Sri Chinnam Madhu Babu

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Court of Civil Judge(Junior Division), Chintalapudi.

Date of Offence : 22.03.2021 Date of report or Complaint : 22.03.2021 Date of apprehension of accused : 22.03.2021 Date release on bail, if any: 30.03.2021 Date of commencement of trail : 19.09.2025 Close of trial : 05.05.2026 Date of sentence or other order: 06.05.2026 Explanation of delay and remarks : No delay.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.1160/2023 on the file of Civil Judge(Junior Division), Chintalapudi.

Complainant : State represented by the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Chintalapudi u/s 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act in Crime No.197/2021.

Name of the accused, Fat./Hus. name, Aged, Calling, Religion, Village and Mandal.

A.1: Kasagani Ramesh, s/o.Narayanarao, aged 29 years, R/o.Bandamcherla village, T.Narasapuram mandal

A.2: Veeranki Adinarayana, s/o.Pedda Lakshmayya, aged 47 years, R/o.Bandamcher village, T.Narasapuram mandal (DIED) (Case abated against A.2 as he died)

Offence : u/s 7(B) R/W 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act

Finding : Not guilty

Sentence : In the result, accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 7(B) R/W 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be ordered to be continued for a period of six months. The accused shall execute bond for Rs.10,000/- under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. for his appearance, if any appeal is preferred. The M.O.1 is the sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- C. Madhu Babu

Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Chintalapudi Copy submitted to The Hon’ble I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Eluru.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):: AT CHINTALAPUDI

Present: C. Madhu Babu,

Civil Judge(Junior Division), Chintalapudi

Wednesday, this the 06th day of May, 2026.

C.C.No.1160/2023

Between:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau, Chintalapudi.

... Complainant.

And:

A.1: Kasagani Ramesh, s/o.Narayanarao, aged 29 years, R/o.Bandamcherla village, T.Narasapuram mandal

A.2: Veeranki Adinarayana, s/o.Pedda Lakshmayya, aged 47 years, R/o.Bandamcher village, T.Narasapuram mandal (DIED) (Case abated against A.2 as he died) ….Accused

This case has come before me on 5.5.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned APP and Sri K. Manikyalarao, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The accused is arraigned before this court for the charge under

Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 in Cr.

No.197/2021 of SEB station, Chintalapudi.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.03.2021 at about 7.00 p.m., while PW.2 along with his staff while conducting raids for excise offences at Rajupothepalli village, T.Narasapuram Mandal they found accused were in possession of 30 liters of ID liquor in polythene cover and 3 drawn 300 ml of ID liquor in a cleaned separate bottle as sample sealed sample bottle and pasted identity slips, then P.W.1 seized the contraband under the cover of special report drafted at the scene of offence. Then

P.W.1 returned to police station and handed over the same to PW.2. Basing on the special report, PW.2 registered the special report as FIR in Crime No 197/2021 U/S 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition Act, 2020 and sent the accused for judicial remand. P.W.2 sent sample to the Chemical Examiner for analysis along with letter of Advice through Assistant Enforcement Superintendent,

Eluru. The chemical examiner opined that the sample contains illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of investigation PW.2 laid charge sheet.

3. The case is taken on file against the accused for the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

4. On appearance of the accused case copies were furnished to the accused as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for the charge under Section 7(B) R/W 8 (B) of API. Prohibition Act, 2020, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and PW.2 and exhibited Ex. P.1 to P.5 documents and M.O.1

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, accused NO.1 was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., for which, he denied the 4 incriminating evidence leveled against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is : Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charge under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition Act?

10. Point :-Section 7-B R/w 8-B of A.P. Prohibition ( Amendment) Act 2020 which reads as follows: “7-B-Prohibition of Boot Legging Activities: The manufacturing, transporting, selling, buying, importing, exporting or storing of any alcoholic liquor and supplying or transporting of any raw materials for the manufacture of alcoholic liquor illegally or clandestinely, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 is hereby prohibited.” “8-B-Penalty for sale, export, import and transport of alcoholic liquor manufactured illegally and clandestinely:- Whoever in contravention of Section 7-B of this Act indulges in sale, export, import or transport of illicitly distilled alcoholic liquor shall on conviction be liable for imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extent up to eight years and with fine which sale not be less than rupees two lakhs for the first offence and which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs for the second offence.” 5

In a case filed under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition

Act, 2020 the prosecution has to prove that the accused was found in possession of ID liquor in contravention of the provision of Act.

