Sri Chirag Mehta

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS (MOBILE) FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER PCR ACT,

AT KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: SRI CHIRAG MEHTA,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under PCR Act, Karimnagar.

Wednesday, this the 06th day of May, 2026

C.C No.347 of 2019

Between : State: Represented by the Inspector of Police, Police Station, Manakondur.

...Complainant

AND

A1- Myadari Sadaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, 38 years, SC-Mala A2- Maddi Nagaraju, S/o.Kistaiah, 40 years, Goud A3- Deva Sathish Reddy, S/o.Purushotham Reddy, 41 years, Reddy All are R/o. Gattududdenapalli village.

...Accused No.1 to 3.

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Vikranth Peddi, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri A.Goutham Raju, Advocate for Accused No.1 to 3, after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following.

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

The Inspector of Police, Manakondur police station has filed charge sheet in Crime No.55 of 2019 against Accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 171-B and 171-E of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as "IPC").

The brief facts of the cas e are that :

2.1.On 24.01.2019, at 2320 hours, LW5/A.Indrasena Reddy, Inspector of Police received credible information that two persons were distributing

Page 2 of 9 C.C No. 347/20 19/fair copy money to voters at Gattududdenapally village. Immediately, he along with

LW1/M.Satyanarayana, P.C No.3402 and LW2/A.Krishnareddy, P.C No.

561 rushed there and apprehended them and when they were in mood to confess, immediately LW5/A.Indrasenareddy, secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW3/K.Nagaraju and LW4/B.Anjaiah and interrogated them in their presence. On interrogation they stated their names as

Myadari Sadaiah/Accused No.1 and M. Nagaraju/Accused No.2. They further confessed that they are supporting their villager namely

D.Sathish Reddy/Accused No.3, who is Sarpanch contesting candidate of

Gattududdenapalli village and decided to distribute the amount to the voters and induced them to vote in favour of Accused No.3.

2.2.Accused No.1 and 2 further confessed that on 24.01.2019, at night hours, Accused No.3 gave amount to them and requested them to distribute the same to the voters, accordingly, they came to bus stand area of Gattududdenapalli on motor cycle bearing No.TS-02/EH-9060 and ready to distribute the amount to voters. As per their confession,

LW5/A.Indrasena Reddy seized an amount of Rs.12,850/- and above mentioned motor cycle from the possession of Accused No.1 and 2, under cover of confession and recovery panchanama. Later, LW5/A.Indrasena

Reddy brought the Accused No.1 and 2 along with seized property to the police station at 2230 hours and registered a suomoto case in

Cr.No.55/2019 for the offences under Sec.171-B and 171-E of IPC against Accused No.1 to 3 and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused persons and upon completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

Page 3 of 9 C.C No. 347/20 19/fair copy

3.The above Charge Sheet has been taken on file for the offences punishable under section 171-B and 171-E of IPC against Accused No.1 to 3.

[4.On appearance of accused persons, copies of Charge Sheet and other documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C”). The accused persons were examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C., and substance of accusation for the offences under Secs.171-B and 171-E of

IPC has been read over and explained to them in their vernacular language and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. On closure of prosecution evidence, accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, were read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, to which they denied and not proposed any defence on their behalf. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

6.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel for accused.

7.Now the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of Accused No.1

to 3 for the offences under Sec.171-B and 171-E of IPC, beyond all

reasonable doubt”?

Page 4 of 9 C.C No. 347/20 19/fair copy

POINT:

8. The case of the prosecution is that on the request of Accused No.3, who is Sarpanch contesting candidate of Gattududdenapalli village,

Accused No.1 and 2 were distributing the money to the voters and induced them to cast their votes in favour of Accused No.3 and has committed offences under Sec.171-B and 171-E of IPC.

9. To prove its case, prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. Before appreciating and analyzing the evidence on record, the oral testimonies of all witnesses are stated as under for better appreciation of evidence.

10.1. PW1 deposed that on 24-01-2019, at around 09.00 P.M, LW5/n 24-01-2019, at around 09.00 P.M, LW5/

A.Indrasenareddy received credible information that, some persons areA.Indrasenareddy received credible information that, some persons are distributing money to voters at Gattududdenapalli Village, on hisdistributing money to voters at Gattududdenapalli Village, on his instructions, he along with LW1/M.Satyanarayana and ASI/Baskarainstructions, he along with LW1/M.Satyanarayana and ASI/Baskara

Chary proceeded to the said village and while performing vehicle check,Chary proceeded to the said village and while performing vehicle check, they found two persons in suspicious circumstances on a motor cycle,they found two persons in suspicious circumstances on a motor cycle, when they tried to stop the said vehicle, said persons tried to fled away,when they tried to stop the said vehicle, said persons tried to fled away, but they caught hold them and made an enquiry and found cash ofbut they caught hold them and made an enquiry and found cash of

Rs.12,850/- from the possession of Accused No.1. On enquiry theyRs.12,850/- from the possession of Accused No.1. On enquiry they revealed their names as Medari Sadaiah and Maddi Nagaraju and furtherrevealed their names as Medari Sadaiah and Maddi Nagaraju and further revealed that Accused No.3 is contesting in Grampanchayath elections, asrevealed that Accused No.3 is contesting in Grampanchayath elections, as such to distribute the money to the voters they are carrying the saidsuch to distribute the money to the voters they are carrying the said money. Later, LW5/A.Indrasena Reddy conducted confession andmoney. Later, LW5/A.Indrasena Reddy conducted confession and recovery panchanama before two panchas i.e. LW3/K. Nagaraju andrecovery panchanama before two panchas i.e. LW3/K. Nagaraju and

LW4/B.Anjaiah and seized the crime vehicle and cash of Rs.12,850/-. OnLW4/B.Anjaiah and seized the crime vehicle and cash of Rs.12,850/-. On the same day, they have submitted the seized property to the Policethe same day, they have submitted the seized property to the Police

Station, Manakondur and LW5/A.Indrasena Reddy lodged a suomotoStation, Manakondur and LW5/A.Indrasena Reddy lodged a suomoto

Page 5 of 9 C.C No. 347/20 19/fair copy case against Accused No.1 to 3. PW1 identified Accused No.1 and 2 in thecase against Accused No.1 to 3. PW1 identified Accused No.1 and 2 in the open court hall.open court hall.

