 34 (a) of APE Act and contents of the charge sheet were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the trial, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and got marked

Ex.P1 to P5 and M.O.1. The evidence of L.Ws.1 to 4 and L.W.7 was given up by the APP. Thus the closure of prosecution evidence.

7. The accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C with the incriminating material arisen from the witnesses examined. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence is closed treated as nil.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is that:

“Whether the prosecution proved the case against the accused person for the offence punishable U/sec. And 34 (a) of AP Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:- 10. In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined L.W.5-S.Siva Kumar as P.W.1 and L.W.6-P.Sudhakar Reddy as

P.W.2. Ex.P1 is the signature of P.W.1 on the Police proceedings, Ex.P2 is the

Police proceedings, Ex.P3 is the FIR, Ex.P4 is the letter of advice and Ex.P5 is the Chemical analysis report. M.O.1 is sample bottle.

11. To establish the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

P.W.1-S.Siva Kumar, P.C and he deposed that on 6.7.2020 at 8.00 pm he along with other police staff proceeded to Durga, Nandamurinagar and found the accused there with a plastic cover that on seeing them the accused tried to run away, that they surrounded and caught hold of the accused, and that on verification of the plastic cover the accused was found in possession of 26 liquor bottles, that his SI sent one PC to a nearby village for fetching mediators but in vain, that his SI has drawn the sample for chemical analysis, that his SI arrested the accused and seized the property under the cover of Police

Proceedings. Ex.P.1 is his signature on the Police proceedings..

3 During cross examination, P.W.1 denied that the scene of offence is a busy locality. He denied that SI of Police not served any summons for mediators. He denied to the suggestion that he never visited the scene of offence and never seized any contraband/liquor from the possession of the accused. He denied that he prepared the police proceedings at the police station as it could not possible for them to type and print the same within the time mentioned in police proceedings. He denied to the suggestion that he signed in the police proceedings which was prepared at the police station. He denied that his SI never sent any constable to any village nor made any effort to fetch the mediators. He denied the police proceedings did not contain about the particulars of its scribe. He denied that his SI obtaind the signature of the accused in police station without seizing any contraband/liquor from him. He denied that statement by accused in police proceedings is not true and created by them in order to implicate the accused in this case. He denied that the accused never present at the scene of offence at any point of time. He denied that he foisted a false case against the accused who is an innocent agricultural coolies. He denied to the suggestion that he is deposing false in the chief examination against the accused. He admitted that there is a lock down at the time of their raids. He admitted that the police proceedings did not contain about the names and identity particulars of the elders who refused to act as mediators.

12. P.W.2-P.Sudhakar Reddy, SI of Police deposed that on 6.7.2020 at 8.00 pm he along with his staff proceede Nandamuri nagar found the accused there with a plastic cover, that on seeing them the accused tried to run away but in vain, that they produced the accused before him, that on examintion of the cover the accused was found in possession 26 liquor bottles, that he sent

PC for fetching mediators but in vain, that he drew the samples of ID arrack, arrested the accused and seized the property under the cover of Police

Proceedings and basing on it he registered the case in Cr.No.49 of 2020 u/s 34

(a) of A.P.E Act, that he sent FIR to the Court and sent sample to R.E.L, Kurnool for analysis, that he served 41-A Cr.P.C notice on the accused, that after receipt of chemical analysis report, he filed charge sheet. Ex.P.2 is the police proceedings, Ex.P3 is FIR, Ex.P.4 is letter of advise and Ex.P.5 is Chemical analysis report, M.O.1 is sample bottle in C.P.R.No.501 of 2021.

Proceedings/panchanama at the PS itself. He denied to the suggestion that he obtained signatures of P.W.1, constables and accused in the police station on the Police Proceedings/Panchanama. He denied to the suggestion that he has not sent constable to the village for fetching mediators. He denied to the suggestion that he implicated the accused in this case. He denied to the suggestion that this case is foisted against the accused who is innocent agricultural coolie. He denied to the suggestion that sample bottle is created by him for the purpose of this case. He denied that he is deposing false in the chief examination against the accused. He admitted that the police proceedings did not contain about the names and identity particulars of elders who refused to act as mediators.

