G.Sai Krishna

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidadavole

Junior Civil Courts, Nidadavole · West Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

G.Sai Krishna, Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidadavole, is posted at Junior Civil Courts, Nidadavole, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 175 court orders on record since 2025. 17 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, MC cases.

175

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/126/2025 Acquitted

The Sub Inspector of Police, Nidadavole vs Mulagala Venkateswara Rao alias Potti

17 Apr 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

– CUM - JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : : NIDADAVOLE.

Present : Sri. G.Sai Krishna,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

– cum – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

FAC/Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nidadavole.

Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2026

C.C.No.126/2025

Between:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nidadavole Police Station. .…Complainant.

And

Mulagala Venkateswara Rao @ Potti, S/o.Durga Rao, Aged 41 years, 14th ward, Mamidithota, Tadepalligudem mandal.

.... Accused.

This case is coming on 10.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Devarapalli Police Station and of

Smt.S.K.Jameela, Legal Aid counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of police of Nidadavole Police station, filed charge sheet in Crime No.197/2024 Under Section.303 (2) BNS against accused.

2. The gist of the case as per the charge sheet are as follows:

a)In the intervening night of 25.11.2024 in between 8 p.m., to 2 05.30 a.m., the Auto bearing No.AP.37.TC.7904 belonging LW.1/Bangaru

Satish Babu went missing after it was parked in front of his house situated in

Churchpeta, Nidadavole town. Thereafter, he caused inquiries about the missing auto and finally gave a report to LW.8/S.Satyanarayana of Nidadavole

P.S.., on 31.12.2024 at 4 p.m., as he could not trace his auto. The LW.8 registered the report as FIR in Crime No.179/2024 under Section.303(2) BNS.

During investigation, the LW.8 examined LW.1 and recorded his Section.180(3)

BNSS statement. Later, he inspected the scene of offence and drew rough sketch of the scene and examined the neighbouring witnesses i.e., Lws.2 to 4 and recorded their Section.180(3) BNSS statements. Later, the LW.9 took up further investigation in this case.

b)While the investigation is going on the S.I of

Tadepalligudem Town police station apprehended the accused on 21.04.2025 and recovered stolen property from various locations in Tadepalligudem town.

Further, as per the confession of the accused recorded by the S.I, 7

Automobiles including the auto of the LW.1 were recorded from the possession of the accused. Later, the accused was remanded to judicial custody upon his production before the court. On 29.05.2025, the LW.9 produced the accused

before the court in execution of P.T warrant issued in the present crime. On

completion of investigation, LW.9 filed charge sheet.

3. Upon perusal of charge sheet and accompanying documents, this

Court was satisfied that there is a prima facie case made out against accused.

Hence, the cognizance was taken of the offences Under Section.303 (2) of

BNS. Since, the accused was in Jail, issued warrant to the Jail authorities for production of the accused.

4. Upon receipt of summons, the accused appeared before the Court and copies of documents were furnished to him as per Section.230 of BNSS.

5. Subsequently, the Accused was examined Under Section.262

Cr.P.C and charge Under Section.303 (2) of BNSS was framed against him and they were read over and explained to him in Telugu. The charge was denied by accused and he pleaded not guilty. He preferred to be tried for the charges against him. The summons were issued to the prosecution witnesses.

6.During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution

LW.1/Bangaru Satish Babu, LW.5/Thammisetti Sridevi, LW.8/S.Satyanarayana,

LW.7/P.Naga Raju, LW.9/K.Jagan Mohana Rao were examined as Pws.1 to 5.

Ex.P1, MO.1 through PW.1, Exs.P2, P3 through P.W.2, Exs.P4, P5 through

PW.3, were marked. The evidence of LWS. 2 to 4 and 6 was given up by the learned A.P.P.

7.On completion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating portion of the evidence was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu.

The accused was denied the incriminating portion of the prosecution evidence and further reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and defence counsel. Perused the charge sheet and accompanying documents and the prosecution evidence on record.

9.Now the following points arises for determination by this Court :

1) Whether in the intervening night of 25.11.2022 between 8 p.m., 5.30 a.m., the accused dishonestly took away the auto bearing Reg., No.AP.37.TC.7904 without the consent

of its owner i.e., LW.1/Bangaru Satish Babu?

2) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences Under Sections 303 (2) BNS?

Point No.1 :

10.The PW.1 in his chief examination deposed that, on 25.11.2024 at 4 8 p.m., his auto bearing Reg., No.AP.37.TC.7904 was returned to him by

Narina Prasad and then he parked it outside his house but at 5.30 a.m., on the next day when he came out of the house he could not find his auto. PW.1 stated that, he searched for one month for his auto and therefore, finally on 31.12.2024, he lodged a report. PW.1 further deposed that, later the police called him and informed him that his auto was recovered and then he went to the police station and identified his auto.

11.PW.1 stated that, he did not witness the commission of the theft.

The PW.2 in his chief examination deposed that on 21.04.2025 while he was working as VRO of Tadepalligudem, the S.I of Tadepalligudem police station called him and then, himself and LW.6/Abraham went to the police station. He further deposed that, from there the S.I, LW.6 and himself proceeded NIT

Esanyam block, Tadepalligudem and noticed an auto coming towards them.

He further stated that, the auto turned back on seeing and then it was stopped by them and its driver was interrogated. According to PW.2, the driver is the accused present in the court that day and upon enquiry, he confessed commission of several thefts of autos. The auto in which he was driving also belonged to a crime of Tadepalligudem Police station. That he confessed commission of theft of four autos in Tadepalligudem and one auto in Arlamuru and one in Nidadavole. The PW.2 further deposed that, the accused confessed commission of theft of the MO.1 at Churchpeta in Santha market,

Nidadavole in November, 2024. PW.2 deposed that, a typist typed the mediator report and then himself and accused and S.I on the mediator report.

It is stated that on information given by the accused, the police, himself proceeded to Polytechnic college of Tadepalligudem and all the stolen autos were found there including MO.1. That a separate mediator report was prepared at the spot and all the said autos were seized. That himself, LW.6, S.I and accused signed on the mediator report.

12.During cross-examination PW.2 stated that, the police did not issue any written summons to him. PW.2 stated that, he scribed 3 or 4 mediators reports till date. He stated that, printout of Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 were taken in NIT. PW.2 stated that, he does not know whether the name of the printer was mentioned in Ex.P2 or Ex.P3 or not.

13.The PW.3 in his chief examination deposed that, while he was working as Head constable of Nidadavole police station on 31.12.2024 at 4 p.m., the PW.1 came to the police station and he submitted his report. He further stated that, he registered the report as FIR under Section.303 (2) BNS and examined PW.1 and LW.2 in the police station and recorded their statements. He further deposed that, he proceeded to the scene of offence situated at the house of PW.1, observed the scene and prepared rough sketch.

14.During cross-examination PW.3 stated that, he did not take clues team to the scene of offence.

15.The PW.4 in his chief examination deposed that, on 21.04.2025 at 3 p.m., on receipt of credible information, he rushed to Esanyam block near

NIT college along with staff and mediators. He further deposed that they noticed an auto coming towards them driven by a 40 years person and on suspicion they stopped the auto and questioned the driver. PW.4 deposed that, the accused was the driver of the auto and he confessed to him about commission of theft in Crime No.119/2025 of Tadepalligudem P.S., as well as other offences involving theft of seven autos. According to PW.4, they noticed six autos at Polytechnic college back side in Tadepalligudem based on the confession of the accused and they also found the MO.1 and then, they seized all the autos including MO.1 under the cover of Ex.P3.

16.During cross-examination the PW.4 admitted that he did not mention in Ex.P3 how he verified the crime property of Nidadavole Police 6 station.

17.In the present case, the SHO of Nidadavole police station filed charge sheet only under Section.303(2) of BNS but not under Section.317 (2)

BNS. The court took cognizance under Section.303(2) BNS and charges were also framed under Section.303(2) BNS.

18.For the offence under Section.303(2) BNS, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused moved the MO.1 from the custody of the

PW.1 without his consent and with a dishonest intention. PW.1 admitted that he did not witness the commission of the theft. According to PW.1, after parking MO.1 outside his house, he went to sleep and on the next day morning when he came out of the house, he could not find MO.1. The PWs.2 to 5 are not eye witnesses to the commission of the theft. The evidence of PWs.2 to 4 at the most proves seizure of stolen property from the possession of the accused which is not necessary ingredient for the offence under

Section.303(2) BNS.

