Sri. D.Balakrishnaiah

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Palakole

JCJ Court Complex, Palakol · West Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

Sri. D.Balakrishnaiah, I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Palakole, is posted at JCJ Court Complex, Palakol, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 248 court orders on record since 2011. 4 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, EP, CC cases.

248

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/287/2013 Acquitted

Palakol Town PS vs Mali Yedukondalu

03 Feb 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PALAKOL

Present : - Sri D.BALAKRISHNAIAH

Principal Junior Civil Judge

FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Monday, the 3rd day of February, 2014

C.C.No.287 of 2013

(Cr. Nos.172&176/2013 of Palakol Town Police Station)

Between:

State rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Palakol Town Police Station...Complainant.

And

1.Mali Yedukondalu, S/o.Narsanna, 25 years, C/Telaga Uppara, r/o.Manchili village of Attili mandal.

2.Gandikota Daneswara Rao @ Danayya, S/o.Venkanna, 22 years, C/Telaga Uppara, r/o.Adurru village of Mamidikuduru Mandal, E.G., Dist.,

..Accused.

This case is having come on 31.1.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution and of Sri

R.Devaraju, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused No.1 and No.2 and having stood over this day for consideration, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused No.1 and No.2 arraigned before this court for the offences under sections 379 alternatively 411 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the prosecution version are that the PW.1 Kadali Srinivasu gave report on 09-08-2013 stating that his motor cycle No. AP 16 BN 0413 was parked near the Srinivasa

Delux Centre on 27.7.2013 and went to sandy market for purchasing vegetables. After return from the market he found his bike was missing.

Basing on the report PW.5 who is the SHO on particular day registered a 2

Crime No.172/2013, under section 379 of IPC and circulated the FIR to concerned.

The PW.2 Chikkala Durga Rao gave report on 11.8.2013 stating that he parked his vehicle No. AP 16 AG 2880 near Mandal Revenue

Office and went into the sandy market on 13.7.2013, after return from the market he found his bike was missing. Basing on the report PW.6 who is the SHO on that day registered a Crime No.176/2013, under section 379 of IPC and circulated the FIR to all concerned.

The PW.6 rushed to the place of offence and recorded the statements of PW.1, LW.6 Goparaju Venkata Lakshmi Narsimharao and

Lw.7 Rajapu Sattibabu and drawn the rough sketch. Likewise PW.5 rushed to the place of offence on 9.8.2013 examined PW.2 and LW.2

Seelam Pardhu, LW.3 Pasala Kumar and LW.4 Digumarthi Sivaji and drawn the rough sketch. Thereafter PW.7 took up the investigation and found the investigation made by the PW.5 and PW.6 are proper lines. On 1.9.2013 the PW.7 on credible information called the PW.3 and PW.4 and arrested the both accused and on interrogation them confessed that they have committed theft of vehicles and seized those vehicles under cover of mediatorsnama in the presence of PW.3 and PW.4. After completion of investigation the PW.7 filed common charge sheet in

Cr.Nos.172/2013 & 176/2013 and remanded the both accused to the

Judicial custody.

3. This case was taken cognizance for the offences under sections 379 alternatively 411 I.P.C.

4.On production of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to them. They were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C., the contents of the accusations were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charges under sections 379 alternatively 411 IPC., were framed.

5. During course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-10 and got marked MO.1 and MO.2

6.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating evidence and reported no evidence in defence.

7. Heard arguments of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the learned legal aid Counsel.

8. Upon considering the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses and documents relied by the prosecution and submissions made by the learned A.P.P., and Legal Aid Counsel for the accused, the point for determination is “Whether the prosecution proved the

offences against the accused punishable under sections 379

alternatively 411 IPC., beyond the reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

9.The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused examined as many as seven witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and MO.1 and MO.2 stolen vehicles. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 clearly show that they gave a report after one month of missing of their respective vehicles on different dates. The PW.1 and PW.2 categorically stated that they searched for the vehicles for these days of delay in lodging complaint. PW.1 and PW.2 categorically testified that the police station is within half to 1 km distance from the place of offence. However there is no suitable explanation offered by the PW.1 and PW.2 in lodging the report at belated stage. Further the prosecution failed to explain the inordinate at delay in giving report to the police. The PW.1 and PW.2 identified their missing vehicles under exhibit MO.1 and MO.2 which were given to interim custody to them. Therefore there is no eye witness examined by the prosecution to involve the accused for the 4 offence punishable under section 379 IPC, thus the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence under section 379 of IPC.

10.The entire prosecution case rests upon the seizure of the

MO.1 and MO.2 from the possession of A.1 and A.2. The prosecution version is that the PW.3 and PW.4 were called by the PW.7 and lead the team towards the Ayyappa Swamy Temple, where both accused plying in their respective bikes towards Narsapur from Palakol and on suspicion movements of the accused the police stopped them and the vehicles were seized in the presence of PW.3 and PW.4, upon their confession.

The evidence of PW.3, PW.4 and PW.7 are the most crucial to determine the factum of seizure and it is as per the prescribed procedure established by law. The PW.3 who is said to be the scribe of Ex.P3 and

Ex.P10 categorically testified that the SI of police Palakol Town took him and PW.4 along with his staff to the Ayyappa Swamy Temple. Whereas during cross examination, he testified that on the date of seizure he is proceeding to Narsapur from Palakol and witnessed both the accused along with motor cycles and inform to the police, but no one called him to police station. Thus the evidence of PW.3 is self-contradictory. The

PW.3 further stated, the PW.7 asked him to draft the Ex.P3 report and thereafter PW.3 and PW.4 are only signed on Ex.P3. Whereas the Ex.P3 clearly discloses that besides, PW.3 and PW.4 the SI of police (PW.7) signed the Ex.P3 and against names of both accused thumb impression were affixed. The evidence of PW.4 goes to show that on 1.9.2013 at 4 pm he along with PW.3 proceeding to Narsapur and they found police at