14. After perusal of the material available on record and evidence brought on record, other than the official witnesses there is no other independent witness brought on record by the prosecution. However the police failed to secured the mediators from the village. In addition to that no separate seizure list is prepared by the police at the time of seizure of the case property.

Further after perusal of the charge sheet which is filed against the accused for the offence u/sec 34 (a) A.P. Excise Act. The prosecution ought to have established that the case property is seized from the possession of the accused.

Other than that there is no other evidence or statement made by the police to prove that the identity particulars of the accused are one and the same as the person who was in possession of the property. As per Sec 100 of Cr.P.C.-

Persons in charge of closed place to allow search:” before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do”. The basic principle is that whenever search and seizure is conducted in a open place the police ought to have secured independent mediators from the scene but the police failed to secure independent mediators from the scene in the present case on hand. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all 5 reasonable doubt to prove that the accused was in possession of the accused property and was selling, buying the said case property without any valid licence. No other documents are also on record to substantiate the contention of the prosecution that the accused do not possess any license to sell the liquor in open market.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted u/sec 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be treated as bail bonds u/sec 437 (A) of Cr.P.C to appear before the higher court as and when such court requires in respect of any appeal or petition against the Judgment of this court and the same shall be in force for a period of six months from this date 16.8.2022. M.O.1 shall be destroyed forthwith after completion of appeal time from the date of this order 16.8.2022.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 16 th day of August, 2022.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:

P.W.1: S.Siva KumarNone. P.W.2: P.Sudhakar Reddy.

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:- Defence:-

Ex.P1 : Signature of P.W.1 on the Police Proceedings. Ex.P2 : Police proceedings Ex.P3 : FIR. Ex.P4 : Letter of advice Ex.P.5 : Chemical analysis report

Material Objects

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

M.O.1: One sample bottle in CPR No.501/2021. Nil

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal 6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NANDYAL

C.C.No.2900/2021

1. Date of offence06.07.2020

2.Date of report or Complaint06.07.2020

3.Date of apprehension of the accused06.07.2020

4.Date of release on bail07.07.2020

5.Date of commencement of trial21.07.2022

6.Date of close of the trial16.08.2022

7.Date of sentence of order 16-08-2022

8.Explanation of delay and remarks -

ComplainantState: Represented by: Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandyala Taluk P.S. AccusedGandla Nagaraju, S/o Late Sivudu, 35 years, R/o Nanandmoori Nagar, Nandyal mandal, Nandyal district. Offence U/s 34 (A) of APP Act. FindingAccused found not guilty.

Sentence In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted u/sec 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be treated as bail bonds u/sec 437 (A) of Cr.P.C to appear

before the higher court as and when such court requires in respect

of any appeal or petition against the Judgment of this court and the same shall be in force for a period of six months from this date 16.8.2022. M.O.1 shall be destroyed forthwith after completion of appeal time from the date of this order 16.8.2022.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool.

CC/3009/2021 Acquitted

SHO, Nandyal Taluk PS vs S Mahammad Ghouse

16 Aug 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGSITRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

NANDYAL

Present:- Smt. B.M.R. Prasanna Latha,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NANDYAL

Tuesday, the 16th day of August, 2022

C.C.No.3009/2021

Between: State:– Representd by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandyal Taluk U.P.S.

... Complainant

AND

Shaik Mohammad Ghouse, 52 years, S/o Late Abdul Jabbar, R/o 8-7-17, Raja

Street, Allagadda town, Nandyal district. ... Accused.

This case is coming on 16.7.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri D.Prathap Reddy and Sri B.V.Madhusudhan, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court passed the following.

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Nandyal Taluk U.P.S has filed the charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.429/2020 for the offence under section 34

(a) of APE Excise Act.