19.Based on the evidence on record, it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused moved the MO.1 from the custody of the PW.1 dishonestly without the consent of PW.1. Hence, point no.1 is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

Point No.2:

20.It is well settled principle of law that an accused cannot be convicted for an offence without framing the necessary charge for the offence for which he is convicted. The offence under Section.317(2) of BNS involves receiving stolen property with knowledge that the property is stolen property.

On the other hand, the offence under Section.303(2) BNS requires that the accused should have moved the property of the victim without his consent and with dishonest intention. Therefore, both the offences are different from each 7 other and Section.317(2) BNS cannot be considered a minor offence for the purpose of Section.245 BNSS.

21.In view of findings on point 1, point no.2 is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

22. In the result, the Accused is hereby found not guilty for the offence Under Section.303 (2) of BNS and the accused is hereby acquitted under Section.271 (1) of BNSS for the offence Under Section.303 (2) of BNS.

The accused, who is under detention in Central Jail, Rajahmundry shall be released forthwith. Release orders shall be sent to the Superintendent of

Central Jail, Rajahmundry forthwith.

The interim custody of MO.1 was given to the Bangaru Satish

Babu i.e., PW.1 as per orders dated.02.01.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.46/2025 shall become absolute after expiry of Two months from the date of this Judgment or if Appeal is made after disposal of the Appeal, whichever is later.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- G. Sai Krishna

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

– cum – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur. FAC/Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nidadavole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: -None-

PW1: Bangaru Satish Babu. PW2: Thammisetti Sridevi. PW3: S.Satyanarayana. PW4: P.Naga Raju. PW5: K.Jagan Mohana Rao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P1 Report of PW.1. Ex.P2 Mediator report, dt.21.04.2025 at 03.00 p.m. Ex.P3 Mediator report, dt.21.04.2025 at 04.15 p.m. Ex.P4 Original FIR. Ex.P5 Original rough sketch.

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1 is the Auto bearing Reg., No.AP..37.TC.7904.

Sd/- G. Sai Krishna

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

– cum – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur. FAC/Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nidadavole.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavole.

Calendar Case No.126 /2025

(Cr.No.197/2024 of Nidadavole Police Station)

In the intervening night of Date Offence : 25.11.2024 in between 8 p.m., to 05.30 a.m. 31.12.2024. Date of Report or Complaint : 21.04.2025. Date of Apprehension of Accused : Under Trial Prisoner. Date of release on bail, if any: 28.11.2025. Date of Commencement of Trial : 13.03.2026. Closure of Trial : 17.04.2026. Date of Sentence or other Order :

Explanation of delay and remarks : This case was taken on file against the

Accused for the Under Section.303 (2) BNS. On 06.10.2025, copies of documents furnished to him U/sec.230 BNSS. On 14.11.2025, the accused was present and he was examined under Section.262 of BNSS and on 28.11.2025 trial has commenced and closed on 13.03.2026. On 13.03.2026, the accused was produced from Central Jail, Rajahmundry and he was examined under Section.351 BNSS by explaining the incriminating material appearing against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. The counsel for accused submitted her arguments on 10.04.2026. On 17.04.2026, the accused shown through video call from the Central Jail Rajahmundryand the Judgment was pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Name of the Complainant:State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nidadavole Police Station.

Name of the Accused :Mulagala Venkateswara Rao @ Potti, S/o.Durga Rao, Aged 41 years, 14th ward, Mamidithota, Tadepalligudem mandal. Nature of Offences: Under Section.303(2) BNS.

Plea of the Accused: Not Guilty.

Finding of the Court:Not Guilty.

Result: Accused is hereby found not guilty for the offence Under Section.303 (2) of BNS and the accused is hereby acquitted under Section.271 (1) of BNSS for the offence Under Section.303 (2) of BNS. The accused, who is under detention in Central Jail, Rajahmundry shall be released forthwith. Release orders shall be sent to the Superintendent of Central Jail, Rajahmundry forthwith.

The interim custody of MO.1 was given to the Bangaru Satish Babu i.e., PW.1 as per orders dated.02.01.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.46/2025 shall become absolute after expiry of Two months from the date of this Judgment or if Appeal is made after disposal of the Appeal, whichever is later.

Sd/- G. Sai Krishna

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

– cum – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur. FAC/Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nidadavole. Copy submitted to

The Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru.

CC/63/2024 Acquitted

Nidadavole Police Station vs Sri Chinnam Bhaskara Rao

10 Apr 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

– CUM - JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : : NIDADAVOLE.

Present : Sri. G.Sai Krishna,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

– cum – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

FAC/Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nidadavole.

Friday, this the 10th day of April, 2026

C.C.No.63/2024

Between:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nidadavole Police Station.

…Complainant.

And

Chinnam Bhaskara Rao, S/o.Satyam, Aged 55 years, Sattipeta village of Nidadavole town and mandal.

...Accused.

This case is coming on 27.02.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.A.Satish

Kumar, Advocate for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nidadavole Police station, filed charge sheet in Crime No.43/2024 under Section.34(A) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020, against the accused.

2. The gist of the case as per the charge sheet are as follows:

a)On 01.02.2024 on receipt of credible information, at 4:00 p.m., the LW.6/P.Apparao, S.I of Police, Nidadavole Police station along with 2

Lws.1 and 2 went to Settipeta village. On reaching Settipeta village at 5:00 p.m., the LW.6 noticed one male person holding a plastic bag near Ambedkar statue. On seeing them, he tried to escape from the spot. The LW.6 caught the said person. On verification of the plastic bag, the LW.6 found 1) Silver Stripes

Whisky – 180 ml – 6 bottles. Then, the LW.6 took the said person into his custody and seized the entire liquor bottles and lifted one of the liquor bottle from the property for chemical analysis purpose. Thereafter, the LW.6 got drafted the occurrence report at the spot between 5:30 p.m., to 06.15 p.m.

Then, he arrested the accused and brought him to the police station along with seized property and the occurrence report.

b)At the police station, the LW.6 registered the occurrence report as FIR in Crime No.43/2024 Under Section.34(A) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020. During the course of investigation, the LW.6 examined and recorded the statements of LW.1 and LW.2. On the same day, the LW.6 visited the scene of offence, inspected the scene and drew rough sketch. He further, examined Lws.3 and 4 and recorded their detailed statements under Section.161(3) of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the LW.6 issued

Section.41-A Cr.P.C., notice to the accused. Later, the LW.6, sent the samples to the chemical examiner, Kakinada for analysis through proper channel. On 12.01.2024, the LW.5/chemical examiner, who examined the sample bottle issued analysis report opining that the samples contain “Indian Made Liquor”.

On 12.02.2024, the LW.6 examined the chemical examiner and recorded his detailed statement under Section.161(3) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the LW.6 sent requisition to the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Department,

East Godavari district, Rajahmundry for permission to destroy the remaining seized property. On completion of the investigation, LW.6 filed charge sheet.

3.Upon perusal of charge sheet and accompanying documents, this

Court was satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against accused.

Hence, cognizance was taken for the offence Under Section.34(A) of A.P.

Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020. Subsequently, this Court issued summons to accused.

4. Upon receipt of summons, the accused appeared before the

Court. Copies of documents were furnished to him as per Section.207 Cr.P.C.

5. Subsequently, the Accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and charge under Section.34-A of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 was framed against him and was read over and explained to him in Telugu. The charge was denied by accused and he pleaded not guilty. He preferred to be tried for the charge against him. Then summons were issued to the prosecution witnesses.

6.During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution

LW.1/D.KoteswaraRao,LW.3/K.LakshmanaRao,LW.4/R.Rama

Satyanarayana, LW.6/P.Apparao, were examined as Pws.1 to 4. Ex.P1 through

PW.2, Ex.P2 through PW.3, Ex.P3 to Ex.P8 and MO.1 through PW.4, were marked. Ex.D1 was marked through PW.4 during cross-examination. The evidence of Lws.2 and 5 was given up by the Assistant Public Prosecutor.

7.On completion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating portion of the evidence was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu.

The accused denied the incriminating portion of the prosecution evidence and further reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned counsel Assistant Public Prosecutor and defence counsel. Perused the charge sheet and accompanying documents and the prosecution evidence on record.

