G.Karthik,Spl.Mobile Court,ATP

Spl.JFCM for trial of Cases Under A.P Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Addl. Jr. Civil Judge

Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District) · Ananthapur · Andhra Pradesh

G.Karthik,Spl.Mobile Court,ATP, Spl.JFCM for trial of Cases Under A.P Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Addl. Jr. Civil Judge, is posted at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District), Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 576 court orders on record since 2020. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, DVC cases.

576

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/292/2020 Acquitted

SHO of B.K.Samudramu P.S. vs Talari LInganna

26 Mar 2021

C.C.No.292/20201 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ

In the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for

trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu.

Present:- Sri G. Karthik, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile) for trail of cases under P.C.R.ActcumII Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Friday, the 26 th day of March, 2021

CALENDAR CASE No.292/2020

Between :-

The State through its Sub-Inspector of Police,

B. K. Samudram P.S....Complainant

AND

Talari Linganna, age 50 years, S/o late T.Obulesh, Vadiyampeta village,

B.K. Samudram Mandal.

… Accused

This case came before me on 26.03.2021 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri

A. Sreekantha Reddy, Advocate for accused, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, B.K. Samudram P.S filed charge sheet against Accused for the offences punishable under Sec.379 of Indian

Penal Code (herein after be referred as IPC for sake of brevity and convenience), Sec.35 (2) of The Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act (herein after be referred as A.P Walta Act for sake of brevity and convenience).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.06.2020 PW.2 received credible information about the transportation of sand illegally from

Neelampalli vanka. On that PW.2 reached Podaralla cross along with his staff and found one tractor loaded with sand coming from rivulet. On seeing the police the driver of the said tractor tried to skulk away from that place. P.W.2 caught hold him with the assistance of his staff and enquired him. On

C.C.No.292/20202 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ enquiry he disclosed his identity particulars and further stated that he is the driver and owner of tractor and trailer bearing registration No.AP21 TX 7739/AP02 TE 4501 and he used to commit theft of sand in Neelampalli village and sell in Anantapuramu town and he has no valid license or permission to transport the sand. Accused further stated that he used to commit theft of sand in neelampalli vanka and he has no valid license or permission to transport the sand. Then after informing the grounds of arrest

P.W.2 arrested accused and seized the tractor and trailer containing sand under cover of arrest and seizure police proceedings. Basing on the police proceedings, PW.2 registered this crime and served 41 A Cr.P.C notice to accused and sent a letter to Tahsildar to give permission to auction the sand, after receiving the permission he auctioned the sand and the auction amount was remitted by the auction purchasers. Hence, accused is charged for the offences punishable U/S.379 IPC and Sec.35 (2) A.P Walta Act.

3. After filing charge sheet, cognizance is taken for the offences punishable under Sec.379 IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of case records were furnished to him as required under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.On 17.12.2020 this Court examined accused U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C by explaining him the substance of accusation leveled against him in the charge sheet, for which, he denied the same. Having considered the submissions made on both the sides and also taking into consideration the material placed before this Court, this Court framed charges against accused for the offences punishable Sec.379 IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act, read over and explained its contents in Telugu language to him, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

C.C.No.292/20203 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ

6. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-6.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, on 24.03.2021 accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked by the defence.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused. Perused the record.

9.The point that falls for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused that

accused committed theft of sand and illegally transporting the sand

without permission and damaged the rivulet and thereby committed

the offences punishable U/Sec. Sec.379 IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P.

Walta Act beyond all reasonable doubts?” 10. P O I N T :-

i). To bring home guilt of accused for the offences punishable

U/Sec.379 IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act, the prosecution has examined

PW.1 and P.W.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. Ex.P1 is the red marked relevant portion in police proceedings. Ex.P2 is the FIR. Ex.P3 is the proceedings of Tahsildar dt.08.06.2020. Ex.P4 is the auction proceedings of

Tahsildar dt.08.06.2020. Ex.P5 is the Chalana dt.08.06.2020. Ex.P6 is the vehicle release receipt.

ii).PW.1 who is the police constable admitted in his cross examination that residential houses were situated at a distance of half km from the place of offence. PW.1 further admitted that public used to move through Vadiyampeta to Podaralla village road. P.W.1 further admitted that

C.C.No.292/20204 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ their police did not try to secure mediators at the time of seizure and arrest of the accused.

iii).P.W.2 who is the Head Constable admitted in his cross examination that residential houses were situated at Podaralla cross. PW.2 in his cross examination further admitted that he has not issued any written summons to independent persons to act as mediators at the time of arrest and seizure of sand from accused. The learned defence counsel argued that

PW.2 is the defacto-complainant-cum investigating officer and his evidence cannot be relied upon. In view of such contention, it is relevant to note the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2003 (2) ALD (Crl) 13 between Gujrala Ramesh Vs. State of A.P, wherein the Hon'ble

High Court relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in

Bhagwan singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1976 SC 985). As per the purport of the said decisions, practice of conducting investigation by the person who conducted raid and on whose complaint, First Information Report was lodged, shall not be resorted to do investigation, so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation. In this case, PW.2 is the person who conducted raid and initiated criminal action, registered the case and investigated into the case. Thus, in the light of the above cited decisions, the Court feels that it is highly unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of PW.2 to pose conviction against accused.

iv).In this case P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the police officials. In Botcha

Raju Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural

Circle, 1994 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) P.69 (A.P.), the Hon’ble High Court held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officers without corroboration by disinterested witnesses. In this case police have not collected mediators while seizing the tractors and trailers and the prosecution has not given sufficient explanation for not securing the

C.C.No.292/20205 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ mediators at the time of seizure. Non securing of mediators at the time of seizure creates serious doubt in the prosecution case about arrest of accused, seizure of sand from accused. Therefore, this Court finds no convincing and satisfactory evidence to hold that accused committed the offences. In other words, this Court is of the view that the prosecution failed to establish that accused committed the offences punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal Code and section 35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused.

11. In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences

punishable U/Sec.379 IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act and

accordingly, he is acquitted for the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C and he

is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall be

in force in terms of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for a period of six months. The

unmarked tractor and trailer bearing registration No.AP21 TX

7739/AP02 TE 4501 which was given to interim custody of the owner

i.e., accused vide orders in Crl.M.P.No979/2020 shall be made

absolute after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this 26th day of March, 2021.

Sd/-G.Karthik

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class (mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum- II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW-1V.Giri Babu--NONE

PW-2K.Lakshminarayana

C.C.No.292/20206 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P-1Red marked relevant portion inpolice --NIL proceedings

Ex.P-2FIR

Ex.P-3Proceedings of Tahsildar dt.08.06.2020.

