Ms B.Priyanka

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Kodad, SCJ Court Complex · Suryapet · Telangana

Ms B.Priyanka, Principal Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Kodad, SCJ Court Complex, Suryapet, Telangana, India. 68 court orders on record since 2017. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, PRC cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/71/2022 Acquitted

SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Yamagani Veerababu

01 Apr 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KODAD

(Dated this the 1st day of April, 2022)

Present: SRI N.SYAMASUNDAR,

M.Tech., MBA, LL.M.,

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kodad

C.C.No. 71 of 2022

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Kodad

..PROSECUTION

A N D

A1: Yamagani Veera Babu, S/o.Kotaiah, aged:38 years, Occ:Coolie, R/o.Yadavbazar, Kodad, Suryapet District.

A2: Bhukya Dev Singh, S/o.Tulsya, age:40 years, occ:Coolie, R/o.Panthulunayaku thanda, Kodad Mandal, Suryapet Disrict.

...ACCUSED

This case is coming on this day before me for disposal in the presence of learned APP for complainant and Sri P.Srinivas Kumar, counsel for the accused, upon perusing material papers on record, upon hearing arguments, having stood over for consideration, till to day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Proh. and Excise Inspector, Station, Kodad filed charge sheet in

P.C.O.R.No. 195/2016, under Section 7A R/w. 8 (e) of Telangana State Excise Act against the accused A1 & A2.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 22-09-2015 at about 10.15 a.m., on receipt of credible information R.V..Rajya Laxmi, Sub Inspector of Proh. and

Excise, Kodad along with his staff and two panch witnesses viz., Lw.1/Dharavath

Ravi Nayak & Lw.2/Palwai Yedukondalu proceeded to the house of accused at

Yadavbazar Bazar, Kodad served search memo and searched the house of accused and found 10 liters of plastic covers containing 10 liters of I.D. liquor drawn two samples for analysis purpose. Lw.3 arrested the accused and seized the contraband under the cover of panchanama drafted on the spot. One of the samples was subjected to analysis by Chemical Examiner who issued analysis report opining that the sample contained I.D. liquor is injurious to health and unfit for human consumption. Thus, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused is liable for punishment for the above section of law.

3.The case was taken on file under Section 7 A R/w 8 (e) of T.S. Prohibition

Act.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents furnished to his as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C., he was examined under Section 239

Cr.P.C., for which accused denied the commission of offence. A charge under

Section 7 A R/w 8 (e) of T.S. Prohibition Act framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to Pw.3 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 are marked.

6.After closure of the Prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining him, the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and accused denied the same and reported no oral or documentary evidence.

7. Heard the learned APP and counsel for accused.

8.Now the point that determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused punishable under Section 7 (a) R/w 8 (e) of A.P.Proh. Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. PW.1 and PW-2 being panch witnesses for seizure of property and they categorically deposed that they do not know the facts of the case and nothing was seized in their presence. There were declared as hostile witness and cross- examined by the learned APP. From their cross-examination nothing was elicited in support of the version of the prosecution. Therefore, their evidence is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

11.The only evidence remain on record is PW.3 who is the Investigating

Officer his evidence is formal, procedural one available basing on the record who detected the case, seized the contraband and after following the procedure filed the charge sheet into the court after receipt of chemical examiner’s report. Except the evidence of PW.3 there is no corroborative evidence to believe the version of prosecution, as the panch witnesses in whose presence the alleged seizure took place failed to support the case of prosecution .

12. In the light of foregoing discussion I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

13.In the result, accused A1, A2 are found not guilty for the offence under

Section 7 (a) R/w 8 (e) of T.S. Proh. & Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall stand cancelled.

The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of April, 2022.

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kodad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

EXAMINED WITNESSES

For Prosecution:

Pw.1 : Dharavath Ravi Nayak Pw.2: Palwai Yedukondalu Pw.3 : R.V.Rajya Laxmi, P & EI

For Defence: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Signature of Pw.1 on panchanama Ex.P.2 : Signature of Pw.2 on panchanama Ex.P.3 : Confession and seizure panchanama Ex.P.4 : PCOR Ex.P.5 : Chemical examination report. For Defence: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kodad.

CC/18/2020 Acquitted

S.H.O EXCISE KODAD P.S vs N.RAMULAMMA

01 Apr 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KODAD

(Dated this the 1st day of April, 2022)

Present: SRI N.SYAMASUNDAR,

M.Tech., MBA, LL.M.,

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kodad

C.C.No. 18 of 2020

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Kodad.