9.Now the following points arise for determination by this Court :

1. Whether on 01.02.2024 at 05:00 p.m., the accused was found in possession of 1) Silver stripes whisky – 180 ml of 6 bottles, near Ambedkar statue situated in Settipeta village of Nidadavole mandal, without any license, in violation of any notification or permit or rules issued by 4 the Excise authorities?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence Under Section. 34(A) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 ?

Point No.1:

10.The PW.1 in his chief examination deposed that on 01.02.2024 at 3.00 p.m., when he was present in the Police station, the S.I of Police upon receipt of information about excise offences, took him and LWs.2 to LW.4 to

Ambedkar statue of Settipeta village. It is further stated that, on seeing them, one person tried to run away and then, the S.I caught hold of him with their help and got opened the bag held in his hand. That they found 6 bottles of

Silver stripes liquor bottles of 180 ml each. PW.1 stated that, on questioning, the accused confessed that, he purchased the liquor bottles from the nearby shops and brought them for selling at higher price. It is stated that, the S.I of

Police drew sample of one bottle under the cover of mediators report. Further, the mediators prepared mediator report and then, S.I along with accused signed on the report.

11.During cross-examination, PW.1 stated that, he does not know whether the seized bottles had any serial numbers mentioned on them or not.

12.Pws.2 and 3, who acted as mediators to this case did not support the prosecution case.

13.The PW.4, who is the investigating officer deposed in his chief examination that, on 01.02.2024 at 04:00 p.m., when he was present in the

Police station, he received credible information and secured Pws.1 to 3 and

LW.2 and all of them together proceeded to Settipeta village of Nidadavole mandal and reached near Ambedkar statue and noticed accused along with a carry bag. It is stated that, on seeing them, the accused tried to run away but 5 they caught hold of him. It is further stated that, on questioning, the accused revealed that the bag contained liquor bottles. It is stated that, he opened the bag and found 6 silver stripes – 180 ml whiskey bottles. He further deposed that, he seized them and lifted one of the bottles as sample bottle and affixed identity slips containing the signatures of accused, Pws.2, 3 and himself. Then, he got drafted the mediators report in the presence of mediators and obtained the signatures of accused, Pws.2 and 3 besides putting his signature.

13.During cross-examination, the PW.4 admitted that, there is no mention of the name of the scribe in mediator report. PW.4 admitted that, he did not seize MO.1 at the scene of offence but merely produced it. PW.4 admitted that in charge sheet it was mentioned that there were beer bottles instead of Whisky bottles and that the scene of offence is R&B Road. PW.4 admitted that, as per the third page of charge sheet he mentioned the seized arrack bottles instead of whisky bottles.

14.As per Ex.P3, the scene of offence is B.R.Ambedkar statue in

Settipeta village. As per Ex.P5, the scene of offence is in front of accused house at a distance from Ambedkar statue. As per PW.1, on seeing the police the accused tried to run away from the place to his house. As per PW.4, the accused was found near the Ambedkar statue with a carry bag. As can be seen, there is no corroboration between Ex.P5 which shows the scene of offence in front of the house of the accused with the evidence of PW.1 and

PW.4 and Ex.P3 that the scene of offence is situated near Ambedkar statue.

Therefore, it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove the exact location of the scene of offence.

15.As per PW.1, the mediators i.e., PW.3 and PW.4 scribed the mediator report. As per PW.4, himself got drafted the mediator report. During cross-examination PW.4 admitted that, there is no mention of the name of the scribe in Ex.P5. As per the contents of Ex.P5, the report was scribed by the 6 mediators. The mediators i.e., PWs.2 and 3 did not support the prosecution case.

16.Although, the counsel for accused elicited points from PW.4 with regard to contents of the charge sheet, the same cannot be considered by this court as charge sheet is not part of the evidence. Although, according to PW.1 and PW.4, the PW.1 was present at the scene of offence, the Ex.P3 does not bear the signature of PW.1. No reason was given by the PW.1 why he did not put the signature on Ex.P3 when the PW.4 also signed on the report.

Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 that, he was present at the scene of offence along with PWs.2,3 and 4 is not reliable and trustworthy. Except for the sole testimony of PW.4, there is no other reliable oral evidence to support the prosecution case regarding seizure of the liquor bottles from the possession of the accused. In view of the above discussion, it can be said that the prosecution not only failed to prove the exact location of scene of offence but also the seizure of the liquor bottles from the possession of the accused.

17.Therefore, it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of the liquor bottles from the possession of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, point No.1 is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

Point No.2:

18.In view of finding on point No.1, point No.2 is also answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused. Hence, it can be said that, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence Under Section.34(A) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020.

19. In the result, the Accused is hereby found not guilty for the offence Under Section.34(A) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the 7 accused is hereby acquitted under Section.248 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence

Under Section.34(A) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per Section.437-A Cr.P.C. The MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of Two months from the date of this Judgment or if Appeal is made after disposal of the Appeal, whichever is later.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer on computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 10 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-G.Sai Krishna,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur.

FAC/Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nidadavole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence:-None- PW1: D.Koteswara Rao. PW2: K.Lakshamana Rao. PW3: R.Rama Satyanarayana. PW4: P.Apparao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1 Signature of PW.2 in mediator report. Ex.P2 Signature of PW.3 in mediator report. Ex.P3 Mediators report. Ex.P4 Original FIR. Ex.P5 Original Rough sketch. Ex.P6 Letter of Advice. Ex.P7 Chemical Analysis report. Ex.P8 Destruction proceedings.

For Defence:

Ex.D1 Relevant underlined portion in the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.1 (LW.1).

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : Sample bottle.

Sd/-G.Sai Krishna,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur.

FAC/Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nidadavole.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavole.

Calendar Case No.63 /2024

(Cr.No.43/2024 of Nidadavole Police Station)

Date Offence:01.02.2024.

Date of Report or Complaint:01.02.2024.

Date of Apprehension of Accused:--

Date of release on bail, if any:(41-A Cr.P.C., notice).

Date of Commencement of Trial:10.07.2024.

Closure of Trial:06.11.2025.

Date of Sentence or other Order:10.04.2026.

Explanation of delay and remarks : This case was taken on file against the

Accused for the offence Under Section.34(A) of A.P. Excise and Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. On 26.04.2024, the accused appeared before the court, copies of documents furnished to him U/sec.207 Cr.P.C and on the same day, the Accused was examined under Section.239 Cr.P.C. On 10.07.2024, trial has commenced and closed on 06.11.2025. On 06.11.2025, accused was present and he was examined under Section.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material appearing against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same reported no defence evidence on his behalf. The Counsel for accused submitted his arguments on 27.02.2026. On 10.04.2026, the accused was present. Judgment was

pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Name of the Complainant:State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nidadavole Police station.

Name of the Accused:Chinnam Bhaskara Rao, S/o.Satyam, Aged 55 years, Sattipeta village of Nidadavole town and 10 mandal. Nature of Offence: Under Section.34(A) of A.P. Excise and

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

Plea of the Accused:Not Guilty.

Finding of the Court:Not Guilty.

Result:The Accused is hereby found not guilty for the offence Under Section.34(A) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the accused is hereby acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence Under Section.34(A) of A.P.

Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per Section.437-A Cr.P.C. The MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of Two months from the date of this Judgment or if Appeal is made after disposal of the Appeal, whichever is later.

Sd/-G.Sai Krishna,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur.

FAC/Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nidadavole.

Copy submitted to

The Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru.

CC/242/2024 Acquitted

Sub Inspector of Police, Chagallu P.S. vs Matta Venkatalakshmi

10 Apr 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

– CUM - JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : : NIDADAVOLE.

Present : Sri. G.Sai Krishna,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

– cum – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

FAC/Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nidadavole.

Friday, this the 10th day of April, 2026

C.C.No.242/2024

Between:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Chagallu Police Station.

…Complainant.

And

Matta Venkata Lakshmi, W/o.Ganga Raju, Aged 46 years, Kalavalapalli village of Chagallu mandal.

...Accused.

This case is coming on 13.03.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and

Sri.K.Venkata Srinivasu, Advocate for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chagallu Police station, filed charge sheet in Crime No.138/2024 under Section.34(A) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020, against the accused.