Ex.P-4Auction Proceedings of Tahsildar dt.08.06.2020.

Ex.P-5Chalana dt.08.06.2020.

Ex.P-6Vehicle release receipt.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE

NIL

Sd/-G.Karthik

Spl. J.M.F.C- cum- II AJCJ.

//True Copy//

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class (mobile)

for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-

II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

C.C.No.292/20207 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU.

Calendar cases tried by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-II Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Commence- Apprehensio Released on Sentence or Offence Report ment of Close of Trial n of Accused Bail Order Trial 05.06.202005.06.202005.06.202005.06.202028.01.202122.03.202126.03.2021

Judgment in C.C.No. 292 of 2020 on the file of the Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-

cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, B.K. Samudram P.S.

Crime No: 147/2020

Name of the Father's Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal Accused Name

Late Talari Linganna50HinduCultivationVadiyampetaB.K.Samudram T.Obulesu Village

Offence:U/Secs.379 IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act.

Finding: Not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/Sec.379 IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C for a period of six months. The unmarked tractor and trailer bearing registration No.AP21 TX 7739/AP02 TE 4501 which was given to interim custody of the owner i.e., accused vide orders in Crl.M.P.No979/2020 shall be made absolute after appeal time is over.

Explanation for delay: On 17.12.2020 accused was examined under

Section 239 Cr.P.C. During the course of trial, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.P1 to Exs.P6. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C, he denied the same and reported no defence

C.C.No.292/20208 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ evidence. Heard both sides. Judgment pronounced on 26-03-2021. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-G.Karthik

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class(mobile) for trail of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum- II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

//True Copy//

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class (mobile)

for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-

II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

CC/100676/2019 Acquitted

B.K.Samudram Upgrade P.S vs Chikkala Ahinarayana

23 Mar 2021

C.C.No.676/20191 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ

In the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for

trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu.

Present:- Sri G. Karthik, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile) for trail of cases under P.C.R.ActcumII Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Tuesday, the 23 rd Day of March, 2021

CALENDAR CASE No.676/2021

Between :-

The State through its Sub-Inspector of Police,

B. K. Samudram P.S....Complainant

AND

Chikkala Adhinarayana, age 24 years, S/o Nagamuni,

Neelampalli village, B.K.Samudram Mandal.

… Accused

This case came before me on 23.03.2021 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri

A.Sreekantha Reddy, Advocate for accused, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, B.K. Samudram police station filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Sec.379 of

Indian Penal Code (herein after be referred as IPC for sake of brevity and convenience), Sec.35 (2) of The Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act (herein after be referred as A.P Walta Act for sake of brevity and convenience).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.09.2019 PW.3 received credible information about the transportation of sand illegally from neelampalli village rivulet. PW.3 collected P.W1 and P.W.2 and reached

Neelampalli vanka and found accused driving his tractor along with trailer bearing No.AP02 TE 0243/AP02 TE 0242 which was filled with sand. Then

PW.3 stopped the tractor and enquired him in presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2.

C.C.No.676/20192 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ

Accused disclosed his identity particulars and further stated that he loaded the sand at neelamapalli village rivulet illegally and transporting the same to

Ananthapuramu and selling the same for his monitory benefits. P.W.3 asked accused to show permission or license to transport the sand, but accused did not show any such permission or license. Then after informing the grounds of arrest P.W.3 arrested accused and seized the tractor and trailer containing sand under cover of a mahazarnama. Basing on the mahazarnama, PW.3 registered this crime and sent accused for remand. P.W.3 sent a letter to

Tahsildar to give permission to auction the sand, after receiving the permission he auctioned the sand and the auction amount was remitted by the auction purchasers. Hence, the accused is charged for the offences punishable U/S.379 of IPC and Sec.35 (2) A.P Walta Act.

3. After filing charge sheet, cognizance is taken for the offences punishable under Sec.379 IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of case records were furnished to him as required under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.On 29.12.2020 this Court examined the accused U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C by explaining him the substance of accusation leveled against him in the charge sheet, for which, he denied the same. Having considered the submissions made on both the sides and also taking into consideration of the material placed before this Court, this Court framed charges against accused for the offences punishable Sec.379 IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act, read over and explained its contents in Telugu language to him, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-8.

C.C.No.676/20193 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, on 17.03.2021 accused was examined U/S.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked by the defence.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused. Perused the record.

9.The point that falls for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused that

accused committed theft of sand and illegally transporting the sand

without permission and damaged the rivulet and thereby committed

the offences punishable U/Sec.379 IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta

Act beyond reasonable doubt?” 10. P O I N T :-

i). To bring home guilt of accused for the offences punishable

U/Sec.379 of IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to P.W.3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8. Ex.P1 is the signature of

P.W.1 on arrest and seizure mahazar. Ex.P2 is the signature of P.W.2 on arrest and seizure mahazar. Ex.P3 is the red marked relevant portion in arrest and seizure mahazar. Ex.P4 is the FIR. Ex.P5 is the proceedings of Tahsildar dt.04.10.2019. Ex.P6 is the auction proceedings of Tahsildar dt.4.10.2019.

Ex.P7 is the Chalana dt.04.10.2019. Ex.P8 is the vehicle release receipt.

ii).PW.1 and P.W.2 who are said to be mediators to the confession, arrest and seizure deposed that they cannot identify accused and they do not know anything about the facts of the case. They further deposed that they do not know whether police arrested accused and seized tractor and trailer along with sand from accused.

C.C.No.676/20194 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ iii).P.W.3 who is the only person deposed against accused. The learned defence counsel argued that PW.3 is the defacto-complainant-cum investigating officer and his evidence cannot be relied upon. In view of such contention, it is relevant to note the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh reported in 2003 (2) ALD (Crl) 13 between Gujrala Ramesh Vs.

State of A.P, wherein the Hon'ble High Court relied upon the decision of

Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Bhagwan singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR

1976 SC 985). As per the purport of the said decisions, practice of conducting investigation by the person who conducted raid and on whose complaint, First Information Report was lodged, shall not be resorted to do investigation, so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation. In this case, PW.3 is the person who conducted raid and initiated criminal action, registered the case and investigated into the case. Thus, in the light of the above cited decisions, the Court feels that it is highly unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of PW.3 to pose conviction against accused.

iv).The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 creates serious doubt in the prosecution case about arrest of accused, seizure of sand from accused. In

Botcha Raju Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram

Rural Circle, 1994 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) P.69 (A.P.), the Hon’ble High Court held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officers without corroboration by disinterested witnesses. P.W.3 further admitted that he had not issued any written summons to PW.1 and PW.2.