..PROSECUTION

A N D

Mekala Ramulamma, W/o.Narayana, age:57 years, occ:Coolie, R/o.Ganapavaram village

...ACCUSED

J U D G M E N T

1. The Proh. and Excise Inspector, Station, Kodad filed charge sheet in

P.C.O.R.No. 58/2016, under Section 7A R/w. 8 (e) of Telangana State Prohibition

Act against the accused.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 05.05.2016 at about 09.30 AM, on receipt of credible information R.Surender, Sub Inspector of Proh. and Excise,

Kodad along with his staff and two panch witnesses viz., Lw.1/ Shaik Saida

Hussain, & Lw.2/ Shaik Pedda Imam sahib proceeded to the house of accused at

Ganapavaram village served search memo and searched the house of accused and found one plastic can containing 05 liters of ID liquor drawn two samples for analysis purpose. Lw.3 arrested the accused and seized the contraband under the cover of panchanama drafted on the spot. One of the samples was subjected to analysis by Chemical Examiner who issued analysis report opining that the sample contained I.D. liquor is injurious to health and unfit for human consumption. Thus, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused is liable for punishment for the above section of law.

3.The case was taken on file under Section 7 A R/w 8 (e) of T.S. Prohibition

Act.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents furnished to his as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C., he was examined under Section 239

Cr.P.C., for which accused denied the commission of offence. A charge under

Section 7 A R/w 8 (e) of T.S. Prohibition Act framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to Pw.3 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 are marked.

7. Heard the learned APP and counsel for accused.

8.Now the point that determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused punishable under Section 7 (a) R/w 8 (e) of A.P.Proh. Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.The only evidence remain on record is PW.3 who is the Investigating

12. In the light of foregoing discussion I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 7 (a)

R/w 8 (e) of T.S. Proh. & Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of April, 2022.

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kodad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

EXAMINED WITNESSES

For Prosecution:

Pw.1 : Shaik Saida Hussain, Pw.2/ Shaik Pedda Imam sahib Pw.3 : R.Surender, P & EI

For Defence: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Signature of Pw.1 on panchanama Ex.P.2 : Signature of Pw.2 on panchanama Ex.P.3 : Confession and seizure panchanama Ex.P.4 : PCOR Ex.P.5 : Chemical examination report. For Defence: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kodad.

CC/63/2020 Acquitted

S.H.O EXCISE KODAD P.S vs M.SREENU

01 Apr 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KODAD

(Dated this the 1st day of April, 2022)

Present: SRI N.SYAMASUNDAR,

M.Tech., MBA, LL.M.,

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kodad

C.C.No. 63 of 2020

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Kodad.

..PROSECUTION

A N D

Malothu Sreenu, S/o.Peekla, age:37 years, R/o.Kommubanda thanda, Chilkur mandal

...ACCUSED

This case is coming on this day before me for disposal in the presence of learned APP for complainant and Sri K.V.Rao, counsel for the accused, upon perusing material papers on record, upon hearing arguments, having stood over for consideration, till to day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Proh. and Excise Inspector, Station, Kodad filed charge sheet in

P.C.O.R.No.129/2019, under Section 7A R/w. 8 (e) of Telangana State Prohibition

Act against the accused.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 04.07.2019 at about 10.00 AM., on receipt of credible information R.Surender, Sub Inspector of Proh. and Excise,

Kodad along with his staff and two panch witnesses viz., Lw.1/Malothu Nageshwar rao & Lw.2/Venkdoth Saida proceeded to the house of accused at Kommubanda thanda served search memo and searched the house of accused and found 05 liters of ID liquor, 50 liters of FJ wash drawn two samples for analysis purpose.

Lw.3 arrested the accused and seized the contraband under the cover of panchanama drafted on the spot. One of the samples was subjected to analysis by

Chemical Examiner who issued analysis report opining that the sample contained

I.D. liquor is injurious to health and unfit for human consumption. Thus, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused is liable for punishment for the above section of law.

3.The case was taken on file under Section 7 A R/w 8 (e) of T.S. Prohibition

Act.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents furnished to his as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C., he was examined under Section 239

Cr.P.C., for which accused denied the commission of offence. A charge under

Section 7 A R/w 8 (e) of T.S. Prohibition Act framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to Pw.3 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 are marked.

7. Heard the learned APP and counsel for accused.

8.Now the point that determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused punishable under Section 7 (a) R/w 8 (e) of A.P.Proh. Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.The only evidence remain on record is PW.3 who is the Investigating

12. In the light of foregoing discussion I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 7 (a)

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of April, 2022.