2. The gist of the case as per the charge sheet are as follows:

a)On 11.07.2024 at about 06:30 p.m., on receipt of credible information, the LW.3/S.I of Police, Chagallu Police station along with his staff 2 went to Kalavalapalli village and reached the house of accused situated in

Gowda Ramalayam street. They noticed the accused standing at her house and on seeing them, the accused tried to escape from there but she was detained by them. On questioning, the accused confessed about illegal possession and selling of liquor bottles and showed the liquor bottles. Then,

LW.3 seized 1) Royal Green Whisky 180 ml – 3 bottles, 2) Silver Stripes whisky 180 ml – 1 bottle, 3) Officers choice 180 ml – 1 bottle, 4) SNJ 10000

Gold strong beer 650 ml – 5 bottles, 5) Boom Beer 650 ml – 1 bottle, 6) King

Fisher beer 650 ml – 1 bottle. In total 12 liquor bottles. Thereafter, the LW.3 lifted one sample bottle from each brand for chemical analysis purpose and affixed identity slips on each sample bottle. Thereafter, the LW.3 got drafted the police proceedings on the spot. Then, he arrested the accused and brought her to the police station along with seized property and the report.

b)At the police station, the LW.3 registered the report as FIR in Crime No.138/2024 Under Section.34(A) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020. During the course of investigation, the LW.3 issued Section.41-A Cr.P.C., notice to the accused. Later, the LW.3 sent the samples to the chemical examiner, Kakinada for analysis through proper channel. The chemical examiner, who examined the sample bottles issued analysis report opining that the samples contain “Indian Made Liquor” and “Beer”. On completion of the investigation, LW.3 filed charge sheet.

3.Upon perusal of charge sheet and accompanying documents, this

Court was satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against accused.

Hence, cognizance was taken for the offence Under Section.34(A) of A.P.

Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020. Subsequently, this Court issued summons to accused.

4. Upon receipt of summons, the accused appeared before the

Court, copies of documents were furnished to her as per Section.207 Cr.P.C.

5. Subsequently, the Accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and charge under Section.34-A of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 was framed against her and was read over and explained to her in Telugu. The charge was denied by accused and she pleaded not guilty. She preferred to be tried for the charge against her. Then summons were issued to the prosecution witnesses.

6.During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution

LW.2/J.Raja Rajeswari, LW.3/P.Naga Raju, were examined as Pws.1 and 2.

Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and MO.1 through PW.2 were marked. However, Ex.D1 was marked in the cross-examination of PW1. The evidence of LW.1 was given up by the Assistant Public Prosecutor.

7.On completion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating portion of the evidence was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu.

The accused denied the incriminating portion of the prosecution evidence and further reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned counsel Assistant Public Prosecutor and defence counsel. Perused the charge sheet and accompanying documents and the prosecution evidence on record.

9.Now the following points arise for determination by this Court :

1. Whether on 11.07.2024 at 06:30 p.m., the accused was found in possession of 1) Royal Green Whisky 180 ml – 3 bottles, 2) Silver Stripes whisky 180 ml – 1 bottle, 3) Officers choice 180 ml – 1 bottle, 4) SNJ 10000 Gold strong beer 650 ml – 5 bottles, 5) Boom Beer 650 ml – 1 bottle, 6) King Fisher beer 650 ml – 1 bottles at her house situated in Gowda Ramalayam street in Kalavalapalli village of Chagallu mandal, without any license, in violation of any notification or permit or rules issued by the Excise authorities?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence Under 4

Section. 34(A) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 ?

Point No.1:

10.The PW.1 in her chief examination deposed that on 11.07.2024 at about 07.30 p.m., while she was present in Police station, LW.3 received credible information and then, herself, Lws.1 and 3 proceeded to Kalavalapalli village of Chagallu mandal and there they noticed one female person. She further stated that, the female person on seeing them tried to escape. It is stated that, she caught hold of her on direction of LW.3/PW.2 and on questioning, she revealed that she had liquor bag. It is further stated that, they opened the bag and found Royal Green Whisky 3 bottles of 180 ml, Silver

Stripes Whisky 1 bottle, Officer Choice 1 bottle of 180 ml, 10000 Gold strong beer 5 bottles of 650 ml, Boom Beer 1 bottle of 650 ml, King Fisher beer bottle – 1 650 ml. Then, S.I of Police separated one bottle from each brand for chemical analysis and affixed identity slips on them.

11.During cross-examination, PW.1 stated that, herself and PW.2 went to the scene in one vehicle. PW.1 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy and residential locality. She also stated that the police proceedings were typed at the house of accused on a laptop.

12.The PW.2, who is the investigation officer deposed in his chief examination that, on 11.07.2024 at 07:00 p.m., on receipt of credible information, himself and staff proceeded to Kalavalapalli village of Chagallu mandal and reached Gowda Ramalayam street and to the house of accused.

It is stated that, they noticed a old woman of 45 years trying to escape on seeing them but they caught hold of her. It is further stated that, on questioning, she revealed that she had liquor bottles, purchased from wine shops and she intends to sell them. PW.2 stated that, on verification of the bag, they found Royal Green Whisky 3 bottles of 180 ml, Silver Stripes Whisky 1 bottle, Officer Choice 1 bottle of 180 ml, 10000 Gold strong beer 5 bottles of 5 650 ml, Boom Beer 1 bottle of 650 ml, King Fisher beer bottle – 1 650 ml and he seized all the said bottles and separated one bottle from each brand for chemical analysis purpose. According to PW.2, he got typed police proceedings at the spot and then arrested the accused.

13.During cross-examination, the PW.2 stated that, the identity slips bear the signature of himself and the accused. It is also stated that, the date below the alleged signature of the accused is also handwritten by the accused.

The defence counsel suggested to PW.2 that the handwriting of the alleged signature of the accused and the date appear to be written by same person and it is the PW.2, who wrote the same. The said suggestion was denied by

PW.2. Although, PW.2 stated that the accused mentioned the date on all the identity slips on MO.1. He also admitted that there is no date below the signature of the accused on the identity slips affixed to remaining five bottles of

MO.1. PW.2 admitted that, two of the bottles of MO.1 does not have any label on them. PW.2 stated that, no mediators were available at the scene. He also stated that, he did not mention the names of persons, whom he requested to act as mediators in the police proceedings.

14.PW.1 admitted that the scene of offence is situated in busy and residential locality. According to PW.2 and PW.1, the scene of offence is the house of accused in Gowda Ramalayam street. Even as per the rough sketch/Ex.P3, the scene of offence is situated inside the house of accused. As it is a closed premises, it is mandatory for the police to follow the procedure prescribed under Section.100 Cr.P.C. Although, PW.2 stated that, he tried to secure mediators and none of them were available, there is no mention of any attempt made by PW.2 to secure mediators in Ex.P1. Admittedly, no names of the persons requested by PW.2 to act as mediators were mentioned in Ex.P1.

In otherwords, the PW.2 failed to comply with the procedure prescribed under

Section.100 Cr.P.C., for seizure of property within closed premises.

15.Although, six bottles were marked through PW.2 as MO.1, admittedly two of those bottles do not have any label on them indicating their brand. Further, the PW.2 in his cross-examination stated that the accused mentioned date on all the identity slips of MO.1. However, when the MO.1 (six bottles) were confronted, the PW.2 admitted that, except on one bottle on all other bottles there is no date mentioned on its label.

16.The absence of labels on two of the bottles of MO.1 and any date on five of the bottles of MO.1 casts doubt on the prosecution case that the sample bottles allegedly lifted at the scene of offence are same as MO.1.

17.Not only the prosecution failed to prove that the samples/MO.1 were lifted at the scene of offence but also failed to comply with the seizure procedure prescribed Under Section.100 of Cr.P.C., Hence, point No.1 is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

Point No.2:

19. In the result, the Accused is hereby found not guilty for the offence Under Section.34(A) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the accused is hereby acquitted under Section.248 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer on computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 10 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-G.Sai Krishna,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

- Cum – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur. FAC/Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nidadavole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence:-None-

PW1: J.Raja Rajeswari.

PW2: P.Nagaraju.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1 Police proceedings. Ex.P2 Original FIR. Ex.P3 Original Rough sketch. Ex.P4 Letter of Advice. Ex.P5 Analysis report. Ex.P6 Destruction proceedings.

For Defence:

Ex.D1 Underlined portion in the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.1.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : 6 Sample bottles.

Sd/-G.Sai Krishna,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

- Cum – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur. FAC/Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nidadavole.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavole.