Therefore, the Court finds no convincing and satisfactory evidence to hold that accused was found in possession of sand and that he was transporting the sand illegally and damaged the rivulet. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution failed to establish that accused committed the offences punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal Code and section 35

C.C.No.676/20195 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ (2) of A.P. Walta Act beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused.

11. In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences

punishable U/Sec.379 of IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act and

accordingly, he is acquitted for the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C and he

is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall be

in force in terms of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for a period of six months. The

unmarked tractor and trailer bearing No. AP02 TE 0243/AP02 TE

0242 which was given to interim custody of the owner vide orders in

Crl.M.P.No.3955/2019 shall be made absolute after appeal time is

over.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this 23rd day of March, 2021.

Sd/-G.Karthik

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class (mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum- II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW-1C.Kesanna--NONE

PW-2G.Vijaya Bhaskar

PW-3G.Chandra Sekhar

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P-1Signature of P.W.1 on arrest and seizure mahazar--NIL

Ex.P-2Signature of P.W.2 on Parrest and seizure mahazar

Ex.P-3Red marked relevant portion in arrest and seizure mahazar

Ex.P-4FIR

Ex.P-5Proceedings of Tahsilar dt.04.10.2019.

C.C.No.676/20196 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ

Ex.P-6Auction proceedings of Tahsildar dt.4.10.2019. Chalana dt.04.10.2019. Ex.P-7

Ex.P-8Vehicle release receipt.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE

NIL

Sd/-G.Karthik

Spl. J.M.F.C- cum- II AJCJ.

//True Copy//

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class (mobile)

for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-

II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

C.C.No.676/20197 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU.

Calendar cases tried by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-II Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Apprehens Commence

Released Close of Sentence Offence Report ion of -ment of on Bail Trial or Order

Accused Trial

30.09.201930.09.201930.09.201904.10.201902.02.202116.03.202123.03.2021

Judgment in C.C.No. 676 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-

cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, B.K. Samudram P.S.

Crime No: 211/2019

Name of the Father's Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal Accused Name

Chikkala 24NagamuniHinduCoolieB.K.Samudram Neelampalli Adhinarayana

Offence: U/Secs.379 of IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act.

Finding: Not guilty.

Sentence:In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/Sec.379 of IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C for a period of six months. The unmarked tractor and trailer bearing

No. AP02 TE 0243/AP02 TE 0242 which was given to interim custody of the owner vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.3955/2019 shall be made absolute after appeal time is over.

Explanation for delay: On 29.12.2020 accused was examined under

Section 239 Cr.P.C. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P8. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C, he denied the same and reported no defence

C.C.No.676/20198 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ evidence. Heard both sides. Judgment pronounced on 23.03.2021. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-G.Karthik

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class (mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum- II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

//True Copy//

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class (mobile)

for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-

II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

CC/100573/2019 Acquitted

SHO of Garladinne P.S. vs B. Ranga Reddy

24 Mar 2021

C.C.No.573/20191 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ

In the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for

trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu

Present:- Sri G. Karthik, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Wednesday, the 24 th Day of March, 2021

CALENDAR CASE No.573/2019

Between :-

The State through its Sub-Inspector of Police,

Garladinne P.S. ...Complainant

AND

B.Ranga Reddy, age 50 years, S/o B.Pedda Ranga Reddy,

R/o D.No.1-1-A, Budedu village, Garladinne Mandal.

… Accused

This case had come before me on 24.03.2021 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri R.Subbe Naik and Sri G.Ranganayakulu, Advocates for the

Accused, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Garladinne police station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Secs.171-E and 188 of Indian Penal Code (herein after be referred as IPC for sake of brevity and convenience).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.04.2019 P.W.4 received credible information about distribution of money and canvassing in favour of

YSRCP by accused in view of general elections 2019. Immediately PW.4 called MCC team consisting of PW.3 and LW.4/ASI of Police and two independent mediators PW1 and PW2, left the place and reached

Penakacherla dam road, Garladinne village and found one person was standing under street light and some persons gathered around him and the

C.C.No.573/20192 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ person stand amidst gathering distributing money. On seeing the police party the persons skulk away. On seeing the police accused tried to skulk away from the place but with the assistance of his staff P.W.4 caught hold accused and enquired him. On enquiry he revealed his identity particulars and admitted the commission of offence. On search they found cash of

Rs.42,500/- and five model ballot papers of YSRCP in possession of accused.

After informing the grounds of arrest P.W.4 arrested accused and seized the cash and pamphlets from the possession of accused under cover of confession-cum-arrest-cum seizure mahazar. Basing on confession-cum- arrest-cum seizure mahazar P.W.4 registered this crime and took up investigation in this case. During the course of investigation, P.W.4 secured the presence of PW.3 and LW.4/ASI of Police and recorded their statements.

PW.4 inspected the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. PW.4 served Sec.41 A Cr.P.C notice to accused. Hence, the charge.

3. On perusal of record this Court has taken cognizance only for the offence punishable under Secs.171-E, 188 against accused.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of case records were furnished to him as required Under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. On 05.02.2021 accused was examined under Sec.251 of Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation was read over and explained to him in

Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 and M.O.1 and M.O.2. Learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, on 19.03.2021, accused was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code by

C.C.No.573/20193 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked by the defence.

8.The point that falls for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for

the offence punishable U/Sec.171E, 188 of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubts?”

9.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused.

10. P O I N T :-

i). To bring home guilt of accused for the offence punishable

U/Sec.171E, 188 of IPC, the prosecution shall establish that accused distributed money to the voters to cast their votes in favour of YSRP contesting candidates and disobeyed the promulgatory order of public servant. To prove the above said ingredient against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.171E, 188 of IPC, the prosecution has examined

PW.1 and P.W.2. Ex.P1 is the signature of P.W.1 on confession-cum-arrest-cum seizure mahazar. Ex.P2 is the signature of P.W.2 on confession-cum-arrest- cum seizure mahazar. Ex.P3 is the Red marked relevant portion in confession-cum-arrest-cum seizure mahazar. Ex.P4 is the F.I.R. Ex.P5 is the rough sketch. M.O.1 is the cash of Rs.42,500/-. M.O.2 is model ballot papers (5 in number).

ii). PW.1 and P.W.2 who are said to be mediators to the confession- cum-arrest-cum seizure mahazar deposed that they cannot identify the accused and they do not know anything about the facts of the case. They further deposed that they do not know whether police arrested the accused and seized cash and pamphlets from accused.

