Currently Serving

Ms. D.arundhati

Junior Civil Judges Court,Vuyyuru

Junior Civil Courts, Vuyyuru · Krishna · Andhra Pradesh

MS. D.ARUNDHATI, Junior Civil Judges Court,Vuyyuru, is posted at Junior Civil Courts, Vuyyuru, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh, India. 679 court orders on record since 2025. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, MC cases.

679

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/209/2026 Acquitted

The SHO, Taluka P.s vs Ramachandrapu Jolamma

09 Apr 2026

C.C.No.209/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS– CUM – ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):

GUDIVADA.

Present: Ms.D.Arundhati

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Gudivada

Thursday, this the 09th day of April, 2026

CALENDER CASE NO. 209 of 2026

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudivada Taluka P.S … Complainant

And

1. Ramachandrapu Jolamma, W/o Nagaraju, aged 47 years,

2. Veeranki Gopi, S/o Sivayya, aged about 30 years, both are R/o Bommuluru Village, Gudivada

... Accused

This case is coming on 08.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant; and Sri Y.Ankineedu Prasad, learned Counsel for the accused and upon hearing on both sides 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 Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudivada Taluka Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused for offence punishable under section 288 of

Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( in Short BNS) and Section 9 B(1) of

Explosive Act in Crime No.165/2025 of Gudivada Taluka Police Station

2.The case of the prosecution is that, in order to restrain the illegal manufacture of fire crackers without license or permit, the investigation officer i.e., L.W.5 namely T.Lokeswari, Sub Inspector of Police, Gudivada Taluka

Police Station along with his staff i.e., L.Ws.1 to 3 namely K.Govardhan ,

C.C.No.209/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

D.V.N.Sambaiah, G.Ravi Babu on 09.10.2025, on credible information they proceeded infront of the house of accused no.1 at near SC colony,

Bommuluru Village, Gudivada Mandal and they found that, the accused manufacturing the fire crackers total worth of Rs.2,000/-. On his enquiry, the accused confessed that he prepared the same for sale.

3. LW.5 namely T.Lokeswari seized the property i.e., 2,000 firecrackers from the possession of accused under the cover of occurrence report as accused no.1 manufacturing the same without valid license or permit. Accused confessed that the firecrackers selling the same to public higher rates in the view of festival season Diwali for earning the wrongful gain and further confessed that the fire crackers raw materials as purchased from accused no.2.

4.Basing on the occurrence report, L.W.5/T.Lokeswari,Sub

Inspector of police, Gudivada Taluka Police Station registered a case in

Cr.No.165/2025 under Section 288 of BNS and Section 9 B(1) of Explosive Act and investigated into.

5.During the course of investigation, he inspected the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and examined the witnesses i.e., LWs.1 to 3 namely K.Govardhan , D.V.N.Sambaiah, G.Ravi Babu, Rama Chandrapu

Kiran and recorded their statements 180 of Bharatiya Nagarika Siksha

Samhita ( in short BNSS.

6.LW.5 namely T.Lokeswari, Woman Sub Inspector of Police,

Gudivada Taluka Police served 35(3) of BNSS, notice to the accused. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet under 173(2) Cr.P.C. against the accused nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 288 of

BNS and Section 9 B(1) of Explosive Act,1984 .

7. This Court took cognizance under section 210(1)(b) of the BNSS against the accused for the offence punishable under section 288 of BNS and

Section 9 B(1) of Explosive Act,1984.

C.C.No.209/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

8.On appearance of accused nos.1 and 2, case copies were furnished to him as required under section 230 of BNSS.

9. The accused were examined under section 262 of the BNSS against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 288 of BNS and

Section 9 B(1) of Explosive Act,1984 read over and explained to tehm in

Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

10. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and fire crackers as M.O.1.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has not choose to examine L.Ws. 1 to 3 namely K.Govardhan , D.V.N.Sambaiah, G.Ravi Babu. Prosecution evidence is closed.

11.After completion of the evidence for prosecution, the accused nos.1 and 2 examined under section 315 of BNSS and all incriminating evidence available against them are read over and explained to them in

Telugu for which the stood by the denial and refused the correctness of incriminating circumstances with in which they were confronted. However, the accused did not let in any evidence, oral or documentary, in their defence.

12. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for the accused and perused the record.

13. Now the points for determination is:-

1. Whether the prosecution successful in bringing home the guilty of the accused nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under sections 288 of BNS and Section 9 B(1) of Explosive Act,1984 beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. Whether the accused are liable for the offences punishable under sections 288 of BNS and Section 9 B(1) of Explosive Act,1984?

14. Point Nos.1 and 2:-

C.C.No.209/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

As all the points are interrelated and intertwined with each other, this court considered that all these points should be dealt with together in order to avoid repetition of facts and reiteration of evidence.

15.The case of the prosecution is that the accused no.1 was found while preparing fire crackers in her house without valid license or permit, she purchased the raw material from accused no.2 and selling the same for higher rates the wrongful gain due to the Diwali festival and thereby committed the offence they were charged and tried for i.e. Section 288 of BNS and Section 9

B (1) of Explosive Act,1984.

16.To bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.4.

17.The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the confessional statement of the accused made in the presence of Lws.1 to 3 and also upon the evidence of PW.2 as investigation officer. The prosecution given up the evidence of Lws.1 and 2. P.W.1 is eye witness, he deposed his evidence do not know the case of the prosecution and did not help the prosecution case, hence he turned hostile.

18.P.W.2/T.Lokeswari, investigation officer in her evidence deposed that conducting raids along with her staff basing upon the credible information about illegal possession of crackers from the accused and seizing the fire crackers from the possession of the accused, registering the case, arrested the accused, drafted occurrence report in the presence of Lws.1 to 3 to the scene of offence. She served notices to the 35(3) of BNSS to the accused nos.1 and 2. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused nos.1 and 2.