Calendar Case No.242 /2024

(Cr.No.138/2024 of Chagallu Police Station)

Date Offence:11.07.2024.

Date of Report or Complaint:11.07.2024.

Date of Apprehension of Accused: --

Date of release on bail, if any:(41-A Cr.P.C., notice).

Date of Commencement of Trial:05.11.2024.

Closure of Trial:06.03.2026.

Date of Sentence or other Order:10.04.2026.

Explanation of delay and remarks : This case was taken on file against the

Accused for the offence Under Section.34(A) of A.P. Excise and Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. On 07.10.2024, the accused appeared before the court, copies of documents furnished to her U/sec.207 Cr.P.C and on the same day, the Accused was examined under Section.239 Cr.P.C. On 05.11.2024, trial has commenced and closed on 06.03.2026. On 06.03.2026, accused was present and she was examined under Section.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material appearing against her from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which she denied the same reported no defence evidence on her behalf. The Counsel for accused submitted his arguments on 27.02.2026.

On 10.04.2026, the accused was present. Judgment was pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Name of the Complainant:State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chagallu Police station.

Name of the Accused:Matta Venkata Lakshmi, W/o.Ganga Raju, Aged 46 years, Kalavalapalli village of 9

Chagallu mandal. Nature of Offence: Under Section.34(A) of A.P. Excise and

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

Plea of the Accused:Not Guilty.

Finding of the Court:Not Guilty.

Result:The Accused is hereby found not guilty for the offence Under Section.34(A) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the accused is hereby acquitted under Section.248 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence Under Section.34(A) of A.P.

Sd/-G.Sai Krishna,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

- Cum – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur. FAC/Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nidadavole.

Copy submitted to

The Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru.

CC/204/2024 Acquitted

Sub Inspector of Police, Nidadavole. vs Manyam Gangaraju

17 Apr 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

– CUM - JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : : NIDADAVOLE.

Present : Sri. G.Sai Krishna,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

– cum – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

FAC/Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nidadavole.

Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2026

C.C.No.204/2024

Between:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nidadavole Police Station.

…Complainant.

And

Manyam Gangaraju, S/o.Venkanna, Aged 74 years, R/o.Jyothi colony of Nidadavole town.

...Accused.

This case is coming on 10.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and

Sri.K.Venkata Srinivasu, Advocate for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nidadavole Police station, filed charge sheet in Crime No.38/2024 under Section.34(A) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020, against the accused.

2. The gist of the case as per the charge sheet are as follows:

a)28.01.2024 on receipt of credible information, at 8:00 a.m., 2 the LW.7/P.Apparao, S.I of Police, Nidadavole Police station along with Lw.1 and mediators i.e., Lws.4 and 5 went to peepal tree adjacent to the R & B road in Thimmarajupalem village. There they noticed one male person holding a plastic bag. On seeing them, he tried to escape from the spot. The LW.7 caught the said person. On verification of the plastic bag, the LW.7 found 1)

HD Ultra Deluxe whiskey 180 ml beer – 5 bottles. Then, the LW.7 took the said person into his custody and seized the entire beer bottles and lifted one of the beer bottle from the property for chemical analysis purpose. Thereafter, the

LW.7 got drafted the mediators report at the spot between 8:00 a.m., to 09.00 a.m. Then, he arrested the accused and brought him to the police station along with seized property and the mediators report.

b)At the police station, the LW.7 registered the mediators report as FIR in Crime No.38/2024 Under Section.34(A) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020. During the course of investigation, the LW.7 examined and recorded the statement of LW.1. On the same day, the LW.7 visited the scene of offence, inspected the scene, drew rough sketch. He further, examined Lws.2 and 3 and recorded their detailed statements under

Section.161(3) of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the LW.7 issued Section.41-A Cr.P.C., notice to the accused. Later, on 01.02.2024, the LW.7, sent the samples to the chemical examiner, Kakinada for analysis through proper channel. On 12.02.2024, the LW.6/chemical examiner, who examined the sample bottle issued analysis report opining that the samples contain “illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health”. On 12.02.2024, the LW.7 examined the chemical examiner and recorded his detailed statement under

Section.161(3) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the LW.7 sent requisition to the Deputy

Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Department, East Godavari district,

Rajahmundry for permission to destroy the remaining seized property. On completion of the investigation, LW.7 filed charge sheet.

3.Upon perusal of charge sheet and accompanying documents, this

Court was satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against accused.

Hence, cognizance was taken for the offence Under Section.34(A) of A.P.

Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020. Subsequently, this Court issued summons to accused.

4. Upon receipt of summons, the accused appeared before the

Court. Copies of documents were furnished to him as per Section.207 Cr.P.C.

6.During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution

LW.1/G.Venkateswara Rao, LW.3/Karinki Nagamani, LW.2/Peddisetti

Syambabu, LW.4/Rwothu Srinu, LW.5/Gandrothu Prasad, LW.7/P.Apparao, were examined as Pws.1 to 6. Ex.P1 through PW.2, Ex.P2 through PW.3,

Ex.P3 through PW.4, Ex.P4 through PW.5, Ex.P5 to P10 through PW.6 were marked. Ex.D1 was marked through PW.1 during cross-examination. The evidence of LW.6 was given up by the Assistant Public Prosecutor.

7.On completion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating portion of the evidence was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu.

The accused denied the incriminating portion of the prosecution evidence and further reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned counsel Assistant Public Prosecutor and defence counsel. Perused the charge sheet and accompanying documents and the prosecution evidence on record.

9.Now the following points arise for determination by this Court :

1. Whether on 28.01.2024 at 08:00 a.m., the accused was found in possession of 1) HD Deluxe 180 ml whiskey – 5 bottles or Beer bottles, near Peepal tree in Timmarajupalem village, without any license, in violation of any notification or permit or rules issued by the Excise authorities?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence Under Section. 34(A) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 ?

Point No.1:

10.The PW.1 in his chief examination deposed that while he was working as Police constable in Nidadavole police station, on 28.01.2024 at 8 a.m., on receipt of information, his S.I took him, PW.4, PW.5 and visited

Thimmarajupalem village and reached Ravichettu place. It is stated that, all of them saw one person trying to escape on seeing them and then, the PW.6/S.I detained the said person and obtained identity particulars from him. According to PW.1, the PW.6 found a bag with the person and he opened it and found five 180 ml bottles of HD Deluxe whiskey. He further deposed that, the PW.6 seized the bottles and drew one bottle towards sample and later the VRO prepared the mediator report. It is stated that, the PW.6 took the accused into custody and thereafter, himself, Pws.4 to 6 signed on the mediator report.

11.During cross-examination, PW.1 stated that, himself, the PW.6,

PW.4 and PW.5 all went together to Ravichettu place but same was not recorded by the PW.6 while recording his 161 statement. PW.1 stated that, the mediators came to the police station and all of them from there proceeded to the scene of offence in their respective vehicles. PW.1 stated that, the PW.6 reached the scene of offence in a police jeep.

12.Pws.2, 3 and 4 did not support the prosecution case. The PW.4, 2 while he was present in the police station, on receipt of credible information, he along with Pws.1, 4 and 5 went to Thimmarajupalem and reached

Ravichettu. He further deposed that, they noticed the accused at the scene trying to run away and then they caught him. According to PW.6, the accused on enquiry revealed his identity particulars and then, himself opened the bag of the accused and found five HD Ultra Deluxe whiskey 180 ml bottles/MO.1 and lifted one such bottle as sample and seized the remaining. It is stated that, he got drafted the mediator report in the presence of Pws.4 and 5 and then the accused, Pws.4 and 5 and himself signed on the mediator report/Ex.P5.

13.During cross-examination, the PW.6 admitted that, there is no mention of the scribe in Ex.P5. PW.6 admitted that the accused disclosed the brand of beer bottles i.e., HD Ultra Deluxe 180 ml – 5 beer bottles. PW.6 stated that, they proceeded to the scene of offence in a Jeep. PW.6 stated that, as per mediators report they went to the scene of offence in a motorcycle.

PW.6 admitted that, in the charge sheet he mentioned about beer bottles instead of whiskey bottles. PW.6 admitted that, as per the charge sheet, he mentioned the scene of offence as R & B road.