10.2. During cross examination, PW1 admitted that he has not stated the name of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in his Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement. He further admitted that there are neighbouring houses near the scene of offence and they have not examined any neighbouring witness. PW1 volunteers that in the night hours they were sleeping due to which they have not examined any neighbouring witness. PW1 further admitted that he has not stated in his Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement that they were doing patrolling duty in the night hours at around 9.00 p.m and he denied all the other suggestions putforth by the learned counsel for accused.

11. P.Ws 2 and 4 who are panch witnesses for confession-cum-recovery panchanama of Accused No.1 and 2 deposed that they do not know anything about the case and police never prepared confession-cum- recovery panchanama of Accused No.1 and 2 in their presence. They further deposed that in the year 2019, they went to police station on their personal work, police obtained their signatures on some white papers.

During cross examination by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, nothing could be elicited from them.

12. PW3 deposed that on 24-01-2019, in the night hours, LW5/on 24-01-2019, in the night hours, LW5/

A.Indrasena Reddy received credible information that, some persons areA.Indrasena Reddy received credible information that, some persons are distributing money to voters at Gattududdenapalli Village, on thedistributing money to voters at Gattududdenapalli Village, on the instructions of LW5/A.Indrasena Reddy, he along with PW1 and ASI/instructions of LW5/A.Indrasena Reddy, he along with PW1 and ASI/

Baskara Chary proceeded to the said village and while performing vehicleBaskara Chary proceeded to the said village and while performing vehicle check, they found two persons are in suspicious circumstances on acheck, they found two persons are in suspicious circumstances on a motor cycle bearing No.TS-02-BH-9060, they caught hold them and mademotor cycle bearing No.TS-02-BH-9060, they caught hold them and made

Page 6 of 9 C.C No. 347/20 19/fair copy an enquiry and found cash of Rs.12,000/- and odd from the possession ofan enquiry and found cash of Rs.12,000/- and odd from the possession of

Accused No.1 and 2. Immediately, LW5/A.Indrasena Reddy secured theAccused No.1 and 2. Immediately, LW5/A.Indrasena Reddy secured the presence of two panchas and in their presence when enquired them, theypresence of two panchas and in their presence when enquired them, they revealed their names as Medari Sadaiah/Accused No.1 and Maddirevealed their names as Medari Sadaiah/Accused No.1 and Maddi

Nagaraju/Accused No.2 and further revealed that Accused No.3 isNagaraju/Accused No.2 and further revealed that Accused No.3 is contesting in Grampanchayath elections, as such to distribute the moneycontesting in Grampanchayath elections, as such to distribute the money to the voters they are carrying the said money. LW5/A.Indrasenareddyto the voters they are carrying the said money. LW5/A.Indrasenareddy seized the cash of Rs.12,850/- and a receipt containing the names of theseized the cash of Rs.12,850/- and a receipt containing the names of the voters to whom the money is to be distributed, from the possession ofvoters to whom the money is to be distributed, from the possession of

Accused No.1 and 2 under cover of confession-cum-recoveryAccused No.1 and 2 under cover of confession-cum-recovery panchanama. On the same day, they have submitted the seized propertypanchanama. On the same day, they have submitted the seized property to the Police Station, Manakondur and LW5/A.Indrasena Reddyto the Police Station, Manakondur and LW5/A.Indrasena Reddy registered a case against Accused No.1 to 3. During cross examination,registered a case against Accused No.1 to 3.

PW3 deposed that they started the patrolling duty at around 6.00 p.m.

He further deposed that they have submitted the receipt containing the names of the voters to whom the money to be distributed before the court and he denied all other suggestions putforth by the learned counsel for accused.

13. PW5 deposed on the same lines as deposed by P.Ws 1 and 3. He further deposed about registering the case in Cr.No.55/2019 and issuance of FIR, examining and recording the statements of witnesses and issuance of 41-A Cr.P.C notice to Accused persons and after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet. During cross examination, PW5 admitted that PW1 and PW3 along with one Assistant Sub-Inspector of

Police went for patrolling duty. He further admitted that as per the

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws 1 and 3, they went for patrolling along with one Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and as per their statements, he did not attend the said patrolling duty along with them. PW5 further admitted that he has not examined the said Assistant Sub-Inspector of

Page 7 of 9 C.C No. 347/20 19/fair copy

Police who attend the said patrolling on the date of alleged incident and he denied all other suggestions putforth by the learned counsel fordenied all other suggestions putforth by the learned counsel for accused.accused.

14. In this case, the Accused No.1 to 3 are charged for the offences under Sec.171-B and 171-E of IPC, basing on the confession of Accused

No.1 and 2. However, as per Sec.26 of Indian Evidence Act, any confession by Accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him. In this case, the said confession panchanaman of Accused No.1 and 2 was conducted while Accused No.1 and 2 were in police custody.

Therefore, said confession of Accused No.1 and 2 is noway helpful to the prosecution to prove the offences alleged against the Accused No.1 to 3.

Moreover, P.Ws 2 and 4 who are panch witnesses for confession-cum- recovery panchanama of Accused No.1 and 2 deposed that they do not know anything about the case and did not support the case of prosecution. Since P.Ws 2 and 4 did not support the case of prosecution, therefore, the recovery of seized cash and motor cycle from the possession of Accused No.1 and 2 has not been proved. Although, PW3 deposed that they have seized the receipt containing the names of the voters to whom the money to be distributed, but said receipt has not been filed before the court. In the absence of cogent, trustworthy and reliable evidence on record, the evidence of P.Ws 1, 3 and 5 who are investigating officers are not sufficient to prove that Accused persons violated the MCC rules by bribing the voters and induced them to cast their vote in favour of

Accused No.3.

15. In view of above discussion, this court opines that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Accused No.1 to 3 for the offences under Sec.171-B and 171-E of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt.

Page 8 of 9 C.C No. 347/20 19/fair copy

16. In the result, Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences under Section 171-B and 171-E of IPC, , accordingly they are acquitted for the said offences under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused persons, if any, shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged after expiry of appeal time, if no appeal is preferred. The unmarked case property i.e cash of Rs.12,850/- shall be confiscated to

State and the motor cycle bearing No.TS-02-EH-9060 which was given to its owner i.e., Accused No.2 towards interim custody vide order in Crl.M.P

No.284/2019, dt:22-03-2019 shall be made absolute, after expiry of appeal period, if no appeal is preferred.

[ Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 06th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under PCR Act, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1- A. Krishna ReddyNone PW2- K. Nagaraju PW3- M. Satyanarayana PW4- B. Anjaiah PW5- A. Indrasenareddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1- Signature of PW2 on confession-cum-recovery panchanama of Accused No.1 and 2 Ex.P2- Signature of PW4 on confession-cum-recovery panchanama of Accused No.1 and 2 Ex.P3- Confession-cum-recovery panchanama of Accused No.1 and 2 Ex.P4- First Information Report

Page 9 of 9 C.C No. 347/20 19/fair copy

FOR DEFENCE: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS:- Nil.

Sd/-

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under PCR Act, Karimnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS (MOBILE) FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER PCR ACT,

AT KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: SRI CHIRAG MEHTA,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under PCR Act, Karimnagar.

Wednesday, this the 06th day of May, 2026

C.C No.858 of 2019

Between: State: Represented by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, LMD Colony.

...Complainant

AND

A1-Kontu Narsaiah, S/o.Kanakaiah, 34 years, Caste: Medara, A2-Thammanaboina Kondaiah, S/o. Bhumaiah, 40 years, Caste: Golla Both are R/o. Nusthulapur village of Thimmapur mandal.

...Accused No.1 and 2.

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Vikranth Peddi, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri D.Omkar, Advocate for Accused No.1 and 2, after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following.

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

The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, LMD Colony Police Station has filed charge sheet in Crime No.58 of 2019 against Accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 171-E of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as "IPC") and Sec.34(a) of T.S Excise Act and Sec.212 of T.S Panchayathraj Act.

The brief facts of the cas e are that :

2.1.On 23.01.2019, at 1530 hours, on reliable information,

LW5/K.Raghupathi Redy, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police along with

Page 2 of 8 C.C No.858/2019/fair copy

LW3/Md.Aleemuddin, P.C No.977 rushed to Nusthulapur village and apprehended the Accused No.1, while he was transporting IMFL liquor i.e., 48 Royal Stag quarter bottles, total worth of Rs.7,200/-. On enquiry he revealed his name and further confessed that on the request of his friend by name Thammanaboina Kondaiah i.e, Accused No.2, who is contesting candidate for ward member in Nusthulapur village in

Grampanchayath elections, 2019, he is transporting the above said liquor, in order to distribute the same to the voters to get benefit in favour of

Accused No.2. Immediately, LW5/K.Raghupathi Reddy seized the said

IMFl liquor, under cover of confession and recovery panchanama of

Accused No.1 and brought the Accused No.1 along with seized property to the Police Station and registered a suomoto case in Cr.No.58/2019,

U/sec.171-E of IPC and Sec.34(a) of T.S Excise Act and took up the investigation.

2.2.During the course of investigation, LW5/K.Raghupathi Reddy examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, issued 41-A

Cr.P.C notice to the Accused persons, forwarded the samples to FSL

Hyderabad, collected report from FSL, collected the contested candidate details of ward members of Nusthulapur village from the MPDO,

Thimmapur and added Section of Law U/sec.212 of Panchayathraj Act to the existing Sec.171-E of IPC, Sec.34(a) of T.S Excise Act and upon completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the Accused persons.

3.The above Charge Sheet has been taken on file for the offences punishable under section 171-E of IPC and Sec.34(a) of T.S Excise Act and

Sec.212 of Panchayathraj Act against Accused No.1 and 2.

Page 3 of 8 C.C No.858/2019/fair copy

4.On appearance of Accused No.1 and 2, copies of Charge Sheet and other documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C”). The

Accused persons were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., and charges were framed for the offences under Secs.171-E of IPC r/w.

Sec.212 of T.S Panchayathraj Act and Sec.34(a) of T.S Excise Act, the contents of charges were read over and explained to them in their vernacular language and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 and M.O-1 were marked. On closure of prosecution evidence, Accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, were read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, to which they denied and not proposed any defence on their behalf. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

6.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel for accused persons.

7.Now the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of Accused No.1

and 2 for the offences under Sec.171-E of IPC r/w. Sec.212 of T.S

Panchayathraj Act and Sec.34(a) of T.S Excise Act, beyond all

reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

8. The case of the prosecution is that on the instructions of Accused

No.2, who is contesting candidate for ward member of Nusthulapur

Page 4 of 8 C.C No.858/2019/fair copy village, Accused No.1 was carrying the IMFL liquor i.e, M.O-1, in order to distribute the same to the voters as bribe and committed the offences under Sec.171-E of IPC, r/w Sec.212 of T.S Panchayathraj Act and

Sec.34(a) of T.S Excise Act.

9. To prove its case, prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and M.O-1. Before appreciating and analyzing the evidence on record, the oral testimonies of all witnesses are stated as under for better appreciation of evidence.

10. P.Ws 1 and 2 deposed that they do not know anything about the case and the police never prepared confession-cum-recovery panchanama of Accused No.1 in their presence and in the year 2019, they went to the police station on their personal work, police obtained their signatures on some white papers. During cross examination by learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor, nothing could be elicited from them.

11.1. PW3 deposed that on 23.01.2019, LW5/ K.Raghupathi Reddy/ASI of police got credible information that some unknown persons are transporting liquor in violation of G.P election code of conduct and on his request, he accompanied LW5/K.Raghupathi Reddy and they proceeded to Nusthulapur village. At about 3.30 pm, they reached Nusthulapur village and found one person carrying one cotton box under suspicious circumstances, upon which LW5/K.Raghupathi Reddy stopped him and checked the cotton box and found 48 Royal Stag Quarter bottles in said cotton box. On enquiry, he revealed his name as K.Narsaiah and further revealed that Accused No.2 is contesting as ward member in

Grampanchayath elections of Nusthulapur village and with an intention to distribute the liquor bottles to the voters to cast their vote in favour of

Page 5 of 8 C.C No.858/2019/fair copy

Accused No.2, he purchased those IMFL liquor bottles. Later,

LW5/K.Raghupathi Reddy secured the presence of two mediators and conducted confession and recovery panchanama before them and seized the aforesaid IMFL liquor bottles from the possession of Accused No.1 and on the same day, they submitted the seized property in the Police Station,

LMD Colony and LW5/K.Raghupathi Reddy registered a suomoto case against Accused No.1 and 2.

11.2. During cross examination, PW3 deposed that they did not witness

Accused persons distributing the said IMFL liquor to voters, but they have found Accused No.1 in possession of IMFL liquor. He admitted that at that point of time there is no ban of sale or purchase of liquor. PW3 volunteers that excess purchase of liquor is not permitted at the time of elections and he denied all other suggestions put by the learned counsel

for accused.