19. During her cross examination she admitted that she did not issue any written summons to the mediators to act as mediators. Further she

C.C.No.209/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality. She admitted that she did not submit any black material which was used by accused no.1 for manufacturing onion bombs, there is no authorized labels on onion bombs as they mentioned as the worth of Rs.2,000/- at the time of seizure, she did not sent any explosive material to FSL as the Mo.1 is explosive substance. She further submitted that at the time of seizure the accused not selling before them and also no one person purchased the explosive substance from him in their presence.

20.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor during the course of arguments submitted that as per the evidence of P.W.2, the prosecution established that the accused was in possession of firecrackers is cogent and reliable. She further submitted that, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offense she was tried even though P.W.2 did not secure mediators at the scene of offence.

21. Admittedly the scene of offence is a residential. The evidence of

P.W.1 that they could not secure independent mediators does not inspire confidence as no notice in writing issued to the mediators, as provided under section 100(4) Cr.P.C. Thus, non-securing of independent mediators at the scene of seizure does not inspire confidence on the prosecution case.

22.Further admittedly, the accused confessed in the presence of

P.W.1 while he was in the custody of the investigation officer. Thus, the said confessional statement is hit by Section 25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act, which is of no help to the prosecution.

23. Even if, it is assumed that the accused no.1 was purchased the raw materials from accused no.2 for manufacturing the firecrackers and were found in possession of the prepared firecrackers and raw material and the same is seized by P.W.2 in the presence of Lws.1 to 3 and P.W.1.

C.C.No.209/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

24 Rule 128 of the Explosive Rules, 2008 deals with power of search and Seizure. As per the provisions of Rule 128 of the Explosive Rules, 2008.

Admittedly, the investigation officer in the present case is Assistant Sub

Inspector of Police, who is not competent to investigate the case, as per

Explosive Act.

25. Thus, as per Rule 128 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, P.W.2, who is an Sub Inspector of police is not authorized to search and seize the firecrackers i.e., M.O.1 and hence P.W.2 has no jurisdiction to seize the same.

Therefore, said seizure has no relevance on the present case.

26. In view of above discussion, the provisions of Rule 128 of the

Explosive Rules, 2008, it is manifest that the prosecution did not prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under

Section 288 of the BNS and Section 9-B (1) of Explosive Act,1984.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

27.In the result, accused nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Section 288 of the

BNS and Section 9 B (1) of Explosive Act,1984 and he is acquitted for the said offences. The accused shall execute a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- which shall remain in force along with bail bonds for a period of six months from today under section 437-A of Cr.P.C., for their appearance before the

Honorable Appellate Court as and when directed. M.O.1/Explosive substances

i.e.,2000 pieces of Nelatapakayalu and raw materials shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 09th day of April, 2026.

Additional Judl Magistrate of First Class ,

Gudivada.

C.C.No.209/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

For PROSECUTION: For DEFENCE:

1. P.W.1: Ramachandrapu Kiran(eye witness)

1. P.W.2: T.Lokeswari (Investigating officer)

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

1. Ex.P1: Statement of P.W.1 under section 180(3)of Cr.P.C

2. Ex.P2: Occurrence report

3. Ex.P3: First Information Report

4. Ex.P4: Rough sketch

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE--Nil

M.O.1 MARKED

Explosive substance i.e.2,000 pieces of Nelatapakayalu

Additional Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Gudivada.

C.C.No.209/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE NO: 209/2025 ON THE FILE OF

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :GUDIVADA

1.Date of Offence:: 11.10.2025

2.Date of Report/Complaint::11.10.2025

3.Date of Apprehension ::----

4.Date of Release ::----

5.Commencement of trial::31.03.2026

6.Date of Closure of trial::06.04.2026

7.Date of Judgment::09.04.2026

8.Name of the Complainant::State represented by the Station House Officer, Gudivada Taluka Police Station.

9.Name of the Accused::1. Ramachandrapu Jolamma, W/o Nagaraju, aged 47 years,

2. Veeranki Gopi, S/o Sivayya, aged about 30 years, both are R/o Bommuluru Village, Gudivada

10.Section of Law:: 288 of the BNS and Section 9 B (1) of Explosive Act,1984

11.Plea of Accused::Pleaded Not guilty

12.Finding of the court::Found not guilty.

13.SENTENCE: In the result, accused nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty under section 255 of BNSS for the offences punishable under Section 288 of the BNS and Section 9 B (1) of Explosive Act,1984 and they are acquitted for the said offences. The accused nos.1 and 2 shall execute a personal bond for

C.C.No.209/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

Rs.10,000/- which shall remain in force along with bail bonds for a period of six months each from today under section481(1)of BNSS for their appearance

before the Honorable Appellate Court as and when directed. M.O.1/Explosive

substances shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

14. Explanation for Delay: This case was taken on file under Section 288 of the BNS and Section 9 B (1) of Explosive Act,1984 against the accused and numbered as C.C.No.209/2025. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them and on 24.03.2026 the accused were examined under Section 262 of BNSS, on the same day, the trial commenced in this case and closed on 31.03.2026, the accused nos.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 08.04.2026 and posted for arguments. Heard arguments and Judgment pronounced on 09.04.2026. Hence, delay.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gudivada.

Copy submitted to:- The Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

CC/207/2026 Acquitted

The SHO, Gudivada Taluka P.S vs Vangalapati China Koteswara Rao,

09 Apr 2026

C.C.No.207/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS– CUM – ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):

GUDIVADA.

