Smt B. Rupasree

1

APPR120012672025Presented on : 17-12-2025 Registered on : 22-12-2025 Decided on : 23-04-2026 Duration : 0 years, 4 months, 6 days

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 736 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Kanigiri

1. Date of Offence:04.08.2025

2. Date of report:04.08.2025

3. Date of arrest of accused:Section 35(3) BNSS

4. Date of release on bail:Section 35(3) BNSS

5. Date of commencement of trial:17.02.2026

6. Date of close of trial:08.04.2026

7. Date of judgment:23.04.2026

8. Complainant:The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Veligandla Police Station

9. Accused:Kethanaboyina Venkata Rao, S/o. Chinna Peddaiah, aged about 41 years, R/o. Thummagunta Village, Kanigiri Mandal.

10. Offence:U/s. 34(a) of A.P Excise Act

11. Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court:Found not guilty

13. Sentence or order : In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty of the offence under section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act, and hence he is acquitted under section section 271(1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for 2 a period of six months as per Section 481 of BNSS. The case property i.e., M.O.1 to M.O.4 received vide C.P.R. No.212 of 2025 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

14. Explanation for delay : Cognizance was taken on 22.12.2025 and the same was numbered as C.C. No. 736 of 2025. On 02.02.2026, copies of documents furnished to Accused under Section 230 of BNSS and on the same day accused was examined under Section 262 of BNSS by framing charge under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, and explained to him in Telugu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial the prosecution examined Pws.1 & 2, Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.1 to M.O.4 are marked. On 08.04.2026, accused was examined under Section 351 of BNSS and accused reported no evidence, the matter posted for arguments. On 23.04.2026, heard the arguments and pronounced the Judgment. Hence, the delay.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

KANIGIRI.

3

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS : KANIGIRI

Present : - Smt. B. Rupa Sree

Judicial Magistrate of I Class Kanigiri

Thursday, the Twenty Third (23rd) day of April, 2026

Calendar Case No. 736 of 2025

Between:-

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanigiri Police Station …. Complainant

&

Kethanaboyina Venkata Rao, S/o. Chinna Peddaiah, aged about 41 years, R/o. Thummagunta Village, Kanigiri Mandal.

…. Accused

This case has come up on 23.04.2026 for arguments before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri Shaik Rabbani, Counsel for accused, and the matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following –

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanigiri Police

Station in Crime No.259 of 2025 on Mediators Report, filed charge sheet, after investigation for the offence punishable under section under section 34(a) of A.P

Excise Act.

2. The conspectus of the case of prosecution is that: On 04.08.2025 at about 11.00 a.m., accused was found in illegal possession of 3 liquor bottles of Bangalore whisky of 180 ml each, 2 liquor bottles of Officer’s Chocie whisky of 180 ml each, 4 2 liquor bottles of Binnie’s Super Fine whisky of 180 ml each and 2 liquor bottles of

Shot whisky of 180 ml each (total 9 bottles) near Thummagunta Village, Kanigiri

Mandal, in the raid conducted by Police Officials of Kanigiri Police Station headed by LW.6/A.Bhaskara Rao, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Kanigiri P.S., who caught accused in the presence of mediators under Mediators Report, separated sample for chemical analysis, served section 35(3) BNSS notice to the accused and thereafter, handed over remaining seized contraband to Superintendent of Police,

Prakasam District for confiscation. After completion of investigation, PW.2 filed

Charge sheet against the accused.

3.After taking cognizance under section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act, case copies were furnished to accused. On appearance, examined accused under section 262(2) BNSS by framing a charge under aforesaid section, read over and explained to accused in Telugu for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In support of its case, prosecution examined PW.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 and M.O.1 to M.O.4. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused. Learned APP has given up the evidence of other witnesses cited in the charge-sheet.

5

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 351 of BNSS by putting-forth incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution to which accused denied and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt?

8.POINT: To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined N.Ramanaiah (mediator) as PW.1 and T.Sriram, the then Sub

Inspector of Police of Kanigiri as PW.2.

9.The evidence of PW.1 goes to show that police officials called him and LW.3/E.Guravaiah to the police station and obtained their signatures on some filled papers and his evidence further goes to show that he does not know the contents of Ex.P1.

10.The mediator/PW1 did not support the case of prosecution and has specifically deposed that he does not know the contents of Ex.P1 and admitted that their signatures were obtained by Police Officials.