11. To bring home the guilt the prosecution has examined P.W.1 and

PW.2 and got Exs. P.1 to P5 and M.O.1. PW.1 is the SEB Sub Inspector, Eluru, who conducted raids along with other staff member for the excise crimes, detected the crime, went to the scene of offence and seized 30 liters of ID liquor under the cover of special report, affixed the identification slips on seized property. Basing on the special report PW.2 registered it as F.I.R, sent the sample to RFSL, Kakinada and received Chemical analysis report and filed the charge sheet after completion of investigation.

12. The evidence of P.W1 is equivalent to the special report and the charge sheet allegations. The gist of the evidence of P.W.1 is that the accused found 30 liters of ID liquor under the cover of special report. When, he enquired with the accused, ascertained his identity. The SEB personnel thought that manufacturing, selling, transporting and purchasing of I.D.

liquor is an offence under the Prohibition Act, 2020. This Court scrutinized the entire evidence on record.

13. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1 admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality. On bare perusal of the Ex. P.1 discloses that the SEB personnel mentioned in the special report that there were no mediators available they drafted special report. The prosecution failed to mention the names of persons to whom they requested to act as mediators 6 in the special report. The investigating officer bound by law to follow the procedure established for the search and seizures under section 100(4) of

Cr.P.C. There is no mention of following such procedure either in special report or the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The investigating officer ought to have secured independent mediators to make the case of prosecution trustworthy and reliable. Since, the scene of offence is admitted by the prosecution witnesses to be busy locality; there is every possibility to request the respectable inhabitants of that locality as mediators. Even, if the investigating officer unable to secure the aforementioned persons he should have tried to secure the presence of nearby people to believe the case of the prosecution. If the local people refused to act as mediators he should have issued written notice calling upon officials like VRO, Village Secretary, MPTC, ZPTC, Sarpanch or any peoples representatives. The prosecution heavily relied upon the evidence of SEB personnel, who participated in the raid and no other witnesses examined on its behalf. All the prosecution witnesses are SEB personnel and interested in getting success for prosecution. In the absence of independent mediators to the occurrence makes the prosecution case unreliable and doubtful. The investigating officer did not prepare separate seizure list also. This Court come across a decision of Hon’ble Apex court, reported in 1996(6) Crimes 284 (SC), Sahib Singh Vs. State of Punjab, wherein it was held by the Lordship that:

7 “Before conducting a search the concerned police officer is required to call upon some independent and respectable people of the locality to witness the search. In a given case it may so happen that no such person is available or, even if available, is not willing to be a party to such search. It may also be that after joining the search, such persons later on turn hostile. In any of these eventualities the evidence of the police officers who conducted the search cannot be disbelieved solely on the ground that no independent and respectable witness was examined to prove the search but if it is found – as in the present case - that no attempt was even made by the concerned police officer to join with him some persons of the locality who were admittedly available to witness the recovery, it would affect the weight of evidence of the Police

Officer, though not its admissibility.”

14.The prosecution has relied on the strength of special report, which is in the nature of confession statement. It is well settled law that confession made to police not to be proved and in admissible in evidence as per sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.

15. The prosecution has to prove the I.D liquor is illicitly distilled liquor fit for human consumption and injurious to health. The investigating officer filed chemical analyst report/Ex.P3 along with charge sheet, in which, the analyst opined that the sample contains I.D. liquor fit for human consumption and injurious to health. Admittedly, the chemical analyst was 8 not examined by the prosecution. Even, if the analyst is examined no purpose will be served since the prosecution failed to prove the possession of I.D liquor found with the accused. The samples were collected by the police on 22.03.2021 and the samples are sent to RFSL, Kakinada dated nil.