Present: Ms.D.Arundhati

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Gudivada

Thursday, this the 09th day of April, 2026

CALENDER CASE NO. 207 of 2026

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudivada Taluka P.S … Complainant

And

Vangalapati China Koteswara Rao, S/o Brahmayya, aged 62 years, R/o Bommuluru Village, Gudivada

... Accused

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudivada Taluka Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused for offence punishable under section 288 of

Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( in Short BNS) and Section 9 B(1) of

Explosive Act,1984 in Crime No.159/2025 of Gudivada Taluka Police Station

Police Station along with his staff i.e., L.Ws.1 to 3 namely K.Srinivasa Rao,

N.Rama Krishna, Md.Hafeez Khan, on 09.10.2025, on credible information

C.C.No.207/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

they proceeded to house of the accused at Bommuluru Village, Gudivada

Mandal and they found that, the accused manufacturing the fire crackers total worth of Rs.1,200/-. On his enquiry, the accused confessed that he prepared the same for sale.

3. LW.5 namely T.Lokeswari seized the property i.e.,1200 firecrackers from the possession of accused under the cover of occurrence report as he is manufacturing the same without valid license or permit. Accused confessed that the firecrackers selling the same to public higher rates in the view of festival season Diwali for earning the wrongful gain.

4.Basing on the occurrence report, L.W.5/N.Chanti Babu, Assistant

Sub Inspector of police, Gudivada Taluka Police Station registered a case in

Cr.No.159/2025 under Section 288 of BNS and Section 9 B(1) of Explosive

Act,1984 and investigated into.

5.During the course of investigation, he inspected the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and examined the witnesses i.e., LWs.1 to 3 namely K.Srinivasa Rao, N.Rama Krishna, Md.Hafeez Khan, Vanagalapati

Kumara Swami and recorded their statements 180 of Bharatiya Nagarika

Siksha Samhita ( in short BNSS.

6.LW.5 namely T.Lokeswari, Woman Sub Inspector of Police,

Gudivada Taluka Police served 35(3) of BNSS, notice to the accused. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet under 173(2) Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 288 of BNS and

Section 9 B(1) of Explosive Act,1984 .

8. This Court took cognizance under section 210(1)(b) of the BNSS against the accused for the offence punishable under section 288 of BNS and

Section 9 B(1) of Explosive Act,1984.

9.On appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to him as required under section 230 of BNSS.

C.C.No.207/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

10. The accused was examined under section 262 of the BNSS against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 288 of BNS and

Section 9 B(1) of Explosive Act,1984 read over and explained to him in Telugu.

The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

11. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and fire crackers as M.O.1.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has not choose to examine L.Ws. 1 to 3 namely K.Srinivasa Rao, N.Rama Krishna, Md.Hafeez Khan. Prosecution evidence is closed.

12.After completion of the evidence for prosecution, the accused examined under section 315 of BNSS and all incriminating evidence available against him is read over and explained to him in Telugu for which the stood by the denial and refused the correctness of incriminating circumstances with in which he was confronted. However, the accused did not let in any evidence, oral or documentary, in their defence.

13. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for the accused and perused the record.

14. Now the points for determination is:-

1. Whether the prosecution successful in bringing home the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable under sections 288 of BNS and Section 9 B(1) of Explosive Act,1984 beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. Whether the accused is liable for the offences punishable under sections 288 of BNS and Section 9 B(1) of Explosive Act,1984?

15. Point Nos.1 and 2:-

C.C.No.207/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

16.The case of the prosecution is that the accused was found while preparing fire crackers in his house without valid license or permit and selling the same for higher rates the wrongful gain due to the Diwali festival and thereby committed the offence he was charged and tried for i.e. Section 288 of BNS and Section 9 B (1) of Explosive Act,1984.

17.To bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.4.

18.The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the confessional statement of the accused made in the presence of Lws.1 to 3 and also upon the evidence of PW.2 as investigation officer. The prosecution given up the evidence of Lws.1 to 3. P.W.1 is eye witness, he deposed his evidence do not know the case of the prosecution and did not help the prosecution case, hence he turned hostile.

19.P.W.2/T.Lokeswari, investigation officer in her evidence deposed that conducting raids along with her staff basing upon the credible information about illegal possession of crackers from the accused and seizing the fire crackers from the possession of the accused, registering the case, arrested the accused, drafted occurrence report in the presence of Lws.1 to 4 to the scene of offence. She served notices to the 35(3) of BNSS to the accused.

After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

20. During her cross examination he admitted that she did not issue any written summons to the mediators to act as mediators. Further she admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality. She admitted that she did not submit any black material which was used by accused for manufacturing onion bombs, there is no authorized labels on onion bombs as they mentioned as the worth of Rs.1,200/- at the time of seizure, she did not sent any explosive material to FSL as the Mo.1 is explosive substance. She further

C.C.No.207/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

submitted that at the time of seizure the accused not selling before them and also no one person purchased the explosive substance from him in their presence.

22.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor during the course of arguments submitted that as per the evidence of P.W.2, the prosecution established that the accused was in possession of firecrackers is cogent and reliable. She further submitted that, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offense she was tried even though P.W.2 did not secure mediators at the scene of offence.

23. Admittedly the scene of offence is a residential. The evidence of

24.Further admittedly, the accused confessed in the presence of

P.W.1 while he was in the custody of the investigation officer. Thus, the said confessional statement is hit by Section 25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act, which is of no help to the prosecution.

25. Even if, it is assumed that the accused was manufacturing the firecrackers and were found in possession of the prepared firecrackers and raw material and the same is seized by P.W.2 in the presence of Lws.1 to 3 and P.W.1.

26. Rule 128 of the Explosive Rules, 2008 deals with power of search and Seizure. As per the provisions of Rule 128 of the Explosive Rules, 2008.

Admittedly, the investigation officer in the present case is Assistant Sub

Inspector of Police, who is not competent to investigate the case, as per

Explosive Act.

C.C.No.207/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

27. Thus, as per Rule 128 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, P.W.2, who is an Sub Inspector of police is not authorized to search and seize the firecrackers i.e., M.O.1 and hence P.W.2 has no jurisdiction to seize the same.

Therefore, said seizure has no relevance on the present case.

