Sri G.ramalingam

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Alampur, JCJ Court Complex · Jogulamba Gadwal · Telangana

Sri G.RAMALINGAM, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, is posted at Alampur, JCJ Court Complex, Jogulamba Gadwal, Telangana, India. 524 court orders on record since 2014. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, STC, OS cases.

524

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/225/2015 Acquitted

SHO MANOPAD vs Bayikadi Srinivasulu

21 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT

ALAMPUR

Present: - G. Ramalingam, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Alampur.

On this the 21st day of April, 2017

C.C.No. 225 of 2015.

Between:

The State Through S.H.O., Manopad P.S. ….... Prosecution

A N D

Bayikadi Srinivasulu S/o B.Govindu, age:28 Years, Occ:Business, R/o Undavally Village, Manopad Mandal.

…..... Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Subbaiah, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri.T.Narayana Reddy, Advocate for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Manopad P.S filed charge sheet in Cr.No.36 of 2015 against the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 alleging as follows:

That the Accused Bayikadi Srinivasulu is selling liquor in his cool drink shop at Undavally Village without having license or permit from concerned authorities, on the above information

LW-6/PW-4 G.Vijaya Kumar, S.I of Police, Manopad rushed to

Undavally Village along with LW-1 Akepogu Baskar, P.C.No.1612 of P.S.Manopad, LW-2/PW-1 Modala Ramesh Sagar, P.C.No.1181 of P.S.Manopad and LW-3 Kurva Srinivasulu, H.G.No.547 of 2

P.S.Manopad and secured two panchas i.e., LW-4/PW-3 Eediga

Ravi and LW-5/PW-2 Papa Raj Pradeep Kumar Reddy all were proceeded to the shop of the Accused on 15-03-2015 at 19:15 hours, where the Accused was selling liquor in his cool drink shop, further the LW-6/PW-4 caught hold the Accused and conducted the scene of offence and seizure panchanama at 19:15 hours in the presence of panchas and seized (29) quarter bottles of Old

Admirals, (10) quarter bottles of Officers Choice, (Total 39 quarter bottles), (13) King Fisher strong beer bottles and (06) King Fisher strong small beer bottles from the Accused shop. Thus, the

Accused committed an offence punishable under section 34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

02.Cognizance was taken Under Section 34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act against the Accused. Copies of documents are furnished to the accused Under Section 207 Cr.P.C. on his appearance.

03.When examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the offence. Charges are framed against the Accused for the offence punishable Under Section.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and the same are read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.

04.The prosecution in support of its case, PW-1 to PW-4 are examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 documents and MO.1 to 4.

05.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against his in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the same stated that he did not commit any offence.

06.No witnesses were examined and no exhibits marked on behalf of the accused.

07. The point for consideration is Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence Under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act, 1968 ?

08. Point: To prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, the Prosecution has to establish that on 15-03-2015 the PW-4 found that the accused selling the liquor illegally without having any valid license or permit. On this aspect, the entire case of the prosecution is relied upon the evidence of the panch witnesses before whom, the police conducted search.

09.According to the prosecution case, the PW-1 is eye witness, PW-2 and PW-3 are panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama and PW-4 is Investigating Officer. But PW-2 and PW-3 did not support the case of the prosecution as they turned hostile.

PW-2 deposed that he does not know about the facts of the case. The Police never conducted any panchanama in his presence. The Police obtained his signature on white paper. Ex.P1 4 is his signature on confession-cum-seizure panchanama, but he does know contents therein.

PW-3 deposed that he does not know about the facts of the case. The Police never conducted any panchanama in his presence. The Police obtained his signature on white paper. Ex.P2 is his signature on confession-cum-seizure panchanama, but he does not know contents therein.

Nothing was elicited during the cross examination of the PW-2 and PW-3 by the prosecution under section 154 of

Indian Evidence Act to connect the Accused with the offence alleged against him.

10. PW-1 is Police Constable and Eye witness and he deposed that on 15-03-2015 at about 6:30 PM, he, LW-1 and LW-3 went along with LW-6 as he received information with regard to illegal sales of liquor without license at cool drink shop of the

Accused in Undavelly Village and searched the cool drink shop and found 1) 29 Old Admiral brandhy quarter bottles, 2) 10 Officer

Choice quarter bottles, 3) 13 King Fisher strong beer bottles and

4) 06 King Fisher small beer bottles. Thereafter LW-6 secured LW- 4 and LW-5 as mediators and conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama of the Accused in their presence. The Accused disclosed that he is selling liquor for higher price by purchasing at

Kanaka Durga wine shop, Alampur chowrastha. Thereafter they returned to the police station along with seized liquor bottles and

Accused. LW-6 examined and recorded his statement. He denied 5 a suggestion that the case is foisted falsely against the accused and the accused is no way concerned with the alleged offence.

11. PW-4 who is Investigating officer. He deposed that on 15-03-2015 at 18:30 hours he received reliable information with regard to illegal sales of liquor in the cool drink shop of the

Accused in Undavally Village. Immediately he along with PW-1,

LW-1 and LW-3 went to Undavally Village and there they secured

PW-2 and PW-3 as mediators and all of they went to the cool drink shop of the Accused. There they found that the Accused was selling liquor in his cool drink shop. On his enquiry the Accused confessed that he is selling liquor without having any license.