The delay in sending the samples is not properly explained by the prosecution. This one of the infirmities in the case of prosecution.

16. In view of the aforesaid discussion this Court cannot infer that the SEB personnel seized 30 liters of ID liquor from the possession of the accused. The evidence of prosecution witnesses found to be artificial and stereo type. In the circumstances, it is highly unsafe and improper to convict the accused on the strength of sole testimonies of SEB personnel. In the context of aforementioned reasons the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt. Hence, this Court is inclined to acquit the accused in the interest of justice.

17. In the result, accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 7(B) R/W 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be ordered to be continued for a period of six months. The accused shall execute bond for Rs.10,000/- under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. for his appearance, if any appeal is preferred. The M.O.1 is the sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

9

Typed to my dictation by Grade-III stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 06 th day of May, 2026 .

Sd/- C. Madhu Babu

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Chintalapudi.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution for Defence P.W.1: G.Basanthi, SEB, Sub Inspector - None- P.W.2: P.Balaji, SEB, Sub-Inspector

Documents Marked

For prosecution For Defence

Ex. P.1 : Special report - Nil - Ex. P.2 : Original FIR Ex. P.3 : Analysis report Ex. P.4 : Attested copy of destruction proceedings Ex.P5: Attested copy of destruction mediatornama

Material Objects M.O.1 : sample bottle

Sd/- C. Madhu Babu

CJ(JD), CTP

MADHU BABUDigitally Signed by

CHINNAMMADHU BABU CHINNAM

Date: 2026.05.06 18:42:18 +0530

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

CHINTALAPUDI

Present : C. Madhu Babu

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Tuesday, this the 12 th day of May, 2026

OS No.38 of 2026

Between:

Vangapandu Vivekanand, s/o.late Ramarao, aged 54 years, D.No.12-24, Chintalapudi village and madnal.

… Plaintiff

Vs.,

1. Emandi Bhargava Krishna, s/o.Satyanarayana, male, aged 37 years, D.No.8-31, main road, Near Indian Bank, Atkur village, Ungutur mandal, Krishna District.

2. Emandi Srivani, w/o. Satyanarayana, female, aged 61 years, D.No.8-31, main road, Near Indian Bank, Atkur village, Ungutur mandal, Krishna District. … Defendants

This suit is coming on this day before me in the presence of the Sri Srinivasu Patnala, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendants remained ex parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

This suit for recovery of Rs.1,35,899/- being the principaland interest due on promissory note dated 23.03.2023 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., and for the costs of the suit with future interest.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that on 23.03.2023, the defendants jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note on the even date favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a.. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants did not repay the amount due under the promissory note. On 01.12.2025, the plaintiff got issued a registered legal no- tice to the defendants and the same was refused by the defendants on 03.12.2025 and failed to give any reply nor paid the amount. Hence this suit.

3.Though the summons offered to defendants by the court process server, they refused to receive court summons and did not turn up before the Court.

Therefore defendants set ex parte.

4. In support of his case, the plaintiff got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs. A.1 to A.3.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as

prayed for ?”

POINT:-

7.PW.1 filed Chief Affidavit in lieu of chief examination and got marked

Exs. A.1 to A.3. Ex. A.1 is promissory note, dated 23.03.2023 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/-. Ex. A.2 is office copy of legal notice, dated 01.12.2025. Ex. A.3 is returned notices of D.1 and D.2, dt.03.12.2025. In the chief examination of plaintiff stated that the defendants executed the suit promissory note for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff.

Despite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants did not re- pay the amount to the plaintiff due under the above said promissory note.

There is no resistance from the defendants towards the claim of plaintiff, and the evidence of P.W.1 is un rebutted one, hence, this court is inclined to ac- cept the evidence of PW.1 as cogent and trustworthy. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants for a sum of Rs.1,35,899/- with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereon at 6% p.a. till realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 12 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- C. Madhu Babu

Civil Judge(Junior Division)

Chintalapudi

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW.1: Vangapandu Vivekanand -None-

Exhibits marked F or Plaintiff: Ex. A.1: Promissory note, dated 23.3.2023 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/-.

Ex. A.2: Office copy of legal notice, dated 01.12.2025.

Ex. A.3: Returned notices of D.1 and D.2, dt.03.12.2025

For Defendants: Nil

Sd/- C. Madhu Babu

CJ(JD), CTP

MADHU BABUDigitally Signed by

CHINNAMMADHU BABU CHINNAM

Date: 2026.05.12 12:47:04 +0530

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

CHINTALAPUDI

Present :C. Madhu Babu

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Monday, this the 04 th day of May, 2026

O.S.No.156 of 2025

Between:

Konakalla Harendra, s/o.Venkata Ramarao, male, aged 36 years, R/o.Borrampalem village, T.Narasapuram mandl.

… Plaintiff Vs.,

Tangirala Nagaraju, s/o.Venkatesh, male, aged 33 years, Madyanapuvarigudem village, T.Narasapuram mandal.

… Defendant

This suit is coming on this day before me in the presence of the

Sri A.Venkateswararao, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant remained ex parte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

This suit for recovery of Rs.8,74,240/- (Rs.3,43,600/- + Rs.1,88,907/-+

Rs.3,41,733/-) being the principal and interest due on Three promissory notes

dated 1.10.2022, 2.10.2022 and 15.10.2022 executed by the defendant in

favour of the plaintiff for Rs.5,10,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.1,10,000/- +Rs.2,00,000/-) with interest at Rs.2/- per hundred and for the costs of the suit with future interest.

2

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that on 1.10.2022, 2.10.2022 and 15.10.2022 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,10,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- +

Rs.1,10,000/-+Rs.2,00,000/-) from the plaintiff and executed three promissory notes on the even dates favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of Rs.2/- per hundred. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay the amount due under the promis- sory notes. The plaintiff got issued two legal notices on 20.09.2025 to the de- fendant and the same was received by the defendant on 22.09.2025 and kept quiet. Hence this suit.

3.Though the summons sent through court to the defendant and his mother received the same, and he did not turn up before the Court. Therefore defendant set ex parte.

4. In support of his case, the plaintiff got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as

prayed for ?”

POINT:-

7.PW.1 filed Chief Affidavit in lieu of chief examination and got marked

Exs. A.1 to A.5. Ex. A.1 is pronote, dated 1.10.2022. Ex. A.2 is pronote, dated 2.10.2022. E.A.3 is pronote, dated 15.10.2022. Ex. A.4 is legal notice, dated 20.9.2025. Ex.A.5 is postal track consignment, dt.22.09.2025. In the chief ex- 3 amination of plaintiff stated that the defendant executed the three suit promis- sory notes for Rs.5,10,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.1,10,000/-+Rs.2,00,000/-) in favour of the plaintiff. Despite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay the amount to the plaintiff due under the above said promissory notes. There is no resistance from the defendant towards the claim of plaintiff, and the evidence of P.W.1 is un-rebutted one, hence, this court is inclined to accept the evidence of P.W.1 as cogent and trustworthy. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.8,74,240/- (Rs.3,43,600/- +

Rs.1,88,907/-+ Rs.3,41,733/-) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. on the

principal amount of Rs.5,10,000/-(Rs.2,00,000/-+Rs.1,10,000/-+Rs.2,00,000/-)

from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereon at 6% p.a. till realiza- tion.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 04 th day of May,

2026.

Sd/-C.Madhu Babu

Civil Judge

(Junior Division) Chintalapudi

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1: Konakalla Harendra -None-

Exhibits marked

F or Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Pronote, dated 1.10.2022.

4 Ex.A.2: Pronote, dated 2.10.2022.

Ex.A.3: Pronote, dated 15.10.2022

Ex.A.4: Legal notice, dated 20.9.2025.