28. In view of above discussion, the provisions of Rule 128 of the

Explosive Rules, 2008, it is manifest that the prosecution did not prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under

Section 288 of the BNS and Section 9-B (1) of Explosive Act,1984.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

28.In the result, accused is found not guilty under section 255 (1)

Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Section 288 of the BNS and Section 9 B (1) of Explosive Act,1984 and he is acquitted for the said offences. The accused shall execute a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- which shall remain in force along with bail bonds for a period of six months from today under section 437-A of Cr.P.C., for his appearance before the Honorable Appellate Court as and when directed. M.O.1/Explosive substances i.e.,1,200 pieces of

Nelatapakayalu shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 09th day of April, 2026.

Additional Judl Magistrate of First Class ,

Gudivada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

For PROSECUTION: For DEFENCE:

1. P.W.1: V.Kumara Swami (eye witness)

1. P.W.2: T.Lokeswari (Investigating officer)

C.C.No.207/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

1. Ex.P1: Statement of P.W.1 under section 180(3)of Cr.P.C

2. Ex.P2: Occurrence report

3. Ex.P3: First Information Report

4. Ex.P4: Rough sketch

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE--Nil

M.O.1 MARKED

Explosive substance i.e.1,200 pieces of Nelatapakayalu

Additional Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Gudivada.

C.C.No.207/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE NO: 207/2025 ON THE FILE OF

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :GUDIVADA

1.Date of Offence:: 09.10.2025

2.Date of Report/Complaint::09.10.2025

3.Date of Apprehension ::----

4.Date of Release ::----

5.Commencement of trial::31.03.2026

6.Date of Closure of trial::06.04.2026

7.Date of Judgment::08.04.2026

8.Name of the Complainant::State represented by the Station House Officer, Gudivada Taluka Police Station.

9.Name of the Accused::Vangalapati China Koteswara Rao, S/o Brahmayya, aged 62 years, R/o Bommuluru Village, Gudivada

10.Section of Law:: 288 of the BNS and Section 9 B (1) of Explosive Act,1984

11.Plea of Accused::Pleaded Not guilty

12.Finding of the court::Found not guilty.

13.SENTENCE: In the result, accused is found not guilty under section 255 of BNSS for the offences punishable under Section 288 of the BNS and Section 9 B (1) of Explosive Act,1984 and he is acquitted for the said offences. The accused shall execute a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- which shall remain in force along with bail bonds for a period of six months from today under section481(1)of BNSS for his appearance before the Honorable Appellate

C.C.No.207/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

Court as and when directed. M.O.1/Explosive substances shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

14. Explanation for Delay: This case was taken on file under Section 288 of the BNS and Section 9 B (1) of Explosive Act,1984 against the accused and numbered as C.C.No.207/2025. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him and on 24.03.2026 the accused were examined under Section 262 of BNSS, on the same day, the trial commenced in this case and closed on 31.03.2026, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 08.04.2026 and posted for arguments. Heard arguments and

Judgment pronounced on 09.04.2026. Hence, delay.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gudivada.

Copy submitted to:- The Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

CC/204/2026 Acquitted

The SHO, Taluka P.S vs Cheeli Peddi Raju

09 Apr 2026

C.C.No.204/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS– CUM – ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):

GUDIVADA.

Present: Ms.D.Arundhati

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Gudivada

Thursday, this the 09th day of April, 2026

CALENDER CASE NO. 204 of 2026

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudivada Taluka P.S … Complainant

And

Cheeli Peddi Raju, S/o Koteswara Rao, aged 40 years, R/o Bommuluru Village, Gudivada

... Accused

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudivada Taluka Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused for offence punishable under section 288 of

Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( in Short BNS) and Section 9 B(1) of

Explosive Act,1984 in Crime No.160/2025 of Gudivada Taluka Police Station

Police Station along with his staff i.e., L.Ws.1 to 3 namely K.Srinivasa Rao,

N.Rama Krishna, Md.Hafeez Khan, on 09.10.2025, on credible information

C.C.No.204/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

they proceeded to house of the accused at Bommuluru Village, Gudivada

Mandal and they found that, the accused manufacturing the fire crackers total worth of Rs.1,250/-. On his enquiry, the accused confessed that he prepared the same for sale.

3. LW.5 namely T.Lokeswari seized the property i.e.,1250 firecrackers from the possession of accused under the cover of occurrence report as he is manufacturing the same without valid license or permit. Accused confessed that the firecrackers selling the same to public higher rates in the view of festival season Diwali for earning the wrongful gain.

4.Basing on the occurrence report, L.W.5/T.Lokeswari, Woman

Sub Inspector of police, Gudivada Taluka Police Station registered a case in

Cr.No.160/2025 under Section 288 of BNS and Section 9 B(1) of Explosive

Act,1984 and investigated into.

Mariyadasu and recorded their statements 180 of Bharatiya Nagarika Siksha

Samhita ( in short BNSS.

6.LW.5 namely T.Lokeswari, Woman Sub Inspector of Police,

Section 9 B(1) of Explosive Act,1984 .

8. This Court took cognizance under section 210(1)(b) of the BNSS against the accused for the offence punishable under section 288 of BNS and

Section 9 B(1) of Explosive Act,1984.

9.On appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to him as required under section 230 of BNSS.

C.C.No.204/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

10. The accused was examined under section 262 of the BNSS against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 288 of BNS and

Section 9 B(1) of Explosive Act,1984 read over and explained to him in Telugu.

The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

11. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and fire crackers as M.O.1.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has not choose to examine L.Ws. 1 to 3 namely K.Srinivasa Rao, N.Rama Krishna, Md.Hafeez Khan. Prosecution evidence is closed.

13. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for the accused and perused the record.

14. Now the points for determination is:-

2. Whether the accused is liable for the offences punishable under sections 288 of BNS and Section 9 B(1) of Explosive Act,1984?

15. Point Nos.1 and 2:-

C.C.No.204/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

17.To bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.4.