14.As per contents of Ex.P5, the mediators are Pws.4 and 5. Besides them, the S.I/PW.6 and PW.1/P.C were present at the scene of offence. There is no mention of any VRO present at the scene of offence. The PW.5, 6 also did not depose about the presence of VRO at the scene of offence. However, the PW.1 in his chief examination deposed that a VRO prepared the mediator report. Therefore, there is no corroboration between the contents of Ex.P5, evidence of PW.6 with that of the evidence of PW.1 on the aforesaid aspect.

Not only that, it also shakes the credibility of PW.1’s evidence that he was also present at the scene of offence.

15.According to PW.6, all of them proceeded to the scene of offence 2 in a Jeep. However, as per contents of Ex.P5, the PW.6 and his staff and the mediators i.e., Pws.4 and 5 reached the scene of offence separately on their respective bikes to that extent there is no corroboration between the contents of Ex.P5 and the evidence of PW.6 on the said aspect.

16.As per Ex.P5, the scene of offence is the vacant site adjacent to road near Ravichettu. As per Ex.P7, the scene of offence is situated adjacent to road but in front of a locked building. The Ravichettu was shown at far away place beyond the building. Therefore, there is no corroboration between the contents of Ex.P7 and Ex.P5 and the evidence of PW.6 with regard to the location of the scene of offence. Therefore, it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove the exact location of the scene of offence.

17.Except for the sole testimony of the PW.6, there is no other reliable evidence on record to prove the seizure of the MO.1 from the possession of the accused. Further, the prosecution failed to prove the excat location of the scene of offence as well as the manner in which, they reached the scene of offence. Hence, point No.1 is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

Point No.2:

Under Section.34(A) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020. The bail bonds of 2 the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per Section.437-A Cr.P.C. The MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of Two months from the date of this Judgment or if Appeal is made after disposal of the Appeal, whichever is later.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer on computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- G. Sai Krishna,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

– cum – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur. FAC/Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nidadavole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence:-None- PW1: G.Venkateswara Rao. PW2: Karinki Nagamani. PW3: Peddisetti Syambabu. PW4: Rwothu Srinu. PW5: Gandrothu Prasad. PW6: P.Appa Rao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.1. Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.3. Ex.P3 Signature of PW.4. Ex.P4 Signature of PW.5. Ex.P5 Mediator report. Ex.P6 Original FIR. Ex.P7 Original Rough sketch. Ex.P8 Letter of advice. Ex.P9 Chemical analysis report. Ex.P10Destruction proceedings.

For Defence:

Ex.D1 Relevant underlined portion in the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.1 (LW.1).

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : Sample bottle.

Sd/- G. Sai Krishna,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

– cum – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur. FAC/Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nidadavole.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavole.

Calendar Case No.204 /2024

(Cr.No.38/2024 of Nidadavole Police Station)

Date Offence:Prior 28.01.2024.

Date of Report or Complaint:28.01.2024.

Date of Apprehension of Accused: --

Date of release on bail, if any:(41-A Cr.P.C., notice).

Date of Commencement of Trial:14.08.2024.

Closure of Trial:17.11.2025.

Date of Sentence or other Order:17.04.2026.

Explanation of delay and remarks : This case was taken on file against the

Accused for the offence Under Section.34(A) of A.P. Excise and Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. On 01.08.2024, the accused appeared before the court, copies of documents furnished to him U/sec.207 Cr.P.C and on the same day, the Accused was examined under Section.239 Cr.P.C. On 14.08.2024, trial has commenced and closed on 17.11.2025. On 17.11.2025, accused was present and he was examined under Section.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material appearing against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same reported no defence evidence on his behalf. The Counsel for accused submitted his arguments on 10.04.2026. On 17.04.2026, the accused was present. Judgment was

pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Name of the Complainant:State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nidadavole Police station.

Name of the Accused:Manyam Gangaraju, S/o.Venkanna, Aged 74 2 years, R/o.Jyothi colony of Nidadavole town.

Nature of Offence: Under Section.34(A) of A.P. Excise and

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

Plea of the Accused:Not Guilty.

Finding of the Court:Not Guilty.

Sd/- G. Sai Krishna,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

– cum – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur. FAC/Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nidadavole.

Copy submitted to

The Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru.

CC/356/2023 Acquitted

Prohibition and Excise Police station,Kovvur vs Eduri Srinu

19 Sep 2025

C.C.No.356/20231 Prl.Civil Judge (Jr Division), Nidadavole Dt.19.09.2025.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

– CUM - JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : : NIDADAVOLE.

Present : Sri. G.Sai Krishna,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

– cum – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

FAC/Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) – cum – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nidadvole.

Friday, this the 19thday of September, 2025

C.C.No.356/2023

Between:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of SEB Station, Nidadavole. …Complainant.

And

Eduri Srinu, S/o.Mavullayya, Aged 41 years, R/o.Korumamidi village, Nidadavole mandal.

...Accused.

This case is coming on 12.09.2025. for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri.M.Venkatesh, Advocate for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement of Bureau Station,

Nidadavole, filed charge sheet in Crime No.39/2022 under Section.7(B) r/w.8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 against the accused.

C.C.No.356/20232 Prl.Civil Judge (Jr Division), Nidadavole Dt.19.09.2025.

2. The gist of the charge sheet is as follows:

a) On 26.01.2022 at about 08:30 p.m., the LW.1/Sudheer,

LW.2/Y.Ch.Srinivasu along with their staff while conducting raids for detection of Prohibition & Excise offences, when they reached near the cement road margin in front of the house of the accused situated in Korumamidi village of

Nidadavole mandal, they found the accused standing and holding a white mica bag in his right hand. On seeing them, he threw away the bag aside and ran away. The police tried to catch the accused but in vain. Then, the LW.1 observed the bag left by the person and in the presence of raid party opened the bag and found one polythene cover of five liters capacity of ID arrack contained in it. Later, the LW.1 obtained the identity particulars of the escaped person from the neighbours at the scene of offence. Further, the LW.1 seized 05 liters of ID arrack under the cover of special report. Thereafter, the LW.1 lifted 300 ml of ID arrack into separate bottle for chemical analysis. Thereafter, the LW.1 brought the seized property and the special report along with the accused to the police station.

b) At the police station, the LW.1 registered the special report as FIR in Crime No.39/2022 under Section.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Later, the LW.1 sent the samples to the chemical examiner, Kakinada for analysis through Superintendent of SEB, Eluru. On 10.02.2022, the chemical examiner issued analysis report of the sample opining that the samples contain “illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health”. Thereafter, on 22.02.2022 at 07:30 a.m., the LW.1 arrested the accused at his house and subsequently, the accused was produced before the court for judicial custody. The remaining property was confiscated to the State and was destroyed on 05.04.2022 as per proceedings

C.C.No.356/20233 Prl.Civil Judge (Jr Division), Nidadavole Dt.19.09.2025.

of Deputy Commissioner of SEB, Vijayawada. On completion of the investigation, LW.6 filed charge sheet.

3. Upon perusal of charge sheet and accompanying documents, this

Court was satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against accused.

Hence, cognizance was taken for the offence Under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of

A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Subsequently, this Court issued summons to accused.

4. Upon receipt of summons, the accused appeared before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as per Section.207 Cr.P.C.

5. Subsequently, the Accused was examined under Section.239

Cr.P.C and charge Under Section.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment)

Act, 2020 was framed against him and was read over and explained to him in

Telugu. The charge was denied by accused and he pleaded not guilty. He preferred to be tried for the charges against him. Then, summons were issued to the prosecution witnesses.

6. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution

LW.1/P.Sudheer, LW.3/V.T.V.V.Satyanarayana were examined as PW.1 and

PW.2. Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and MO.1 through PW.1, Ex.P3 to Ex.P6 through PW.2 were marked. The evidence of Lws.2, 4 to 6 was given up by the Assistant

Public Prosecutor.

7. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating portion of the evidence was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu.

The accused denied the incriminating portion of the prosecution evidence and further reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the learned counsel Assistant Public Prosecutor and

C.C.No.356/20234 Prl.Civil Judge (Jr Division), Nidadavole Dt.19.09.2025.

defence counsel. Perused the charge sheet and accompanying documents and the prosecution evidence on record.

9. Now the following points arise for determination by this Court :

1. Whether on 26.01.2022 at about 08:30 p.m., the accused was found in possession of 05 liters of ID arrack at his house in Korumamidi village of Nidadavole mandal, in violation of any notification or permit or rules issued by the Excise authorities?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence Under Section.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020?