Ayyappa Swamy Temple and they stopped their vehicle and found that both accused are proceeding on two motor cycles. During cross examination PW.4 categorically testified that on the day of seizure he came to Palakol. The PW.4 further deposed that the Ex.P3 was signed by

PW.3, himself, Inspector of Police and both accused. So the Ex.P3 and 5

P10, which are mediatorsnama clearly discloses that the signatures of

PW.3, PW.4 and PW.7 were found but the thumb impression marks were found against the names of both accused. The PW.3 and PW.4 specifically deposed that the place of seizure is busy area and the seizure was made in the presence of police people. However there are serious contradictions and inconsistencies with regard to securing the presence of PW.3 and PW.4 at the place of seizure. The PW.3 stated at one point of time the police took him and PW.4 to the place of seizure and other occasion he alone proceeding towards the Narsapur and informed the police about the accused having the vehicles in their possession. The PW.4 not stated about the accompanying with the police to the place of seizure but he stated he along with PW.3 proceeding to Narsapur on the bike and it was not spoken by PW.3.

11.The evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 is contradicting the contents of Ex.P3 and P10 mediatorsnama. The evidence of investigating officer, said to be seized Mo.1 and Mo.2 from the possession of both accused clearly discloses that he secured the presence of PW.3 and PW.4 and rushed to the spot. And on interrogation both accused voluntarily confessed that they committed theft of vehicles and PW.7 seized the

Mo.1 and Mo.2 from the accused under the cover of Ex.P3 and P10 mediator reports drafted by PW.3. During cross examination, PW.7 categorically testified that PW.3 and PW.4 came to police station and proceeded to place of seizure. He further stated that he do not know the avocation of PW.3 and PW.4 and their residential addresses, therefore it is quite evident that the PW.7 not followed the procedure contemplated in section 100 Cr.P.C and such place is not reasonable for concealing any property nor suspected of concealing any articles. Further the residential addresses of PW.3 and PW.4 are different and there is no material evidence placed before the court with regard to summoning of 6

PW.3 and PW.4 to the place of seizure. Moreover the PW.3 and PW.4 are not independent and respectable inhabitants of that locality. PW.7 further deposed that both scene of offence and the place of seizure are busy road and area near the temple.

12.There is no material evidence shown that the accused were interrogated in the presence of mediators keeping away the police people. No confession made to a police shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence and such confession is inadmissible.

Inview of above factual circumstances the prosecution miserably failed to establish that the Mo.1 and Mo.2 were seized from the possession of both accused and in the presence of Pw.3 and PW.4.

13.There is inordinate delay in giving a report under Ex.P1 and

P2 by the PW.1 and PW.2. It is also quite unnatural that Pw.5 and PW.6 visited the scene of offence after one month of the occurrence and recorded the statements of the witnesses in the respective localities and drawn the rough sketch under Ex.P7 and P9. Further the seizure said to have been made by the PW.7 is suffering with gross infirmities and the oral testimony of PW.3, PW.4 and PW.7 also self-contradictory and inconsistencies to each other. In view of above circumstances the court is of opinion that there is no validity of the confession said to have been made by the accused and there is no proper seizure affected in this case. Therefore the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused in this case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the both accused found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 379

IPC and alternatively punishable under section 411 IPC and they are entitle for benefit of doubt and acquittal.

14.In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 379 IPC or 411 IPC and they are acquitted of the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The A.1 and A.2 are released from the Judicial custody forthwith. MO.1 and MO.2 vehicles given for interim custody to the PW.1 and PW.2 hold good after the appeal period is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 3rd day of February, 2014.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PALAKOL

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PALAKOL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1 :Kadali Srinivasu -None- PW-2 :Chikkala Durga Rao PW-3 :Velduti Durga Prasad PW-4 :Seelam Pardhu Venkata Satyanarayana PW-5 :A.Satyanarayana PW-6 :D.Appaji Rao PW-7 :Sri G.Subba Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1/dt. 09-08-2013 : Report of PW.1 in Cr.No.172/2013 Ex.P-2/dt. 11-08-2013: Report of PW.2 in Cr.No.176/2013 Ex.P-3/dt. 01-09-2013 : Mediator Report Ex.P-4/dt. 01-09-2013 : Signature on mediator report Ex.P-5/dt. 01-09-2013: Signature on mediator report Ex.P-6/dt. 09-08-2013 : FIR in Cr.No.172/2013 Ex.P-7/dt. 09-08-2013 : Rough Sketch Ex.P-8/dt. 12-08-2013: FIR in Cr.No.176/2013 Ex.P-9/dt. 12-08-2013 : Rough Sketch Ex.P-10/dt.01-09-2013 : Mediator Report

FOR DEFENCE : N I L

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1 is Hero Honda Splendor Plus Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 16 BN 0417.

MO.2 is Hero Honda Splendor Plus Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 16 AG 2880.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PALAKOL

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE I CLASS, PALAKOL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari Calendar of cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I class, Palakol

Date of offence Report of Complaint Apprehension of accused Released on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27-7-2013(Cr.No.172/13)9-8-2013.2-9-2013Accused are in Sub-Jail,Narsapur 13-7-2013(Cr.No.176/13)12-8-2013 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trail close of trail Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) 10-1-2014 31-1-2014 3-2-2014 Due to non production of Witnesses Judgment of Calendar Case No:287/2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakol Complainant:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakol Town Police station. ( Cr.Nos. 172&176/2013 of Palakol Town P.S) Name of the Accused Father name Age Caste/Religion Calling Village

1. Mali Yedukkondalu, S/o.Narsanna, 25 years, C/Telaga Uppara, r/o.Manchili village of Attili mandal.

2.Gandikota Daneswara Rao @ Danayya, S/o.Venkanna, 22 years, C/Telaga Uppara, r/o.Adurru village of Mamidikuduru mandal, E.G.Dist., ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCE: Punishable under sections 379 alternatively 411 IPC

FINDING: Found not guilty.