C.C.No.573/20194 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ iii).P.W.3 is the Deputy Executive Engineer and worked as member of M.C.C team during general elections 2019. P.W.4 is the S.I of Police and investigation officer in this case. Only P.W.3 and P.W.4 deposed against the accused.

iv). The learned defence counsel argued that PW.4 is the defacto- complainant-cum investigating officer and his evidence cannot be relied upon. In view of such contention, it is relevant to note the decision of Hon'ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2003 (2) ALD (Crl) 13 between

Gujrala Ramesh Vs. State of A.P, wherein the Hon'ble High Court relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Bhagwan singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1976 SC 985). As per the purport of the said decisions, practice of conducting investigation by the person who conducted raid and on whose complaint, First Information Report was lodged, shall not be resorted to do investigation, so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation. In this case, PW.4 is the person who conducted raid and initiated criminal action, registered the case and investigated into the case. Thus, in the light of the above cited decision, this

Court is of the view that it is unsafe to rely upon the testimony of PW.4 to pose conviction against accused.

v).In this case P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the official witnesses. In Botcha

Raju Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural

Circle, 1994 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) P.69 (A.P.), the Hon’ble High Court held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officers without corroboration by disinterested witnesses. The prosecution also not filed the copy of promulgatory order to show that the accused disobeyed the promulgatory order of public servant. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 creates serious doubt in the case of prosecution.

C.C.No.573/20195 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ vi).In view of the above discussion this Court is the view that the prosecution failed to prove its case against accused for the offence

U/Sec.171-E, 188 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. In Section 313 Cr.P.C examination accused stated that police seized his personal cash of

Rs.42,500/-. Since the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused, accused is entitled for return of cash. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of accused.

11. In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence

punishable U/Sec.171-E, 188 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted

for the same U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and his

sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for a period of

six months. M.O.1 cash of Rs.42,500/- shall be returned to accused

after expiry of appeal time. M.O.2 model ballet papers (5 in number)

shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 24th day of March, 2021

Sd/-G.Karthik

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class (mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum- II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW-1M.Abzab Hussian--NONE

PW-2M.Kadirappa

PW-3N.Raghuram

PW-4P.Y.Anjaneyulu-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P-1Signature of P.W.1 on confession-cum---NIL arrest-cum seizure mahazar

Ex.P-2Signature of P.W.1 on confession-cum- arrest-cum seizure mahazar

C.C.No.573/20196 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ

Ex.P-3Red marked relevant portion in confession- cum-arrest-cum seizure mahazar

Ex.P-4FIR

Ex.P5Rough sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

M.O.1Cash of Rs.42,500/-.--NIL

M.O.2Model ballet papers (5 in number)

Sd/-G.Karthik

Spl. J.M.F.C- cum- II AJCJ. //True Copy//

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class (mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-

II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

C.C.No.573/20197 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU.

Calendar cases tried by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-II Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Apprehension Released Commence- Close of Sentence Offence Report of Accused on Bail ment of Trial Trial or Order 09.04.201909.04.201909.04.201909.04.201925.02.202119.03.202124.03.2021

Judgment in C.C.No. 573 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-

cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Garladinne P.S.

Crime No: 95/2019

Father's Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal Name of the Name Accused

B.RangaB.Pedda 50HinduBusinessGarladinne Garladinne ReddyRanga Reddy

Offence:U/Sec.171-E, 188 IPC.

Finding: Not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence

punishable U/Sec.171-E, 188 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted

for the same U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and his

sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for a period of

six months. M.O.1 cash of Rs.42,500/- shall be returned to accused

after expiry of appeal time. M.O.2 model ballet papers (5 in number)

shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for delay: On 05.02.2021 accused was examined under

Section 251 Cr.P.C. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exs.P1 to Exs.P5 and M.O.1 and M.O.2. After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused is examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C, he denied the same and

C.C.No.573/20198 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ reported no defence evidence. Heard both sides. Judgment pronounced on 24.03.2021. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-G.Karthik

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class(mobile) for trail of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum- II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

//True Copy//

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class(mobile)

for trail of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-

II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

CC/100748/2019 Acquitted

SHO of B.K.Samudramu P.S. vs Talari Rangaiah @ Kona Rangaiah

24 Mar 2021

C.C.No.748/20191 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ

In the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for

trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu.

Present:- Sri G. Karthik, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile) for trail of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Wednesday, the 24 th Day of March, 2021

CALENDAR CASE No.748/2019

Between :-

The State through its Sub-Inspector of Police,

B. K. Samudram P.S....Complainant

AND

1. Talari Rangaiah @ Kona Rangaiah, age 33 years, S/o T.Chinnappa @ Boya Rangaiah, R/o Door No.4-52, Gandhi Nagar, B.K.Samudram Mandal.

2. Vadde Chiranjeevi, age 33 years, S/o Late V.Ramanjineyulu, R/o Door No.471, Rotaripuram Village, B.K.Samudram Mandal.

… Accused 1 and 2

This case has come before me on 24.03.2021 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri

A. Sreekantha Reddy, Advocate for A1 and A2, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, B.K. Samudram P.S filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Sec.379 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code (herein after be referred as IPC for sake of brevity and convenience) and Sec.35 (2) of The Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees

Act (herein after be referred as A.P Walta Act for sake of brevity and convenience).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.10.2019 at 03.15 pm

PW.3 received credible information about the transportation of sand illegally from Neelampalli vanka. PW.3 collected P.W1 and P.W.2 and reached Narpala cross, B.K.samudram mandal and found A1 was driving the tractor and trailer

C.C.No.748/20192 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ which was filled with sand bearing registration No.AP02 TE 3915/AP02 TE 3916. Then PW.3 stopped the tractor and enquired him in presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. On enquiry A1 disclosed his identity particulars and further stated that as per the instructions of A2 he loaded the sand at neelamaplli village rivulet illegally and transporting the same for their monitory benefits. P.W.3 asked A1 to show permission or license to transport the sand, but A1 did not show any such permission or license. Then after informing the grounds of arrest P.W.3 arrested A1 and seized the tractor and trailer containing sand under cover of arrest and seizure mahazarnama. Basing on the arrest and seizure mahazarnama, PW.3 registered this crime and produced A1 before

Court for remand. On 23.10.2019 PW.4 issued section 41 (A) Cr.P.C notice to

A2. P.W.4 sent a letter to Tahsildar to give permission to auction the sand, after receiving the permission he auctioned the sand and the auction amount was remitted by the auction purchaser. Hence, A1 and A2 are charged for the offences punishable U/S.379 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.35 (2) A.P Walta Act.