Point No.1:

10. The PW.1 in his chief examination deposed that, on 26.01.2022 at about 08:30 p.m., on credible information, he along with his staff proceeded to

Korumamidi village, Nidadavole mandal and reached the house of accused.

PW.1 stated that, on seeing them, one person who was holding a bag threw it away and ran away from the spot. It is stated that, upon searching the bag of the accused they found five liters of ID arrack in one polythene cover. PW.1 further deposed that, they drew 300 ml of ID arrack into a separate bottle and seized the remaining ID arrack under the cover of special report prepared by

LW.2. It is stated that, the PW.1 and LW.2 signed on the special report.

11. During cross-examination PW.1 stated that, Ex.P1 does not state the name of the person and details of the person who gave the details of the accused. PW.1 stated that, he did not see the accused.

12. The PW.2 in his chief examination deposed that, on 22.02.2022on

C.C.No.356/20235 Prl.Civil Judge (Jr Division), Nidadavole Dt.19.09.2025.

receipt of credible information, himself, LW.4 andLW.5 proceeded to

Korumamidi village and found the accused in front of his house. PW.2 further stated that, on ascertaining the identity particulars of the accused, he arrested him and drafted a special report/Ex.P3.

13. In the present case as per prosecution’s version, the alleged seizure of the ID arrack was made in the absence of the accused. However,

Ex.P1 clearly mentions the name and identity particulars of the accused.

Therefore, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove the manner in which they were able to ascertain the identity of the accused and include it in Ex.P1.

As per the chief examination of PW.1, there is nothing stated about the identity particulars of the accused. PW.1 admitted that, as per Ex.P1 nothing was mentioned about the person, who furnished them the particulars of the accused for the purpose of including it in Ex.P1. It is not the case of the prosecution that, they knew the accused even before the registration of the case. Hence, it can be said that, the prosecution failed to prove that the escaped person was the accused. Accordingly, point no.1 is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

Point No.2:

14. In view of finding on Point No.1, point No.2 is also answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused. Hence, it can be said that, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence Under Section.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

15. In the result, the accused is hereby found not guilty for the offence under Section.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the accused is hereby acquitted under Section.248 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the

C.C.No.356/20236 Prl.Civil Judge (Jr Division), Nidadavole Dt.19.09.2025.

offence under Section.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of Judgment as per Section.437-A of Cr.P.C. The MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of the Two months from the date of this Judgment or if

Appeal is made after disposal of the Appeal, whichever is later.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 19 th day of September, 2025.

Sd/-G.Sai Krishna

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

– cum – Judl. I Class Magistrate, Kovvur.

FAC/Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

– cum – Judl. I Class Magistrate, Nidadavole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1: P.Sudheer.

PW2: V.T.V.V.Satyanarayana.

For Defence:-None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1:Special report. Ex.P2:FIR. Ex.P3: Special report, dated.22.02.2022. Ex.P4: Letter of advice. Ex.P5: Chemical analysis report. Ex.P6: Destruction proceedings.

For Defence: Nil.

C.C.No.356/20237 Prl.Civil Judge (Jr Division), Nidadavole Dt.19.09.2025.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1 : Sample bottle of ID arrack.

Sd/-G.Sai Krishna

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

– cum – Judl. I Class Magistrate, Kovvur.

FAC/Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

– cum – Judl. I Class Magistrate, Nidadavole.

C.C.No.356/20238 Prl.Civil Judge (Jr Division), Nidadavole Dt.19.09.2025.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavole.

Calendar Case No.356/2023

(Cr.No.39/2022 of SEB Station Nidadavole)

Date Offence:26.01.2022.

Date of Report or Complaint:26.01.2022.

Date of Apprehension of Accused:22.02.2022.

Date of release on bail, if any:25.02.2022.

Date of Commencement of Trial:22.04.2025.

Closure of Trial:01.07.2025.

Date of Sentence or other Order:19.09.2025.

Explanation of delay and remarks : This case was taken on file against the

Accused for the offence Under Section.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. On 27.09.2023, Copies of documents furnished to him under Section.207 Cr.P.C. On 01.04.2025, the accused was present and he was examined under Section.239 Cr.P.C and on 22.04.2025, trial has commenced and closed on 01.07.2025. On 01.07.2025, accused was present and he was examined under Section.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material appearing against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same reported no defence evidence. The counsel for accused submitted his arguments on 12.09.2025. On 19.09.2025, the accused called present. Judgment was pronounced. Hence, the delay.

C.C.No.356/20239 Prl.Civil Judge (Jr Division), Nidadavole Dt.19.09.2025.

Name of the Complainant : State represented by the Sub-Inspector of SEB

Station, Nidadavole.

Eduri Srinu, S/o.Mavullayya, Aged 41 years, Name of the Accused : R/o.Korumamidi village, Nidadavole mandal.

Nature of Offence : Under Section.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

Plea of the Accused : Not Guilty.

Finding of the Court : Not Guilty.

Result : The accused is hereby found not guilty for the offence under Section.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the accused is hereby acquitted under Section.248 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the offence under Section.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of Judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of the Two months from the date of this Judgment or if Appeal is made after disposal of the Appeal, whichever is later.

Sd/-G.Sai Krishna

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

– cum – Judl. I Class Magistrate, Kovvur.

FAC/Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

– cum – Judl. I Class Magistrate, Nidadavole.

Copy submitted to The Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru.