2. The averments of the charge sheet is as follows:-

On 7.6.2020 SI of Police along with his staff on reliable information about carrying of liquor reached the 3 road junciton, Auto nagar, Nandyal-Kurnool road and were checking the vehicle. At about 1.30 am a lorry bearing No.AP 21

U 0536 was stopped by the SI of Police and it was loaded with oil tins and boxes. SI of Police searched the lorry cabin and found one carton containing 9

Mansion House full bottles. Then the SI of Police seized the said liquor bottles and also the lorry under the cover of Police proceeidngs. Basing on the Police proceedings a case in Cr.No.429 of 2020 u/s 34 (a) of A.P.E Act was registered and investigated into the case. After obtaining the Chemical analysis report and after completion of investigation SI of Police filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3. On perusal of record, this court took congizance of offence under section 34 (a) of APE Act and issued summons to the accused.

2 4. On appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The Accused was examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C for the offence under

Section 34 (a) of APE Act and contents of the charge sheet were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the trial, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and got marked

Ex.P1 to P5 and M.O.1. The evidence of L.Ws.1, 3 to 5 and L.W.7 was given up by the APP. Thus the closure of prosecution evidence.

7. The accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C with the incriminating material arisen from the witnesses examined. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence is closed treated as nil.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is that:

“Whether the prosecution proved the case against the accused person for the offence punishable U/sec. And 34 (a) of AP Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:- 10. In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined L.W.2-S.Venkateswarlu as P.W.1 and L.W.6-P.Sudhakar Reddy as

P.W.2. Ex.P1 is the signature of P.W.1 on the Police proceedings, Ex.P2 is the

Police proceedings, Ex.P3 is the FIR, Ex.P4 is the letter of advice and Ex.P5 is the Chemical analysis report. M.O.1 is sample bottle.

11. To establish the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

P.W.1-S.Venkateswarlu, PC and he deposed that on 8.6.2020 at 1.30 am he along with other police staff proceeded to Auto nagar and were checking the vehiclse and at that time they found the accused with a lorry, that on seeing the police the accsued tried to run away, that they surrounded and caught hold of the accused, that on verification of the plastic cover/bag, the accused was found in possession of 9 liquor bottles, that his SI sent one PC to a nearby village for fetching mediators but in vain, that his SI has drawn the sample for chemical analysis, that his SI arrested the accsued and seized the property under the cover of Police Proceedings. Ex.P.1 is his signature on the police proceedings..

12. P.W.2-P.Sudhakar Reddy, SI of Police deposed that on 8.6.2020 at 1.30 am he along with his staff proceeded to Auto nagar and found the accused there with a plastic cover, that on seeing them the accused tried to run away but in vain, that they produced the accused before him, that on examintion of the cover the accused was found in possession 9 liquor bottles, that he sent PC for fetching mediators but in vain, that he drew the samples of liquor, arrested the accsued and seized the property under the cover of Police proceedings and basing on it he registered the case in Cr.No.429 of 2020 u/s 34 (a) of A.P.E Act, that he sent FIR to the Court and sent sample to R.E.L, Kurnool for analysis, that he served 41-A Cr.P.C notice on the accused, that after receipt of chemical analysis report, he filed charge sheet. Ex.P.2 is the Police proceedings, Ex.P3 is

FIR, Ex.P.4 is letter of advise and Ex.P.5 is Chemical analysis report, M.O.1 is sample bottle in C.P.R.No.536 of 2021.

During cross examination he denied to all the suggestion put forth by the learned counsel for the defence. He denied to the suggeston that he did 4 table investigaiotn. He denied that he never visited the scene of offence, seized thecontrabandanddrewanysamples,preparedPolice

14. After perusal of the material available on record and evidence brought on record, other than the official witnesses there is no other independent witness brought on record by the prosecution. However the police failed to secured the mediators from the village. In addition to that no separate seizure list is prepared by the police at the time of seizure of the case property.