6

11.The evidence of PW.2/T.Sriram goes to show that on 04.08.2025 at about 11.00 a.m., LW.6/A.Bhaskara Rao, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Kanigiri conducted raids along with his staff and mediators and found the accused near

Thummagunta Village, Kanigiri Mandal in possession of 3 liquor bottles of

Bangalore whisky of 180 ml each, 2 liquor bottles of Officer’s Chocie whisky of 180 ml each, 2 liquor bottles of Binnie’s Super Fine whisky of 180 ml each and 2 liquor bottles of Shot whisky of 180 ml each, drew sample for the purpose of chemical analysis and the same was seized by drafting Mediators Report/Ex.P.1, pursuant to confession of crime by accused and registered the same as case under Section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act, served section 35(3) BNSS notice to accused and thereafter, handed over remaining seized contraband to Superintendent of Police,

Prakasam District.

12.The Hon’ble Apex court in Murli and Another Vs. State of

Rajasthan 1held “the contents of Panchanama are not the substantive evidence.

The Law is settled on that issue and what is substantive evidence is, what has been stated by the panchas or the concerned persons in the witness box”.

13.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Pallepu Venkati Vs

State of A.P 2 .,, observed “when the mediators turned hostile, the recoveries at the instance of accused cannot be accepted.” 1AIR 2010 SC (Supp)333 21996 Cri.L.J.1458 7

14. As seen from the record, the Arrest and Recovery mediator/PW.1 did not support the case of prosecution and in view of the above mentioned judgments, the recoveries cannot be accepted.

15. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution, in excise cases, seizure is very important and panch witnesses play pivotal role to prove the seizure. Curiously it is evident on the record that the alleged panch witnesses, totally refused the case of prosecution due to which the factum of recovery is shrouded with doubts.

16.The Hon’ble High Court of AP in the case of Gajamker Narayana v.

State of A.P 3, while dealing with the case of a similar circumstance, observed as follows:

“If the evidence of mediator (P.W.1) who turned hostile is excluded, there remains the evidence of P.W.2, the Police Official, who is certainly interested witness”.

17. Here also, If the evidence of mediator (P.W1) who turned hostile is excluded, there remains the evidence of PW.2, and a reading of the evidence of

PW2, who is police official, being interested witnesses, does not inspire any confidence and in the absence of corroboration of Independent testimony, believing his evidence is always fraught with danger of miscarriage of justice. Therefore in the circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the evidence of PW.2 cannot be relied upon.

32005 SCC Online AP 1187 :(2005) 3 ALT (Cri) 1 8

18. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is of the Opinion that the Prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence with which he was charged and the Accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

19.In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty of the offence under section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act, and hence he is acquitted under section section 271(1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 481 of BNSS. The case property i.e., M.O.1 to M.O.4 received vide C.P.R. No.212 of 2025 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 23 rd day of April, 2026.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ,

KANIGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution For Defence

PW1: N.Ramanaiah None PW2: T.Sriram Exhibits marked

For Prosecution For Defence

Ex.P1 Signature of PW.1 on mediator report.NIL Ex.P2 Mediator Report. Ex.P3 First Information Report. Ex.P4 Analysis Report.

Material Objects

For Prosecution For Defence

MO 1 : One sample bottle ofNIL Bangalore Whisky of 180 ML MO 2 : One sample bottle of Officer’s Choice Whisky of 180 ML 9

MO 3 : One sample bottle of Binnie’s Super Fine Whisky of 180 ML MO 4 : One sample bottle of Shot Whisky of 180 ML

JMFC, KNG

10 // TRUE COPY //

JFCM, KANIGIRI

Sd/- B. Rupa Sree

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

KANIGIRI.

1

APPR120008082025Presented on : 16-06-2025 Registered on : 06-08-2025 Decided on : 20-04-2026 Duration : 0 years, 10 months, 4 days

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)::KANIGIRI

Present : - Smt. B. Rupa Sree,

Civil Judge(Junior Division), Kanigiri.

Monday, The Twentieth (20th) day of April, 2026.

O.S. No.253 of 20 25

Between:-

Channa Venkata Subramanyam, S/o. Lakshmi Narayana, aged about 65 years, Business, Resident of Kotla Bazar, Kanigiri Town and Mandal, Prakasam district.

…. Plaintiff AND

Maarpu Padma Rao, S/o. Ammaiah, aged about 41 years, Business, Resident of D.No.12-75, Kattavaada village, H/o. Narravaripalem Village and Post, Karlapalem Mandal, Bapatla District.

….Defendant

This suit has come up on 20.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.Thirupathi Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant having remained ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaintiff filed this suit on the foot of promissory note seeking recovery from the defendant with future interest and for costs.

2

2.T he case of the plaintiff in nutshell is : On 05.10.2022 defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from plaintiff agreeing to pay interest at 24% p.a. and executed pro-note. Despite repeated demands, defendant failed to pay either the principal or interest. Hence this suit.

3.The Defendant had remained ex-parte. Heard the plaintiff.