3. After filing charge sheet, cognizance is taken for the offences punishable under Sec.379 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act.

4.On appearance of A1 and A2, copies of case records were furnished to them as required under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.On 06.01.2021 this Court examined A1 and A2 U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C by explaining them the substance of accusation leveled against them in the charge sheet, for which, they denied the same. Having considered the submissions made on both the sides and also taking into consideration the material placed before this Court, this Court framed charges against accused for the offences punishable Sec.379 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta

Act, read over and explained its contents in Telugu language to them, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

C.C.No.748/20193 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ

6. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

P.W.1 to P.W.4 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-8.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, on 18.03.2021 A1 and A2 were examined U/S.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked by the defence.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for A1 and A2. Perused the record.

9.The point that falls for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 and A2

that in furtherance of common intention A1 and A2 committed theft

of sand and illegally transporting the sand without permission and

damaged the rivulet and thereby committed the offences punishable

U/Sec.379 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act beyond

reasonable doubt?” 10. P O I N T :-

i). To bring home guilt of A1 and A2 for the offences punishable

U/Sec.379 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to P.W.4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8. Ex.P1 is the signature of

P.W.1 on arrest and seizure mahazar. Ex.P2 is the signature of P.W.2 on arrest and seizure mahazar. Ex.P3 is the red marked relevant portion in arrest and seizure mahazar. Ex.P4 is the FIR. Ex.P5 is the proceedings of Tahsildar dt.23.10.2019. Ex.P6 is the auction proceedings of Tahsildar dt.30.10.2019.

Ex.P7 is the Chalana dt.1.11.2019. Ex.P8 is the vehicle release receipt.

C.C.No.748/20194 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ ii).PW.1 and P.W.2 who are said to be mediators to the confession, arrest and seizure deposed that they cannot identify A1 and A2 and they do not know anything about the facts of the case. They further deposed that they do not know whether police arrested A1 and seized tractor and trailer along with sand from A1.

iii).The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 creates serious doubt in the prosecution case about arrest of A1, seizure of sand from A1. Only P.W.3 and

P.W.4 i.e., the police officials deposed against A1 and A2. In Botcha Raju Vs.

State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural Circle,

1994 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) P.69 (A.P.), the Hon’ble High Court held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officers without corroboration by disinterested witnesses. P.W.3 further admitted that he had not issued any written summons to PW.1 and PW.2. Therefore, this

Court finds no convincing and satisfactory evidence to hold that A1 and A2 were found in possession of sand and that they were transporting the sand illegally and damaged the rivulet. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution failed to establish that A1 and A2 committed the offences punishable under section 379 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of A1 and A2.

11. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the

offences punishable U/Sec.379 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P.

Walta Act and accordingly, they are acquitted for the same

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of A1

and A2 and their sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C for a period of six months. The unmarked tractor and trailer

bearing No. AP 02 TE 3915/AP02 TE 3916 which was given to interim

C.C.No.748/20195 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ

custody of the owner vide orders in Crl.M.P.Nos.4099/2019 shall be

made absolute after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this 24th day of March, 2021.

Sd/-G.Karthik

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class (mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum- II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW-1G.Bhaskar--NONE

PW-2C.Kesanna

PW-3P.Shashavali

PW-4G.Chandra Sekhar

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P-1Signature of P.W.1 on arrest and --NIL seizure mahazar

Ex.P-2Signature of P.W.2 on arrest and seizure mahazar.

Ex.P-3Red marked relevant portion in arrest and seizure mahazar.

Ex.P-4F.I.R.

Ex.P-5Proceedings of Tahsilar dt.23.10.2019.

Ex.P-6Auction Proceedings of Tahsildar dt.30.10.2019.

Ex.P-7Chalana dt.1.11.2019.

Ex.P-8Vehicle release receipt.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE

NIL

Sd/-G.Karthik

Spl. J.M.F.C- cum- II AJCJ. //True Copy//

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class (mobile)

for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-

II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

C.C.No.748/20196 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU.

Calendar cases tried by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act – cum - II Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Apprehen Commenc

Released Close of Sentence Offence Report sion of e-ment of on Bail Trial or Order

Accused Trial

A1:A1: 21.10.2019 18.10.2019 17.10.2019 17.10.201928.01.202116.03.202124.03.2021 A2: A2: 23.10.201923.10.2019

Judgment in C.C.No. 748 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-

cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, B.K. Samudram P.S.

Crime No: 225/2019

Name of the Father's Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal Accused Name

Talari T.Chinnappa Rangaiah @ 33@ BoyaHinduCultivation B.K.SamudramB.K.Samudram Kona Rangaiah Rangaiah

VaddeLate V. 33HinduCoolieRotaripuram B.K.Samudram ChiranjeeviRamanjineyulu

Offence: U/Secs.379 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act.

Finding: Not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the

offences punishable U/Sec.379 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P.

Walta Act and accordingly, they are acquitted for the same

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of A1

and A2 and their sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C for a period of six months. The unmarked tractor and trailer

bearing No. AP 02 TE 3915/AP02 TE 3916 which was given to interim

C.C.No.748/20197 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ

custody of the owner vide orders in Crl.M.P.Nos.4099/2019 shall be

made absolute after appeal time is over.

Explanation for delay: On 06.01.2021 A1 and A2 were examined under

Section 239 Cr.P.C. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P8. After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Heard both sides. Judgment pronounced on 24-03-2021.

Hence, the delay.

Sd/-G.Karthik

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class(mobile) for trail of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum- II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

//True Copy//

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class (mobile)

for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-

II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

CC/279/2020 Acquitted

SHO of Garladinne P.S. vs Degala Theja

23 Mar 2021

C.C.No.279/20201 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ

In the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for

trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu.

Present:- Sri G. Karthik, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile) for trail of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Tuesday, the 23 rd Day of March, 2021

CALENDAR CASE No.279/2020

Between :-

The State through its Sub-Inspector of Police,

Garladinne P.S....Complainant

AND

Degala Theja, age 25 years, S/o D.Shivaiah,

Gummepalli village, Singanamala Mandal.

… Accused

This case has come before me on 23.03.2021 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri

A. Sreekantha Reddy and Sri C. Babu Prasad, Advocates for Accused, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Garladinne police station filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Sec.379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code (herein after be referred as IPC for sake of brevity and convenience) and Sec.35, 27 of The Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and

Trees Act and Sec.21 (1) of Mines and Minerals Act (herein after be referred as A.P Walta Act for sake of brevity and convenience).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.9.2019 at about 3.30 pm accused was transporting the sand by committing theft of sand from

Penna river situated at Pamidi village for selling the same in Ananthapuramu town at higher rates without having any valid permission from the concerned authorities. Then PW.2 seized the sand tractor and trailer with the assistance

C.C.No.279/20202 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ of PW.1 and other police constables under cover of police proceedings.