Persons in charge of closed place to allow search:” before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do”. The basic principle is that whenever search and seizure is conducted in a open place the police ought to have secured independent mediators from the scene but the police failed to secure independent mediators from the scene in the present case on hand. Therefore, 5 the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt to prove that the accused was in possession of the accused property and was selling, buying the said case property without any valid licence. No other documents are also on record to substantiate the contention of the prosecution that the accused do not possess any license to sell the liquor in open market.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 16 th day of August, 2022.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:

P.W.1: S.Venkateswarlu None. P.W.2: P.Sudhakar Reddy

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:- Defence:-

Ex.P1 : Signature of P.W.1 on the Police Proceedings. Ex.P2 : Police proceedings Ex.P3 : FIR. Ex.P4 : Letter of advice Ex.P.5 : Chemical analysis report

Material Objects

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

M.O.1: One sample bottle in CPR No.536/2021. Nil

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal 6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NANDYAL

C.C.No.3009/2021

1. Date of offence07.06.2020

2.Date of report or Complaint07.06.2020

3.Date of apprehension of the accused07.06.2020

4.Date of release on bail03.11.2020

5.Date of commencement of trial21.07.2022

6.Date of close of the trial16.08.2022

7.Date of sentence of order 16-08-2022

8.Explanation of delay and remarks -

ComplainantState: Represented by: Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandyala Taluk P.S. AccusedShaik Mohammad Ghouse, 52 years, S/o Late Abdul Jabbar, R/o 8- 7-17, Raja Street, Allagadda town, Nandyal district Offence U/s 34 (a) of APP Act. FindingAccused found not guilty.

before the higher court as and when such court requires in respect

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool.