RESULT : In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 379 IPC or 411 IPC and they are acquitted of the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The A.1 and A.2 are released from the Judicial custody forthwith. MO.1 and MO.2 vehicles given for interim custody to the PW.1 and PW.2 hold good after the appeal period is over.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PALAKOL

FAC JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PALAKOL

Copy Submitted to:

1. The 1st Addl.District &Sessions Judge, W.G.Eluru

2. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Eluru, through A.P.P., Palakol.

CC/3/2011 Acquitted

Sub Inspector of Police, Palakol Town P.S. vs Valle Bala Fransis

06 Feb 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PALAKOL

Present : - Sri D.BALAKRISHNAIAH

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol

FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakol

Thursday, the 6th day of February, 2014

C.C.No.3 of 2011

(Cr. No.279/2010 of Palakol Town Police Station)

Between: State rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Palakol Town Police Station... Complainant.

And

Valle Bala Fransis, S/o.Yesupadam, 36 years, SC-Mala, r/o.Kanumolu village of Bapulapadu mandal, Krishna Dist., Driver of AP 37 Y 4464 APSRTC hire bus.

..Accused.

This case is having come on 03.2.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution and of Sri

P.Viswanadham, Advocate for the accused and having stood over this day for consideration, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The sole accused arraigned before this court for the offences under sections 304-A, 338 IPC.

2. The contents of charge sheet filed by the prosecution in brief:- On receipt of hospital intimation by the LW.18/the head constable of the Palakol Town police station rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of LW.1 Kadiyam Yesu Babu. The LW.1 stated that, at 9 pm on 8.12.2010 hired the auto bearing No. AP 37 TA 0149 belongs to

Nakka Ratnaraju and going towards Narsapur from Palakol. The deceased Nakka Ratnaraju driving the truck and PW.1/LW.1 sitting by the side of him and when the auto reached near the Government hospital the RTC bus bearing No. AP 37 Y 4464 came from Narsapur towards Palakol and dashed the auto, by which the auto fell down in 2 canal. The passersby rescued PW.1 and driver Nakka Ratnaraju and taken to the Government hospital. The PW.1 sustained the bleeding injury and the deceased went into coma. Basing on the statement, the

LW.18 registered a crime No.279/2010, u/s 338 IPC and circulated the

FIR to all concerned. During investigation LW.19 recorded the detailed statements of the witnesses and got drafted scene observation report and drawn the rough sketch and sent requisition to Motor Vehicle

Inspector and also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and send the dead body for autopsy. After collecting wound certificate of LW.1, Postmortem report of deceased and certificate from

Motor Vehicle Inspector and after examining the hired RTC bus owner, arrested the accused and remanded to judicial custody and filed charge sheet, with altered FIR for the offences u/s 304-A IPC and 338 IPC.

3. This case was taken cognizance for the offences under sections 304-A IPC and 338 I.P.C.

4. On production of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to him and he was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation for the offences under sections 304-A IPC and 338 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.12 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-12.

6.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence and reported no evidence in defence.

7. Heard arguments of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for accused.

8. Upon considering the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses and documents relied by the prosecution and submissions 3 made by the learned A.P.P., and Counsel for the accused, the point for determination is “Whether the prosecution proved the offences

against the accused punishable under sections 304-A IPC and

338 IPC., beyond the reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

9.The prosecution version is that the accused drove the hired bus of APSRTC from Narsapur to Palakol whereas the auto which was driven by the deceased was leading towards Narsapur from Palakol and due to rash and negligent driving of the accused the accident occurred resulting death of driver of the auto and causing injuries to PW.1. The germane point for consideration is that whether the accused drove the bus with rash and negligent manner and caused an accident. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the accused drove the bus rashly and negligently and caused head on collusion with auto driven by the deceased. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses to substantiate version of the prosecution. The PW.1 who is sitting by the side of the deceased driver is the eye witness to the accident. The PW.1 testified that one RTC bus came into opposite direction and dashed the auto truck and it was turned turtle and fell in canal. He also deposed that he fell on road and the deceased remained in auto. During cross examination, he categorically stated that the auto is proceeding on left side from Palakol to Narsapur and the crime vehicle is proceeding on right side. Therefore it is quite clear that the bus driven by accused as well as the auto driven by deceased are plying opposite to each other on their respective left sides. The PW.1 further testified that he did not state before police that he received injuries on right hand and right knee. The Ex.P1 statement also do not disclose about the injuries on particular organs of the body. However the PW.8 who is the doctor examined PW.1 and issued wound certificate under Ex.P4, categorically stated that there is an abrasion on right cheek and fracture on the right 4 elbow. Those injuries found on the right side of the body of the PW.1 shows that he is sitting on the left side of deceased driver of the auto and the deceased is on the right side of PW.1

10.There is no dispute with regard to occurrence of the accident, causing death of driver of the auto. It is also not in dispute with regard to presence of PW.1 in the auto. As the auto is a truck used for the purpose of carrying cargo, so the PW.1 is sitting in the cabin by the side of deceased driver. When the bus driven by the driver accused coming from Narsapur to Palakol, certainly it is on right side to the auto truck driven by the deceased as stated by PW.1.

11.The evidence of PW.2, PW.3, PW.5, PW.6 is of no value as they received telephone call about the accident and admission of deceased and Pw.1 in Government hospital and they rushed to the hospital. Likewise the evidence of PW.7, PW.11 are also not useful to the prosecution case since the PW.7 is one of the inquestdars and signed on

Ex.P3 Inquest Report and PW.11 who is the ASI of Police received intimation and recorded the statement of PW.1 and handed over the investigation to Pw.12 and he also altered the section of law after death intimation.