Basing of police proceedings P.W.2 registered this crime and investigated the crime. On the same day P.W.2 issued notice U/s.41A of Cr.P.C to the accused.

On requisition of P.W.3, the Tahsildar, Garladinne conducted auction of sand and the auction purchaser deposited the auction amount to Government through C.F.M.S challan. Hence, the charge.

3. After filing charge sheet and on perusal of record, cognizance is taken only for the offences punishable under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC and

Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act against Accused.

4.On appearance of Accused, copies of case records were furnished to him as required under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.On 10.02.2021 this Court examined Accused U/Sec.239 of

Criminal Procedure Code by explaining him the substance of accusation leveled against him in the charge sheet, for which, he denied the same.

Having considered the submissions made on both the sides and also taking into consideration of the material placed before this Court, this Court framed charges against Accused for the offences punishable Sec.379 of IPC and

Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act, read over and explained its contents in Telugu language to him, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-6. The learned A.P.P gave up the evidence of remaining witnesses.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, on 08.03.2021

Accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no

C.C.No.279/20203 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ defence evidence. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked by the defence.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused. Perused the record.

9.The point that falls for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused that

Accused committed theft of sand and illegally transporting the sand

without permission and damaged the rivulet and thereby committed

the offences punishable U/Sec.379 of IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P.

Walta Act beyond all reasonable doubts?” 10. P O I N T :-

i). To bring home guilt of Accused for the offences punishable

U/Sec.379 of IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to P.W.3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6. Ex.P1 is the Red marked relevant portion in police proceedings. Ex.P2 is the F.I.R. Ex.P3 is the proceedings of Tahsildar dt.19.10.2019. Ex.P4 is the Chalana dt.22.10.2019.

Ex.P5 is the release receipt of tractor bearing No.AP21 CH 2379. Ex.P6 is the release receipt of trailer bearing No.AP02 TC 7028.

ii).PW.1 and PW2 who are the police constable and Head Constable admitted that P.W.2 did not visit the Penna river on the date of alleged offence from where Accused said to have committed theft of sand. P.W.2 who is the investigation officer admitted that agricultural lands and shop are situated at Talagasipalli cross and number of vehicles are used to move on

Talagasipalli cross.

iii).In this case P.W.1 to PW.3 are the police officials. In Botcha Raju

Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural Circle,

1994 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) P.69 (A.P.), the Hon’ble High Court held that conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officers

C.C.No.279/20204 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ without corroboration by disinterested witnesses. Though there are shop and agricultural lands are situated and number of vehicles are used to move at the place where accused was caught hold as admitted by P.W.1 and 2, the police did not secure any independent witness as mediator to the police at the time of arrest and seizure of tractor and trailer along with sand from the possession of accused. The prosecution has not given any explanation for non securing of mediators at the place of offence. In Harijana Thirupala

and others Vs Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., AIR 2002 SC

2821, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that non-examination of independent witnesses seriously impair the credibility of prosecution case. Relying on the above judgment, this Court is of the view that non securing of mediators at the time of arrest and seizure of tractor and trailer along with sand at the place of offence creates serious doubt in the prosecution case with regard to seizure of sand from the possession of Accused.

iv).In view of the above discussion, this Court is the view that the prosecution failed to establish that Accused committed the offences punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal Code and section 35 (2) of A.P.

Walta Act beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of Accused.

11. In the result, Accused is found not guilty of the offences

punishable U/Sec.379 of IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act and

accordingly, he is acquitted for the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C and he

is set at liberty. The bail bonds of Accused and his sureties shall be

in force in terms of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for a period of six months. The

unmarked tractor bearing No. AP21 CH 2379 and its trailer bearing

registration No.AP02 TC 7028 which was given to interim custody of

respective owners vide orders in Crl.M.P.Nos.3928/2019 and

C.C.No.279/20205 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ

4398/2019 respectively shall be made absolute after appeal time is

over.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this 23rd day of March, 2021.

Sd/-G.Karthik

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class(mobile) for trail of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum- II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW-1E.Althaf--NONE

PW-2B.Suryanarayana

PW-3V.Kiran Kumar Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P-1Red marked relevant portion in police proceedings.--NIL

Ex.P-2FIR

Ex.P-3Proceedings of Tahsilar dt.19.10.2019.

Ex.P-4Chalana dated 22.10.2019.

Ex.P-5Vehicle release receipt of tractor bearing No.AP21 CH 2379.

Ex.P-6Vehicle release receipt of trailer bearing No.AP02 TC 7028.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE

NIL

Sd/-G.Karthik

Spl. J.M.F.C- cum- II AJCJ. //True Copy//

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class(mobile)

for trail of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-

II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

C.C.No.279/20206 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU.

Calendar cases tried by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-II Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Apprehen Commenc

Released Close of Sentence Offence Report sion of e-ment of on Bail Trial or Order

Accused Trial

22.09.2019 22.09.201922.09.2019 22.09.2019 26.02.202102.03.202123.03.2021

Judgment in C.C.No. 279 of 2020 on the file of the Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-

cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Garladinne P.S.

Crime No: 146/2019

Name of Father's

the Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal

Name Accused

Degala Theja25D.ShivaiahHinduCultivationSinganamala Gummepalli

Offence:U/Secs.379 of IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act.

Finding: Not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, Accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/Sec.379 of IPC and Sec.35 (2) of A.P. Walta Act and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of Accused and his sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C for a period of six months. The unmarked tractor bearing No. AP21 CH 2379 and its trailer bearing registration No.AP02 TC 7028 which was given to interim custody of respective owners vide orders in Crl.M.P.Nos.3928/2019 and 4398/2019 respectively shall be made absolute after appeal time is over.