Order Record 173 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/59/2025	Bezawada Koteswara Chowdary vs Alla Tulasi Ratnam	01 May 2026	Judgement	—
CC/126/2025	The Sub Inspector of Police, Nidadavole vs Mulagala Venkateswara Rao alias Potti	17 Apr 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/204/2024	Sub Inspector of Police, Nidadavole. vs Manyam Gangaraju	17 Apr 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/63/2024	Nidadavole Police Station vs Sri Chinnam Bhaskara Rao	10 Apr 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/242/2024	Sub Inspector of Police, Chagallu P.S. vs Matta Venkatalakshmi	10 Apr 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
DVC/1/2025	Kamineni Bhavana vs Kamineni Kalyan Naidu	10 Apr 2026	Order	—
DVC/1/2026	Vinta alias Yamasani Jaya Deepthi vs Vintha Gangadhar Reddy	10 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
MC/21/2023	Kamineni Bhavana vs Kamineni Kalyan Naidu	10 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/6/2025	Kommuri Venkata Narasimha Murthy vs Kantamsetti Bala Raju	07 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/190/2025	Kappala Venkata Lakshmi vs Vatturi Ganesh Kumar	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/125/2025	Turakala Suresh vs Olipalli Kusuma	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/187/2023	Vara Narendra Kumar vs Chadalavada Chandana	20 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/184/2025	Manepalli Swamy vs Smt. Thota Mani	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/18/2026	The Sub-Inspector of Police, SMG vs Mallipudi Adamu alias Rajeswara Rao	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/23/2026	The Sub-Inspector of Police, SMG PS vs Pinisetti Sivaprasad	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/24/2026	The Sub-Inspector of Police SMG PS vs Akula Nageswara Rao alias ANR	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/37/2026	The Sub-Inspector of Police, SMG PS vs Kankipati Subba Rao	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/38/2026	The SI of Police, SMG PS vs Komarapu Mahesh	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/39/2026	The Sub-Inspector of Police, vs Gumpula Arjun alias Chinna Arjun	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/40/2026	The Sub-Inspector of Police, vs Koyya Nani Kumar	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/41/2026	The Sub-Inspector of Police, vs Racha Suribabu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/42/2026	The Sub-Inspector of Police vs Kola Durga Prasad	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/45/2026	The Sub-Inspector, Proh and Excise, Nidadavole vs Shaik Khaja Mohiddin	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/46/2026	The Sub-Inspector proh and Excise vs Bollam Ramesh	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/47/2026	The Sub-Inspector proh and Excise vs Gajula Mallikasulu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/48/2026	The Sub-Inspector proh and Excise vs Moyya Harish	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/49/2026	The Sub-Inspector proh and Excise vs Yerubandi Sathis Babu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/50/2026	The Sub-Inspector proh and Excise vs Kuramadasu Sankar	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/51/2026	The Sub-Inspector proh and Excise vs Turugopu Rajkumar	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/52/2026	The Sub-Inspector proh and Excise vs Rajulapati Somaiah	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/53/2026	The Sub-Inspector proh and Excise vs Thota Madhava Rao	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/54/2026	The Sub-Inspector proh and Excise vs Mannem Satyanarayana	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/55/2026	The Sub-Inspector proh and Excise vs Cheruku Lakshmanudu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/56/2026	The Sub-Inspector proh and Excise vs Veeravalli Venkatesh	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/57/2026	The Sub-Inspector, Proh and Excise vs Koyyala Krishna	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/58/2026	The Sub Inspector of Police, SMG vs Muppidi Bharanam alias Bharanalu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/59/2026	The Sub Inspector of Police, SMG vs Katta Durga Prasad	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/60/2026	The Sub-Inspector, Proh and Excise, Kovvur vs Gudala Lakshmi Narayana	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/61/2026	The Sub-Inspector, Proh and Excise, Kovvur vs Nichenakola Tata Rao	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/62/2026	The Sub-Inspector, Proh and Excise, Kovvur vs Mikkili Rama Rao	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/65/2026	The Sub-Inspector Proh and Excise, Ndd vs Marisetti Srinu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/66/2026	The Sub-Inspector Proh and Excise, Ndd vs Mungara Gopalam	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/67/2026	The Sub-Inspector Proh and Excise, Ndd vs Vendra Srinu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/68/2026	The Sub-Inspector Proh and Excise, Ndd vs Karinki Srinu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/69/2026	The Sub-Inspector Proh and Excise, Ndd vs Marisetti Srinu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/70/2026	The Sub-Inspector Proh and Excise, Ndd vs Muppidi Survarna Raju	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/71/2026	The Sub-Inspector of Police, SMG PS vs Gujje Yesu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/176/2024	Sub Inspector of Police, Samisragudem vs Pasala Balakrishna	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/223/2024	Station House Officer, Samisragudem Police Station vs Deyyala Sivannarayana	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/353/2025	The Proh and Excise SI vs Borra Satyanarayana	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/385/2025	The Proh Excise Sub Inspector vs Bathula Nagarjuna	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/17/2026	Ganti Posi Lakwhmi vs Biccavolu Rama Rao	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/165/2024	Nalli Prasad vs Bangaru Yesu Ratnam	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/5/2026	The SHO, Chagallu PS vs Kandukuri Rambabu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/21/2025	Sub Inspector of police, Nidadavole vs Chikkam Phani Veera Venkata Varaprasad	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/43/2026	The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chagallu PS vs Matta Sri Yukka Srini	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/44/2026	The Sub-Inspector of Police, Town PS vs Mungara Srinu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/63/2026	The Sub-Inspector of Police, Town PS vs Y. Srinu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/64/2026	The Sub-Inspector of Police, Town PS vs Ganta Srinivasa Rao	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/130/2025	The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chagallu P.S vs Garapati Koteswara Rao alias Koti alias Kotayya	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/306/2025	The S.H.O., Nidadavole Town PS vs Marri Manoj	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/323/2024	Sub Inspctor of police, Chagallu vs Ganga Sreeram	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/383/2025	The Sub-Inspector of Police vs Gudivada Sathish	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/496/2025	The Sub-Inspector of Police vs Maddala Veera Venkata Satyanarayana	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/663/2023	THE SHO Chagallu P.S. vs Matta Anil Kumar (A2 M.Jyothi A3 M.Venkateswararao A4. M.Prasanth)	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
DVC/5/2024	Mutyala Mounika Sai Sri vs Mutyala Ravindra	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
DVC/9/2024	Chinnam Purna Soujanaya vs Chinnam Arun Kumar	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
MC/3/2026	Bonige alias Kappala Santhi Kumari vs Kappala Subhash	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
MC/21/2024	Malireddy Jaya Deepika vs Malireddy Sri Harsha	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
MC/23/2025	Mutyala Mounika Sai Sri vs Mutyala Ravindra	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
MC/28/2023	Smt. Chinnam Purna Soujanya vs Chinnam Arun Kumar	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/44/2025	Shaik Jaheera Munnisa Begum vs Sakurthi Kasi Viswanadham	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/49/2024	Nalli Prasad vs Bangaru Yesu Ratnam	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
EP/6/2025	Palli Veera Raghavulu vs Darla Kota Sathibabu	13 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/3/2026	The SHO, Chagallu PS vs Gudla Sathish alias Pakodi	13 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/60/2024	Nidadavole Police Station vs Muppidi Mallikarjuna Rao	13 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/203/2024	Sub inspector of police, Nidadavole vs Muppidi Mallikarjuna Rao	13 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/87/2022	Nandigam Surendra Kumar vs Annabathula Satya Venkata Naga Veerraju	06 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/559/2023	THE SHO Chagallu P.S. vs Matta Krishna Kumari	06 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/304/2025	The S.H.O., Nidadavole Town PS vs Tallapalli Prasad	03 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/262/2017	Sannidhi Suresh vs Sista Surya Prabhavathi	27 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/116/2025	Potabathula Udaya Shankar vs Balla Santhi	26 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/264/2019	Samisragudem Police Station vs Shaik valli	20 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/105/2025	Dake Ratnakumar vs Tammana Venkata Maha Lakshmi	19 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/48/2024	Gandham Satya Rama Mohan Rao vs Pachigolla Veera Brahmam	13 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/7/2026	Annamareddy Somaraju vs Vemula Vigneswara Rao	13 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/149/2024	Penugonda Jogeswara Rao vs Kanuboina Satyanarayana	13 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/202/2023	SHO CHAGALLU P.S. vs Bolla Gowramma	13 Feb 2026	Order	—
CC/350/2019	Samisragudem Police Station vs Nabamru Srinu	13 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
MC/25/2024	Kasani Ganga Bhavani vs Kasani Venkanna	09 Feb 2026	Order	—
CC/68/2020	Samisragudem Police Station vs Uppuluri Siva Rama krishna	06 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
PRC/9/2025	The S.H.O., Nidadavole Town PS vs Sirangula Anil Kumar	06 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/206/2025	Muppidi Jhansi Rani vs Dake Raja Rao	05 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/97/2025	Vanga Venkata Ramana vs Chowtupalli Veeranna	05 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/193/2025	Kanuboina Satya Bharathi vs Yarra Padma	04 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/186/2025	Yamana Murali Krishna vs Basigiri Prasad	30 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OS/93/2023	Allu Manikantha vs Shaik Hydar Saheb	30 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OS/107/2025	Polisetti Venkata Ramesh vs Gudapati Naresh	30 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OS/173/2025	Merakanapalli Satyanarayana vs Mohammad Afsur Unnisa	30 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OS/69/2025	Veeramasu Dhanumjaya Dhanumjaya Rao vs Akkabathula Vijay Kumar	27 Jan 2026	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 173 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		1
Apr 2026		8
Mar 2026		73
Feb 2026		15
Jan 2026		19
Dec 2025		1
Oct 2025		2
Sep 2025		54
Aug 2025		2

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has G.Sai Krishna handled?

G.Sai Krishna has handled 175 court orders since 2025 at Junior Civil Courts, Nidadavole. The average disposal rate is 20 orders per month.

What types of cases does G.Sai Krishna hear?

Based on available records, G.Sai Krishna primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Junior Civil Courts, Nidadavole.

Where is G.Sai Krishna currently posted?

G.Sai Krishna is posted as Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidadavole at Junior Civil Courts, Nidadavole, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by G.Sai Krishna available online?

Yes. 17 judgments by G.Sai Krishna are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does G.Sai Krishna dispose cases?

G.Sai Krishna disposes approximately 20 cases per month, based on 175 orders handled over their tenure at Junior Civil Courts, Nidadavole.

Since when is G.Sai Krishna serving?

G.Sai Krishna has been serving at Junior Civil Courts, Nidadavole since 2025.

Case Types

CC 66%

OS 22%

MC 5%

DVC 3%

STC 2%

EP 1%

PRC 1%

Posting History

Dec 2025 — May 2026

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidadavole · 50 orders
Dec 2025 — May 2026

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidadavole · 67 orders
Aug 2025 — Oct 2025

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidadavole · 34 orders
Aug 2025 — Oct 2025

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidadavole · 24 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 6

Other Judges at this Court

Shake Khwaja Rahiman

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

0 orders

← View all judges at Junior Civil Courts, Nidadavole