12.The prosecution examined PW.4 stating that he witnessed the accident. PW.4 deposed that on 8.12.2010 at 9 pm he along with

LW.8 Undamatla Marraju proceeding towards Narsapur on bicycle, witnessed the RTC bus dashed the auto causing to fell into canal and the auto driver went into coma and they shifted both the persons to the

Government hospital. During cross examination the Pw.4 categorically testified that the RTC bus is proceeding from Narsapur on left side of the road but he cannot say on which side the auto is proceeding. He further stated that auto fell in the canal situated on the right side of road leading from Palakol to Narsapur. Therefore the evidence of PW.4 clearly speaks the facts that the bus driven by the accused is on left 5 side coming from Narsapur to Palakol whereas the auto was fell down in the canal situated on the left side of the bus.

13.Further the prosecution witnesses Pw.1, PW.4, PW.12 categorically deposed that the place of offence is a road and it is with full of ditches. The PW.1 who is the eye witness to the scene, categorically testified that the auto fell in ditch and moved away from ditch, meanwhile the RTC bus came into opposite direction and dashed.

The most crucial fact to be ascertained by scrutiny of rough sketch under Ex.P11 to draw the interference with regard to the location of both vehicles. The Ex.P11 clearly speaks in volumes that the RTC bus is plying towards Palakol on the left side of road leading from Narsapur.

The big canal is situated on the left side of the bus in which the truck fell into it. Therefore the things speaks itself on observing the Ex.P11 sketch at the place of offence. Further the Motor Vehicle Inspector who was examined as the PW.9 found the damages on the bus bearing No. AP 37

Y 4464 on the portion of the bumper and bent on right side and also found broken of head light glass on the right side. Therefore it is quite evident that the auto truck plying on its left fell into ditch and came closure to the right side of the bus and hit the bus and fell into the canal which is on the further left of the road. The PW.9 further testified that he did not inspect the auto truck to ascertain the damages caused by contact with the bus which is necessary aspect to determine the casual factor for accident.

14.It is pertinent to note that the PW.1 stated in Ex.P1 the RTC bus came in opposite direction and hit the auto and the auto truck turned and fell into canal. When the auto truck plying on the left side of the road and the bus is coming from Narsapur on its left side of the road, there is no scope the crime vehicle hit the auto truck on the right side of the bus if the auto truck is not closure to the bus. Therefore the auto truck is not on its left side of the road but it entered in the midst of 6 the road due to the ditches formed on the road, the deceased with an intention to escape from the ditch, the auto came closure to the crime vehicle bus on its right. The Pw.12 who is the investigating officer in this case supported that fact by stating that both vehicles are located on the left side of Narsapur to Palakol road thus the crime vehicle is certainly, proceeding on the left side of the road towards Palakol. The Ex.P11 sketch also discloses the location of crime vehicle on the left side of road from Narsapur to Palakol.

15.There is no material evidence to show that the accused drove the crime vehicle with rash and negligent manner. There is no scope to drive the vehicles along the road as there are number of ditches found on that road. Therefore the court is of opinion that the accused is not responsible for the accident that occurred on the evil day. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under sections 304-A IPC and 338 IPC. Therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal.

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 304-A IPC and 338 IPC and he is acquitted of the same under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The accused is set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 6th day of February, 2014.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PALAKOL

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PALAKOL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1 :K.Yesubabu -None- PW-2 :K.Nagabushanam PW-3 :S.Prasad PW-4 :T.Lakshmaiah PW-5 :U.Marraju PW-6 :N.Anil Prasangi PW-7 :P.Ratnaraju PW-8 :Dr.K.K.John PW-9 :Y.V.Sitharamaiah PW-1 :R.Challa Rao PW-11:P.Kalkimurthy PW-12:Sri B.Krishna Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1/dt. 09-12-2010 :Statement given to police Ex.P-2/dt. 09-12-2010:161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P-3/dt. 09-12-2010 :Inquest Report Ex.P-4/dt. 22-12-2010 :Wound Certificate Ex.P-5/dt. 13-12-2010:MVI Report Ex.P-6/dt. 09-12-2010 :Scene Observation Report Ex.P-7/dt. 09-12-2010 :Hospital Intimation Ex.P-8/dt. 09-12-2010:Death Intimation Ex.P-9/dt. 13-12-2010 :Alter FIR Ex.P-10/dt.13-12-2010 :FIR Ex.P-11/dt. 09-12-2010 :Rough Sketch Ex.P-12/dt.13-12-2010 :P.M. Certificate

FOR DEFENCE : N I L

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--NIL—

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PALAKOL

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE I CLASS, PALAKOL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari Calendar of cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I class, Palakol

Date of offence Report of Complaint Apprehension of accused Released on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08-12-2010 09-12-2010 14-12-2010 Accused is in Sub-Jail, Narsapur ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) 29-11-2013 03-2-2014 6-2-2014 Due to non production of Witnesses Judgment of Calendar Case No:3/2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakol Complainant:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakol Town Police station. ( Cr.No. 279/2010 of Palakol Town P.S) Name of the Accused Father name Age Caste/Religion Calling Village

Valle Bala Fransis, S/o.Yesupadam, 36 years, SC-Mala, r/o.Kanumolu village of Bapulapadu mandal, Krishna Dist., Driver of AP 37 Y 4464 APSRTC hire bus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCE: Punishable under sections 304-A IPC and 338 IPC

FINDING: Found not guilty.

RESULT : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 304-A IPC and 338 IPC and he is acquitted of the same under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The accused is set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PALAKOL

FAC JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PALAKOL

Copy Submitted to:

1. The 1st Addl.District &Sessions Judge, W.G.Eluru

2. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Eluru, through A.P.P., Palakol.

CC/12/2013 Acquitted

Palakol Town PS vs Kukkala Chitti Babu

05 Feb 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PALAKOL

Present : - Sri D.BALAKRISHNAIAH

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol

FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakol

Wednesday, the 5th day of February, 2014

C.C.No.12 of 2013

(Cr. No.25/2013 of Palakol Town Police Station)

Between: State rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Palakol Town Police Station... Complainant.