Explanation for delay: On 10.02.2021 Accused was examined under

Section 239 Cr.P.C. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P6. After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C, they denied the same and reported no defence

C.C.No.279/20207 Spl. JMFC-cum- II AJCJ evidence. Heard both sides. Judgment pronounced on 23-03-2021. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-G.Karthik

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class(mobile) for trail of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum- II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

//True Copy//

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class(mobile)

for trail of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-

II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Order Record 576 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/167/2020	Ukkalam Prakassh vs K.Sankaraiah	19 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
OS/135/2020	Ukkalam Prakash vs K. Ramanjineyulu	19 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	Settled Before Lok Adalat Disposal Date: 19-07-2021 Spl
OS/842/2019	G. Sundar Reddy vs G. Bali Jogi Reddy	15 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/351/2021	T.C. Bayanna vs G.Jagan Mohan	13 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
OS/811/2018	K. Sankaraiah vs U. Prakash	12 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
OS/808/2018	K.Ramanjaneyulu vs U.Prakash	12 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	Dismissed As Not Pressed Disposal Date: 12-07-2021 Spl
CC/12/2021	S.H.O. of Rapthadu P.S. vs Chakali Anil @ Anil Kumar	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/21/2021	SHO of B.K.Samudramu P.S. vs Shaik Imam Sab	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/22/2021	SHO of Garladinne P.S. vs Y. Vemulappa	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/112/2021	S.H.O. of Garladinne P.S. vs Yadava Sreenivasulu	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/113/2021	S.H.O. of Rapthadu P.S. vs Rodda Nallakka Gaari Varendra @ Boya Varendra	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/120/2021	S.H.O. of Rapthadu P.S. vs Jampula Venkatesh	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/132/2021	S.H.O. of Rapthadu P.S. vs Thammanagari Sidhartha	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/181/2020	SHO of III Town P.S. vs Alakunta Pothulaiah, A-1	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/213/2021	S.H.O. Of III TOWN P.S.Ananthapuramu. vs Samba Murthy Ramamurthy	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/235/2021	SHO of Rapthadu P.S. vs Tarigopula Maruthi	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/236/2021	SHO of Rapthadu P.S. vs Gonuguntla Parimalamma	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/293/2021	S.H.O. of Ananthapuramu III Town p.s. vs Dalwai Vijay Kumar@Vijaya	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/294/2021	SHO. of Ananthapuramu III Town P.S. vs Enumula Nagappa	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/299/2021	S.H.O. of III Town P.S. vs Pullur Shivaranga Prasad	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/316/2021	S.H.O. of III Town P.S. vs Mudigallu Rajanna	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/320/2021	S.H.O. of Rapthadu P.S. vs Chintapanti Manjith Kumar Reddy @ Chinni	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/321/2021	SHO of B.K.Samudram P.S. vs Gongati Harish	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/322/2021	S.H.O. of B.K.Samudramu P.S. vs Gongati Narayanswamy	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/323/2021	S.H.O. B.K.Samudramu P.S. vs Mandla Nagabhushana @ Bhushi	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/324/2021	S.H.O. of III th Town P.S. vs Syed Mahammad	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/436/2020	SHO of Garladinne P.S. vs D. Sudharshan Reddy	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/438/2020	SHO of Garladinne P.S. vs Gandaveeti Gopal Reddy	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/548/2020	SHO III Town P.S.,Anantapuramu vs Krishnamraju Mohan	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/584/2020	RAPTHDU P.S vs Chinna Marenna	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/683/2020	SHO B.K.Samudramu P.S. vs B. Vamsi Krishna	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/686/2020	SHO of B.K.Samudram P.S. vs Chintamekala vinod Kumar	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/100634/2019	SHO of III Town P.S. vs Kuruba Masthanapp @ Masthan	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/100655/2019	SHO of Garladinne P.S. vs J. Latha	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
OS/15/2021	Y. Vishalamma vs The District Colletor .	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	Settled Before Lok Adalat Disposal Date: 10-07-2021 Spl
OS/458/2021	B.Lalithamma, aged 35 years vs D.Sreenivasulu, aged 62 years	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	Settled Before Lok Adalat Disposal Date: 10-07-2021 Spl
CC/20/2020	Station House Officer, IV Town P.S, Ananthapuramu vs Uppara Manjunath	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/176/2020	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATP IV TOWN PS vs Kurakula Pothulaiah	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/200/2021	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Sub-Inspector of Police, ANANTAPURAMU IVth TOWN PS vs Ediga Vannuru Swamy	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/203/2021	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Sub-Inspector of Police, ATP IVth Town PS vs Pachala Syamu	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/234/2020	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATP IV TOWN PS vs Yerikala Nagendra	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/237/2020	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATP IV TOWN vs Vadde Sreenivasulu	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/241/2021	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Sub-Inspector of Police, Itukalapalli PS vs Yerikala Ramesh @ Sake Ramesh	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/264/2021	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise, Singanamala. vs K.Chinna Kullayappa	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/269/2021	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise, Singanamala vs Shaik Sekhavali	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/270/2021	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise, Singanamala vs Anji	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/278/2021	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise, Singanamala, Singanamala M vs Juttu Chandra	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/280/2021	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise, Singanamala, Singanamala Ma vs Ediga Ramakrishna	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/281/2021	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise, Singanamala, Singanamala Ma vs Bandaru Nagaraju	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/283/2021	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise, Singanamala, Singanamala M vs Dudekula Babaiah	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/288/2021	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise, Singanamala, Singanamala Ma vs Buttakkayala Ranganayakulu	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/289/2021	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise, Singanamala, Singanamala M vs Kovuru Pullamma	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/311/2021	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Anantapuramu Rural PS vs Setti Balija Venkatesh	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/312/2021	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Anantapuramu Rural PS vs Sake Kirthayya	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/314/2021	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Anantapuramu Rural PS vs Chitra Narayanaswamy (A1)	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/315/2021	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Anantapuramu Rural PS vs Shaik Mohammad Vali (A1)	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/318/2021	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Sub-Inspector of Police, Singanamala PS vs Madiga Sreenivasulu	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/319/2021	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Anantapuramu IVth Town Ps vs M. Uday Kumar (A1)	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/392/2020	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs Yerraobannagari Obulesu	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/425/2020	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs G.Ramesh	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/426/2020	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs M.Nagaraju	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/587/2020	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHSHO ATP IV TOWN P.S. vs Gujjala Sreedhar	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1046/2019	SHO ATP IV th Town PS vs Peeram Sreekanth Reddy	10 Jul 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/311/2020	K.Jalreelna Hussain vs D.Ramachandra	07 Jul 2021	Copy of Order	—
OS/289/2021	G.V.Badrinath vs S.Sankar Lal	16 Jun 2021	Copy of Order	—
OS/200168/2018	Eggidi Jayalakshmi vs Eggidi Lakshmamma	10 May 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/7/2021	M/S Kapil Chits Pvt Ltd., vs B. Neelaveni	20 Apr 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/100051/2019	SHO of Garladinne P.S. vs M.Obanna	19 Apr 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/164/2021	SHO of III Town P.S., Ananthapuramu Town vs Telkar Yeshwanth	17 Apr 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/510/2020	SHO of B.K.Samudramu P.S. vs Kodathala Narendra Reddy	08 Apr 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/385/2020	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs Padala Maruthi	08 Apr 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/470/2020	SHO of B.K.Samudramu P.S. vs Kodathala Gopal Reeddy	07 Apr 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/100678/2019	SHO of B.K.Samudramu P.S. vs Daduluru Suryanarayana	07 Apr 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/290/2020	SHO of B.K.Samudramu P.S. vs Gurajala Diwakar Reddy	06 Apr 2021	Copy of Order	—
OS/512/2019	Neeluru Lakshmdevi vs N.Lakshmidevi	06 Apr 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
DVC/17/2021	Jinkala Jayamma vs Jinkala Nagaraju	01 Apr 2021	Copy of Order	—
PRC/13/2021	SHO ATP RURAL PS vs R.V.Aravinda Kumar	01 Apr 2021	Copy of Order	—
OS/1205/2019	Patil Kesava Reddy vs Sompalli Sreenivasa Chowdary	30 Mar 2021	Copy of Order	—
DVC/55/2018	G.Y. Spoorthi vs A.Gowtham	30 Mar 2021	Copy of Order	—
OS/1039/2019	Y.Vijaykumar vs C.Seshaiah	30 Mar 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/292/2020	SHO of B.K.Samudramu P.S. vs Talari LInganna	26 Mar 2021	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
DVC/39/2018	Gunjepalli Aruna vs M.G. Manjunath	26 Mar 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/100573/2019	SHO of Garladinne P.S. vs B. Ranga Reddy	24 Mar 2021	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
CC/100748/2019	SHO of B.K.Samudramu P.S. vs Talari Rangaiah @ Kona Rangaiah	24 Mar 2021	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
OS/895/2018	S. Lakshmi Devi vs Sri. Y.G. Govindu	23 Mar 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/279/2020	SHO of Garladinne P.S. vs Degala Theja	23 Mar 2021	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
CC/100676/2019	B.K.Samudram Upgrade P.S vs Chikkala Ahinarayana	23 Mar 2021	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
CC/469/2020	SHO of B.K.Samudramu P.S. vs Narasinne Rampulla Reddy	22 Mar 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/10/2021	S.H.O. B.K.Samudramu vs Shaik Shafivulla	20 Mar 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/125/2021	S.H.O. of III Town P.S. vs Shaik Dadaval @ Dadu	20 Mar 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/154/2021	SHO of Rapthadu P.S. vs Sugali Anjineyulu Naik	20 Mar 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/630/2020	SHO of III Town P.S., Anantapuramu Town vs Mohammad Asif Jeelani(A1)	20 Mar 2021	Copy of Order	—
CC/129/2019	The SHO Kuderu Police Station vs Pellekki Yerri Swamy	20 Mar 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/2000902/2019	SHO Singanamala P.S. vs Chandrasen Yadav	20 Mar 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/200369/2018	Sugali Ravindra Naik vs Sugali Lakshmi Naik	19 Mar 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/301/2020	SHO of Garladinne P.S. vs M. Venkata Guptha	18 Mar 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/994/2019	K.M. Dada Peer vs Golla Venkataramana	16 Mar 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/197/2020	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH , SINGANAMALA PS vs Dudekula Khaleel	16 Mar 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/76/2021	S.H.O. of Garladinne P.S. vs Neelapalu Nagappa	09 Mar 2021	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/85/2021	S.H.O. of Garladinne P.S. vs Gomadi Nagaraju @ Raju	09 Mar 2021	Copy of Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 576 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jul 2021		64
Jun 2021		1
May 2021		1
Apr 2021		11
Mar 2021		26
Feb 2021		34
Jan 2021		28
Dec 2020		66
Nov 2020		90
Oct 2020		10
Sep 2020		15
Aug 2020		1

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has G.Karthik,Spl.Mobile Court,ATP handled?

G.Karthik,Spl.Mobile Court,ATP has handled 576 court orders since 2020 at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District). The average disposal rate is 31 orders per month.

What types of cases does G.Karthik,Spl.Mobile Court,ATP hear?

Based on available records, G.Karthik,Spl.Mobile Court,ATP primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Domestic Violence Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District).

Where is G.Karthik,Spl.Mobile Court,ATP currently posted?

G.Karthik,Spl.Mobile Court,ATP is posted as Spl.JFCM for trial of Cases Under A.P Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Addl. Jr. Civil Judge at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District), Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by G.Karthik,Spl.Mobile Court,ATP available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by G.Karthik,Spl.Mobile Court,ATP are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does G.Karthik,Spl.Mobile Court,ATP dispose cases?

G.Karthik,Spl.Mobile Court,ATP disposes approximately 31 cases per month, based on 576 orders handled over their tenure at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District).

Since when is G.Karthik,Spl.Mobile Court,ATP serving?

G.Karthik,Spl.Mobile Court,ATP has been serving at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District) since 2020.

Case Types

CC 73%

OS 21%

DVC 3%

PRC 2%

EP 1%

MC 0%

Posting History

Jul 2020 — Jul 2021

Spl.JFCM for trial of Cases Under A.P Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Addl. Jr. Civil Judge · 125 orders
Jan 2020 — Jul 2021

Spl.JFCM Mobile for trial of cases under PCR Act Cum II Addl. Jr.Civil Judge Court Judge · 451 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Settled Before Lok Adalat Disposal Date: 10-07-2021 Spl 2

Settled Before Lok Adalat Disposal Date: 19-07-2021 Spl 1

Dismissed As Not Pressed Disposal Date: 12-07-2021 Spl 1

Other Judges at this Court

Sri. E Bhima Rao

Principal District and Sessions Judge

1,187 orders

Smt. C. Satya Vani

I Addl. District Judge

0 orders

Sri D. Ramulu IIADJ

II Addl. District Judge

0 orders

Smt N Satyasri

III Addl. District Judge

0 orders

B.babu Naik

IV Addl. District Judge

3 orders

T.kesava

SC/ST Court Cum Addl. District Judge

19 orders

Sri G Sridevi

Chairman Cum Labor Court, Anantapur

185 orders

Sri C.N.Murthy

VII ADJ - Cum - Judge Family Court

0 orders

Smt A Padma

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur

635 orders

G.shiva Prasad Yadav

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur

833 orders

Sri K Bala Koteswara Rao

Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial Magistra...

1,158 orders

Smt. Harika Ravuri

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Judl. Magist...

704 orders

D. Pavani

Spl.JFCM Mobile for trial of cases under PCR Act C...

41 orders

← View all judges at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District)