12. PW4 deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW3 and furtheron the same lines as deposed by PW3 and further deposed about registering the case in Cr.No.58/2019, issuance of FIR anddeposed about registering the case in Cr.No.58/2019, issuance of FIR and issuance of 41-A Cr.P.C notice to Accused persons and forwarding theissuance of 41-A Cr.P.C notice to Accused persons and forwarding the sample liquor bottle to FSL, Hyderabad for analysis report and depositingsample liquor bottle to FSL, Hyderabad for analysis report and depositing the seized property before the court. He further deposed that basing onthe seized property before the court. He further deposed that basing on the requisition filed by him, LW4/Haripriya, MPDO, Thimmapurthe requisition filed by him, LW4/Haripriya, MPDO, Thimmapur furnished the Attested copy of Form No.9 of Ward No.8 of Nusthulapurfurnished the Attested copy of Form No.9 of Ward No.8 of Nusthulapur village and upon completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.village and upon completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

During cross examination, PW4 admitted that he has not collected anyDuring cross examination, PW4 admitted that he has not collected any bills from where the IMFL liquor is alleged to have purchased by thebills from where the IMFL liquor is alleged to have purchased by the

Accused No.1 and not mentioned about the manufacturing company andAccused No.1 and not mentioned about the manufacturing company and date of manufacture in the charge sheet and he denied all otherdate of manufacture in the charge sheet and he denied all other suggestions put by the learned counsel for accused.suggestions put by the learned counsel for accused.

Page 6 of 8 C.C No.858/2019/fair copy

13. In this case though P.Ws 3 and 4 deposed that they have seized

IMFL liquor i.e., M.O-1 from the possession of Accused No.1. However,

P.Ws 1 and 2 who are the panch witnesses for confession-cum-recovery panchanama of Accused No.1 did not support the case of prosecution and stated that they do not know anything about the case and police never prepared confession-cum-recovery panchanama of Accused No.1 in their presence. Since P.Ws 1 and 2 did not support the case of prosecution, therefore, the confession of Accused No.1 and recovery of IMFL liquor from the possession of Accused No.1 has not been proved. Hence, no inference can be drawn as to the recovery of IMFL liquor from the possession of

Accused No.1.

14. Further, PW3 deposed that they did not witness Accused persons distributing the said IMFL liquor to voters, but they have found Accused

No.1 in possession of IMFL liquor and he admitted that at that point of time there is no ban of sale or purchase of liquor. PW4 admitted that hee has not collected any bills from where the IMFL liquor is alleged to havehas not collected any bills from where the IMFL liquor is alleged to have purchased by the Accused No.1 and not mentioned about thepurchased by the Accused No.1 and not mentioned about the manufacturing company and date of manufacture in the charge sheet.manufacturing company and date of manufacture in the charge sheet.

Further, P.Ws 3 and 4 are the official witnesses and in the absence of any cogent incriminating evidence against the Accused persons, the analysis report/Ex.P7 is also not much helpful to the case of prosecution to prove that Accused No.1 and 2 have committed an offence under Sec.34(a) of

A.P Excise Act. As far as the offence under Sec.171-E of IPC is concerned, there is no eye witness in this case to prove that Accused persons have committed the offence of bribery and further PW3 admitted that they did not witness the Accused persons distributing the said IMFL liquor to voters, but they only found Accused No.1 in possession of IMFL liquor. However, as discussed supra, the recovery of IMFL liquor has not been proved from the possession of Accused No.1.

Page 7 of 8 C.C No.858/2019/fair copy

15. In view of above discussion, prosecution failed to prove that on the instructions of Accused No.2, Accused No.1 was carrying the IMFL liquor i.e, M.O-1, in order to distribute the same to the voters as bribe and violated the rules of Model Code of Conduct. Consequently prosecution failed to prove the guilt of offences under Sec.171-E of IPC r/w. Sec.212 of

T.S. Panchayathraj Act and Sec.34(a) of T.S Excise Act against Accused

No.1 and 2, beyond reasonable doubt.

16. In the result, Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences under Sec.171-E of IPC, r/w. Sec.212 of T.S Panchayathraj Act andSec.171-E of IPC, r/w. Sec.212 of T.S Panchayathraj Act and

Sec.34(a) of T.S Excise Act. ASec.34(a) of T.S Excise Act. Accordingly they are acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused persons, if any, shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged and M.O-1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time, if no appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 06th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under PCR Act, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1- B. Sampath None PW2- B. Ravi PW3- Md. Aleemuddin PW4- K. Raghupathi Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1- Signature of PW1 on confession-cum-recovery panchanama of Accused No.1

Page 8 of 8 C.C No.858/2019/fair copy

Ex.P2- Signature of PW2 on confession-cum-recovery panchanama of Accused No.1 Ex.P3- Confession-cum-seizure panchanama of Accused No.1 Ex.P4- First Information Report Ex.P5- Forwarding letter, dt:31.01.2019 Ex.P6- Letter of Advice, dt:28.01.2019 Ex.P7- FSL report, dt:29.03.2019 Ex.P8- Requisition letter, dt:22.04.2019 Ex.P9- Attested copy of Form No.9 of Ward No.8 of Nusthulapur village

FOR DEFENCE: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS:-

1. 47 Royal Stag quarter bottles.

Sd/-

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under PCR Act, Karimnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS (MOBILE) FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER PCR ACT,

AT KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: SRI CHIRAG MEHTA,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under PCR Act, Karimnagar.

Friday, this the 08th day of May, 2026

C.C No.641 of 2019

Between : State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Sulthanabad.

...Complainant

AND

A1-Kommu Thirupathi, S/o.Balamallu, 42 years, Yadav, R/o. Kadambapur village.

(Since Accused No.1 died on 18-07-2020, the case against Accused

No.1 was abated on 29.05.2023) A2-Arepalli Amarendar, S/o.Nagaiah, 32 years, Madiga, R/o. Kadambapur village.

...Accused No.1 and 2.

This case is came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Vikranth Peddi, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri S.Ramesh, Advocate for Accused No.2 and the case against Accused No.1 was abated, after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following.

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sulthanabad Police Station has filed charge sheet in Crime No.356 of 2018 against the Accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 171-E of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as "IPC"), Sec.123 of Representation of Peoples Act (hereinafter referred as "R.P Act") and Sec.34(a) of A.P Excise Act.