And

Kukkala Chitti Babu, S/o.Bhima Rao, 28 years, SC-Mala, r/o.Bhagat Nagar Near Teja Theatre, Palakol.

..Accused.

This case is having come on 04.2.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution and of Sri

G.V.Subba Rao, Sri CH.Gowri Sankar and Sri L.Amrutha Rao Counsel for the accused and having stood over this day for consideration, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The sole accused arraigned before this court for the offence under section 498-A IPC.

2. The prosecution case as per charge sheet are as follows:

The defacto complainant is the wife of accused and gave report to the complainant/ police stating that the marriage was performed between defacto complainant and accused on 22.3.2009 and at the time of marriage an amount Rs.2,00,000/- and gold jewels and silver anklets worth of Rs.4,00,000/- were given. Since the date of marriage she was not cared by the accused and during their wed lock gave birth to male child aged about 4 years. She further stated that the accused addicted to bad vices and used to visit house in mid night and used to beat her 2 for no justifiable cause. He used to abuse in filthy language and the said events were stated to her uncle at Palakol and staying with him. Basing on the report the complainant police registered a crime No.25/2013, u/s 498-A IPC and circulated the FIR to all concerned. After completion of investigation by investigating officer/LW.5 filed charge sheet.

3. This case was taken cognizance for the offence under section 498-A I.P.C.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to him. He was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C., the contents of the accusations were read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charge under section 498-A IPC., was framed.

5. During course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-3.

6.Since there is no incriminating material evidence, the examination of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

7. Heard arguments of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel.

8. Upon considering the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses and documents relied by the prosecution and submissions made by the learned A.P.P., and Counsel for the accused, the point for determination is “Whether the prosecution proved the offence

against the accused punishable under section 498-A IPC.,

beyond the reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

9.The version of the prosecution is that the accused harassed the PW.1 for want of additional dowry and the accused treating the

PW.1 cruelly by threatened her. To prove the version of prosecution and 3 to connect the accused for the offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC, the prosecution examined the PW.1 who is the material witness. The PW.1 categorically deposed that she admitted the relationship with accused and other witnesses cited by the prosecution. She is specifically stated that there is no demand and giving of any dowry at the time of her marriage and after marriage the family set up at Hyderabad where accused is working. She further stated that they lived happily at

Hyderabad and blessed with son who is aged about 5 years. Thereafter the couple shifted to Palakol in December, 2012 and living together happily. PW.1 categorically testified that she did not give any report to police and the police obtained her signature on the white paper and identified her signature as Ex.P1, but she stated that she do not know the contents of it.

10.The learned public prosecutor sought permission to examine the PW.1 but no useful evidence was elicited from her, except marking portion of statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C as an Ex.P2. Likewise PW.2 who is junior paternal uncle by courtesy also categorically testified that he do not know about giving of dowry at the time of marriage, but the PW.1 and accused lived happily in Yallavani Garuvu and there is no disputes between them. The prosecution also not elicited any useful evidence from PW.2, except marking portion of statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C under

Ex.P3.

11.The prosecution given up the other witnesses as there is no material evidence to connect the accused for the offence alleged in this case. The prosecution did not choose to examine any other witness to strengthen the case of prosecution. The material witnesses not supported the prosecution case. Inview of above factual circumstances the prosecution failed to establish the offence against the accused, so the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal.

12.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC and he is acquitted of the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 5th day of February, 2014.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PALAKOL

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PALAKOL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1 :Kukkala Madhavi -None- PW-2 :Koyya Atchuta Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1/dt. 22-01-2013 :Signature of PW.1 Ex.P-2/dt. 22-01-2013:161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P-3/dt. 23-01-2013:161 Cr.P.C statement FOR DEFENCE : N I L

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--NIL—

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PALAKOL

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE I CLASS, PALAKOL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari Calendar of cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I class, Palakol

Date of offence Report of Complaint Apprehension of accused Released on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22-1-2013 22-1-2013 23-1-2013 28-1-2013 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trail close of trail Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) 4-2-2014 4-2-2014 5-2-2014 Due to non production of Witnesses Judgment of Calendar Case No:12/2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakol Complainant:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakol Town Police station. ( Cr.No.25/2013 of Palakol Town P.S) Name of the Accused Father name Age Caste/Religion Calling Village

Kukkala Chitti Babu, S/o.Bhima Rao, 28 years, SC-Mala, r/o.Bhagat Nagar Near Teja Theatre, Palakol. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCE: Punishable under section 498-A IPC

FINDING: Found not guilty.

RESULT : In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 498-A IPC and he is acquitted of the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PALAKOL

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE I CLASS, PALAKOL

Copy Submitted to:

1. The 1st Addl.District &Sessions Judge, W.G.Eluru

2. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Eluru, through A.P.P., Palakol.

CC/206/2013 Acquitted

Sub Inspector of Police, Palakol Town P.S. vs Kukkala Chitti Babu

05 Feb 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PALAKOL

Present : - Sri D.BALAKRISHNAIAH

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol

FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakol

Wednesday, the 5th day of February, 2014

C.C.No.206 of 2013

(Cr. No.70/2013 of Palakol Town Police Station)

Between: State rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Palakol Town Police Station... Complainant.

And

Kukkala Chitti Babu, S/o.Bhima Rao, 28 years, SC-Mala, r/o.Yallavani Garvu village of Palakol mandal.

..Accused.

This case is having come on 04.02.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution and of Sri

G.V.Subba Rao, Sri CH.Gowri Sankar Counsel for the accused and having stood over this day for consideration, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The sole accused arraigned before this court for the offences under sections 448 IPC and 324 IPC.