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kodad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

EXAMINED WITNESSES

For Prosecution:

Pw.1 : Malothu Nageshwar rao Pw.2 : Venkdoth Saida Pw.3 : R.Surender, P & EI

For Defence: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Signature of Pw.1 on panchanama Ex.P.2 : Signature of Pw.2 on panchanama Ex.P.3 : Confession and seizure panchanama Ex.P.4 : PCOR Ex.P.5 : Chemical examination report. For Defence: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kodad.

CC/64/2020 Acquitted

S.H.O EXCISE KODAD P.S vs M.VENKANNA

01 Apr 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KODAD

(Dated this the 1st day of April, 2022)

Present: SRI N.SYAMASUNDAR,

M.Tech., MBA, LL.M.,

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kodad

C.C.No. 64 of 2020

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Kodad.

..PROSECUTION

A N D

Malothu Venkanna, S/o.Malothu Baloji, Age:35 years, R/o.H.No.444, Kommubanda thanda of Chilkur mandal.

...ACCUSED

J U D G M E N T

1. The Proh. and Excise Inspector, Station, Kodad filed charge sheet in

P.C.O.R.No. 132/2019, under Section 7A R/w. 8 (e) of Telangana State Prohibition

Act against the accused.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 29-07-2019 at about 06.30 p.m., on receipt of credible information R.V..Rajya Laxmi, Sub Inspector of Proh. and

Excise, Kodad along with his staff and two panch witnesses viz., Lw.1/Malothu

Chandru & Lw.2/Nunavath Praveen Kumar proceeded to the house of accused at

Koommubanda thanda served search memo and searched the house of accused and found 02 liters of ID liquor drawn two samples for analysis purpose. Lw.3 arrested the accused and seized the contraband under the cover of panchanama drafted on the spot. One of the samples was subjected to analysis by Chemical

Examiner who issued analysis report opining that the sample contained I.D. liquor is injurious to health and unfit for human consumption. Thus, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused is liable for punishment for the above section of law.

3.The case was taken on file under Section 7 A R/w 8 (e) of T.S. Prohibition

Act.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents furnished to his as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C., he was examined under Section 239

Cr.P.C., for which accused denied the commission of offence. A charge under

Section 7 A R/w 8 (e) of T.S. Prohibition Act framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to Pw.3 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 are marked.

7. Heard the learned APP and counsel for accused.

8.Now the point that determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused punishable under Section 7 (a) R/w 8 (e) of A.P.Proh. Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.The only evidence remain on record is PW.3 who is the Investigating

12. In the light of foregoing discussion I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 7 (a)

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of April, 2022.

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kodad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

EXAMINED WITNESSES

For Prosecution:

Pw.1 : Malothu Chandru Pw.2 : Nunavath Praveen Kumar Pw.3 : R.Surender, P & EI

For Defence: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Signature of Pw.1 on panchanama Ex.P.2 : Signature of Pw.2 on panchanama Ex.P.3 : Confession and seizure panchanama Ex.P.4 : PCOR Ex.P.5 : Chemical examination report. For Defence: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kodad.

CC/37/2020 Acquitted

S.H.O EXCISE KODAD P.S vs B.BALSINGH

01 Apr 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KODAD

(Dated this the 1st day of April, 2022)

Present: SRI N.SYAMASUNDAR,

M.Tech., MBA, LL.M.,

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kodad

C.C.No. 37 of 2020

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Kodad.

..PROSECUTION

A N D

Badavath Bal Singh, S/o.Bangarya, age:35 years, occ:Agriculture, R/o.Bheekya thanda, Kodad mandal.

...ACCUSED

J U D G M E N T

1. The Proh. and Excise Inspector, Station, Kodad filed charge sheet in

P.C.O.R.No. 158/2016, under Section 34 (e) of Telangana State Prohibition Act against the accused.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 02.11.2016 at about 12.00 noon., on receipt of credible information R.Surender, Sub Inspector of Proh. and Excise,

Kodad along with his staff and two panch witnesses viz., Lw.1/ Banoth Ambedkar, &

Lw.2/ Islavath Heeru proceeded to the house of accused at Bheekya thanda served search memo and searched the house of accused and found 200 liters of FJ wash drawn two samples for analysis purpose. Lw.3 arrested the accused and seized the contraband under the cover of panchanama drafted on the spot. One of the samples was subjected to analysis by Chemical Examiner who issued analysis report opining that the sample contained I.D. liquor is injurious to health and unfit for human consumption. Thus, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused is liable for punishment for the above section of law.

3.The case was taken on file under Section 7 A R/w 8 (e) of T.S. Prohibition

Act.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents furnished to his as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C., he was examined under Section 239

Cr.P.C., for which accused denied the commission of offence. A charge under

Section 7 A R/w 8 (e) of T.S. Prohibition Act framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to Pw.3 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 are marked.

7. Heard the learned APP and counsel for accused.

8.Now the point that determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused punishable under Section 7 (a) R/w 8 (e) of A.P.Proh. Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.The only evidence remain on record is PW.3 who is the Investigating

12. In the light of foregoing discussion I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34 (e) of T.S. Proh. & Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of April, 2022.

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kodad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

EXAMINED WITNESSES

For Prosecution:

Pw.1 : Banoth Ambedkar, Pw.2/ Islavath Heeru Pw.3 : R.V.Rajya Laxmi, P & EI

For Defence: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Signature of Pw.1 on panchanama Ex.P.2 : Signature of Pw.2 on panchanama Ex.P.3 : Confession and seizure panchanama Ex.P.4 : PCOR Ex.P.5 : Chemical examination report. For Defence: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kodad.

Order Record 68 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/18/2020	S.H.O EXCISE KODAD P.S vs N.RAMULAMMA	01 Apr 2022	Acquitted	Acquitted
CC/37/2020	S.H.O EXCISE KODAD P.S vs B.BALSINGH	01 Apr 2022	Acquitted	Acquitted
CC/63/2020	S.H.O EXCISE KODAD P.S vs M.SREENU	01 Apr 2022	Acquitted	Acquitted
CC/64/2020	S.H.O EXCISE KODAD P.S vs M.VENKANNA	01 Apr 2022	Acquitted	Acquitted
CC/71/2022	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Yamagani Veerababu	01 Apr 2022	Acquitted	Acquitted
CC/72/2022	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Dharavath Somla	01 Apr 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/86/2022	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Gugulothu raju	01 Apr 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/94/2020	S.H.O EXCISE KODAD P.S vs B.SAIDA	01 Apr 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/95/2020	S.H.O EXCISE KODAD P.S vs SK.MEERABEE	01 Apr 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/96/2020	S.H.O EXCISE KODAD P.S vs M.VENKANNA	01 Apr 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/98/2020	S.H.O EXCISE KODAD P.S vs I.BASHYA	01 Apr 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/568/2021	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Bhukya Laxma	01 Apr 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/1042/2021	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs BHUKYA DEVSINGH	01 Apr 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/1043/2021	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs VAKUDOTH SAIDA	01 Apr 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/1044/2021	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs MALOTHU SAIDA	01 Apr 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/1046/2021	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs GUGULOTHU LAXMI	01 Apr 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/1047/2021	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs SOMAGANI SAKKUBAI	01 Apr 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/2071/2020	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs GUGULOTHU JANARDHAN	01 Apr 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/2076/2020	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs BANOTHU JAGGU	01 Apr 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/426/2019	The State of Telangana through Proh. and Excise Inspector, SHO, Kodad vs B.Bhalu	31 Mar 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/926/2021	SHO KODAD RURAL vs Kondapally Sai Mouli	31 Mar 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/1032/2021	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Boda Husseni	31 Mar 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/1040/2021	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs BODA SRIRAMULU	31 Mar 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/1041/2021	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs BANOTHU GOBRIYA	31 Mar 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/74/2022	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Kodi Veeraiah	25 Mar 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/75/2022	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Mokka Satyanarayana and others	25 Mar 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/76/2022	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Gundalpalli Bakkaiah	25 Mar 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/77/2022	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Shaik Gulam	25 Mar 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/79/2022	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Noina Bixam	25 Mar 2022	Acquitted	—
OS/14/2022	Shaik Ayesha @ Asia Begum vs Shaik Abdul Majeed	17 Mar 2022	Decreed as prayed for	—
CC/68/2022	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Dasu Atchamma	15 Mar 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/81/2022	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Rekha Krishna	15 Mar 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/1033/2021	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs BODDU ACHAMMA	15 Mar 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/1035/2021	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs PUNNAM PADMA	15 Mar 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/1036/2021	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs MUNTHA KANAKAIAH	15 Mar 2022	Acquitted	—
OS/2/2022	Mohammad Shainaz vs Mohammad Mazahar	28 Feb 2022	Decreed as prayed for	—
CC/70/2022	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Boda Shantha	25 Feb 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/73/2022	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Bhukya Mothilal	25 Feb 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/78/2022	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Bhukya Hatiya	25 Feb 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/83/2022	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Tejavath Bheema	25 Feb 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/84/2022	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Komiraboina Kamalamma	25 Feb 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/1031/2021	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs GANDU SAIDULU	25 Feb 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/1037/2021	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs GANDU SAIDULU	25 Feb 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/1038/2021	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs POTTA VARAMMA	25 Feb 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/1039/2021	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs DHARAVATH MANGYA	25 Feb 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/1045/2021	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs REDDIBOINA SAIDULU	25 Feb 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/1601/2020	SHO KODAD RURAL vs KOLA EDUKONDALU	17 Feb 2022	Acquitted	—
PRC/2/2017	SHO KODAD RURAL vs G ANJAIAH AND OTHERS	14 Feb 2022	Reference is closed	—
CC/38/2020	S.H.O EXCISE KODAD P.S vs I.RAMULU AND OTHERS	03 Feb 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/58/2020	S.H.O EXCISE KODAD P.S vs B.PANTHULU	03 Feb 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/418/2019	The State of Telangana through Proh. and Excise Inspector, SHO, Kodad vs B.Sanjivi	03 Feb 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/569/2021	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Bhukya Bujji	03 Feb 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/2069/2020	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs TEJAVATH CHANDRU	03 Feb 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/2073/2020	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs JERUPULA SAIDA	03 Feb 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/24/2020	S.H.O EXCISE KODAD P.S vs G.RAVINDAR	27 Jan 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/59/2020	S.H.O EXCISE KODAD P.S vs B.BIGINA	27 Jan 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/567/2021	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Singirikonda Narshimha Rao	27 Jan 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/570/2021	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Bhukya Lachiram	27 Jan 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/833/2019	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Nalla Suraiah	27 Jan 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/834/2019	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Somaagani Venkateshwarlu	27 Jan 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/2068/2020	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs Daravath Bhav Singh	27 Jan 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/2070/2020	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs TEJAVATH SIMLA	27 Jan 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/2074/2020	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs JERUPULA BUJJI	27 Jan 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/2075/2020	SHO KODAD EXCISE vs GUGULOTH BHEEMLA	27 Jan 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/293/2021	SHO KODAD RURAL vs Yallapragada Srivatsav	17 Jan 2022	Acquitted	—
CC/974/2021	SHO MUNAGALA vs REPANA SRINIVASA RAO	17 Jan 2022	Convicted	—
OS/259/2021	Gulam Ahmed Siddiqui and others vs To whom so ever it may concern	07 Jan 2022	Decreed	—
OS/260/2021	Narisetti Rukmini vs To whom so ever it may concern	07 Jan 2022	Decreed	—

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2022		19
Mar 2022		16
Feb 2022		19
Jan 2022		14

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Ms B.Priyanka handled?

Ms B.Priyanka has handled 68 court orders since 2017 at Kodad, SCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 1 orders per month.

What types of cases does Ms B.Priyanka hear?

Based on available records, Ms B.Priyanka primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Kodad, SCJ Court Complex.

Where is Ms B.Priyanka currently posted?

Ms B.Priyanka is posted as Principal Junior Civil Judge at Kodad, SCJ Court Complex, Suryapet, Telangana.

Are judgments by Ms B.Priyanka available online?

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

How fast does Ms B.Priyanka dispose cases?

Ms B.Priyanka disposes approximately 1 cases per month, based on 68 orders handled over their tenure at Kodad, SCJ Court Complex.

Since when is Ms B.Priyanka serving?

Ms B.Priyanka has been serving at Kodad, SCJ Court Complex since 2017.

Case Types

CC 93%

OS 6%

PRC 1%

Posting History

Aug 2021 — Oct 2021

Principal Junior Civil Judge
Jul 2021 — Oct 2021

Junior Civil Judge
Mar 2021 — Aug 2022

I Additional Junior Civil Judge · 68 orders
Apr 2017 — Jan 2021

I Additional Junior Civil Judge

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Ms.bhavya Kovi

Principal Junior Civil Judge

651 orders

Sri.mohammad Umar

I Additional Junior Civil Judge

452 orders

Syed Zakiyyah Sulthana

II Additional Junior Civil Judge

255 orders

Sri K.Suresh

Senior Civil Judge Court, Kodad

593 orders

← View all judges at Kodad, SCJ Court Complex