4.To substantiate his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and reiterated the contents of plaint in his evidence affidavit and got marked the Original promissory note said to have executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, dt.05.10.2022 as

Ex.A1, Office copy of legal notice dt.15.04.2025 as Ex.A2 and Postal acknowledgment card as Ex.A3. As the oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff is consistent and remained unchallenged, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the plaintiff and thus the Suit claim of plaintiff stands proved. This point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

5.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.2,47,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Forty Seven Thousand only) from the defendant with future interest on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6% p.a from the date of decree till the date of realization. Miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 20 th day of April, 2026.

Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Kanigiri.

3

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendant

PW1 : Channa Venkata SubramanyamNone

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff For Defendant

Ex.A1 : Original promissory note said -NIL- to have executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- dt.05.10.2022.

Ex.A2 : Office Copy of legal notice, dt.15.04.2025.

Ex.A3 : Postal acknowledgment card.

JCJ, KNG

4

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)::KANIGIRI

Present : - Smt. B. Rupa Sree,

Civil Judge(Junior Division), Kanigiri.

Monday, The Twentieth (20th) day of April, 2026.

O.S. No.253 of 20 25

Between:-

Channa Venkata Subramanyam, S/o. Lakshmi Narayana, aged about 65 years, Business, Resident of Kotla Bazar, Kanigiri Town and Mandal, Prakasam district.

…. Plaintiff AND

Maarpu Padma Rao, S/o. Ammaiah, aged about 41 years, Business, Resident of D.No.12-75, Kattavaada village, H/o. Narravaripalem Village and Post, Karlapalem Mandal, Bapatla District.

….Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs.2,47,000/- being the principal and interest due under suit promissory note dt.05.10.2022 said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff and for the costs.

Suit presented on: 16.06.2025 Filed on: 06.08.2025

The cause of action for the suit arose on 05.10.2022 when the defendant borrowed money from plaintiff and duly executed promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the same day and subsequently when the defendant failed to discharge the debt amount with interest in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff. The same having arisen at Kanigiri Town and Mandal and this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.

For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, this suit is valued at

Rs.2,47,000/- on which a court fee of Rs.4,926/- is paid U/s.20 of APCF & SV Act.

5

This suit has come up on 20.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.R.Thirupathi Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant having remained ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court doth order and decree:

1.that the defendant do pay a sum of Rs.2,47,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand and Seven Hundred only) to the plaintiff with future interest on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) at 12% per annum from the date of the suit to till the date of decree, and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization; and

2.that the defendant also do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,928-00 (Rupees Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Eight only) towards costs of the suit.

(C.M. and F.C. not filed)

Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 20 th day of April, 2026.

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Kanigiri

//TABLE OF COSTS//

For PlaintiffFor Defendant (Rs.)(Rs.) Stamp on Vakalat2-00-- Stamp on Plaint4,926-00 TOTAL:4,928-00--

J.C.J. KANIGIRI.

1

APPR120008622024Presented on : 05-10-2024 Registered on : 15-10-2024 Decided on : 17-04-2026 Duration : 1 years, 6 months, 12 days

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)::KANIGIRI

Present : - Smt. B. Rupa Sree,

Civil Judge(Junior Division), Kanigiri.

Friday, The Seventeenth (17th) day of April, 2026.

O.S. No.400 of 20 24

Between:-

A.J.C. Kumar, S/o.Koteswara Rao, aged about 50 years, Business, Resident of 8-28/4, Kanigiri Town and Mandal, Prakasam district.

…. Plaintiff AND

Shaik Mahaboob Basha, S/o. Mastan Saheb, aged about 53 years, Teacher, Resident of 4th ward, Kanigiri Town and Mandal, Prakasam District.

….Defendant

This suit has come up on 17.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt G.Sai Prasanna, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant having remained ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaintiff filed this suit on the foot of promissory note seeking recovery from the defendant with future interest and for costs.

2

2.T he case of the plaintiff in nutshell is : On 26.09.2021 defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- from plaintiff agreeing to pay interest at 24% p.a. and executed pro-note. Despite repeated demands, defendant failed to pay either the principal or interest. Hence this suit.

3.The Defendant had remained ex-parte. Heard the plaintiff.

4.To substantiate his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and reiterated the contents of plaint in his evidence affidavit and got marked the Original promissory note said to have executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/-, dt.26.09.2021 as

Ex.A1, Office copy of legal notice dt.19.09.2024 and Postal receipt, dt.

19.09.2024. As the oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff is consistent and remained unchallenged, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the plaintiff and thus the Suit claim of plaintiff stands proved. This point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

5.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.7,73,700/- (Rupees Seven

Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand and Seven Hundred only) from the defendant with future interest on the principal amount of Rs.4,50,000/-, at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6% p.a from the date of decree till the date of realization. Miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Kanigiri.

3

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendant

PW1 : A.J.C. Kumar None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff For Defendant

Ex.A1 : Original promissory note said -NIL- to have executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- dt.26.09.2021.

Ex.A2 : Office Copy of legal notice, dt.19.09.2024.

Ex.A3 : Postal Receipt, dt.19.09.2024.

JCJ, KNG

4

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)::KANIGIRI

Present : - Smt. B. Rupa Sree,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanigiri.

Friday, The Seventeenth (17th) day of April, 2026.

O.S. No.400 of 20 24

Between:-

A.J.C. Kumar, S/o.Koteswara Rao, aged about 50 years, Business, Resident of 8-28/4, Kanigiri Town and Mandal, Prakasam district.

…. Plaintiff AND

Shaik Mahaboob Basha, S/o. Mastan Saheb, aged about 53 years, Teacher, Resident of 4th ward, Kanigiri Town and Mandal, Prakasam District.

….Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs.7,73,700/- being the principal and interest due under suit promissory note dt.26.09.2021 said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff and for the costs.

Suit presented on: 05.10.2024 Filed on: 15.10.2024

The cause of action for the suit arose on 26.09.2021 when the defendant borrowed money from plaintiff and duly executed promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the same day and subsequently when the defendant failed to discharge the debt amount with interest in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff. The same having arisen at Kanigiri Town and Mandal and this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.

For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, this suit is valued at

Rs.7,73,700/- on which a court fee of Rs.10,226/- is paid U/s.20 of

APCF & SV Act.

5

This suit has come up on 17.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt G.Sai Prasanna, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant having remained ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court doth order and decree:

1.that the defendant do pay a sum of Rs.7,73,700/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand and Seven Hundred only) to the plaintiff with future interest on the principal amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) at 12% per annum from the date of the suit to till the date of decree, and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization; and

2.that the defendant also do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.19,728-00 (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Eight only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 17 h day of April, 2026.

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Kanigiri.

//TABLE OF COSTS//

For PlaintiffFor Defendant (Rs.)(Rs.) Stamp on Vakalat2-00-- Stamp on Plaint10,226-00 Process Fee100-00 Advocate fee9,200-00 (as claimed) Type Charges100-00 Writing Charges100-00 TOTAL19,728-00--

J.C.J. KANIGIRI.

APPR120009962023Presented on : 16-08-2023 Registered on : 03-10-2023 Decided on : 23-04-2026 Duration : 2 years, 8 months, 7 days

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: KANIGIRI

PRESENT: SMT. B. RUPA SREE,

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

KANIGIRI.

[ Dated, this the 23rd Day of April, 2026.

O.S. No.388 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

State Bank of India, Kanigiri Branch, rep. By its Chief Manager, Kanigiri Town and Mandal, Prakasam District.

… Plaintiff

AND

Gurram Subbaiah, S/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about 53 years, Cultivation, Resident of Garlapeta Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District.

… Defendant

The suit is filed for recovery of Rs.4,35,294/- from the defendant with future interest and for costs and for such other appropriate reliefs as the

Honourable Court.

This suit has come up on 23.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. M.Mallikarjuna Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri Abdul Gaffar Shaik, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

Learned plaintiff counsel filed a F.S. memo along with No Due

Letter of the plaintiff's bank stating that there are no dues and to dismiss the suit. Hence, the F.S. memo is recorded and the suit is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 23rd day of April, 2026.

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Kanigiri

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

// No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on either side//

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Kanigiri.

CERTIFICATE

Since the Original Suit No. 388 of 2023 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanigiri is Dismissed on 23.04.2026, so there is no necessity to prepare decree/decretal order as per Section 2, Sub Section (2),

Clause (b) of Civil Procedure Code.

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Kanigiri.

1

APPR120009882019Presented on : 28-11-2019 Registered on : 22-11-2021 Decided on : 20-04-2026 Duration : 6 years, 4 months, 22 days

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: KANIGIRI

PRESENT: Smt. B. RUPA SREE,

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Kanigiri.

Dated, This the 20th Day of April, 2026.

C.C. No. 534 of 2021

Between:

Mudireddy Chalamaiah, S/o. Venkataiah, S/o. Naraiah, aged about 45 years, Business by profession, Resident of MSR road, Kanigiri Town and Mandal, Prakasam district.

... Complainant

Vs.

Putta Ramanaiah, S/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about 44 years, Municipal employee, Resident of D.No.9-318/6, Garlapet road, Kanigiri Town and Mandal, Prakasam District. … Accused

This Calendar Case is presented before me on 20.04.2026 for execution of BW against accused in the presence of the Sri Y.Srikanth Reddy, Counsel for complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

// J U D G M E N T //

[

Complainant is called present and filed a petition under sec. 257 Cr.P.c, stating that matter is compromised out side of the court and at request to withdraw this case in the interest of justice. Perused the petition and the same is recorded. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the accused is acquitted as the complainant withdrawn the case against the accused.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20th day of April, 2026.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KANIGIRI.