2. The prosecution case as per the charge sheet filed by the complainant police are in brief as follows: The defacto complainant who is the wife of accused gave report stating that the accused trespassed into the house where she is living at 11.30 pm on 23.3.2013 by knocking the door and attacked the defacto complainant/Kukkala

Madhavi and tried to stab with knife and the said defacto complainant raised her right hand to protect herself on that she is sustained injury on right palm. When she raised cries the neighbours and other inmates gathered then the accused ran away. Immediately she was taken to the hospital by Lws.2 and 3. Basing on the hospital intimation the Lw.5 rushed to the hospital and recorded statement of LW.1 and registered 2

Crime No.70/2013 u/s 448 IPC and 324 IPC and circulated FIR to concerned. After completion of investigation LW.5 filed charge sheet.

3. This case was taken cognizance for the offences under sections 448 IPC and 324 I.P.C.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to him. He was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C., the contents of the accusations were read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Charges under sections 448 IPC and 324 IPC were framed.

5. During course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 and P-2.

6.Since there is no incriminating material evidence, the examination of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

7. Heard arguments of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel.

against the accused punishable under sections 448 IPC and 324

IPC beyond the reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

9.The prosecution version is that the defacto complainant is a wife of accused and there was a criminal case pertaining the dowry harassment, pending before this court. Keeping in view of that case the accused made of his mind to inflict injuries to harm and attacked her in odd time and caused injury to the PW.1. To prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined PW.1. She categorically admitted the 3 relationship among the accused and other list of witnesses, but specifically stated that there is no galata happen between her and her husband and she did not give any report. She further stated that the police obtained her signature on white paper and she pleaded ignorance about the contents in that paper. She identified her signature in that paper marked as an Ex.P1. She further denied some contents of her statement said to have been recorded by the police marked as Ex.P2.

The PW.1 categorically testified that she sustained some injuries due to fall on kitchen knife in her kitchen and she went to the Government hospital along with her relatives and treated as inpatient for two days.

The learned prosecutor was permitted to cross examine her but no useful evidence elicited from her.

10.As there is no material evidence to connect the accused with offences punishable under sections 448 IPC and 324 IPC, so the prosecution given up the evidence of other witnesses. Inview of above factual circumstances the prosecution failed to establish the offences against the accused by placing probable evidence. Therefore the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal. Accordingly the point is answer.

11.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 448 IPC and 324 IPC and he is acquitted of the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 5th day of February, 2014.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PALAKOL

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PALAKOL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1 :Kukkala Madhavi -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1/dt. 24-03-2013 : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P-2/dt. 24-03-2013: 161 Cr.P.C Statement

FOR DEFENCE : N I L

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--NIL--

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PALAKOL

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE I CLASS, PALAKOL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari Calendar of cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I class, Palakol

Date of offence Report of Complaint Apprehension of accused Released on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23-3-2013 23-3-2013 28-6-2013 28-6-2013 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trail close of trail Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) 4-2-2014 4-2-2014 5-2-2014 Due to non production of Witnesses Judgment of Calendar Case No:206/2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakol Complainant:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakol Town Police station. ( Cr.No.70/2013 of Palakol Town P.S) Name of the Accused Father name Age Caste/Religion Calling Village

Kukkala Chitti Babu, S/o.Bhima Rao, 28 years, SC-Mala, r/o.Yallavani Garvu village of Palakol mandal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCE: Punishable under sections 448 IPC and 324 IPC

FINDING: Found not guilty.

RESULT : In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 448 IPC and 324 IPC and he is acquitted of the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bond and bail bonds of the accused shallstandcancelled.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PALAKOL

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE I CLASS, PALAKOL

Copy Submitted to:

1. The 1st Addl.District &Sessions Judge, W.G.Eluru

2. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Eluru, through A.P.P., Palakol.