Page 2 of 8 C.C No.641/2019 /fair copy

The brief facts of the cas e are that :

2.1.On 05.12.2018, at 0830 hours, LW6/P.Devender, Sub-Inspector of

Police along with LW3/V.Thirupathi Rao, Head Constable, LW4/

K.Shanthaiah, P.C No.2521 and LW5/S.Sampath, P.C No.3225 were conducting patrolling at Sulthanabad, in view of forthcoming General

Assembly elections, 2018. When they reached near petrol bunk,

Shastrinagar, Sulthanabad, found two persons were proceeding towards

Katnapalli village on their motor cycles under suspicious circumstances by keeping liquor cartons and when they noticed the police jeep, they tried to fled from there by leaving the said cartons on the road. Then they chased said persons and apprehend them at 0900 hours. On enquiry, said persons disclosed their names as Kommu Thirupathi/Accused No.1 and Arepalli Amarendar/Accused No.2 and they further confessed that they were illegally transporting the liquor to sell the same at Kadambapur.

Later, LW6/P.Devender seized 4 cartons of MC whisky bottles (48x4 =192), 2 cartons of I.B whisky quarter bottles (48x2 = 96) and 2 I.B whisky full bottles, total worth of Rs.40,080/-, from the possession of

Accused persons under seizure panchanama in the presence of LW1/

Ch.Rajamouli and LW2/B.Anjaiah. Later, LW6/P.Devender brought the

Accused persons along with seized property to the police station at 1900 hours and registered a suomoto case in Cr.No.356/2018, under Sec.

171-E of IPC, 34(a) of A.P Excise Act and Sec.123 of R.P Act and took up the investigation.

2.2.During the course of investigation, LW6/P.Devender examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, issued 41-A of Cr.P.C notice to the accused persons. Later, he forwarded the samples to FSL, Hyderabad and obtained report and deposited the case property before the court and

Page 3 of 8 C.C No.641/2019 /fair copy upon completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

3.The above Charge Sheet has been taken on file for the offences punishable under section 171-E of IPC, Sec.34(a) of A.P Excise Act and

Sec.123 of R.P Act against the Accused No.1 and 2.

4.On appearance of accused persons, copies of Charge Sheet and other documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C”). The accused persons were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., and charges are framed for the offences under Sec.171-E of IPC, Sec.34(a) of A.P Excise

Act and Sec.123 of R.P Act, the contents of charges are read over and explained to them in their vernacular language and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 29-05-2023, the police has filed death certificate of Accused No.1, hence, the case was abated against Accused

No.1.

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked. On closure of prosecution evidence, Accused No.2 was examined under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C., incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, were read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, to which he denied and not proposed any defence on his behalf. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

6.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel for accused.

Page 4 of 8 C.C No.641/2019 /fair copy

7.Now the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of Accused

No.2 for the offences under Sec.171-E of IPC, Sec.34(a) of A.P Excise

Act and Sec.123 of R.P Act, beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

8. The case of the prosecution is that in view of forthcoming General elections-2018, Accused persons without having any valid permission, were illegally transporting the IMFL liquor in order to sell the same at

Kadambapur village and committed an offences under Sec.171-E of IPC,

Sec.34(a) of A.P Excise Act and Sec.123 of R.P Act.

9. To prove its case, prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. Before appreciating and analyzing the evidence on record, the oral testimonies of all witnesses are stated as under for better appreciation of evidence.

10. P.Ws 1 and 2 who are panch witnesses for seizure panchanama of have deposed that they do not know anything about the case and police never prepared seizure panchanama of Accused No.1 and 2 in their presence and that in the year 2018, they went to the police station on their personal work. Police obtained their signatures on some white papers and they identified their signatures on seizure panchanama of

Accused No.1 and 2 which are marked as Exs.P1 and P2 respectively.

During cross examination by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, nothing could be elicited from them.

11.1. PW3 who assisted the Investigating Officer deposed that on 05.12.2018, in view of Assembly elections, 2018, he along with

Page 5 of 8 C.C No.641/2019 /fair copy

LW4/K.Shanthaiah, LW5/S.Sampath and LW6/P.Devender were performing patrolling duty in Sulthanabad Town and when they reached at petrol bunk, Shastrinagar, Sulthanabad, they found two persons in suspicious circumstances and on seeing them, when said persons tried to fled away, they caught hold them and found four cotton boxes containing 192 MC whisky quarter bottles, 96 IB whisky quarter bottles and 12 IB whisky full bottles in their possession. Immediately, LW6/P.Devender secured the presence of P.Ws 1 and 2 and made an enquiry. On enquiry, they revealed their names as Kommu Thirupathi/Accused No.1 and

A.Amarender/Accused No.2. They further revealed that in view of

Assembly elections to distribute liquor bottles to the voters, they are transporting those IMFL bottles. Later, LW6/P.Devender conducted confession and recovery panchanama before aforesaid two panchas and seized the crime vehicles bearing No.AP-09-BA-1332, AP-15-AD-Y006 and four cotton boxes containing aforesaid IMFL liquor from their possession and on the same day they have submitted the seized property to the police station, Sulthanabad and LW6/P.Devender registered a suomoto case against Accused No.1 and 2. PW3 identified Accused No.2 in the open court.

11.2. During cross examination, PW3 deposed that he cannot recall the exact dates on which model code of conduct was commenced and till which date it was in force. He did not have search warrant against the

Accused persons on the date of incident. PW3 volunteers that due to elections they had directions from Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam that there is no need to issue search warrant proceedings separately, if any person is found with unaccountable cash or any other bribe material.

PW3 admitted that he has stated in his Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement that they seized only one motor cycle bearing No.AP-09-BA-1332 and four boxes were on one bike and they not found any liquor bottle on the

Page 6 of 8 C.C No.641/2019 /fair copy another bike. He further deposed that they have seized IMFL liquor at the scene of offence in the presence of panch witnesses and he denied all other suggestions putforth by the learned counsel for Accused.

12. In this case though PW3 deposed that LW6/P.Devender seized IMFL liquor i.e., 192 whisky quarter bottles, 96 IB whisky quarter bottles and 12 IB whisky full bottles from the possession of Accused persons.

However, PW1 and PW2 who are the panch witnesses for seizure panchanama did not support the case of prosecution and stated that they do not know anything about the case and police never prepared seizure panchanama of Accused No.1 and 2 in their presence. Since P.Ws 1 and 2 did not support the case of prosecution, therefore, the recovery of IMFL liquor from the possession of accused persons has not been proved.