Order Record 2,432 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/205/2020	Chimmanagandla Soma Sekaraiah vs G.Chennaiah and Nadipi Chennaiah died by his L.rs by name G.Prasannaand others	02 Nov 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/267/2020	R.Venkateswara Reddy vs Y.Srinivasulu	02 Nov 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/705/2021	K.M. N.S. Sreenivasa Roya vs Vsb. pULLANNA	02 Nov 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/778/2021	Sri Maruthi Agencies vs Mamilla Venkata Rama Krishnaiah died by LRs and Mamilla Madhavi Latha	02 Nov 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/930/2019	Bank of India, R.S Branch, Nandyal rep., by its Branch Manager vs S.M.Jabeen Sole Proprietor of M/s. Zaara Industries	02 Nov 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/1292/2019	P.Sreenivasa Reddy vs K.Malla Reddy and another	02 Nov 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/94/2020	P.Jayamma vs M.Suseela	01 Nov 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/383/2021	Bareddy Savithramma vs Gandla Sivanna	01 Nov 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/45/2022	Boggarapu Rajasekhar vs Ettimala Naganjaneya	31 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/93/2018	Syed Malik Ahammed vs Gadigarevula Kiran Kumar	31 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/156/2020	A.Rama Subba Reddy vs M.Srinivasulu	31 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/161/2022	Somula Nandeeswara Reddy vs Gajjala Nagaraju	31 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/185/2021	M.Aleem Basha vs B.Haseena	31 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/197/2020	K.Linga Reddy vs M.Chinna Subbamma and another	31 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/212/2020	Chinnamthangi Sreenivasulu vs S.Venkata Ramana	31 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/291/2020	P.Naga Subbaiah vs G.Stayanarayana	31 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/351/2021	Katamreddy Janardhana Reddy vs Yerram Amaranath Reddy	31 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/438/2020	G.Ravindranath vs Gundi Andraiah and another	31 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/464/2020	Shaik Chand Basha @ S.K.Chand Basha vs M.Basha and another	31 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/477/2020	D.Manohar Reddy vs S.Surrendranath Reddy	31 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/486/2021	K.Eswar @ Kategaru Eswar Rao vs Diyya Manikya Rao	31 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/506/2020	M.Ram Mohan Reddy vs S.Mohammed Gouse	31 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/667/2019	Sanjamala Prabhakar Reddy vs B.Suryanarayana	31 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/817/2019	Chakali Siva Lakshmi vs Raja Vijayanna and another	31 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/80/2021	Bijjala Padmavathamma vs Baki Chandra Sekhar Reddy	28 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/181/2020	M/s Sri Maruthi Agencies regd., Nandyal rep., by its Managing Partner B.Rama Seshaiah vs T.Atchutha Pratheep Kumar	28 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/182/2020	M/s Sri Maruthi Agencies regd., Nandyal rep., by its Managing Partner B.Rama Seshaiah vs P.J.Harathi	28 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/199/2020	Avula Bujji @ Venkata lakshamma vs Dandu Pratap and another	28 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/298/2020	P.Balamma vs M.Jayamma	28 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/372/2021	Jale Mariyamma vs Podava Srinivasulu	28 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/488/2020	Canara Bank, Nandyal rep., by its Chief Manager, Nandyal vs M.Shankar Reddy	28 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/601/2020	N.Saraswathi and 3 others vs Y.Sunkanna @ Pothulapadu Sunkanna and another	28 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/688/2021	Katepogu Pedda Sunkanna vs Mareddy Danamma	28 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/718/2021	Boreddy Rayapu Reddy vs Kandula Venkateswarlu	28 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/9/2020	Canara Bank, Nandyal, rep., by its Chief Manager vs K.Lurdu Reddy	27 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/27/2022	B. Mahitab @ S. Mehatab vs Shaik Hussain Bi	27 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/120/2021	T.Nageshwara Reddy vs Darvesi Mohammed Shafi	27 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/375/2020	V.Amarnath Reddy vs Lingam Srinivasulu died by 2 L.Rs Smt.Lingam Lakshmi Devi @ J.Sailaja	27 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/538/2020	D.Vanoor Basha vs P.Rabia	27 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/750/2019	G.Narayanamma vs Chindukuru Pedda Venkata Subbaiah	27 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/3/2021	Jangiti Mahesh vs P.Yenumala Nagamani	21 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/129/2015	Shaik Shaikshavali alias Shaiksha vs Shaik Rameeja	21 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/191/2021	G.Chandramouli Reddy vs Chinthala Gurrappa and another	21 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/215/2019	Vasagiri Krishna Lingaiah vs Itikela Kesavulu	21 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/254/2018	Juturu Pedda Venkateswarlu vs Patan Safi Khan	21 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/301/2021	Canara Bank E-Syndicate Bank, Nandyal Branch-2, Nandyal rep., by its Branch Manager vs Dabbara Siva Shankar and two others	21 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/344/2020	B.Ramaiah vs B.Phanikumar	21 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/384/2016	Varikuti Chinna Venkata Subba Reddy vs Kakanuru Venkata Siva Reddy	21 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/650/2021	Kummineni @ Kommineni Chennamma vs Nandyal Municipality	21 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/1099/2019	K.Partha Sarathi Reddy vs A.Thimmaiah	21 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/68/2022	Canara Bank rep. by its Branch Manager, Korupula Veera Venkata Madhava Rao, S/o Krishna Murthy vs Badri Lakshmi Narayana and one other	20 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/116/2018	Gadekari Sattar Saheb vs Bharatham Venkata Ramaiah	20 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/120/2022	Banda Ramalakshmamma and 3 others vs Bandika Venkateshappa and 3 others	20 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/167/2022	Batchu Vasudhara vs Shaik Salam	20 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/177/2020	G.Mohan Rao vs G.Ramalinga Reddy and 3 others	20 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/179/2019	N.Sudhamani vs D.Uduru Saheb	20 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/242/2020	E.Narayana Goudu vs C.Maheswari Devi and another	20 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/286/2022	Syed Fareeda vs Shaik Hussain Bee and one other	20 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/473/2021	Sattigari Bali Reddy vs Guragari Parameswara Reddy	20 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/532/2020	K.N.Sandeep vs B.Suresh	20 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/628/2019	Idiga Chinna Subbarayudu vs Kammara Tirupamaiah	20 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/1160/2019	P.Venkata Ramana vs Madasu Obulesu died by his 2 L.Rs by name M.Rani	20 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/7/2022	Gundala Madhusudhan Rao vs Shaik Akbar Basha	19 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/65/2021	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Noonepalli Branch, Nandyal town, rep., by its Chief Manager vs Siripireddy Achi Reddy and another	19 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/74/2022	Canara Bank, rep. by its Chief Manager, V. Eswaraiah, S/o V. Thimmaiah, vs Pinnam Rajya Lakshmi	19 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/96/2022	Canara Bank rep by its chief manager V. Eswaraiah vs Gummitha Chinna Rama Krishna Reddy and one other	19 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/116/2019	Nandyala Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy vs Kallars Krishna Rao	19 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/116/2020	Canara Bank, Nandyal rep., by its Branch Manager vs K.Pedda Bojjaiah	19 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/410/2021	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Polur, rep., by its Manager vs Chintakayala Bangaramma and 4 others	19 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/444/2019	Sri Sai Ram Medical Agencies Rep by its Proprietor Koppurapu Sreelatha vs Nichanmetla Venkata Seshachalamaiah	19 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/459/2021	Shaik Shamshini @ Chamchinee @ Shaik Shamshun vs D.Danguri Shankaraiah @ Danguri D.Shankaraiah died by his 2 L.Rs by name D.Manula	19 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/808/2019	Canara Bank, rep., by its Branch Manager, Nandyal vs L.Rama Thulasi	19 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/937/2019	Badam Suryanaryana Reddy vs Singareddy Nirmala and another	19 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/1136/2019	K.Hari Prasad Rao and another vs T.Soma Lakshmamma and 2 others	19 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/8/2022	Gundala Madhavi Latha vs Shaik Akbar Basha	18 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/37/2020	V.Suresh Reddy vs S.Rizwan	18 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/164/2019	Aasula Rama Subbamma vs B.Bala Ramudu	18 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/336/2020	K.Vasundhara vs N.Dastagiri Reddy	18 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/479/2019	Shaik Apsar Basha vs J.Naga Seshudu @ Naga Seshu	18 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/529/2017	Pasupula Samanthakamani vs Yedurla Narayana	18 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/579/2019	G.Venkateswara Reddy vs G.Srinivasa Rao	18 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/582/2019	Chinna Marennagari Pedda Marenna vs Chinna Marennagari Ramanjaneyulu	18 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/629/2020	M.Prakash Reddy vs P.Ramanaidu	18 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/1238/2019	Kotha Ravin Prakash vs G.Moges	18 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/22/2019	Chatakonda Narendranath vs Lagisetty Ravi Kumar	17 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/52/2021	Ugge Harinath vs G.Gurrappa	17 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/137/2021	Magham Rama and 3 Others vs M/s Jai Varshini Cotton Mill rep., by its Partner and 2 others A.Ravi	17 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/175/2020	P.Sukanya vs G.Raghu Srinivasulu	17 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/625/2021	Dereddy Adi Sesha Reddy vs Neemkar Saroja Bai	17 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/626/2021	Bujunuru Savithri and another vs Katasani Bharathi and 2 others	17 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/676/2019	Chinna Yenumula Sivudu vs Peddayenumula Nagamani	17 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/736/2019	Shaik Shabiha vs Shaik Chinna Khasimsaheb	17 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/1033/2019	Shaik Faizunnisa Bee vs A.Gafoor	17 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/13/2020	B.Venkateshudu vs L.Venkata Ramana Raju	14 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/35/2020	Kanta Devachandrudu vs P.Ramaiah	14 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/36/2019	Chowdaboina Venkata Subbamma vs Chittari Rama Krishna	14 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/36/2022	Yajamanyma Sarada vs Dhande Bhushanna	14 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/117/2021	S.Asiya vs S.Zahuruddin Basha	14 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/359/2021	Chakali Lakshmi Devi vs B.Yella Nagamma	14 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—
OS/455/2021	Yelisetty Harinath vs Guragari Parameswara Reddy	14 Oct 2022	Copy Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 2,432 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Nov 2022		9
Oct 2022		132
Sep 2022		101
Aug 2022		333
Jul 2022		97
Jun 2022		44
May 2022		106
Mar 2022		103
Feb 2022		15
Jan 2022		23
Dec 2021		244
Nov 2021		32