After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

20. During her cross examination he admitted that she did not issue any written summons to the mediators to act as mediators. Further she admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality. She admitted that she did not submit any black material which was used by accused for manufacturing onion bombs, there is no authorized labels on onion bombs as they mentioned as the worth of Rs.1,250/- at the time of seizure, she did not sent any explosive material to FSL as the Mo.1 is explosive substance. She further submitted that

C.C.No.204/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

at the time of seizure the accused not selling before them and also no one person purchased the explosive substance from him in their presence.

23. Admittedly the scene of offence is a residential. The evidence of

24.Further admittedly, the accused confessed in the presence of

P.W.1 while he was in the custody of the investigation officer. Thus, the said confessional statement is hit by Section 25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act, which is of no help to the prosecution.

26. Rule 128 of the Explosive Rules, 2008 deals with power of search and Seizure. As per the provisions of Rule 128 of the Explosive Rules, 2008.

Admittedly, the investigation officer in the present case is Assistant Sub

Inspector of Police, who is not competent to investigate the case, as per

Explosive Act.

C.C.No.204/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

Therefore, said seizure has no relevance on the present case.

28. In view of above discussion, the provisions of Rule 128 of the

Explosive Rules, 2008, it is manifest that the prosecution did not prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under

Section 288 of the BNS and Section 9-B (1) of Explosive Act,1984.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

28.In the result, accused is found not guilty under section 255 (1)

Nelatapakayalu shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 09th day of April, 2026.

Additional Judl Magistrate of First Class ,

Gudivada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

For PROSECUTION: For DEFENCE:

1. P.W.1: A.Mariya Dasu (eye witness)

2. P.W.2: T.Lokeswari (Investigating officer)

C.C.No.204/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

1. Ex.P1: Statement of P.W.1 under section 161(3)of Cr.P.C

2. Ex.P2: Occurrence report

3. Ex.P3: First Information Report

4. Ex.P4: Rough sketch

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE--Nil

M.O.1 MARKED

Explosive substance i.e.1,250 pieces of Nelatapakayalu

Additional Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Gudivada.

C.C.No.204/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE NO: 204/2025 ON THE FILE OF

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :GUDIVADA

1.Date of Offence:: 09.10.2025

2.Date of Report/Complaint::09.10.2025

3.Date of Apprehension ::----

4.Date of Release ::----

5.Commencement of trial::31.03.2026

6.Date of Closure of trial::06.04.2026

7.Date of Judgment::08.04.2026

8.Name of the Complainant::State represented by the Station House Officer, Gudivada Taluka Police Station.

9.Name of the Accused::Cheeli Peddi Raju, S/o Koteswara Rao, aged 40 years, R/o Bommuluru Village, Gudivada

10.Section of Law:: 288 of the BNS and Section 9 B (1) of Explosive Act,1984

11.Plea of Accused::Pleaded Not guilty

12.Finding of the court::Found not guilty.

C.C.No.204/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

Court as and when directed. M.O.1/Explosive substances shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

14. Explanation for Delay: This case was taken on file under Section 288 of the BNS and Section 9 B (1) of Explosive Act,1984 against the accused and numbered as C.C.No.204/2025. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him a nd on 24.03.2026 the accused were examined under Section 262 of BNSS, on the same day, the trial commenced in this case and closed on 31.03.2026, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 06.04.2026 and posted for arguments. Heard arguments and

Judgment pronounced on 09.04.2026. Hence, delay.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gudivada.

Copy submitted to:- The Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

CC/208/2026 Acquitted

The SHO, Gudivada Taluka P.S vs Sangati Koteswara Rao

09 Apr 2026

C.C.No.208/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS– CUM – ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):

GUDIVADA.

Present: Ms.D.Arundhati

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Gudivada

Thursday, this the 09th day of April, 2026

CALENDER CASE NO. 208 of 2026

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudivada Taluka P.S … Complainant

And

Sangati Koteswara Rao, S/o Bikshalu, aged 70 years, R/o Bommuluru Village, Gudivada

... Accused

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudivada Taluka Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused for offence punishable under section 288 of

Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( in Short BNS) and Section 9 B(1) of

Explosive Act,1984 in Crime No.162/2025 of Gudivada Taluka Police Station

Police Station along with his staff i.e., L.Ws.1 to 3 namely K.Srinivasa Rao,

N.Rama Krishna, Md.Hafeez Khan, on 09.10.2025, on credible information they proceeded to house of the accused at Bommuluru Village, Gudivada

C.C.No.208/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

Mandal and they found that, the accused manufacturing the fire crackers total worth of Rs.1,350/-. On his enquiry, the accused confessed that he prepared the same for sale.

3. LW.5 namely T.Lokeswari seized the property i.e.,1350 firecrackers from the possession of accused under the cover of occurrence report as he is manufacturing the same without valid license or permit. Accused confessed that the firecrackers selling the same to public higher rates in the view of festival season Diwali for earning the wrongful gain.

4.Basing on the occurrence report, L.W.5/Sub Inspector of police,

Gudivada Taluka Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.162/2025 under

Section 288 of BNS and Section 9 B(1) of Explosive Act,1984 and investigated into.

Babu and recorded their statements 180 of Bharatiya Nagarika Siksha

Samhita ( in short BNSS.

6.LW.5 namely T.Lokeswari, Woman Sub Inspector of Police,

Section 9 B(1) of Explosive Act,1984 .

7. This Court took cognizance under section 210(1)(b) of the BNSS against the accused for the offence punishable under section 288 of BNS and

Section 9 B(1) of Explosive Act,1984.

8.On appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to him as required under section 230 of BNSS.

9.The accused was examined under section 262 of the BNSS against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 288 of BNS

C.C.No.208/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

and Section 9 B(1) of Explosive Act,1984 read over and explained to him in

Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

10. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and fire crackers as M.O.1.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has not choose to examine L.Ws. 1 to 3 namely K.Srinivasa Rao, N.Rama Krishna, Md.Hafeez Khan. Prosecution evidence is closed.