Order Record 236 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/258/2009	Manne Venkata Subbamma vs Kesaboina Narasimha Murthy	09 Apr 2014	copy of judgment	—
OS/47/2013	Komarthi Satyanarayana vs Chuttugulla Venkateswararao	07 Apr 2014	copy of judgment	—
OS/86/2013	Lotti Venkata Vijaya Lakshmi vs Ragolu Dhanum Jayarao	07 Apr 2014	copy of judgment	—
EP/48/2010	Shriram Chits Private Limited, Palakol vs Nadapana Srinivasa Rao	04 Apr 2014	copy of order	—
EP/111/2012	Kapil Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd vs Katika Ratna Kumar	04 Apr 2014	copy of order	—
OS/91/2013	Bobbili Sita vs Pedapati Sekhar Babu	03 Apr 2014	copy of judgment	—
OS/79/2013	Nelakurthi Narasimha Rao vs Kapisetti Peddiraju	02 Apr 2014	copy of judgment	—
OS/221/2011	Vytla Ammineedu vs Bonthu Muralikrishna	02 Apr 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/89/2013	Yadamreddy Sumanth vs Sannamanda Satyanarayana	01 Apr 2014	copy of judgment	—
OS/114/2008	Challa Bhaskara Rao vs Gubbala Anjaneyulu	01 Apr 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/147/2010	Palavalasa Venkata Narasamma, Died vs Nadivinti Tata Rao	29 Mar 2014	copy of order	—
EP/14/2013	Balusu Naga Venkata Kishore vs Manepalli Anjaneyulu	28 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/30/2013	Koyyala nagamani vs Devabattula Bushanam	28 Mar 2014	copy of order	—
EP/199/2006	Chintalapati Venkata Narasimha Raju vs Javvadi Gandhi	28 Mar 2014	copy of order	—
OS/29/2010	Koppineedi Bhaskara Rao vs Chaganti Sri Hari	27 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/54/2013	Vendra Suresh vs The Passport Officer	27 Mar 2014	copy of judgment	—
OS/5/2014	Petchetti Ramakrishna vs Pala Vijayalakshmi	26 Mar 2014	copy of judgment	—
OS/59/2013	Shriram Chits Pvt Limited vs Devarapalli Veera Venkata Satyanarayana	26 Mar 2014	copy of order	—
OS/211/2011	Kavuru Hemalalitha vs Kavuru Prabhavathi	26 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/79/2013	Chakka Venkata Ratnam vs Ponukumatla Rajkumar	25 Mar 2014	copy of order	—
EP/162/2010	Goparaju Venkata Veera Raghavulu - died vs Kolla Krishna Murthy	25 Mar 2014	copy of order	—
OS/59/2011	Boppe Durga Ratnam vs Siddani Nageswara Rao	25 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/60/2011	Challa Naganna vs Siddani Nageswara Rao	25 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/2/2013	Pathapati Suryanarayana Raju vs Kukkala Yedukondalu	24 Mar 2014	copy of judgment	—
EP/15/2012	Boddapati Sri Rama Murthy vs Mosuganti Karuna Kumari	21 Mar 2014	copy of order	—
EP/21/2013	Deva Balasundara Rao vs Jalli yesobu	21 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/101/2012	Chekuri Venkata Narayana vs Beera Machayya	21 Mar 2014	copy of order	—
OS/12/2011	Illa Nageswara Rao vs Pascharla Appa Rao	20 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/106/2011	Bokka Tulasi Ratnam vs Palleti Jaya	20 Mar 2014	copy of judgment	—
OS/85/2013	Pilli Savithree vs Bolla Sri Rama Veera Venkata Satya Prasad	19 Mar 2014	copy of judgment	—
OS/124/2009	Boddu Venata Satyanarayana vs Vaska Srinivas	19 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/158/2010	Nooli Ramakrishna Rao vs Srikakolapu Manikyam Gupta	19 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/49/2013	Potturi Rangaraju vs Choppala Sarveswara Rao	18 Mar 2014	copy of judgment	—
OS/67/2013	Amballa Srinivasa Rao vs Adabala Srinivasa Rao	18 Mar 2014	copy of judgment	—
OS/227/2011	Nadimpalli suryanarayana Raju vs Maddimsetti Suryanarayana	15 Mar 2014	copy of order	—
EP/42/2012	Ms. Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Palakol vs Pasupuleti John	14 Mar 2014	copy of order	—
EP/46/2013	Allu narasimha rao vs Mandela satyanarayana murthy	14 Mar 2014	copy of order	—
EP/65/2013	Kalisetti Venkatarao vs Eeda Nagaraju	14 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/127/2008	Mandela Srinivasa Rao vs Parsi Rani	13 Mar 2014	copy of judgment	—
OS/156/2012	Bolla Keelipkumar vs Kodelli Prasad	12 Mar 2014	copy of judgment	—
OS/161/2008	Dommeti Satyanarayana vs Donga Adinarayana	11 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/53/2013	Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Palakol Branch vs Pottipati Hari Gopal	10 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/82/2013	Karri Gopala Krishna Reddy vs Pulikonda Srinivasulu	10 Mar 2014	copy of order	—
OS/87/2013	Yadamreddy Sumanth vs Akkabattula Vijay Kumar	07 Mar 2014	copy of judgment	—
EP/23/2013	Andhra Bank vs Saka Sunil Kumar	06 Mar 2014	copy of order	—
OS/42/2011	State Bank of India, Palakol Branch vs Mallipudi Ravi Babu	05 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/84/2013	Yadamreddy Sumanth vs Ganja Srinu	05 Mar 2014	copy of judgment	—
OS/209/2011	Chanchala Venkata Ramanandh vs Buddaraju Rama Raju	05 Mar 2014	copy of judgment	—
OS/75/2013	Gelli Sita Mahalakshmi vs Kasa Nagaraju	04 Mar 2014	copy of judgment	—
EP/75/2013	Dodda Surendhra vs Devarapu Anasuya	03 Mar 2014	copy of order	—
EP/79/2011	Shriram Chits Pvt Limited vs K.Venkata Raja Gopal	03 Mar 2014	copy of order	—
EP/102/2012	Tippa Suri Babu vs Pottipati Hari Gopal	03 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/81/2008	Mamidisetti Tirupati Rao vs Khandavalli Venkanna	03 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/116/2011	Andhra Bank Palakol Branch vs Gorrela Appala Naidu	03 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/202/2005	Bokka Satya Kumari vs Kadali Rama Krishna	03 Mar 2014	copy of order	—
EP/26/2013	Andhra Bank vs Akumarthi George	28 Feb 2014	copy of order	—
EP/35/2011	Base Pallaiah vs Balla Venkata Subba Lakshmi	28 Feb 2014	copy of order	—
EP/41/2012	Ms. Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Palakol vs Gudala Ramanjaneyulu	28 Feb 2014	copy of order	—
EP/44/2012	Ms. Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Palakol vs Ketha Veera Venkata Satyanarayana	28 Feb 2014	copy of order	—
EP/69/2011	Shriram Chits Private Ltd., Palakol Branch vs Kodavalluri Hymavathi	28 Feb 2014	copy of order	—
EP/86/2013	Atyam Surya mohan vs Nelluri Venkateswara Rao	28 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/66/2013	Chintapalli Srirama Murthy vs Vempatapu Nagesh	28 Feb 2014	copy of judgment	—
OS/137/2012	Tummala Venkata Satyanarayana vs Viswanadham Appala Satyanarayana	28 Feb 2014	copy of judgment	—
EP/71/2013	Vadlamudi Gowthameswara Rao vs Budala Lazar	26 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/125/2011	Andhra Bank vs Thadi Vara Prasad	26 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/46/2012	kolati Surya Prakasa Rao died vs Badde Babu Rao	25 Feb 2014	copy of order	—
OS/43/2011	State Bank of India, Palakol vs Veera Rama Krishna Rao	25 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/43/2013	Adurthi Mallikarjuna Rao vs Kukkala Sriramamurthy	21 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/23/2012	Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Palakol Branch vs Kongarapi Dhana Raju	20 Feb 2014	copy of order	—
OS/83/2011	State Bank of India, Poolapalli Branch vs Karra Raju	19 Feb 2014	copy of judgment	—
EP/6/2013	Ms. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Palakol vs Mungara Indiramani	17 Feb 2014	copy of order	—
OS/61/2008	Sri Malleswara Swami Vari Devasthanam vs Kalidindi Subba Raju	17 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/62/2013	Sayyaparaju Pullam Raju vs Pala Anjaneyulu	17 Feb 2014	copy of order	—
OS/166/2012	Medapati Satyanarayana Reddy vs Kondeti Venkata Rao	11 Feb 2014	copy of judgment	—
EP/11/2013	Malloju Satyanarayana vs Mulagala Koteswara Rao	07 Feb 2014	copy of order	—
OS/28/2013	Messers Buddha Lakshmi Narasimha Rao Coconut Merc vs Messer Madhav Shah Narayana Shah Coconut Merchants	07 Feb 2014	copy of judgment	—
OS/77/2013	Kaligithi Raja Rao vs Tadi Aruna Kumari	07 Feb 2014	copy of judgment	—
EP/27/2012	Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Palakol Branch vs Jammu Srinivasa Rao	06 Feb 2014	copy of order	—
OS/30/2011	Solasa Venkateswara Trinadh vs Kudipudi Shyam Babu	06 Feb 2014	copy of judgment	—
CC/3/2011	Sub Inspector of Police, Palakol Town P.S. vs Valle Bala Fransis	06 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
OS/80/2013	Nelakurthi Narasimharao vs Koduri Veera babu	05 Feb 2014	copy of judgment	—
OS/103/2011	Karumajji Satyanarayana vs Narigadapa Appa Rao	05 Feb 2014	copy of order	—
OS/247/2011	Smt.Javvadi Kamakshi vs Choppala Akkamma	05 Feb 2014	copy of judgment	—
CC/12/2013	Palakol Town PS vs Kukkala Chitti Babu	05 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/206/2013	Sub Inspector of Police, Palakol Town P.S. vs Kukkala Chitti Babu	05 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
MC/7/2013	Kukkala Latha Madhavi vs Kukkala Chitti Babu	04 Feb 2014	Copy of Order	—
EP/46/2010	K.V.Udaya Kiran vs Kodi Venkanna	03 Feb 2014	copy of order	—
CC/287/2013	Palakol Town PS vs Mali Yedukondalu	03 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
STC/2/2014	Sub Inspector of Police, Palakol Rural P.S. vs Kolati Venkata Rao @ Chinna	03 Feb 2014	Copy of Order	—
STC/3/2014	Sub Inspector of Police, Palakol Rural P.S. vs Avula Sheshu	03 Feb 2014	Copy of Order	—
STC/4/2014	Sub Inspector of Police, Palakol Rural P.S. vs Miriyala Bayyanna	03 Feb 2014	Copy of Order	—
MC/2/2014	Bhusarau Dhana Lakshmi vs Bhusarapu Suresh Kumar	01 Feb 2014	Copy of Order	—
EP/9/2012	Nooli Rama Krishna Rao vs Lanke Mohan Rao	31 Jan 2014	copy of order	—
OS/52/2009	Taneti Babu Rao vs Kolla Satyanarayana	31 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/69/2013	Kucherlapati Ramaraju vs Juttiga Satyanarayana	30 Jan 2014	copy of judgment	—
EP/12/2013	Pabba Vijeshbabu vs Potunuri Suryanarayana	29 Jan 2014	copy of order	—
OS/64/2013	Tamiri Krishna Veni vs Paduchuri Srinivas	29 Jan 2014	copy of judgment	—
CC/275/2013	Palakol Town PS vs Dammisetti Siva	29 Jan 2014	Copy of Order	—
STC/1/2014	Sub Inspector of Police, Palakol Rural P.S. vs Gummpau Suresh	29 Jan 2014	Copy of Order	—
OS/51/2013	Unikela Srinivasarao vs Vsyarlagadda kondala Rao	28 Jan 2014	copy of judgment	—