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt.B.M.R. Prasanna Latha handled?

Smt.B.M.R. Prasanna Latha has handled 2461 court orders since 2020 at III Addl District Complex, Nandyal. The average disposal rate is 94 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt.B.M.R. Prasanna Latha hear?

Based on available records, Smt.B.M.R. Prasanna Latha primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at III Addl District Complex, Nandyal.

Where is Smt.B.M.R. Prasanna Latha currently posted?

Smt.B.M.R. Prasanna Latha is posted as Additional Junior Civil Judge at III Addl District Complex, Nandyal, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt.B.M.R. Prasanna Latha available online?

Yes. 30 judgments by Smt.B.M.R. Prasanna Latha are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt.B.M.R. Prasanna Latha dispose cases?

Smt.B.M.R. Prasanna Latha disposes approximately 94 cases per month, based on 2461 orders handled over their tenure at III Addl District Complex, Nandyal.

Since when is Smt.B.M.R. Prasanna Latha serving?

Smt.B.M.R. Prasanna Latha has been serving at III Addl District Complex, Nandyal since 2020.

Case Types

CC 83%

OS 13%

PRC 3%

MC 1%

DVC 0%

STC 0%

Posting History

Aug 2022 — Sep 2022

Additional Junior Civil Judge · 23 orders
Aug 2022 — Nov 2022

Prl.Junior Civil Judge · 243 orders
Apr 2022 — Aug 2022

Prl.Junior Civil Judge · 15 orders
Oct 2021 — Aug 2022

Additional Junior Civil Judge · 968 orders
Aug 2021 — Sep 2021

Prl.Junior Civil Judge
Aug 2021 — Aug 2021

Prl.Junior Civil Judge
Oct 2020 — Jul 2021

Prl.Junior Civil Judge · 72 orders
Jul 2020 — Oct 2021

Additional Junior Civil Judge · 1,140 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 10

Convicted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Sri.D.Ammanna Raja

III Addl.District Judge,Nandyal

895 orders

Sri N.Sirish

Prl.Senior Civil Judge

0 orders

Smt S.thangamani

I Addl.Senior Civil Judge-FTC

0 orders

Sri Suribhatla Srinivasu

Prl.Junior Civil Judge

548 orders

Smt S. Lakshmi Karri

Additional Junior Civil Judge

36 orders

Sri M.yesuratnam

Special Magistrate Court, Nandyal

957 orders

← View all judges at III Addl District Complex, Nandyal

Smt.B.M.R. Prasanna Latha

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NANDYAL.

C.C.No.632 of 2020

J U D G M E N T

Appendix of Evidence

Exhibits marked for

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NANDYAL

C.C.No.632/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NANDYAL.

Monday, the 19 th day of September, 2022

---

-Vs-

:: J U D G M E N T :

the offence punishable under Section 8 (b) (i) of A.P. Prohibition Act,

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:- Defence:-

Material Objects

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NANDYAL

C.C.No.80/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NANDYAL.

Tuesday, the 16 th day of August, 2022

---

:: J U D G M E N T :

offence punishable under Section 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act, beyond all

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:- Defence:-

Material Objects

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NANDYAL

C.C.No.1836/2021

NANDYAL

Present:- Smt. B.M.R. Prasanna Latha,

C.C.No.2900/2021

J U D G M E N T

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:- Defence:-

Material Objects

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NANDYAL

NANDYAL

Present:- Smt. B.M.R. Prasanna Latha,

C.C.No.3009/2021

J U D G M E N T

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:- Defence:-

Material Objects

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NANDYAL

***offence punishable under Section* 8(b) *of A.P. Prohibition Act, beyond all***