Hence, no inference can be drawn as to the recovery of IMFL liquor from the possession of accused persons. Further, PW3 is the official witness and in the absence of any cogent and corroborating evidence against the accused persons, the evidence of PW3 is also not much helpful to the case of prosecution to prove that accused persons have committed an offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P Excise Act. As far as the offence under Sec.171-E of IPC and Sec. 123 of R.P Act is concerned, there is no eye witness in this case to prove that accused persons have committed the offence of bribery and further as per Sec.27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the confession is admissible to the extent of discovery and as discussed supra, the recovery of IMFL liquor has not been proved from the possession of accused persons.

13. In view of above discussion, prosecution failed to prove that in view of forthcoming General elections-2018, Accused No.2 was illegally transporting the IMFL liquor in order to sell the same at Kadambapur

Page 7 of 8 C.C No.641/2019 /fair copy village. Hence, benefit of doubt shall be extended in favour of Accused

No.2, which leads to acquittal.

14. In the result, Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offences under

Section 171-E of IPC, Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and Sec.123 of RP Act,, accordingly he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused No.2, if any, shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged after expiry of appeal time, if no appeal is preferred. The unmarked case property i.e., two motor cycles bearing

Nos.AP-09-BA-1332 and AP-15-AD-5006 shall be returned to its owner and 191 MC whisky quarter bottles, 95 I.B whisky quarter bottles and 11 I.B whisky full bottles shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period, if no appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 08th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under PCR Act, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1- Ch. RajamouliNone PW2- B. Anjaiah PW3- V. Thirupathi Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1- Signature of PW1 on seizure panchanama of Accused No.1 and 2 Ex.P2- Signature of PW2 on seizure panchanama of Accused No.1 and 2

FOR DEFENCE: Nil.

Page 8 of 8 C.C No.641/2019 /fair copy

MATERIAL OBJECTS:- Nil

Sd/-

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under PCR Act, Karimnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS (EXCISE) AT KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: SRI CHIRAG MEHTA,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile), for trial of cases under PCR Act, Karimnagar. FAC: Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar.

Wednesday, this the 13th day of August, 2025

C.C No.1011 of 2024 

Between: State: Represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Police Station, Manakondur.

...Complainant

AND

Pamu Sathyanatrayana S/o.Chandraiah, Age: 51 years, Caste: Padmashali, R/o.H.No.4­69/9, Chandrapuri colony, Theegalaguttapalli village of Karimnagar mandal.

...Accused 

This case is came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Veeraswamy, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri K.Shankar, Advocate for accused, after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following.

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub­Inspector of Police, Manakondur police station has filed charge sheet in Crime No.121 of 2024 against accused for the offences punishable under Section 354­A, 354­D and 506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as "IPC").

The brief facts of the cas e are that:

2.1. On 07.03.2024, at 12:15 hours, the complainant/LW1/Bagavathula

Ravali lodged a complaint stating that after death of her husband, she along with her both sons working as priest in Venkateshwara Swamy temple at Manakondur. Since three years, the accused who is Endowment

Page 2 of 6 C.C No.1011/2024 /fair copy

Inspector harassed her by making phone calls with an intention to outrage her modesty and he warned that if she does not full fill his sexual desire he will remove them from Temple. On 06.03.2024 at 12:15 hours, accused went to temple on inspection, harassed to cooperate him for 10 minutes and also said that he has 5 years of service, if she will cooperate him, he will give amount to her as much as she will ask and he ready to send through phonepay to her and also stated that he will sanction DDL amount (Dhupa Dheepa Naivedyam) to her sons, if she will not listen his words he will remove her from temple and also threatened her. The accused frequently making phone calls to her, then she blocked his phone number, due to which he made phone calls to her daughter in law by name Keerthana and asked her that what her aunt is doing. The accused made phone calls to complainant in the night hours 4 to 5 times in a monthly and harassed her on the name of inspection. Finally she requested to take necessary actions against the accused.

2.2.Basing on the complaint, LW9/M.Raj Kumar, Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.121/2024, U/sec.354­A, 354­D and 506 of IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, as per instructionsofLW9/M.RajKumar,thewomanpolice officer/LW5/K.Sunitha examined and recorded the statement of

LW1/victim. Further, LW9/M.Raj Kumar examined and recorded the statement of LW5/K.Sunitha, visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of panchas LW6/S.Srinivas and LW7/D.Anjaneya Sharma and incorporated the details in Crime Details Form. During the investigation, on 22.03.2024 LW9/M.Raj Kumar served notice to the accused

U/sec.41­A Cr.P.C with instructions to appear before him, accordingly the accused went to PS and surrendered before LW9/M.Raj Kumar, on interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the said offence and upon completion of investigation, LW9/M.Raj Kumar filed charge sheet against the accused person.

Page 3 of 6 C.C No.1011/2024 /fair copy

3.The above Charge Sheet has been taken on file by this court for the offences punishable under Section 354­A, 354­D and 506 of IPC against accused.

4.On appearance of accused person, copies of Charge Sheet and other documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of

Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C”). The accused person was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., and charges are framed for the offences under Sec.354­A, 354­D and 506 of IPC against accused and the contents of charges are read over and explained to him in his vernacular language and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. On closure of prosecution evidence, accused person was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, were read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, to which he denied and not proposed any defence on his behalf. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

6.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel for accused.

7.Now the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of

accused for the offences under Sec.354­A, 354­D and 506 of IPC,

beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT: 

8. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused used to call to PW1 over phone frequently and harassed her with an intention to outrage her modesty and also he threatened PW1 to full fill his sexual desire.

Page 4 of 6 C.C No.1011/2024 /fair copy

9. To prove its case, prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and Exs.P1 to P7. Before appreciating and analyzing the evidence on record, the oral testimony of all witnesses is stated as under for better appreciation of evidence.

10. PW1 who is complainant and victim deposed that she does not know anything about the case and she never lodged any report to police.

She further deposed that in the year 2024, she went to Manakondur police station on her personal work, police obtained her signature on some white papers and her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C is marked as Ex.P2. PWs 2 and 3 also deposed on the same lines that they do not know anything about the case and police never examined them and not recorded their statements and their statements under

Sec.161Cr.P.C is marked as Exs.P3 and P4. During cross examination by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, nothing could be elicited from them.