11.After completion of the evidence for prosecution, the accused examined under section 315 of BNSS and all incriminating evidence available against him is read over and explained to him in Telugu for which the stood by the denial and refused the correctness of incriminating circumstances with in which he was confronted. However, the accused did not let in any evidence, oral or documentary, in their defence.

12. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for the accused and perused the record.

13. Now the points for determination is:-

2. Whether the accused is liable for the offences punishable under sections 288 of BNS and Section 9 B(1) of Explosive Act,1984?

14. Point Nos.1 and 2:-

15.The case of the prosecution is that the accused was found while preparing fire crackers in his house without valid license or permit and selling the same for higher rates the wrongful gain due to the Diwali festival and

C.C.No.208/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

thereby committed the offence he was charged and tried for i.e. Section 288 of BNS and Section 9 B (1) of Explosive Act,1984.

16.To bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.4.

17.The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the confessional statement of the accused made in the presence of Lws.1 to 3 and also upon the evidence of PW.2 as investigation officer. The prosecution given up the evidence of Lws.1 to 3. P.W.1 is eye witness, he deposed his evidence do not know the case of the prosecution and did not help the prosecution case, hence he turned hostile.

18.P.W.2/T.Lokeswari, investigation officer in her evidence deposed that conducting raids along with her staff basing upon the credible information about illegal possession of crackers from the accused and seizing the fire crackers from the possession of the accused, registering the case, arrested the accused, drafted occurrence report in the presence of Lws.1 to 4 to the scene of offence. She served notices to the 35(3) of BNSS to the accused.

After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

19. During her cross examination he admitted that she did not issue any written summons to the mediators to act as mediators. Further she admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality. She admitted that she did not submit any black material which was used by accused for manufacturing onion bombs, there is no authorized labels on onion bombs as they mentioned as the worth of Rs.1,350/- at the time of seizure, she did not sent any explosive material to FSL as the Mo.1 is explosive substance. She further submitted that at the time of seizure the accused not selling before them and also no one person purchased the explosive substance from him in their presence.

C.C.No.208/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

21. Admittedly the scene of offence is a residential. The evidence of

22.Further admittedly, the accused confessed in the presence of

P.W.1 while he was in the custody of the investigation officer. Thus, the said confessional statement is hit by Section 25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act, which is of no help to the prosecution.

23. Even if, it is assumed that the accused was manufacturing the firecrackers and were found in possession of the prepared firecrackers and raw material and the same is seized by P.W.2 in the presence of Lws.1 to 3 and P.W.1.

24. Rule 128 of the Explosive Rules, 2008 deals with power of search and Seizure. As per the provisions of Rule 128 of the Explosive Rules, 2008.

Admittedly, the investigation officer in the present case is Assistant Sub

Inspector of Police, who is not competent to investigate the case, as per

Explosive Act.

25. Thus, as per Rule 128 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, P.W.2, who is an Sub Inspector of police is not authorized to search and seize the

C.C.No.208/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

firecrackers i.e., M.O.1 and hence P.W.2 has no jurisdiction to seize the same.

Therefore, said seizure has no relevance on the present case.

26. In view of above discussion, the provisions of Rule 128 of the

Explosive Rules, 2008, it is manifest that the prosecution did not prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under

Section 288 of the BNS and Section 9-B (1) of Explosive Act,1984.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

27.In the result, accused is found not guilty under section 255 (1)

Nelatapakayalu shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 09th day of April, 2026.

Additional Judl Magistrate of First Class ,

Gudivada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

For PROSECUTION: For DEFENCE:

1. P.W.1: Sangati Doctor Babu (eye witness)

1. P.W.2: T.Lokeswari (Investigating officer)

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

1. Ex.P1: Statement of P.W.1 under section 180(3)of Cr.P.C

2. Ex.P2: Occurrence report

C.C.No.208/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

3. Ex.P3: First Information Report

4. Ex.P4: Rough sketch

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE--Nil

M.O.1 MARKED

Explosive substance i.e.1,350 pieces of Nelatapakayalu

Additional Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Gudivada.

C.C.No.208/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE NO: 208/2025 ON THE FILE OF

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :GUDIVADA

1.Date of Offence:: 09.10.2025

2.Date of Report/Complaint::09.10.2025

3.Date of Apprehension ::----

4.Date of Release ::----

5.Commencement of trial::31.03.2026

6.Date of Closure of trial::06.04.2026

7.Date of Judgment::08.04.2026

8.Name of the Complainant::State represented by the Station House Officer, Gudivada Taluka Police Station.

9.Name of the Accused::Sangati Koteswara Rao, S/o Bikshalu, aged 70 years, R/o Bommuluru Village, Gudivada

10.Section of Law:: 288 of the BNS and Section 9 B (1) of Explosive Act,1984

11.Plea of Accused::Pleaded Not guilty

12.Finding of the court::Found not guilty.

C.C.No.208/2026, Dt.09.04.2026 AJFCM, Court, Gudivada.

Court as and when directed. M.O.1/Explosive substances shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

14. Explanation for Delay: This case was taken on file under Section 288 of the BNS and Section 9 B (1) of Explosive Act,1984 against the accused and numbered as C.C.No.208/2025. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him and on 24.03.2026 the accused were examined under Section 262 of BNSS, on the same day, the trial commenced in this case and closed on 31.03.2026, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 08.04.2026 and posted for arguments. Heard arguments and

Judgment pronounced on 09.04.2026. Hence, delay.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gudivada.

Copy submitted to:- The Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

CC/50/2020 Acquittal

SHO Gudivada I Town vs Ganta Tanish @ Tanish Babu

16 Apr 2026

Order Record 664 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/553/2025	SHO SEB Gudivada vs Annapureddy Vasu Kumar	04 May 2026	Other	—
CC/941/2022	The Station House Officer, Gudlavalleru Police Station vs Ravi Venkateswara Rao	04 May 2026	Other	—
CC/50/2020	SHO Gudivada I Town vs Ganta Tanish @ Tanish Babu	16 Apr 2026	Judgment	Acquittal
MC/51/2024	Gotru Suseela vs Gotru Ramesh	15 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/48/2024	Guntur Rani vs Jujjuvarapu Ramesh Kumar	09 Apr 2026	Other	—
CC/204/2026	The SHO, Taluka P.S vs Cheeli Peddi Raju	09 Apr 2026	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/207/2026	The SHO, Gudivada Taluka P.S vs Vangalapati China Koteswara Rao,	09 Apr 2026	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/208/2026	The SHO, Gudivada Taluka P.S vs Sangati Koteswara Rao	09 Apr 2026	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/209/2026	The SHO, Taluka P.s vs Ramachandrapu Jolamma	09 Apr 2026	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/210/2026	The SHO, Gudivada Taluka P.S vs Jumala Bapayya	09 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/211/2026	The SHO, Taluka P.S vs Chilakabattina Meerabayamma	09 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/417/2022	The Station House Officer, Pamarru Police Station vs Dasari Nagendra Babu	09 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/584/2023	Kanumolu Omakar vs Jajula Veera Swamy	09 Apr 2026	Other	—
DVC/3/2023	Mandalapu Ramani Malathi vs Mandalapu Praveen and 4 others	09 Apr 2026	Other	—
MC/7/2023	Mandalapu Ramani Malathi vs Mandalapu Praveen	09 Apr 2026	Other	—
CC/35/2026	The special enforcement bureau, Gudivada vs Mannem Subrahmanyam	02 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/37/2026	The SHO, prohitition and excise vs Variganji Rajanis	01 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/774/2021	The Station House Officer, Gudivada I-Town Police Station vs Mohammed SherShabdar Ali	24 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/724/2024	Sub Inspector of Police, Gudivada I Town PS vs Katuri Subbarao	18 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/75/2026	The SHO, Pamarru P.S vs Kotla Bhaskar Reddy	17 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/76/2026	The SHO, Pamarru P.S vs Kotla Bhakar Reddy	17 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/82/2026	The SHO Pamarri Police station vs Kotla Bhaskara Reddy	17 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/83/2026	The SHO, Pamarru Police Station vs Kotla Bhaskara Reddy	17 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/84/2026	The SHO Pamarru Police Station vs Kotla Bhaskara Reddy	17 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/85/2026	The SHO, Pamarru P.S vs Kotla Bhaskar Reddy	17 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/86/2026	The SHO, Pamarru P.S vs Kotla Bhaskar Reddy	17 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/87/2026	The SHO, Pamarru P.S vs Kotla Bhaskar Reddy	17 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/88/2026	The SHO, Pamarru P.S vs Kotla Bhaskar Reddy.	17 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/89/2026	The SHO, Pamarru P.S vs Kotla Bhaskar Reddy	17 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/112/2026	The SHO, Pamarru P.S vs KOtla Bhaskar Reddy	17 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/949/2025	The Station House Officer, Gudivada I-Town Police Station vs Kotlo Bhaskara Reddy alias raj Kumar	17 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/954/2025	The Station House Officer, Gudivada I-Town Police Station vs Kotlo Bhaskara reddy alias Raj Kumar	17 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/17/2020	SHO Pamarru vs Kakolu Bhargav	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/51/2025	The Station House Officer, Gudlavalleru Police Station vs Tokala Anjani Kumar, Alias Pandu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/90/2026	The Station House Officer, Gudivada I-Town Police Station vs Pulletikurthi Venkata Krishna Rao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/91/2026	The Station House Officer, Gudivada I-Town Police Station vs Kummarikutla Jayanth	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/106/2026	The Station House Officer, Gudivada I-Town Police Station vs Ella Siva	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/109/2026	The Station House Officer, Gudivada I-Town Police Station vs Peddhi John Babu and 03 others	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/116/2026	The Station House Officer, Pamarru Police Station vs Peddiboina Venkata Narayana and 02 others	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/138/2026	The SHO, Gudivada Taluka P.S vs Gunde Vijaya	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/148/2026	The SHO, Taluka P.S vs Mallineni Chandra Babu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/155/2026	The SHO, Gudlavalleru P.S vs Kadiyam Prem Kumar	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/161/2026	The SHO, Pamarru P.S vs Kalapala Sri Harsha	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/163/2026	The SHO, Pamarru P.S vs Peteti Manila Samuel	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/186/2026	Prohibition and Excise station, GDV vs Kolusu Durga Naga Malleswari	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/187/2026	SHO, Prohibition and Excise station vs Yesupogu Adam	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/188/2026	The Station House Officer, Pamarru Police Station vs Munipalli Anvesh	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/189/2020	SHO Pamarru vs Akurathi Veera Raghavamma @ Ammulu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/197/2023	The Station House Officer, Gudivada Taluka Police Station vs Mandapati Sandeep	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/204/2023	The Station House Officer, Gudivada Taluka Police Station vs Kagithala Charles	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/315/2022	SHO Gudlavalleru vs Karre Durga Prasad	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/316/2023	The Station House Officer, Gudlavalleru Police Station vs Mannem Eswara Rao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/322/2022	The Station House Officer, Gudlavalleru Police Station vs Thumati Peddi Raju	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/326/2022	The Station House Officer, Pamarru Police Station vs Kodali Vijay	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/440/2023	AP State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of police, Gudlavalleru P.s. vs Boyina Ramesh	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/447/2022	The Station House Officer, Gudivada I-Town Police Station vs Gotru Ramesh	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/524/2025	The SHO Gudivada Taluk Police Station vs Darapureddy Sudhakar	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/525/2025	The SHO Gudivada Taluka Police Station vs Kadali Rajesh	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/575/2022	The Station House Officer, Gudlavalleru Police Station vs Kumba Yedu Kondalu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/602/2024	Sub Inspector of Police, Gudivada I Town PS vs Kommina Kumar	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/603/2025	The Station House Officer, Gudivada Taluka Police Station vs Bonela Naga Divya Prasad	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/716/2023	AP State rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudivada I Town P.S. vs Nukarapu Bhanu Prasad	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/731/2021	Puvvada SMV Syam Kumar vs Paidi Mallikarjuna Rao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/760/2024	The Sub Inspector of Police, Pamarru PS vs Murala Ramaswamy	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/806/2023	AP. State rep. by Sub-Inspector of police, Gudivada Taluka P.S. vs Sole Jagadesh Babu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/817/2025	Singavarau Simhachalam vs Kotturi Abraham	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/840/2022	The Station House Officer, Gudivada I-Town Police Station vs Gorrela Bahuguna	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/847/2022	The Station House Officer, Pamarru Police Station vs Adepalli Yesu Babu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/855/2025	The Station House Officer, Gudivada I-Town Police Station vs Buragadda Siva Rama Krishna	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/861/2025	The Station House Officer, Gudivada I-Town Police Station vs Dasu Ratnakara rao alias Ratnakar	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/875/2025	The Station House Officer, Pamarru Police Station vs Yeligarapu Lokesh	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/927/2020	Putta Ayyappa Swami vs Saggurthi Raja Sekhar	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/970/2025	The Station House Officer, Pamarru Police Station vs Maddali Murali Mohan	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/977/2022	The Station House Officer, Gudlavalleru Police Station vs Jogi Naga Subramanyam	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/981/2022	The Station House Officer, Gudlavalleru Police Station vs Matta Samasiva Rao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/991/2022	The Station House Officer, Gudlavalleru Police Station vs Matta Sambasiva Rao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/1007/2022	The Station House Officer, Gudlavalleru Police Station vs Matta Nagaraju	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/1102/2020	Kurakula Venkata Nageswara Rao vs Arja Sivajee Babu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/1166/2021	The Station House Officer, Gudivada I-Town Police Station vs Batthina Phani Kumar @ Phani	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/1218/2021	The Station House Officer, Gudivada I-Town Police Station vs Tenali Sudheer	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/1234/2021	SHO Gudivada I Town P.S vs Singidi Peddirajulu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/1332/2021	The Station House Officer, Pamarru Police Station vs Shaik Sohail Akthar	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
DVC/14/2022	Saade Jeevana Jyothi vs Saade Bhanuchandar	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
MC/52/2024	Katuri Kamala Priya, Alias Nuthakki Kamala Priya vs Katuri Subba Rao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/1028/2023	A.P State rep. by the Sub Inspector of Spl.Enforcement, Bureau, Nandivada vs Kondeti Rangamma	13 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/30/2026	The SHO, Nandivada P.S vs Venna Jansan Babu	09 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/36/2026	The SHO, P and E , Nandivada vs Gollapudi Naga Raju	09 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/53/2026	The SHO, Prohibition and excise vs Sarihaddu Madhu	09 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/98/2026	Probation and Excise station, Gudivada vs Sonti Syamala Rao	06 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/1209/2021	Musinada Bhanu Prakash vs Velisetti Naga Rau	06 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/97/2026	SHO, Probation and Excise, Gudivada vs Matta Venkateswara Rao	05 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/99/2026	SHO, Probation and Excise, Gudivada vs Pamarthi Venkateswarlu	05 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/100/2026	SHO, Probation and Excise, Gudivada vs Modugumudi Paidamma	05 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/101/2026	SHO, Prohibition and Excise, Gudivada vs Motukuri Ganga Bhavani	05 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/1045/2020	S.H.O., Gudivada Taluka P.S. vs Meesala Srinivasa Rao	03 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
STC/105/2022	Garikapati Veera Venkata Samba Siva Rao vs Desabattula Kumar	03 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/77/2026	The Station House Officer, Gudivada Taluka Police Station vs Pemmisetty Rama Prakash and one another	02 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/78/2026	The Station House Officer, Gudivada Taluka Police Station vs Pemmisetty Rama Prakash and 01 another	02 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/79/2026	The Station House Officer, Gudivada Taluka Police Station vs Pemmisetty Rama Prakash and 01 another	02 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/80/2026	The Station House Officer, Gudivada Taluka Police Station vs Pemmisetti Rama Prakash and one another	02 Mar 2026	Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 664 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		2
Apr 2026		15
Mar 2026		91
Feb 2026		16
Jan 2026		29
Dec 2025		189
Nov 2025		33
Oct 2025		30
Sep 2025		144
Aug 2025		34
Jul 2025		54
Jun 2025		26

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has MS. D.ARUNDHATI handled?

MS. D.ARUNDHATI has handled 679 court orders since 2025 at Junior Civil Courts, Vuyyuru. The average disposal rate is 53 orders per month.

What types of cases does MS. D.ARUNDHATI hear?

Based on available records, MS. D.ARUNDHATI primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Junior Civil Courts, Vuyyuru.

Where is MS. D.ARUNDHATI currently posted?

MS. D.ARUNDHATI is posted as Junior Civil Judges Court,Vuyyuru at Junior Civil Courts, Vuyyuru, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by MS. D.ARUNDHATI available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by MS. D.ARUNDHATI are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does MS. D.ARUNDHATI dispose cases?

MS. D.ARUNDHATI disposes approximately 53 cases per month, based on 679 orders handled over their tenure at Junior Civil Courts, Vuyyuru.

Since when is MS. D.ARUNDHATI serving?

MS. D.ARUNDHATI has been serving at Junior Civil Courts, Vuyyuru since 2025. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

CC 85%

OS 9%

MC 4%

EP 1%

PRC 1%

STC 1%

DVC 0%

Posting History

May 2026 — Present

Junior Civil Judges Court,Vuyyuru
May 2025 — Present

Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Gudivada · 679 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 4

Acquittal 1

← View all judges at Junior Civil Courts, Vuyyuru