Showing 100 of 236 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2014		10
Mar 2014		46
Feb 2014		39
Jan 2014		23
Dec 2013		12
Nov 2013		2
Aug 2013		6
Jul 2013		56
Jun 2013		33
May 2013		7
Apr 2013		2
Mar 2013		3

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri. D.Balakrishnaiah handled?

Sri. D.Balakrishnaiah has handled 248 court orders since 2011 at JCJ Court Complex, Palakol. The average disposal rate is 8 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri. D.Balakrishnaiah hear?

Based on available records, Sri. D.Balakrishnaiah primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) at JCJ Court Complex, Palakol.

Where is Sri. D.Balakrishnaiah currently posted?

Sri. D.Balakrishnaiah is posted as I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Palakole at JCJ Court Complex, Palakol, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri. D.Balakrishnaiah available online?

Yes. 4 judgments by Sri. D.Balakrishnaiah are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri. D.Balakrishnaiah dispose cases?

Sri. D.Balakrishnaiah disposes approximately 8 cases per month, based on 248 orders handled over their tenure at JCJ Court Complex, Palakol.

Since when is Sri. D.Balakrishnaiah serving?

Sri. D.Balakrishnaiah has been serving at JCJ Court Complex, Palakol since 2011.

Case Types

OS 63%

EP 31%

CC 3%

STC 2%

MC 1%

A 1%

Posting History

Jan 2014 — Feb 2014

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Palakole · 14 orders
May 2011 — Apr 2014

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakole · 234 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 4

Other Judges at this Court

G.sreenivasa Reddy

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magist...

0 orders

VSN Lakshmi Lavanya P

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional...

0 orders

← View all judges at JCJ Court Complex, Palakol