11. PW4 who is investigating officer deposed that oon 07.03.2024, atn 07.03.2024, at 1215 hours, basing on the complaint/Ex.P5 lodged by PW1, he registered1215 hours, basing on the complaint/Ex.P5 lodged by PW1, he registered a case in Cr.No.121/2024, U/sec.354­A, 354­D and 506 of IPC anda case in Cr.No.121/2024, U/sec.354­A, 354­D and 506 of IPC and issued FIR/Ex.P6. During the course of investigation, he examined andissued FIR/Ex.P6.During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. Later, he visited the scene ofrecorded the statements of witnesses. Later, he visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW6/S.Srinivas andoffence, secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW6/S.Srinivas and

LW7/D.Anjaneya Sarma. Later, PW4 filed a requisition beforeLW7/D.Anjaneya Sarma. Later, PW4 filed a requisition before

LW8/P.Sarala Rekha, Hon’ble JMFC (Spl.Mobile) Court, Karimnagar withLW8/P.Sarala Rekha, Hon’ble JMFC (Spl.Mobile) Court, Karimnagar with a request to record the statement of PW1 U/sec.164 of Cr.P.C,a request to record the statement of PW1 U/sec.164 of Cr.P.C, accordingly she recorded the statement of PW1. On 22.03.2024, he issuedaccordingly she recorded the statement of PW1. On 22.03.2024, he issued 41­A Cr.P.C notice to accused and the accused surrendered before him41­A Cr.P.C notice to accused and the accused surrendered before him and on interrogation, he voluntarily confessed the commission of offenceand on interrogation, he voluntarily confessed the commission of offence and after completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet. Duringand after completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet. During cross examination, he denied the suggestions put by learned counsel forcross examination, he denied the suggestions put by learned counsel for accused.accused.

Page 5 of 6 C.C No.1011/2024 /fair copy

12. PW1 who is the complainant and who set the law into motion and

PW2 and PW3 who are the sons of PW1 did not support the case of prosecution as they deposed that they do not know anything about the case and turned hostile. Further, PW4 who is the Investigating Officer, deposed on the lines of his investigation.

13. Upon perusal of the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3, no incriminating evidence came on record against accused. In the absence of any cogent and corroborating evidence against the accused, the evidence of PW4, who is investigating officer is not much helpful to the case of prosecution to connect the accused person with the charges leveled against him.

Therefore, in view of above discussion, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under Section 354­A, 354­D and 506 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt and resultantly the accused is acquitted for the said offences. Accordingly, the point is answered.

14. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences underIn the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences under

Sections 354­A, 354­D and 506 of IPC, accordingly he is acquitted for theSections 354­A, 354­D and 506 of IPC, accordingly he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accusedsaid offences under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused person shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged afterperson shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged after expiry of appeal time. As no case property was deposited before this court,expiry of appeal time. As no case property was deposited before this court, hence no order as to the property.hence no order as to the property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 13th day of August, 2025.

 Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under PCR Act, Karimnagar.

FAC:Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar.

Page 6 of 6 C.C No.1011/2024 /fair copy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1­ B. RavaliNone PW2­ B. Ramnatha Charyulu PW3­ B. B.Raghavendra Charyulu PW4­ M. Raj Kumar, IO

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1­ Signature of PW1 on report Ex.P2­ Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P3­ Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P4­ Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P5­ Complaint Ex.P6­ First Information Report Ex.P7­ Crime Details Form

FOR DEFENCE: Nil. MATERIAL OBJECTS:­ Nil.

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under PCR Act, Karimnagar. FAC:Spl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT KARIMNAGAR.

 PRESENT: SRI CHIRAG MEHTA, III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. FAC: IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. Monday, this the 11th day of August, 2025

O.S.No.346 of 2024

Between : Bandaru @ Chinthapula Manish Chandra (Minor) S/o.Chinthapula Chandrashekar, Age: 13 years, Occ: Nil, as he is mentally and physically disabled person. Hence, through his­guardian Bandaru @ Dhammaiahgari Anjali W/o. Narsa Reddy @ Nacha Reddy, Age: 73 years, Occ: Retd.Govt.Employee, R/o.H.No.10­1­460, Bhagyanagar Locality of Karimnagar town proper and District.

....Plaintiff.

AND

1. Chinthapula Chandrashekar S/o. Late Muthyalu, Age: 39 years, Occ: Private Eployee, Native of Karimnagar town. Presently residing in H.No.13­5­162/2, V.Rama Rao Nagar,Bora Banda, Bala Nagar, Hyderabad.

2.The Tahasildar, Karimnagar Mandal, Office of the Tahsildar, Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar District.

3.Whomsoever it may concern.

...Defendants.

This suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. T.Laxman Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri.P.Laxman Rao, Advocate for Defendant No.1 and the defendants No.2 and 3 remained exparte and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following: : : J U D G M E N T : :

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration to declare him as the legal heir of deceased Bandaru Anuradha.

The averments of the plaint, in brief, are that:

2.1.The plaintiff is the son of the defendant no.1, born through his wife

Late Smt. Chinthapula Madhavi. One Late Bandaru Anuradha who is

Page 2 of 6 O.S No. 346 /2024/fair copy none other than the elder sister of said Chinthapula Madhavi, who was a

Government Employee and was un­married and handicapped person, took the plaintiff in adoption in the year­2011 a simple adoption deed

dated:18.03.2011. Subsequently for the purpose of legality, another

registered adoption deed vide document No.54/2022, dated: 24.02.2022 got executed through the natural parents of the plaintiff. Since from the date of execution of adoption deed i.e., from 18.03.2011 onwards, the said Bandaru Anuradha was looking after the welfare and maintenance of the plaintiff.

2.2. Unfortunately the adopted mother of the plaintiff got died on 28.02.2022 while she was in Government Service, working as Junior

Assistant in Z.P.High School (Girls) at Sulthanabad. Nine months after the death of adopted mother of the plaintiff, the natural mother of the plaintiff by name Chinthapula Madhavi also died in the month of

November, 2022. Since then the guardian of the plaintiff by name

Bandaru @ Dhammaiahgari Anjali who is none other than the maternal grandmother of the plaintiff ie, natural mother of said late B.Anuradha and Late Ch.Madhavi is looking after the welfare and wellbeing of the plaintiff. Except the maternal grandmother of the plaintiff, there is none to look after the welfare and wellbeing of the plaintiff. That even though defendant no.1 is available but keeping in view of the disability and mental dis­orderness of the plaintiff in mind and as well as since the defendant No.1 is staying at Hyderabad due to his private employment it is not possible for him to look after the maintenance, welfare and well­ being of the plaintiff.