Ex.A.5: Postal track consignment, dt.22.9.2025

For Defendant: Nil

Sd/- CMB

CJ(JD), CTP

MADHU BABUDigitally Signed by

CHINNAMMADHU BABU CHINNAM

Date: 2026.05.04 17:42:18 +0530

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

CHINTALAPUDI

Present :C. Madhu Babu

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Monday, this the 04 th day of May, 2026

O.S.No.157 of 2025

Between:

Konakalla Annapurna Devi, w/o.Venkata Ramarao, female, aged 57 years, R/o.D.No.6-165, Borrampalem village, T.Narasapuram mandal.

… Plaintiff

Vs.,

Tangirala Nagaraju, s/o.Venkatesh, male, aged 33 years, Madyanapuvarigudem village, T.Narasapuram mandal.

… Defendant

This suit coming on this day before me in the presence of the

Sri A.Venkateswararao, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant remained ex parte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

This suit for recovery of Rs.5,12,700/- (Rs.2,56,600/- + Rs.2,56,100/-) being the principal and interest due on two promissory notes dated 12.10.2022 and 17.10.2022 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for

Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.1,50,000/-) with interest at Rs.2/- per hun- dred and for the costs of the suit with future interest.

2

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that on 12.10.2022 and on 17.10.2022 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.1,50,000/- +

Rs.1,50,000/-) from the plaintiff and executed two promissory notes on the even dates favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of Rs.2/- per hundred. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay the amount due under the promissory notes. The plaintiff got issued two legal notices on 20.09.2025 to the defen- dant and the same was received by the defendant on 22.09.2025 and kept quiet. Hence this suit.

3.Though the summons sent through court to the defendant and his mother received the same, and he did not turn up before the Court. Therefore defendant set ex parte.

4. In support of her case, the plaintiff got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as

prayed for ?”

POINT:-

7.PW.1 filed Chief Affidavit in lieu of chief examination and got marked

Exs. A.1 to A.4. Ex. A.1 is pronote, dated 12.10.2022. Ex. A.2 is pronote,

dated 17.10.2022. Ex. A.3 is legal notice, dated 20.09.2025. Ex.A.4 is postal

track consignment, dt.22.09.2025. In the chief examination of plaintiff stated 3 that the defendant executed the two suit promissory notes for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.1,50,000/-) in favour of the plaintiff. Despite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay the amount to the plaintiff due under the above said promissory notes. There is no resistance from the defendant towards the claim of plaintiff, and the evidence of P.W.1 is un-rebutted one, hence, this court is inclined to accept the evidence of P.W.1 as cogent and trustworthy. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.5,12,700/- (Rs.2,56,600/- +

Rs.2,56,100/-) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. on the principal amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.1,50,000/-) from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereon at 6% p.a. till realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 04 th day of May,

2026.

Sd/-C.Madhu Babu

Civil Judge

(Junior Division) Chintalapudi

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1: Konakalla Annapurna Devi -None-

Exhibits marked

F or Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Pronote, dated 12.10.2022.

4 Ex.A.2: Pronote, dated 17.10.2022.

Ex.A.3: Legal notice, dated 20.09.2025.

Ex.A.4: Postal track consignment, dt.22.09.2025

For Defendant: Nil

Sd/- CMB

CJ(JD), CTP

MADHU BABUDigitally Signed by

CHINNAMMADHU BABU CHINNAM

Date: 2026.05.04 18:42:18 +0530

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

CHINTALAPUDI

PRESENT: C. Madhu Babu

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Wednesday, this the 13th day of May, 2026

C.C.No.470 of 2022

Between :

State rep., by Sub Inspector of Police, Chintalapudi PS …Complainant.

And

Birudugadla Suribabu, s/o.Krishnarao, aged 35 years, Gavaravaram, Koyyalagudem mandal.

…Accused. This case is coming today before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Memo along with Death Certificate of accused filed by Station House Officer, Chintalapudi Police Station. The particulars of accused in the Death Certificate are tallied. Memo recorded.

Hence, case against accused is abated.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 13th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-C. Madhu Babu

Civil Judge (JD)

Chintalapudi

No oral or documentary evidence on either side

Sd/-C. Madhu Babu

CJ(JD), CTP

MADHU BABUDigitally Signed by

CHINNAMMADHU BABU CHINNAM

Date: 2026.05.13 12:42:18 +0530