Immediately he searched in the cool drink shop of the Accused and found 1) Old Admiral quarter bottles (29), 2) Officer Choice quarter bottles (10), 3) King Fisher strong beer bottles (13), each 650 ml., 4) small King Fisher strong beer bottles (06), each 350 ml and same were seized under cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanama in the presence of PW-2 and PW-3. Ex.P3 is confession-cum-seizure panchanama. He drawn sample bottles from each brand. Thereafter they returned to the police station along with seized property, samples and Accused and he registered a case against the Accused and issued FIR vide

Cr.No.36/2015 for the offence U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and took up the investigation. Ex.P4 is FIR. He examined and recorded the statements of PW-1, LW-1 and LW-3. The Accused complied the provision U/s.41(A) of Cr.P.C on the same day. He sent one of the sample bottle from each brand to the FSL, Hyderabad for 6 report and the FSL gave report opined that the item No.1 and 2 are Indian made Foreign liquor and item No.3 and 4 are aerated liquor. Ex.P5 is FSL report. Out of seized property one of the sample from each brand was deposited before this Court vide CPR

No.110/2015 and remaining liquor and beer bottles were deposited before the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and

Excise, Mahabubnagar for confiscation. The MO.1 is sample of Old

Admiral quarter bottle, MO.2 is sample of Officer Choice quarter bottle, MO.3 is sample of King Fisher strong beer bottle, 650 ml.,

MO.4 is small King Fisher strong beer bottle, 350 ml. After completion of the investigation he filed charge sheet against the

Accused. He denied a suggestion that the accused is no way concerned with the alleged seized liquor bottles and he was falsely implicated in this case.

12. The learned counsel for the Accused argued that the independent panch witnesses, PW-2 and PW-3 have not supported the case of the prosecution and there is no sufficient grounds to convict and sentence the accused.

13. The evidences of PW-1 and PW-4 are not corroborated with the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, the independent panch witnesses. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-4, who are Police officials are not safe to rely upon without the evidence of independent witnesses as they are highly interested to succeed the prosecution case.

14. In the light of my above discussion, I hold that the

Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused.

15. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34 (a) of the A.P Excise Act, 1968, and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The MO-1 to MO-4 are sample bottles of liquor is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. The Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time as per provision Under

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 21st day of April, 2017.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ALAMPUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW-1/LW-2: M.Ramesh Sagar, PW-2/LW-5: Papa Raj Pradeep Kumar Reddy, PW-3/LW-4: Eediga Ravi, PW-4/LW-5: Gosai Vijay Kumar, I.O.

FOR ACCUSED:

−Nil –

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 is signature of PW-2 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama, Ex.P2 is signature of PW-3 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is confession-cum-seizure panchanama, Ex.P4 is FIR, Ex.P5 is A.P.F.S.L report,

FOR ACCUSED

- Nil - M.Os MARKED MO.1 is sample of Old Admiral quarter bottle, MO.2 is sample of Officer Choice quarter bottle, MO.3 is sample of King Fisher strong beer bottle, 650 ml., MO.4 is small King Fisher strong beer bottle, 350 ml.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ALAMPUR.

CALANDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT:ALAMPUR.

C.C.No. 225 OF 2015.

1. Complainant: State, through SHO, Manopad P.S.

2. Cr.No. & Nature of Offence : Cr.No.36/2015, U/s.34(a) of A.P.Exise Act.

3. Name of the accused : Bayikadi Srinivasulu S/o B.Govindu, age:28 Years, Occ:Business, R/o Undavally Village, Manopad Mandal.

D A T E S

4. OFFENCE: U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act.

5.COMPLAINT:15-03-2015

6.APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED: Complied Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C

7.COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL: 01-12-2016

8.CLOSE OF TRIAL: 17-04-2017

9.JUDGMENT: 21-04-2017

10.PLEA OF THE ACCUSED: Not guilty

11.SENTENCE OR ORDER: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34 (a) of the A.P Excise Act, 1968, and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The MO-1 to MO-4 are sample bottles of liquor is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. The Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time as per provision Under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

12.REMARKS : There is property ordered for destruction.

13.EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY : The case was taken on file 27-06-2015. Accused is examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C on 22-09-2016 and prosecution evidence commenced on 01-12-2016 and trial closed on 17-04-2017. The prosecution did not produce the witnesses in time. On 21-04-2017 Judgment was pronounced. Hence the delay.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ALAMPUR.

Submitted to:

The Hon'ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. Dis. No.

CC/248/2016 Acquitted

Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,S.H.O.,Alampu vs Edigi Madhusudhan

17 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT ALAMPUR.

Present: - G. Ramalingam, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Alampur.

On this the 17th day of April, 2017.

C.C.No. 248 of 2016

Between:

The State Through S.H.O., Proh. and Excise, Alampur. ….... Prosecution

A N D

Edigi Madhusudhan S/o Pullanna Goud, age:32 Years, Occ:Business, R/o Jilledadhinne Village, Waddepally Mandal

…..... Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Subbaiah, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri.G.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise police station, Alampur filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 34(a) and 37(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 alleging as follows:

Than on 13-08-2015 at about the LW-3/PW-3

Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, SHO Alampur along with staff proceeded to Jilleddinne village, there they secured two mediators i.e., LW-1 T.Satya Reddy and LW-2 2

T.Loka Reddy stating that they got reliable information regarding the illegal sales of Toddy in the village, and requested to act as panchas for conducting the raids, for which they agreed and followed with the officer. All of them went to the unnumbered hut at the right side of the

Jilleddinne village, there one person conducting toddy sales.

The officer asked your particulars, you revealed your name.

During the search they found (07) plastic crates with toddy, each crate containing (12) bottles, each bottle containing (650) ml of toddy. The officer taken the toddy from each bottle to testing, officer taken a t est tube in that 5 ml of toddy and added the sodium pallets and pyridine and then heated, on the top of the test tube a pink ring is corrected, this is the injurious health, the presence of Chloral Hydrate.

The officer informed them that possession and illegal sales of the toddy with chloral hydrate is an offence under prohibition Act, 1968 and drawn (2) sample of (350) ml toddy from it and sealed them as per procedure under cover of panchanama in the presence of panchas and returned to the excise station along with samples and seized property and issued PCOR No.194/2015-16 under Section 34(a) and 37(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and submitted the case papers into the court, and also deposited the samples to the 3 respected court vide CPR No. 341/15 and also with a request to send one of the samples to Chemical Examiner,

Hyderabad for analysis report. The remaining Toddy is destroyed on the spot. The chemical examiner vide in his

Report No. 6752/2015/4 dated 09-11-2015 opined that “The sample is fermented toddy adulterated with Chloral Hydrate”

Therefore, the Accused committed an offence punishable under section 34(a) and 37(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

02.Cognizance was taken Under Sections 34(a) and 37(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the Accused. Copies of documents are furnished to the accused Under Sec.207

Cr.P.C. on his appearance.

03.When examined Under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. the

Accused denied the offence. Charges are framed against the Accused for the offences punishable U/sec.34(a) and 37(a) of A.P. Excise Act and the same is read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.

04.The prosecution in support of its case, LW-1 to

LW-3 are examined as PW-1 to PW-3, and got marked as

Exs.P1 to P5 documents and MO.1 is the sample of toddy.

05.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the same stated that he did not commit any offence.

06.No witnesses were examined and no exhibits marked on behalf of the accused.

07.The point for consideration is Whether the

Prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under Section 34 (a) and 37 (a) of A.P Excise Act, 1968 ?

08. Point: To prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts, the Prosecution has to establish that on 13-08-2015 the PW-3 found that the Accused selling the toddy illegally without having any valid license or permit and the toddy is fermented toddy adulterated with Chloral

Hydrate and he also having Chloral Hydrate. On this aspect, the entire case of the prosecution is relied upon the evidence of the panch witnesses before whom, the police conducted search.

09. According to the prosecution case, the PW-1 and

PW-2 are witnesses for the panchanama. But, they did not support the case of the Prosecution as they turned hostile.

PW-1 deposed that he does not know about the facts of the case. The Excise police did not conduct any panchanama and nothing was seized in his presence. The

Excise Police obtained his signature on white paper. Ex.P1 is his signature on panchanama, but he does not know contents therein.

PW-2 deposed that he does not know about the facts of the case. The Excise police did not conduct any panchanama and nothing was seized in his presence. The

Excise Police obtained his signature on white paper. Ex.P2 is his signature on panchanama, but he does not know contents therein.

Nothing was elicited when the prosecution has cross examined the witness under section 154 of Indian

Evidence Act to connect the Accused with the offence alleged against him.

10. PW-3 is Investigating Officer, who was said to have detected the Crime. He deposed that on 13-08-2015 at 6 about 12:15 PM, he and his staff went to Jilledadhinne Village bus stand, there they secured two mediators i.e., PW-1 and

PW-2 as mediators and explained them that they got reliable information regarding the illegal sales of toddy in the Village and requested them to act as panchas for conducting the raids, for which they agreed and all of they went to the un- numbered hut situated at right side of the Jilledadhinne

Village outskirts, there they found one person conducting sales of toddy. On his enquiry he revealed his name as

Eediga Madhusudhan Goud S/o Pullanna Goud, R/o

Jilledadhinne Village. During their search they found (07) plastic crates, each crate containing 12 bottles, each bottle containing 650 ml toddy. Thereafter he took 5 ml toddy into a test tube and tested it with prescribed chemicals and found there is a pink layer on the surface of the tube, which indicates that the toddy is mixed with Chloral Hydrate. He also drawn 02 samples, each sample containing 350 ml and sealed them as per procedure under cover of panchanama in the presence of PW-1 and PW-2. Ex.P3 is panchanama. The remaining toddy and plastic crates were destroyed on the spot. Thereafter they returned to the Excise Police Station,

Alampur along with samples and accused. After that he registered a case and issued PCOR No.194/2015-16 for the 7 offence U/s.34(a) and 37(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Ex.P4 is PCOR.

The Accused complied Sec.41(A) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter he submitted the case papers along with samples before this

Court with a request send one of the sample to the Chemical

Examiner. The Chemical examiner gave his report opined that the sample is fermented toddy adulterated with Chloral

Hydrate. Ex.P5 is Laboratory Analysis report. MO.1 is sample of toddy. Due to his transfer the LW-4 filed charge sheet against the Accused. He identified the signature of LW-4 on charge sheet as they worked together for considerable period. During his cross examination, he denied a suggestion that the accused is no way concerned with the alleged offence and he was falsely implicated in this case.

11. The learned counsel for the Accused argued that the independent panch witness, PW-1 and PW-2 have not supported the case of the prosecution and there is no sufficient grounds to convict and sentence the Accused.

12. The evidence of PW-3 is not corroborated with the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, the independent panch witnesses. The evidence of PW-3 who is Investigation officer is not safe to rely upon without the evidence of independent 8 witnesses. The evidence on record is absolutely not sufficient to hold that the Accused is found selling toddy illegally without having valid license or permit and that toddy is fermented adulterated with Chloral Hydrate and he is having Chloral Hydrate.

13.In the light of my above discussion, I hold that the

Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the Accused.

14. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34 (a) and 37 (a) of the A.P Excise

Act, 1968 and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

The MO.1 is sample of toddy is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. The Bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled, after expiry of appeal time as per the provision Under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2017.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ALAMPUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

For Prosecution: PW-1/LW-1 : T.Satya Reddy, 9

PW-2/LW-2 : T.Loka Reddy, PW-3/LW-3 : M.A.Waheed Khan, I.O.,

For Accused:

− Nil –

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 is signature of PW-1 on panchanama, Ex.P2 is signature of PW-2 on panchanama, Ex.P3 is panchanama, Ex.P4 is PCOR, Ex.P5 is Laboratory Analysis report,

For Accused:

- Nil -

M.Os marked.

MO.1 is sample of toddy.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ALAMPUR.

CALANDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT: ALAMPUR.

C.C.NO. 248 OF 2016.

1. Complainant : State, through SHO, Proh. & Excise, Alampur.

2. Cr.No. & Nature of Offence : PCOR.No.194/2015-16, U/s.34(a) and 37(a) of A.P.Exise Act.

3. Name of the accused : Edigi Madhusudhan S/o Pullanna Goud, age:32 Years, Occ:Business, R/o Jilledadhinne Village, Waddepally Mandal

4. OFFENCE: U/s.34(a) and 37(a) of A.P.Excise Act.

5.COMPLAINT: 13-08-2015

6.APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED: Complied U/s.41(A) of Cr.P.C. A

7.COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL: 24-03-2017

8.CLOSE OF TRIAL: 13-04-2017

9.JUDGMENT: 17-04-2017

10.PLEA OF THE ACCUSED: Not guilty

11.SENTENCE OR ORDER: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34 (a) and 37 (a) of the A.P Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The MO.1 is sample of toddy is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. The Bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled, after expiry of appeal time as per the provision Under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

12.REMARKS : --

13.EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY : The case was taken on file 31-08-2016. Accused is examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C on 10-03-2017 and prosecution evidence commenced on 24-03-2017 and closed trial on 13-04-2017. The prosecution did not produce the witnesses in time. On 17-04-2017 Judgment was pronounced. Hence the delay.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ALAMPUR.

Submitted to: The Hon'ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. Dis. No.

CC/234/2014 Acquitted

Excise Alampur.Alampur vs Edigi Prakash Goud

17 Apr 2015

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

: AT ALAMPUR

Present: - G. Ramalingam, M.A,LL.B., Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Alampur

On this the 17th day of April, 2015

C.C.No. 234 of 2014

Between:

The State of A.P., through S.H.O., Phro. & Excise, Alampur. …....Prosecution

A N D

Edigi Prakash Goud S/o Thulasidas Goud, aged: 28 Years, Occ: Business, R/o Nasnoor village of Waddepally Mandal.

….....Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Bhakthiyar Baba, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri G. Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Prohibition and Excise, Prohibition and Excise police station, Alampur filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968 alleging as follows:

On 6-4-2014 at 11-30 AM the LW-3 Prohibition and

Excise Sub-Inspector, SHO Alampur along with staff proceeded to

Nasnoor village, there they secured two mediators, and explained them that they got reliable information regarding the illegal sales of 2 toddy, and requested them to act as panchas for conducting the raids, for which they agreed and all them went in a jeep towards

Mandoddi village side, after crossing the village they found one person ran away from the neem tree by seeing the Excise people, then the officer stopped the jeep and tried to apprehend him, but failed to chase him, they returned to the said neem tree and found there is a blue colour barrel filled with toddy and also one plastic crate with 12 empty bottles under tree. On seeing the barrlel it is 100 liters capacity filled about 100 liters toddy. Then the officer enquired with the panchas about the ran away person particulars, they disclosed that his name Edidgi Prakash Goud S/o Thulasidas

Goud, R/o Nasnoor village. Then the officer took small quantity of toddy from the barrled in to a plastic jug, and from it he took 5 ml of toddy in to a test tube and tested with prescribed chemicals and found there is no change, on the surfaceof the tube, which indicates that the toddy is free from chloral Hydrate. The officer informed the the panchas that without license the sales of toddy is an offence under Excise Act, the officer drawn two samples from the said barrel, each sample containing 350 ml and sealed them as per procedure under cover of panchanama in the presence of panchas and remaining toddy with barrel, plastic crate and bottles were destroyed on the spot and returned to the excise station along with samples and issued PCOR No.6/2014-15 under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and submitted case papers before this court and also deposited the samples with a request to send one of the samples for Analysis report. The chemical Examiner gave his 3 report opined that the sample is fermented toddy free from chloral

Hydrate and Diazepam. Therefore, the Accused committed an offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

02.Cognizance was taken U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the Accused. Copies of documents are furnished to the accused under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. on their appearance.

03.When examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the offence. Charges are framed against the Accused for the offences punishable U/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and the same are read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.

04.The prosecution in support of its case, LW-1 to LW3 are examined as PW-1 to PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2 documents and M.O.1.

05.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the same stated that he did not commit any offence.

06.No witnesses were examined and no exhibits marked on behalf of the accused.

07.The point for consideration is Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act, 1968 ?

8. Point:To prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the Prosecution has to establish that on 6-4-2014 the PW-3 found that the accused selling the toddy illegally without having any valid license or permit. On this aspect, the entire case of the prosecution is relied upon the evidence of the panch witnesses

before whom, the police conducted search.

09 According to the prosecution case, the P.W.1 and P.W.2 are panch witness. But, P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not support the case of the Prosecution as they turned hostile. P.W.1 deposed that he does not know any thing about this case. The Excise police never conducted any panchanama in his presence. About one year back the Excise police obtained his signature on white paper, but he does not know for what purpose they obtained his Signature. Ex.P1 is his signature on panchanama. PW-2 also deposed the same version of PW1 that he does not know any thing about this case.

the Excise police never conducted any panchanama in his presence. About one year back the Excise police obtained his signature on white paper, but he does not know for what purpose they obtained his signature. Ex.P2 is his signature on the panchanama. Nothing was elicited when the learned A.P.P. has cross examined the PW1 and PW2 under section 154 of Indian

Evidence Act to connect the Accused with the offence alleged against him.

10. P.W.3 is the Officer who was said to have detected the Crime.

He deposed that on 06-04-2014 at about 11.00 AM he along with his staff proceeded to Nasanoor Village, there they secured PW-1 & 2 explaining to act as panchas as they have got reliable information regarding the illegal sales of toddy in the village and they agreed.

After that all of they went in a jeep from the village to towards

Mandoddi village side, after crossing the Nasanoor village one person ran way from the neem tree by seeing them and they tried to chase him but they failed to chase. After that they returned to the neem tree and found a blue color barrel filled with toddy and also 1 plastic crate with 12 empty bottles under the tree. On his search the barrel is 100 liters capacity and it was filled with about 100 liters toddy. Then he enquired with the panchas about the particulars of ran away person and they disclosed his name as

Eedigi Prakash Goud S/o Thulasidas Goud, R/o Nasanoor Village.

Thereafter he took small quantity of toddy from the barrel into a plastic jug and from it and he took 5 ml of toddy into a test tube and tested with prescribed chemicals and found there is no change, on the surface of the tube, which indicates that the toddy is free from Chloral Hydrate. He informed the panchas that without license the sale of toddy is an offence under excise act and he drawn 2 samples from the said barrel each sample containing 350 ml and sealed them as per procedure under cover of panchanama,

Ex.P3 is Panchanama, dated:06-04-2014. The remaining toddy along with barrel, plastic crates and bottles were destroyed on the spot. After that he returned to excise station along with samples 6 and issued PCOR No. 6/2014-15, U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act.

Ex.P4 is the PCOR and the case papers submitted before this Court along with samples with a request to send one of the sample for analysis report. The chemical examiner gave his report opined that the sample is fermented toddy free from Chloral Hydrate and

Diazepam. He issued a notice to the Accused U/s.41(A) Cr.P.C and the same was complied by the Accused. After completion of the investigation he filed the charge sheet against the Accused. M.O. 1 is the sample of the toddy. He denied a suggestion that the case is foisted falsely against the accused and the accused is no way concerned with the alleged offence and she was falsely implicated in this case for their statiscal purpose.

11.The learned counsel for the Accused argued that the independent panch witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2 have not supported the case of the prosecution and there are no sufficient grounds to convict and sentence the accused.

12. The evidence of P.W.3 is not corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the independent panch witnesses.

The evidence of P.W.3 who is Investigation officer, is not safe to rely upon without the evidence of independent witnesses. The evidence on record is absolutely not sufficient to hold that the accused is found selling toddy illegally without having valid license or permit.

13. In the light of my above discussion, I hold that the

Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused.

14. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34 (a) of the A.P Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled. The M.O.1. is ordered shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed, Corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2015.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ALAMPUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1/LW1 : K. Uppalaiah PW2/LW2 : E. Laxman Goud PW3/LW3 : M.A. Waheed Khan, I.O.

FOR ACCUSED:

−Nil –

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on the panchanama Ex.P2 is the signature of PW2 on the panchanama Ex.P3 is the panchanama dt.6-4-2014 Ex.P4 is PCOR No.6/2014-15.

FOR ACCUSED

- Nil -

M.Os MARKED

M.O.1 is sample of toddy.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ALAMPUR

CC/267/2014 Acquitted

Excise Alampur.Alampur vs Munnieshwari

17 Apr 2015

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

: AT ALAMPUR

Present: - G. Ramalingam, M.A,LL.B., Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Alampur

On this the 17th day of April, 2015

C.C.No. 267 of 2014

Between:

The State of A.P., through S.H.O., Phro. & Excise, Alampur. …....Prosecution

A N D

Munishwari W/o Alwal Vijayabhaskar Goud, aged: 31 Years, occ: Business, R/o Chinna Amadalapad village of Manopad Mandal.

….....Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Bhakthiyar Baba, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri A. Nagaraj Yadav, Advocate for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Prohibition and Excise, Prohibition and Excise police station, Alampur filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968 alleging as follows:

On 26-8-2013 at 11-30 AM the LW-3 Prohibition and

Excise Sub-Inspector, SHO Alampur along with staff proceeded to 2

Chinna Amudalapad village, there they secured two mediators, and explained them that they got reliable information regarding the illegal sales of toddy, and requested them to act as panchas for conducting the raids, for which they agreed and all them went in a jeep towards Kyathur side. On the way they found one lady on seeing the Excise Jeep ran away from the thorny bushes, the officer and staff tired to apprehend her but failed to chased her and all of them went to the right side thorny bushes, and found 5 plastic crates, each crate containing 12 bottles, each bottle containing 650 ml toddy and also 2 crates of empty bottles. On enquiry with the panchas about the ran away person particulars, they disclosed that her name Smt. Muniswari W/o Alawala Vijayabhakar Goud, R/o

Chinna Amudalapad village. The officer explained them that without license the sales of toddy is an offence under Excise Act.

On seeing the scene of offence is rounde by open place. The officer took small quantity of toddy from the each bottle in to a cleaned mud pot and stirred it well, from it he took 5 ml toddy in to test tube and tested it with prescribed chemicas and found there is no change on the surface of the tube, which indicates that the toddy is free from Chloral Hydrate. However, the officer drawn 2 samples from the said pot each 350 ml and sealed them as per procedudre under cover of panchanama in the presence of panchas. And the remaining toddy along with plastic crates are destroyed on the spot. and returned to the Excise station along with seized samples and registered a case against the absconding accused vide PCOR

No.197/2013-14 under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and 3 submitted case papers before this court and also deposited the samples with a request to send one of the samples for Analysis report. The chemical Examiner gave his report opined that the sample is fermented toddy free from chloral Hydrate and Diazepam.

Therefore, the Accused committed an offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

02.Cognizance was taken U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the Accused. Copies of documents are furnished to the accused under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. on their appearance.

03.When examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the offence. Charges are framed against the Accused for the offences punishable U/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and the same are read over and explained to her in Telugu. She pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.

04.The prosecution in support of its case, LW-1 to LW3 are examined as PW-1 to PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2 documents and M.O.1.

05.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. She denied the same stated that he did not commit any offence.

06.No witnesses were examined and no exhibits marked on behalf of the accused.

07.The point for consideration is Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act, 1968 ?

8. Point:To prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the Prosecution has to establish that on 26-8-2013 the

PW-3 found that the accused selling the toddy illegally without having any valid license or permit. On this aspect, the entire case of the prosecution is relied upon the evidence of the panch witnesses before whom, the police conducted search.

09 According to the prosecution case, the P.W.1 and P.W.2 are panch witness. But, P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not support the case of the Prosecution as they turned hostile. P.W.1 deposed that he does not know any thing about this case. The Excise police never conducted any panchanama in his presence. About one and half year back the Excise police obtained his thumb impression on white paper, but he does not know for what purpose they obtained his thumb impression. PW-2 also deposed the same version of

PW1 that he does not know any thing about this case. the Excise police never conducted any panchanama in his presence. About one and half year back the Excise police obtained his thumb impression on white paper, but he does not know for what purpose they obtained his thumb impression. Nothing was elicited when the learned A.P.P. has cross examined the PW1 and PW2 under section 154 of Indian Evidence Act to connect the Accused with the offence alleged against him.

10. P.W.3 is the Officer who was said to have detected the Crime.

He deposed that on 26-08-2013 at about 11.30 AM he along with his staff proceeded to Chinna Amudalapadu Village, there they secured PW-1 & 2 and explained them they got reliable information regarding the illegal sales of toddy in the village and requested them as panchas for conducting the raids, for which they agreed, and when they are going in a jeep, on the way they found one lady on seeing our excise jeep one lady ran away from the thorny bushes, he and his staff tried to apprehend her but failed to chase you. Thereafter they went to the right side thorny bushes and found five plastic crates, each crate containing 12 bottles, each bottle containing 650 ml toddy, and also 2 crates of empty bottles.

On his enquiry with the panchas about ran away the particulars and they disclosed her name as Smt.Muneeshwari W/o Alwala

Vijay Bhaskar Goud, R/o Chinna Amudalapad Village. He took small quantity of toddy from in to a test tube and tested it with prescribed chemicals and found there is no change on the surface of the tube, which indicates that toddy is free from Chloral Hydrate.

However he drawn 2 samples from said pot, each 350 ml and sealed them as per procedure under cover of panchanama. Ex.P.1 is Panchanama, dated:26-08-2013. The remaining toddy along with plastic crate were destroyed on the spot. Thereafter he returned to excise station along with samples and issued PCOR

No.197/2013-14, U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act. Ex.P2 is the PCOR and the case papers submitted before this Court along with samples with a request to send one of the sample for analysis 6 report. The chemical examiner gave his report opined that the sample is fermented toddy free from Chloral Hydrate and

12. The evidence of P.W.3 is not corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the independent panch witnesses.

13. In the light of my above discussion, I hold that the

Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused.

14. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34 (a) of the A.P Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused 7 stand cancelled. The M.O.1. is ordered shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed, Corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2015.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ALAMPUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1/LW1 : P. Bichanna PW2/LW2 : P. Narsimha PW3/LW3 : M.A. Waheed Khan, I.O.

FOR ACCUSED:

−Nil –

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 is the panchanama Dt.26-8-2013 Ex.P3 is PCOR No.197/2013-14.

FOR ACCUSED

- Nil -

M.Os MARKED

M.O.1 is sample of toddy.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ALAMPUR

CC/208/2014 Acquitted

Exise Alampur vs Edigi Laxman Goud

13 Apr 2015

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

: AT ALAMPUR

Present: - G. Ramalingam, M.A,LL.B., Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Alampur

On this the 13th day of April, 2015

C.C.No. 208 of 2014

Between:

The State of A.P., through S.H.O., Phro. & Excise, Alampur. …....Prosecution

A N D

Sedigi Laxman Goud S/o Thikkanna Goud, aged: 55 Years, Occ: Toddy Business, R/o Koildinne village of Waddepally Mandal.

….....Accused

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Prohibition and Excise, Prohibition and Excise police station, Alampur filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 34(a) and 37(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 alleging as follows:

On 11-4-2014 at about 3-10 PM, the LW-3 Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, SHO Alampur along with staff proceeded 2 to Koildinne village village, there they secured two mediators and explained them that they got reliable information regarding the illegal sales of toddy, and requested them to act as panchas for conducting the raids, for which they agreed and all them went in a jeep. At that time one person on seeing the jeep ran away from the hut. The officer and staff tired to apprehend him, but failed to chase him. Then they entered in to the hut and found 5 plastic crates, each crate containing 12 bottles, each bottle containing 650 ml toddy. On enquiry with the nighbours about the ran away person particulars, they disclosed that his name is Edigi Laxman

Goud S/o Thikkanna R/o Koildinne village. The officer took small quantity of toddy from each bottle in to a clean mud pot, and from it he took 5 ml toddy in to a test tube and tested it with presxcribed chemicals and found a pink layer on the surface of the tube which indicates that the toddy was mixed with chloral Hydrate. The officer explained them that wihtout license the sales of toddy is an offence under Excise Act and the LW3 drawn 2 samples from the said pots, each 350 ml and sealed them as per procedure under cover of panchanama in the presence of panchas and reamining toddy along with bottles and crates are destroyed on the spot and returned to Excise station along with samples and issued PCOR No.

9/12-13 under section 34(a) and 37 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and submitted the case papers before this court and also deposited the samples with a request to send one of the samples for analysis report. The chemical Examiner gave is report opined that the sample is fermented toddy adulterated with chloral Hydrate.

Therefore, the Accused committed an offence punishable under section 34(a) and 37( a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

02.Cognizance was taken U/s.34(a) and 37 (a) of A.P.

Exicse Act against the Accused. Copies of documents are furnished to the accused under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. on their appearance.

03.When examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the offence. Charges are framed against the Accused for the offences punishable U/sec.34(a) and 37 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and the same are read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.

04.The prosecution in support of its case, LW-1 to LW3 are examined as PW1 to PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 documents.

06.No witnesses were examined and no exhibits marked on behalf of the accused.

07.The point for consideration is Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 34 (a) and 37 ( a) of A.P Excise

Act, 1968 ?

8. Point:To prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the Prosecution has to establish that on 11-4-2012 the 4

PW-3 found that the accused selling the toddy illegally without having any valid license or permit at hut and the toddy is fermented toddy adulterated with chloral Hydrate. On this aspect, the entire case of the prosecution is relied upon the evidence of the panch witnesses before whom, the police conducted search.

09 According to the prosecution case, the P.W.1 and PW2 are panch witnesses. But, P.W.1 and PW2 did not support the case of the Prosecution and P.W.1 deposed that he does not know any thing about this case. The Excise Police neither conducted any panchanama nor seized any property in his presence. The Excise police obtained his thumb impression on white paper, but does not know for what purpose they obtained. PW2 also deposed in the same version of the PW1 that he does not know any thing about this case. The Excise police neither conducted any panchana nor seized any property in his presence. The Excise police obtained his signature on white paper, but he does not know for what purpose they obtained. Ex.P-1 is his signature on panchanama.

10 P.W.3 is the Officer who was said to have detected the Crime.

He deposed that on 11-4-2012 at about 3-10 PM on reliable information he along with his staff proceeded to Koildinne village, there he secured two mediators i.e., PW-1 & 2, and explained them they got reliable information regarding illegal sale of toddy in the village and requested them to act as panchas per conducting rides , fpr which they agreed and they went to the village, at that time one person on seeing the jeep he ran away from the hut. he and his 5 staff tried to apprehend him, but they failed to chase him. Then they entered in to the hut and found 5 plastic crates each, crate containing 12 bottles, each bottle containing 650 ml toddy. On his enquiry with the neighbors about the ran away person particulars, they disclosed that his name is Edigi Laxman Goud S/o Thikkanna

Golud R/o Koildinne. he took small quantity of toddy from each bottle in to a cleaned mud pod and stirred it well, from it he took 5 ml toddy in to a test tube and tested it with prescribed chemicals and found a pink layer on the surface of the tube which indicates that the toddy was mixed with chloral Hydrate. He explained him without license the sales of toddy is an offence under Excise Act.

There after he drawn 2 samples from the said pots, each containing 350 ml. and sealed them as per procedure under cover of panchanama in the presence of PW-1 and PW2. Ex.P-2 is the panchanama. Remaining toddy along with bottles and crates were destroyed on the spot. Thereafter returned to Excise station and he issued PCOR No.9/12-13 U/s.34(a) and 37 (a) of A.P. Excise Act.

Ex.P3 is PCOR. The case papers produced before this Court and he also deposited the samples before this Court with a request to send one of sample to the Chemical Examiner, Excise Laborites,

Hyderabad for analysis report and the chemical examiner gave his report opened that the sample is fermented toddy adulterated with chloral Hydrate. He denied a suggestion that this false case is foisted against the Accused for statistical purpose though the

Accused is no way concerned with alleged offense leveled against him.

12. The evidence of P.W.3 is not corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the independent panch witness.es

Hydrate.

13. In the light of my above discussion, I hold that the

Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused.

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

Section 34 (a) and 37 ( a) of the A.P Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled. The unmarked case property is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed, Corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13th day of April, 2015.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ALAMPUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1/LW-1: Bheemanna Pw2/LW-2: Thikkaiah PW3/LW3 : M.A. Waheed Khan, I.O.

FOR ACCUSED:

−Nil –

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 is signature of PW2 on the panchanama Ex.P2 is the panchanama Dt.11-4-2012 Ex.P-3 is the PCOR No. 9/2012-13.

FOR ACCUSED

- Nil -

M.Os MARKED - Nil -

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ALAMPUR

Order Record 518 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/225/2015	SHO MANOPAD vs Bayikadi Srinivasulu	21 Apr 2017	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/248/2016	Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,S.H.O.,Alampu vs Edigi Madhusudhan	17 Apr 2017	Judgement	Acquitted
STC/220/2017	The S.H.O, Alampur vs Golla Krishna	15 Apr 2017	Order	Convicted
STC/221/2017	The S.H.O, Alampur vs A.Laxman	15 Apr 2017	Order	Convicted
STC/222/2017	The S.H.O, Alampur vs Kada Suresh Babu	15 Apr 2017	Order	Convicted
STC/223/2017	The S.H.O, Shanthinagar vs Mangali Narsimhulu	15 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/224/2017	The S.H.O, Shanthinagar vs MD. Mahaboob Ali	15 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/225/2017	The S.H.O, Shanthinagar vs Kummari Ravi	15 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/226/2017	The S.H.O, Shanthinagar vs Mulla Basha	15 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/2/2017	Gangaram Raghuvaran vs Rajashekar Subramani	13 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/101/2016	K.L. Narayana vs M.Vijaya Raghava	12 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/4/2017	Donthiri Prabhakar Reddy vs Shaik Chand Basha	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/21/2015	T.Narayanamma vs T.Venkat Reddy	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/22/2015	B.Keshamma vs B.Krishna	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/76/2015	Chakali Hari vs Harijan Nagaraju	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/92/2016	Dhanavath Saidha vs Dhanavath Jainder	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/94/2017	Harijan Kashaamma vs Yellanna	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/105/2016	Dasari Yenkaiah @ Dasari Baswaraj vs Koli Hanumanthu	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/146/2017	Gajula Vinay Kumar vs S. Mahesh Babu	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
CC/108/2016	SHO, Excise Alampur vs Boya Seshanna	07 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
STC/6/2017	Gangaram Raghuvaran vs Depak	07 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/46/2016	Mangali Srinivasulu vs Manchala Venkataramana	07 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/206/2017	SHO Alampur vs Kurva Ramaneyulu@Anjaneyulu	07 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/207/2017	SHO Alampur vs Mandla Bahasker	07 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/208/2017	SHO, Alampur vs Allam Khan	07 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/209/2017	SHO Alampur vs Bonela Sunil Kumar	07 Apr 2017	Order	—
CC/30/2014	SHO Manopad vs Jaya Chandra Reddy	06 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
CC/58/2015	M. Satyanarayana vs Kurva Maddileti	06 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
STC/48/2016	Neelakantam Shambaiah vs C. Raghavulu Goud	04 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/81/2016	K.Mahesh vs Konikineni Venkateshwara Rao	04 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/97/2016	K.Vishnuvardhan Reddy vs C. Shekar Reddy	04 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/200/2017	SHO Kodandapur vs Gaddepogu Narsimulu	04 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/201/2017	SHO, Shanthinagar vs Chakali Ravi Kumar	04 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/202/2017	SHO, Undavally vs Thanagala Thimmappa	04 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/203/2017	SHO, Undavally vs P.Raheem	04 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/204/2017	SHO Undavelly vs Boya Narsimulu	04 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/205/2017	SHO Undavelly vs Betham Ashok	04 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/194/2017	SHO Kodandapur vs N. Ramaneyulu	03 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/195/2017	SHO Kodandapur vs Md.Shalimiya	03 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/196/2017	SHO Undavelly vs R. Ramudu	03 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/197/2017	SHO Undavelly vs M.Sandeep Kumar	03 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/198/2017	SHO Undavelly vs Md. Sayeed	03 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/199/2017	SHO Undavelly vs Boya Rajesh	03 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/68/2016	The S.H.O Itikayal vs G.Srinivasulu	01 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/98/2016	The S.H.O, Alampur vs B. Ramesh	01 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/191/2017	The S.H.O, Undavally vs M.Pedda Swamulu	01 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/192/2017	The S.H.O, Alampur vs Uppari Venu	01 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/193/2017	The S.H.O, Manopad vs Pani Vishnu	01 Apr 2017	Order	—
STC/159/2017	SHO Alampur vs Brahmanandam Aliayas Brahmaiah	31 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/170/2017	SHO Alampur vs Bandi Srinivasulu	31 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/186/2017	SHO Undavally vs S.Shaikshavali	31 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/187/2017	SHO Alampur vs C.Shyam Kumar	31 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/188/2017	SHO Alampur vs Muniswamy	31 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/189/2017	S.H.O. Alampur vs Lalu Basha	31 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/190/2017	SHO Undavally vs Bathula Ramulu	31 Mar 2017	Order	—
CC/343/2015	SHO, Excise Alampur vs Akkala Lokesh	30 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
STC/178/2017	SHO Alampur vs Bheemapogu Nagaraju	25 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/179/2017	SHO Alampur vs B.Raghu Ramudu	25 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/180/2017	SHO Alampur vs Pidugu Rajesh	25 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/166/2017	SHO Kodandapur vs Palle Narender Reddy	24 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/167/2017	SHO, Shanthinagar vs Golla Laxmanna	24 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/168/2017	SHO Alampur vs Gundela Srinu	24 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/171/2017	SHO, Alampur vs T.Venkateshwarlu	24 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/172/2017	SHO Shanthinagar vs Palle Srinivas Reddy	24 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/173/2017	SHO Shanthinagar vs Thumpally Lokha Reddy	24 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/174/2017	SHO, Shanthinagar vs Telugu Laxmanna	24 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/175/2017	SHO, Shanthinagar vs Telugu Vijayulu	24 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/176/2017	SHO Shanthinagar vs MD.Abdullah	24 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/177/2017	SHO Shanthinagar vs Harijan Naresh	24 Mar 2017	Order	—
CC/19/2014	B.V.Subba Reddy vs K.SHENKARAIAH	23 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
STC/160/2017	The S.H.O, Alampur vs K. parusha Ramudu	23 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/161/2017	SHO, Alampur vs Muddasi Pedda Babu	23 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/162/2017	The S.H.O, Alampur vs Moreddy Maheshwar Reddy	23 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/163/2017	The S.H.O ,Alampur vs Telugu Chinna Ranganna	23 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/164/2017	The S.H.O,undavally vs Govinda Chary	23 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/165/2017	SHO Undavally vs Harijan Kurmana	23 Mar 2017	Order	—
CC/303/2013	B.V.Subba Reddy vs Eppali Narsimulu	22 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
CC/22/2015	SHO, KODANDAPUR vs Telugu Satyanarayana	21 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
CC/244/2014	SHO Shanthinagar vs B. Pathima Bee	21 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
CC/300/2013	A.Phani Mohan Rao vs G.Ramulu	21 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
CC/132/2015	SHO Itikyala vs Chakali Raju	20 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
CC/246/2016	Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,S.H.O.,Alampu vs A. Kumar Naidu	20 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
CC/261/2013	SHO Rajoli vs K.Mahipal Reddy	20 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
CC/314/2016	Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,S.H.O.,Alampu vs Vssudharshan Goud	20 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
CC/217/2015	SHO Itikyala vs Telugu Beemesh	17 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
CC/312/2016	Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,S.H.O.,Alampu vs E. Anjaneyulu Goud	15 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
CC/313/2016	Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,S.H.O.,Alampu vs Vssudharshan Goud	15 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
CC/315/2016	Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,S.H.O.,Alampu vs E.Sudharshan Goud	15 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
CC/249/2016	Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,S.H.O.,Alampu vs Edigi Baswaraju	10 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
STC/158/2017	The S.H.O, Undavally vs Mangali Anjaneyulu	10 Mar 2017	Order	—
CC/226/2012	Chakali Madhu vs Chakali Eshwar	09 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/112/2016	L. Rami Reddy vs L. Nagaratna Reddy	08 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
STC/151/2017	TheS.H.O Kodandapur vs Mala Kodanna	08 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/152/2017	The S.H.O. Kodandapur vs Golla Govindhu	08 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/153/2017	The S.H.O, Undavally vs Chakali Venkateswarlu	08 Mar 2017	Order	—
STC/154/2017	The S.H.O, Undavally vs Nagirla Naresh	08 Mar 2017	Order	—
CC/56/2013	L.MUNEPPA vs M.NARSIMHULU	06 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
CC/78/2014	Jangam Ravi Shankaraiah vs Mohd. Khaja	06 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
CC/240/2016	SHO, Excise Alampur vs A. Naganna	06 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
CC/252/2016	Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,S.H.O.,Alampu vs Kadinalla Narsimha	27 Feb 2017	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 518 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2017		48
Mar 2017		52
Feb 2017		27
Jan 2017		25
Dec 2016		20
Nov 2016		20
Oct 2016		29
Sep 2016		43
Aug 2016		7
Jul 2016		31
Jun 2016		14
May 2016		19

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri G.RAMALINGAM handled?

Sri G.RAMALINGAM has handled 524 court orders since 2014 at Alampur, JCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 14 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri G.RAMALINGAM hear?

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

Where is Sri G.RAMALINGAM currently posted?

Sri G.RAMALINGAM is posted as JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE at Alampur, JCJ Court Complex, Jogulamba Gadwal, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri G.RAMALINGAM available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by Sri G.RAMALINGAM are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri G.RAMALINGAM dispose cases?

Sri G.RAMALINGAM disposes approximately 14 cases per month, based on 524 orders handled over their tenure at Alampur, JCJ Court Complex.

Since when is Sri G.RAMALINGAM serving?

Sri G.RAMALINGAM has been serving at Alampur, JCJ Court Complex since 2014.

Case Types

CC 64%

STC 21%

OS 15%

EP 1%

Posting History

Oct 2015 — May 2017

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 446 orders
Apr 2014 — Apr 2015

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 78 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 7

Convicted 3

Other Judges at this Court

Sri R.V.S.S.Midhun Teja

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

539 orders

← View all judges at Alampur, JCJ Court Complex