2.3. Since the adopted mother of the plaintiff ie, "Bandaru Anuradha" died on 28.02.2022 while in service and after her death, guardian of the plaintiff herein approached to the Office of the Tahsildar, Karimnagar

Mandal for issuance of the family members certificate of the deceased

Bandaru Anuradha, so as to enable her to approach the concerned

Authorities for claiming the death benefits and pension etc. pertaining to

Page 3 of 6 O.S No. 346 /2024/fair copy the deceased "Bandaru Anuradha" who is the adopted mother of the plaintiff, on behalf of the minor­plaintiff, for which the Tahsildar,

Karimnagar Mandal i.e., the defendant No.2 has issued a Memo

Ref.No.C5/879/22, Dated:01.12.2022 to Bandaru @ Dhammaiahgari

Anjali, instructing her to approach the Hon'ble Court, as such she has filed the G.W.O.P.No.5/2023 in the Court of the Hon'ble Judge, Family

Court­cum­IV Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, praying to appoint her as the guardian of the plaintiff. Accordingly the said Hon'ble Court has been pleased to pass order and decree on 26.02.2024 appointing the maternal grandmother of the plaintiff as the "Guardian" of the Plaintiff.

Hence based on the said decree the guardian of the plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration to declare the plaintiff as the "Legal Heir" of the deceased Bandaru Anuradha, so as to enable the plaintiff to approach the concerned authorities to submit required papers to get the death benefits and pension of his deceased­adopted mother "Bandaru

Anuradha" for his maintenance and survival.

3.Summons has been served to defendant no.2 and paper publication was filed for Defendant no.3 despite of service of summons to Defendant no.2 and paper publication to Defendant no.3, none appeared before this court. Hence defendant no.2 and 3 are set exparte. The defendant No.1 filed written statement stated that the plaintiff is his son through late

Smt. Chinthapula Madhavi. One late Smt. Bandaru Anuradha who is own Sister of Chinthapula Madhavi took the plaintiff in Adoption with

Simple Adoption Deed and subsequently the same was got Registered vide Doc.No. 54/2022 dated: 24.02.2022. Since then the plaintiff was looked after and maintained by his Adoptive Mother Smt. Bandaru

Anuradha and the said Bandaru Anuradha died on 28.02.2022 while in service and working as Junior Assistant in ZP High School (Girls) at

Sulthnabad and subsequently in the Month of November, 2022 the

Natural Mother of plaintiff also died. The Guardian of the plaintiff by name Smt. Bandaru Darnmaiagari Anjali (who is natural mother of late

Page 4 of 6 O.S No. 346 /2024/fair copy

Anuradha and late Madhavi) has been looking after the welfare and wellbeing of the minor plaintiff as on this day as there are no other persons to look after the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and could not maintain and see the welfare of the minor plaintiff, who being the physically and mentally retarded person. In view of the disability and mental disorder of the plaintiff the Maternal Grand Mother of the plaintiff approached the Court for appointment of Guardian to minor plaintiff and the same was allowed by the Hon'ble Family Court­cum­IV Addl. District

Judge, Karimnagar vide it's Orders in GWOP No.5/2023 dt.26.02.2024

on the file of the Hon’ble Family Court cum IV Addl.District Judge,

Karimnagar and the plaintiff needs “Legal Heir Certificate” from the

Hon’ble court to get the death benefits or pension of late Bandaru

Anuradha, the adopted mother of the plaintiff. The defendant no.1 has No

Objection whatsoever for declaring the plaintiff as Legal heir of late

Bandaru Anuradha. 

4.During the course of evidence, the guardian of minor plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit and got herself examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 through PW1.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant no.1.

6. On the basis of the aforementioned pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:­

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as legal heir of

Smt.Later Bandaru Anuradha was died on 28.07.2022? If so,

(ii) To what relief?

POINT NO.1:­

7.In order to substantiate his case, the guardian of minor plaintiff filed chief examination affidavit in lieu of his examination­in­chief. The

Page 5 of 6 O.S No. 346 /2024/fair copy contents of her chief examination is nothing but reiteration of the plaint averments and the guardian of minor plaintiff is examined as PW­1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 and the guardian of minor plaintiff also filled

additional chief examination on behalf of minor plaintiff. According to

chief examination affidavit, the plaintiff is the adopted son of deceased

Bandaru Anuradha vide adoption deed document No.54/2022 dt.24.02.2022 and the adopted mother of plaintiff ie, Bandaru Anuradha died on 28.02.2022 while she was in government service working as

Junior Assistant in ZP High School (Girls) at Sulthanabad leaving behind the plaintiff as her legal heir. Perusal of Ex.A1 and 2, reveals that, one

Bandaru @ Dhammaiahgari Anjali who is natural mother of deceased

Bandaru Anuradha is declared as the guardian of minor plaintiff, Ex.A3 is the original identity card of deceased Bandaru Anuradha which shows that the deceased was a government servant, Ex.A4 and A5, shows that the minor plaintiff was adopted by deceased Bandaru Anuradha and

Ex.A6 is the Aadhar card of plaintiff, in which his mother name is mentioned as Bandaru Anuradha. Therefore, on perusal of Ex.A4 to A6, it stands proved that the plaintiff is the adopted son of deceased Bandaru

Anuradha. On perusal of evidence of PW­1 coupled with documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to A6, plaintiff proved the death of Bandaru

Anuradha on 28.02.2022 and also proved his relationship with deceased

Bandaru Anuradha.

8.Even otherwise also, since defendants No.2 and 3 are set exparte, the chief of PW­1 and Ex.A1 to A6, remained unchallenged. In view of unchallenged and unrebutted testimony of PW­1 coupled with Ex.A1 to

A6, this court finds nothing to disbelieve the version of plaintiff. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above, it is proved that plaintiff is the legal heir of deceased Bandaru

Anuradha, who died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff as her legal heir.

Hence this point is answered accordingly.

Page 6 of 6 O.S No. 346 /2024/fair copy

POINT NO.2:

9.In view of the findings in point No.1, the suit is decreed declaring only the legal status of plaintiff that he is the legal heir of deceased

Bandaru Anuradha.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs, declaring that plaintiff is the legal heir of deceased Bandaru Anuradha for the purpose of legal status only.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of August, 2025.

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. FAC: IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar

APP ENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

PW1­ Bandaru Anjali Exparte

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:­ Ex.A1­ is the certified copy of order in GWOP No.5 of 2023 Ex.A2­ is the certified copy of Decree in GWOP No.5 of 2023 Ex.A3­ is the original identity card of late B.Anuradha Ex.A4­ Certified copy of simple adoption deed dated:18.03.2011 Ex.A5­ Certified copy of registered adoption deed dated:24.02.2022 Ex.A6: is the Aadhar card of Bandaru Manish Chandra FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL.

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. FAC: IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar