Sri. H. Amara Rangeswara Rao

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge

II Addl JCJ Court, Sattenapalli · Guntur · Andhra Pradesh

Sri. H. Amara Rangeswara Rao, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, is posted at II Addl JCJ Court, Sattenapalli, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 914 court orders on record since 2012. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, DVC, MC cases.

914

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

CC/114/2015 Acquitted

State SHO, Pedakurapadu P.S. vs Syed Yasin and 6 others

15 May 2015

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SATTENAPALLI

Present : Sri H. Amara Rangeswara Rao,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, S ATTENAPALLI .

FRIDAY, the FIFTEENTH day of MAY,

TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

(15.05.2015)

CALENDAR CASE NO.114/2015 CALENDAR CASE NO.114/2015

Between :

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedakurapadu P.S. (Cr.No.7/2014 ) … COMPLAINANT

AND

1. Syed Yasin, S/o.Masthan Vali, 35 years, Reporter for Kakathiya Daily News Paper, R/o. Bhavanrushi Nagar, Sattenapalli.

2. Singareddy Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.Bereddy, 42 years, T.V.Reporter, R/o.Nagarjuna colony, Sattenapalli.

3. Shaik Karimulla Sha, S/o.John, 42 years, RK News Channel Reporter, R/o.Nagarjuna colony, Sattenapalli.

4. Shaik Jani Basha @ Jani, S/o.Masthan Vali, 25 years, Reporter of Udayam Dhawani News Paper, R/o.Nagarjuna colony, Sattenapalli.

5. Pendem Ravi Kumar, S/o.Chennaiah, 35 years, Reporter of Surya News Paper, Car Driver, R/o.Sattenapalli.

6. Perecherla Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Nageswara Rao, 40 years, N.TV Channel Reporter, R/o.Irkupalem village, Muppalla Mandal.

7. Bolla Balaji, S/o.Raghava Rao, 40 years, R/o.Editor, Guntur Mirror Daily News paper, R/o. Nagarjuna colony, Sattenapalli. … Accused

This case is coming on 08-05-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the state and of Sri P. Babu Rao, Sri Baggi Narasimha Rao, Learned Advocates and having stood for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The accused has been arraigned before this court for the offences under section 120(b), 448, 419, 384, 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal code (herein after IPC).

1.The brief material averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 22.01.2014 all the accused went to the Fair price shop of Athimandla Sambasiva Rao (P.W.1) on a carbearing No.AP 16 H 3351. Pendam Ravi Kumar(A5) was driver of said vehicle. Pericherla Srinivasa Rao (A6) and Bolla Balaji (A7) and the driver sat in the car. Then the remaining accused trespassed into P.W.1's fair price shop and stated to P.W.1 that they are vigilance Officers. They also verified the fair price shop records and stated to P.W.1 that there are irregularities in the fair price shop and they will submit the same to the higher officials. They created terror in mind of P.W.1. They demanded Rs.60,000/- from P.W.1 to not to give report to the higher officials. Then P.W.1 gave Rs.30,000/- to them. Then they threatened P.W.1 to not inform the incident to anybody. Subsequently all the accused left the scene of offence.

2. On 24.01.2014 at 10.00 AM P.W.1 submitted Ex.P.1 report to the then SI of police of Pedakurapadu P.S. N. Prakasa Rao. Basing on it, he registered FIR in Cr.No.7/2014, U/s.120(B), 384, 420 r/w 34 IPC. He conducted investigation. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3.This Court took cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.120(B), 448, 419, 384, 420 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.On appearance of the accused copies of documents as contemplated U/s.207 The Code of criminal procedure ( herein after Cr.P.C.) were furnished to the accused.

5. A1 to A7 were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. Charges for the offences U/s. 120(B), 448, 419, 384, 420 r/w 34 IPC have been framed, read over and explained to accused in Telugu. Accused denied all the allegations leveled against them, pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P4.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating material against them from the prosecution evidence is dispensed as there is no incriminating material against accused from the prosecution evidence.

8.Heard arguments of the Learned counsel for the accused as well as the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

9.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for

the offence U/Secs. 120(B), 448, 419, 384, 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. beyond all

reasonable doubt ?”

10. To prove its case the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3. P.Ws.1 to 3 deposed that they do not know anything about this case and they did not witness the incident. As they resiles from their previous version, learned APP cross examined them with the permission of the court. In the cross examination by learned APP they have denied the suggestion that they had stated to police that all the accused in furtherance of their common intention came to the house of P.W.1, misrepresented to P.W.1 that there were irregularities in the fair price shop, demanded to give Rs.60,000/- and as per their demand P.W.1 gave Rs.30,000/- to them. They have also denied the suggestion that thy stated to police as in Ex.P.2 to 4 and deposing false to favour the accused. The cross 3 examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 by learned APP did not elicit any material supporting the case of the prosecution.

11. The prosecution marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. Ex.P.1 is the thumb impression of P.W.1 on the police report. Exs.P.2 to P4 are the 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.1 to 3 respectively.

12. It is settled law that the statements recorded by police u/sec.161 Cr.P.C can be used only to contradict the maker of the statement u/s.162 Cr.P.C. They can be only used for the purpose of contradiction and not for any other purpose. In view of Exs.P.2 to P4 contradictions, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is not believable.

13.As the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and as no useful purpose will serve by examining the remaining witnesses, learned APP given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no single piece of evidence on record showing that all the accused in furtherance of their common intention came to the fair price shop of P.W.1, misrepresent to P.W.1 that there were irregularities in the fair price shop, demanded P.W.1 to give Rs.60,000/- and as per their demand P.W.1 gave Rs.30,000/- to them.

15. In view of the afore stated reasons, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

16. In the result, A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.120(B), 448, 419, 384, 420 r/w 34 IPC. For the same they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stands discharged after six months. No one has claimed the unmarked property. In the unmarked property item Nos.1 to 3, Car RC in item No.5 shall be confiscated to state and the remaining property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. Typed to dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 15 th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- H.Amara Rangeswara Rao

II ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

SATTENAhePALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : None.

P.W.1: Arthimalla Sambasiva Rao. P.W.2: Arthimalla Hari Babu. P.W.3: Arthimalla Jyohti.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P.1 : Signature of P.W.1 on statement. Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.4 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. FOR DEFENCE : Nil.

M.Os. MARKED:

Nil.

Ild/- H.A.R.R

IIAddl.J.F.C.M,

SAP.,

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SATTENAPALLI.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.114/2015

DATE OF :-

Offence: 22.01.2014 Complaint: 24.01.2014 Apprehension of accused: 26.01.2014 (A1 to A5), 19.02.2014 (A6, A7) Released on bail: 29.01.2014, 21.02.2014 Commencement of trial: 24.04.2015 Close of trial: 08.05.2015 Sentence or order: 15.05.2015 Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of witnesses Name of the Complainant:State:- The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedakurapadu P.S. (Cr.No.7/2014) Name of the accused :

1. Syed Yasin, S/o.Masthan Vali, 35 years, Reporter for Kakathiya Daily News Paper, R/o. Bhavanrushi Nagar, Sattenapalli.

2. Singareddy Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.Bereddy, 42 years, T.V.Reporter, R/o.Nagarjuna colony, Sattenapalli.

3. Shaik Karimulla Sha, S/o.John, 42 years, RK News Channel Reporter, R/o.Nagarjuna colony, Sattenapalli.

4. Shaik Jani Basha @ Jani, S/o.Masthan Vali, 25 years, Reporter of Udayam Dhawani News Paper, R/o.Nagarjuna colony, Sattenapalli.

5. Pendem Ravi Kumar, S/o.Chennaiah, 35 years, Reporter of Surya News Paper, Car Driver, R/o.Sattenapalli.

6. Perecherla Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Nageswara Rao, 40 years, N.TV Channel Reporter, R/o.Irkupalem village, Muppalla Mandal.

7. Bolla Balaji, S/o.Raghava Rao, 40 years, R/o.Editor, Guntur Mirror Daily News paper, R/o. Nagarjuna colony, Sattenapalli.

Offence :U/s. 120(B), 448, 419, 384, 420 r/w 34 IPC

Finding : Not guilty U/s. 120(B), 448, 419, 384, 420 r/w 34 IPC.

Sentence or Order : In the result, A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.120(B), 448, 419, 384, 420 r/w 34 IPC. For the same they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stands discharged after six months. No one has claimed the unmarked property. In the unmarked property item Nos.1 to 3, Car RC in item No.5 shall be confiscated to state and the remaining property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Sd/- H.Amara Rangeswara Rao

II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Sattenapalli.

Copy submitted to :

1) The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Guntur. Copy to:

1) The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

CC/26/2015 Acquitted

State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Shaik Imam and 6 others.

14 May 2015

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SATTENAPALLI

Present : Sri H. Amara Rangeswara Rao,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, S ATTENAPALLI .

THURSDAY , the FOURTEENTH day of MAY,

TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

(14.05.2015)

CALENDAR CASE NO.26/2015 CALENDAR CASE NO.26/2015

Between :

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Amaravathi P.S. (Cr.No.2/2015 ) … COMPLAINANT

AND

1.Shaik Imam, S/o.Khasim, 20 years,

2.Yanamala Hanumantha Rao, S/o.Srinivasa Rao, 22 years,

3.Bannaravula Gopi Chand @ Gopi, S/o.Papa Rao, 22 years,

4.Shaik Masthan Vali, S/o.Abdulla, 22 years,

5.Uggam Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, 23 years,

6.Thelukutla Harish, S/o.Sambasiva Rao, 21 years,

7.Uggam Vamsi Krishna, S/o.Suri Babu, 23 years,

All are R/o.Lemalle village, Amaravathi Mandal.

… Accused

This case is coming on 07-05-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the state and of Sri Ch. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Kum. S. Sujatha, Learned Advocates for the accused and having stood for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The accused has been arraigned before this court for the offences under section 341, 354, 509, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal code (herein after IPC).

1.The brief material averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

On31.12.2014 P.W.1, P.W.2 and their relatives went to Hossanna temple situated in Gorantla village. On 01.01.2015, while they were coming back to Amaravathi on an auto, at about 3.30 AM when they reached near 14th Mile village centre, all the accused stopped the auto wherein P.Ws.1, 2 and others were travelling, insulted the modesty of P.W.1 and abused her in filthy language. All the accused caught hold the hands of P.W.1 and beat her. Bannaravula Gopichand @ Gopi (A3) kicked her with his legs. Due to that P.W.1 fell down. They also threatened P.W.1 with dire consequences and left the scene of offence.

2. On the next day i.e. on 02.01.2015 at 8.30 AM P.W.1 submitted a written report to the then SI of police of Amaravathi P.S., S. Venkata Krishna. Basing on the report of P.W.1, he registered FIR in Cr.No.2/2015, U/s.341, 354, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC of Amaravathi P.S. He conducted investigation. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3.This Court took cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.341, 354, 509, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.On appearance of the accused copies of documents as contemplated U/s.207 The Code of criminal procedure ( herein after Cr.P.C.) were furnished to the accused.

5. A1 to A7 were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. A Charge for the offence U/s.354, 341, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC has been framed, read over and explained to accused in Telugu. Accused denied all the allegations leveled against them, pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P.3.

8.Heard arguments of the Learned counsel for the accused as well as the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

9.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for

***the offence U/Sec.* 341, 354, 509, 506 *I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt ?”***

10. To prove its case U/sec.341, 354, 509, 506 IPC, the prosecution must establish that:-

1) the accused misbehaved with P.Ws.1, 2.

2) the accused abused P.W.1 in filthy language to insult her modesty.

3) the accused threatened P.Ws.1, 2 with dire consequences.

11. In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 is alleged to be victim and direct witness of the alleged incident. P.W.2 is alleged to be direct witness to the alleged incident.

12. P.W.1 deposed that she do not know anything about this and did not witness the incident. She further deposed that on the request of police, she put her Ex.P.1 signature on the report. P.W2 also deposed that she do not know anything about this case. P.Ws.1 and 2 did not support the case of the prosecution. As they resiles from their previous version, learned APP has cross examined them with the permission of the court. In the cross examination by learned APP they denied the suggestion that they stated to police that all the accused stopped their auto disputed with them, misbehaved with P.W.1, abused P.W.1 in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences. They have also denied the suggestion that they stated to police as in Exs.P.2, 3 and deposing false due to compromise with the accused. The cross examination of 3

P.Ws.1, 2 by learned APP did not elicit any material supporting the case of the prosecution.

13. The prosecution marked Exs.P.1 to P3. Ex.P.1 is the signature of P.W.1 on the police report. Exs.P.2, P3 are the 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.1, 2 respectively.

14. It is settled law that the statements recorded by police u/sec.161 Cr.P.C can be used only to contradict the maker of the statement u/s.162 Cr.P.C. They can be only used for the purpose of contradiction and not for any other purpose. In view of Exs.P.2 and 3 contradictions, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not believable.

15.As the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and as no useful purpose will serve by examining the remaining witnesses, learned APP given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses.

16. In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no single piece of evidence on record showing that all the accused in furtherance of their common intention, stopped P.Ws 1and 2, pulled them from the auto wherein they are traveling, abused them in filthy language and misbehaved them and also kicked them with their legs.

17. In view of the afore stated reasons, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

18. In the result, A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.354, 341, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC. For the same they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stands discharged after six months.

Typed to dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 14 th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- H.Amara Rangeswara Rao

II ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

SATTENAPALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : None.

P.W.1: P.W.2:

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P.1 : Report of P.W.1. Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

FOR DEFENCE : Nil.

M.Os. MARKED:

Nil.

Ild/- H.A.R.R

IIAddl.J.F.C.M,

SAP.,

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SATTENAPALLI.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.26/2015

DATE OF :-

Offence: 01.01.2015

Complaint: 02.01.2015

Apprehension of accused: 20.01.2015

Released on bail: 22.01.2015

Commencement of trial: 19.02.2015

Close of trial: 07.05.2015

Sentence or order: 14.05.2015

Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of witnesses

Name of the Complainant:State:- The Sub-Inspector of Police, Amaravathi P.S. (Cr.No.2/2015) Name of the accused :

1.Shaik Imam, S/o.Khasim, 20 years, 2.Yanamala Hanumantha Rao, S/o.Srinivasa Rao, 22 years, 3.Bannaravula Gopi Chand @ Gopi, S/o.Papa Rao, 22 years, 4.Shaik Masthan Vali, S/o.Abdulla, 22 years, 5.Uggam Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, 23 years, 6.Thelukutla Harish, S/o.Sambasiva Rao, 21 years, 7.Uggam Vamsi Krishna, S/o.Suri Babu, 23 years,

All are R/o.Lemalle village, Amaravathi Mandal.

Offence :U/s. 354, 341, 509, 506 r/w 34IPC

Finding : Not guilty U/s.354, 341, 509, 506 r/w 34IPC.

Sentence or Order : In the result, A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offence U/s. 354, 341, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC. For the same they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stands discharged after six months.

Sd/- H.Amara Rangeswara Rao

II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Sattenapalli.

Copy submitted to :

1) The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Guntur.

Copy to:

1) The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

CC/91/2015 Acquitted

State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Tammisetty Subbu alies Subbi and 2 others

19 May 2015

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SATTENAPALLI

Present : Sri H. Amara Rangeswara Rao,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, S ATTENAPALLI .

TUESDAY, the NINETEENTH day of MAY,

TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

(19.05.2015)

CALENDAR CASE NO.91/2015 CALENDAR CASE NO.91/2015

Between :

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Amaravathi P.S. (Cr.No.36/2015 ) … COMPLAINANT

AND

1. Tammisetty Subbu @ Subbi, S/o.Narasimha Rao(Late), 25 years, R/o.Amaravathi village and Mandal. Now at Repalle.

2. Vontipuli Ramesh, S/o.Ankamma Rao, 25 years, R/o.Amaravathi village and Mandal.

3. Pallapu Swamy, S/o.Lakshmaiah, 27 years, R/o.Near Sandhya Theater, Amaravathi village and Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming on 15-05-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the state and the accused appeared before this court as in person and having stood for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The accused has been arraigned before this court for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal code (herein after IPC).

1.The brief material averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

Vottipuli David (P.W.1) used to work as kitchen Mastern. He used to left his house by morning and return to his house at night. On 12.02.2015 at about 9.00 PM he returned to home. After some time he heard alarm on the terrace of his house. Immediately he came out from the house and questioned A1 to A3 for their acts. On that all the accused picked up quarrel with him, abused him in filthy language, made him fell down and beat him with rod, hands and kicked with legs. A1 beat P.W.1 with iron rod over his head. A2 torn P.W.1's shirt, A3 fisted him over his chest. Immediately P.W.1 was shifted to CHC, Amaravathi.

2. On receipt of hospital intimation, the then PSI of police of Amaravathi P.S K. Victor recorded the statement of P.W.1. Basing on it, he registered FIR in Cr.No.36/2015 of Amaravathi P.S, U/s.324 r/w 34 IPC. He conducted investigation. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3.This Court took cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.324 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.On appearance of the accused copies of documents as contemplated U/s.207 The Code of criminal procedure (herein after Cr.P.C.) were furnished to the accused.

5. A1 to A3 were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. Charge for the offence U/s.324 r/w 34 IPC has been framed, read over and explained to accused in Telugu. Accused denied all the allegations leveled against them, pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and exhibited Exs.P1, P.2.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for

the offence U/Sec. 324 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

10. To prove its case U/sec.324 r/w 34 IPC, the prosecution must establish that:-

1) P.W.1 sustained simple injuries,

2) The accused caused the said injuries with dangerous or deadly weapon in furthernace of their common intention.

11. To prove the prosecution case, it has examined P.W.1. P.W.1 is alleged be to victim, injured and direct witness of the alleged assault of the accused. P.W.1 deposed that about five months back he sustained injury over his fore head due to fell down. He further testified that he do not know anything about this case. He admitted that Ex.P.1 is his thumb impression on the police report, he do not know the contents of it and he was not examined by the police. P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution. As he resiles from his previous version, learned APP cross examined him with the permission of the court. In the cross examination by learned APP, he denied the suggestion that he had stated to police that all the accused beat him with iron rods, sticks and caused injury to him. He has also denied the suggestion that he stated to police as in Ex.P.2 and deposing false due to compromise with the accused. The cross examination of P.W.1 did not elicit any material supporting the case of the prosecution.

12. The prosecution marked Exs.P.1 and P2. Ex.P.1 is the thumb impression of P.W.1 on the police report. Ex.P.2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

13. It is settled law that the statements recorded by police u/sec.161 Cr.P.C can be used only to contradict the maker of the statement u/s.162 Cr.P.C. They can be only used for the purpose of contradiction and not for any other purpose. In view of Ex.P.2 contradiction, the evidence of P.W.1 is not believable.

14.As the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and as no useful purpose will serve by examining the remaining witnesses, learned APP given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no single piece of evidence on record showing that all the accused beat P.W.1 with iron rods, sticks and caused simple injury to him.

16. In view of the afore stated reasons, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

17. In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.324 r/w 34 IPC. For the same they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stands discharged after six months.

Typed to dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 19 st day of May, 2015.

Sd/- H. Amara Rangeswara Rao

II ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

SATTENAhePALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : None.

P.W.1: Vottipuli David.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P.1 : Thumb impression of P.W.1 on statement. Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

FOR DEFENCE : Nil.

M.Os. MARKED:

Nil.

Ild/-H.A.R.R.,

IIAddl.J.F.C.M,

SAP.,

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SATTENAPALLI.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.91/2015

DATE OF :-

Offence: 12.02.2015

Complaint: 13.02.2015

Apprehension of accused: 21.02.2015

Released on bail: 21.02.2015

Commencement of trial: 08.05.2015

Close of trial: 15.05.2015

Sentence or order: 19.05.2015

Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of witnesses

Name of the Complainant:State:- The Sub-Inspector of Police, Amaravathi P.S. (Cr.No.36/2015) Name of the accused :

1. Tammisetty Subbu @ Subbi, S/o.Narasimha Rao(Late), 25 years, R/o.Amaravathi village and Mandal. Now at Repalle.

2. Vontipuli Ramesh, S/o.Ankamma Rao, 25 years, R/o.Amaravathi village and Mandal.

3. Pallapu Swamy, S/o.Lakshmaiah, 27 years, R/o.Near Sandhya Theater, Amaravathi village and Mandal.

Offence :U/s. 324 r/w 34IPC

Finding : Not guilty U/s. 324 r/w 34 IPC.

Sentence or Order : In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.324 r/w 34 IPC. For the same they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stands discharged after six months.

Sd/- H. Amara Rangeswara Rao,

II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Sattenapalli.

Copy submitted to :

1) The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Guntur.

Copy to:

1) The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

CC/115/2015 Acquitted

State SHO, Rajupalem P.S. vs Pendem Rosaiah

18 May 2015

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SATTENAPALLI

Present : Sri H. Amara Rangeswara Rao,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, S ATTENAPALLI .

MONDAY, the EIGHTEENTH day of MAY,

TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

(18.05.2015)

CALENDAR CASE NO.115/2015 CALENDAR CASE NO.115/2015

Between :

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajupalem P.S. (Cr.No.15/2015 ) … COMPLAINANT

AND

Pendem Rosaiah,

S/o.Yalamanda, 30 years,

R/o.Ganaparavarm village,

Rajupalem Mandal … Accused

This case is coming on 14-05-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the state and the accused appeared before this court as in person and having stood for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The accused has been arraigned before this court for the offence under section 324 of Indian Penal code (herein after IPC).

1.The brief material averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 17.03.2015 Potluri Durga Rao (P.W.1) went to Ganapavaram village on his motor cycle to see the bull fights. After completion of the said program he reached near Veterinary hospital, Ganapavaram. By that time the accused suddenly stopped his auto. Hence, P.W.1 could not control his motor cycle and hit back seat of auto. On that the accused got down from auto and beat P.W.1 with stick over his right hand wrist. Due to that P.W.1 sustained injury. Immediately P.W.1 went to Rajupalem Police station and submitted a report to police.

2. Basing on it, the SI of police of Rajupalem P.S., G. Anil Kumar registered FIR in Cr.No.15/2015 of Rajupalem P.S, U/s.324 IPC. He conducted investigation. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3.This Court took cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.324 of IPC.

4.On appearance of the accused copies of documents as contemplated U/s.207 The Code of criminal procedure (herein after Cr.P.C.) were furnished to the accused.

5. Accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. Charge for the offence U/s.324 IPC has been framed, read over and explained to accused in Telugu.

Accused denied all the allegations leveled against him, pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1, 2 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P.3.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for

the offence U/Sec. 324 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

10. To prove its case U/sec.324 IPC, the prosecution must establish that:-

1) P.W.1 sustained simple injuries,

2) The accused caused the said injuries with dangerous or deadly weapon.

11. To prove the prosecution case, it has examined P.Ws.1, 2. P.W.1 is alleged be to victim, injured and P.W.2 is alleged to be direct witness of the alleged assault of the accused. P.W.1 deposed that about one month back, he sustained injury over his right hand due to falling down. He further testified that he do not know anything about this case. He further deposed that he did not give any police report. He admitted that Ex.P.1 is his thumb impression on the police report and he do not know the contents of it and he was not examined by the police. P.W.2, alleged to be direct witness to the incident deposed that he do not know anything about this case, he did not witness the incident and he was not examined by the police.

12. P.Ws.1 and 2 did not support the case of the prosecution. As they resiles from their previous version, learned APP cross examined them with the permission of the court. In the cross examination by learned APP, they denied the suggestion that they have stated to police that the accused beat P.W.1 with stick over his right hand and caused injury to P.W.1. They have also denied the suggestion that they stated to police as in Exs.P.2, 3 and deposing false due to compromise with the accused. The cross examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 did not elicit any material supporting the case of the prosecution.

13. The prosecution marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. Ex.P.1 is the thumb impression of P.W.1 on the police report. Exs.P.2 and 3 are the 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively.

16. In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no single piece of evidence on record showing that the accused beat P.W.1 with stick and caused simple injury to him.

17. In view of the afore stated reasons, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

18. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.324 IPC. For the same he is acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stands discharged after six months.

Typed to dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 18 st day of May, 2015.

Sd/- H.Amara Rangeswara Rao

II ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

SATTENAhePALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : None.

P.W.1: Potluri Durga Rao. P.W.2: Chevuri Venkata Rao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P.1 : Thumb impression of P.W.1 on statement. Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

FOR DEFENCE : Nil.

M.Os. MARKED:

Nil.

Ild/- H.A.R.R

IIAddl.J.F.C.M,

SAP.,

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SATTENAPALLI.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.115/2015

DATE OF :-

Offence: 17.03.2015

Complaint: 17.03.2015

Apprehension of accused: 28.03.2015

Released on bail: 28.03.2015

Commencement of trial: 16.04.2015

Close of trial: 14.05.2015

Sentence or order: 18.05.2015

Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of witnesses

Name of the Complainant:State:- The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajupalem P.S. (Cr.No.15/2015) Name of the accused :

Pendem Rosaiah, S/o.Yalamanda, 30 years,

R/o.Ganaparavarm village,

Rajupalem Mandal.

Offence :U/s. 324IPC

Finding : Not guilty U/s. 324 IPC.

Sentence or Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.324 IPC. For the same he is acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stands discharged after six months.

Sd/-H.Amara Rangeswara Rao

II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Sattenapalli.

Copy submitted to :

1) The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Guntur.

Copy to:

1) The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

CC/92/2015 Acquitted

State SHO Amaravathi P.S. vs Mekala Yesupadam and another

20 May 2015

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SATTENAPALLI

Present : Sri H. Amara Rangeswara Rao,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, S ATTENAPALLI .

WEDNESDAY, the TWENTYTH day of MAY,

TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

(20.05.2015)

CALENDAR CASE NO.92/2015 CALENDAR CASE NO.92/2015

Between :

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Amaravathi P.S. (Cr.No.39/2015 ) … COMPLAINANT

AND

1. Mekala Yesupadam, S/o.Peda Nukaiah, 42 years,

2. Kambhampati @ Kattepogu Pulla Rao, S/o.Yelamandaiah, 30 years,

All are R/o.Lemalle village, Amaravathi Mandal.

… Accused

J U D G M E N T

The accused has been arraigned before this court for the offence under section 448, 427, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal code (herein after IPC).

1.The brief material averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 19.02.2015 at about 3.30 PM both the accused criminally trespassed into Lemalle village mee-seva kendram and asked Dharmavarapu Phani Chaitanya (P.W.1) to furnish their voter cards. P.W.1 replied them that the hologram forms were exhausted. Hence he is not able to print the voter cards. On that both the accused grew wild, damaged the computer articles, flexy board and necked out P.W.1 from mee-seva kendram. They threatened him with dire consequences.

2. After that P.W.1 submitted a report to the then Probationary Sub-Inspector of police of Amaravathi P.S, K.Victor. Basing on the report of P.W.1, he registered FIR in Cr.No.39/2015, U/s.448, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC. He conducted investigation. After completion of investigation the then SI of police of Amaravathi P.S., K. Venkata Prasad filed charge sheet.

3.This Court took cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.452, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.On appearance of the accused copies of documents as contemplated U/s.207 The Code of criminal procedure (herein after Cr.P.C.) were furnished to the accused.

5. A1 and A2 were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. Charge for the offences U/s.452, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC has been framed, read over and explained to accused in Telugu. Accused denied all the allegations leveled against them, pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and exhibited Exs.P1, P.2.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for

the offence U/Sec. 452, 427, 506 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

10. To prove its case U/sec.452, 427, 506 IPC, the prosecution must establish that:-

1) both the accused criminally trespassed into Lemalle village mee-seva centre.

2) both the accused damaged the computer articles and flexi board.

3) both the accused threatened P.W.1 with dire consequences.

11. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1. P.W1 is alleged to be direct witness to the incident. He testified that he do not know anything about this case and did not witness the incident. He admitted Ex.P.1 is his signature on the police report and he do not know the contents of it. The victim and direct witness to the alleged incident did not support the case of the prosecution. As he resiles from his previous version, learned APP has cross examined him with the permission of the court. In the cross examination by learned APP P.W.1 denied the suggestion that he stated to police that both the accused criminally trespassed into his mee-seva centre, damaged computers and threatened him with dire consequences. He has also denied the suggestion that he stated to police as in Ex.P.2 and deposing false to favour the accused. The cross examination of P.W.1 by learned APP did not elicit any material supporting the case of the prosecution.

12. To prove its case, the prosecution marked Exs.P.1 and P2. Ex.P.1 is the signature of P.W.1 on the police report. Ex.P.2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no single piece of evidence on record showing that both the accused criminally trespassed into lemalle mee- seva centre, damaged the computers and threatened P.W.1 with dire consequences.

16. In view of the afore stated reasons, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

17. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences U/s.452, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC. For the same they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stands discharged after six months.

Typed to dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 20 st day of May, 2015.

Sd/- H. Amara Rangeswara Rao,

II ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

SATTENAhePALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : None.

P.W.1: Damavarapu PhaniChaitanya.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P.1 : Thumb impression of P.W.1 on statement. Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

FOR DEFENCE : Nil.

M.Os. MARKED:

Nil.

Id/- A.H.R.R.,

IIAddl.J.F.C.M,

SAP.,

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SATTENAPALLI.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.92/2015

DATE OF :-

Offence: 19.02.2015

Complaint: 19.02.2015

Apprehension of accused: 24.02.2015

Released on bail: 24.02.2015

Commencement of trial: 08.05.2015

Close of trial: 15.05.2015

Sentence or order: 20.05.2015

Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of witnesses

Name of the Complainant:State:- The Sub-Inspector of Police, Amaravathi P.S. (Cr.No.39/2015) Name of the accused :

1. Mekala Yesupadam, S/o.Peda Nukaiah, 42 years,

2. Kambhampati @ Kattepogu Pulla Rao, S/o.Yelamandaiah, 30 years,

All are R/o.Lemalle village, Amaravathi Mandal.

Offence :U/s. 452, 427, 506 r/w 34IPC

Finding : Not guilty U/s.452, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

Sentence or Order : In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.452, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC. For the same they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stands discharged after six months.

II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Sattenapalli.

Copy submitted to :

1) The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Guntur.

Copy to:

1) The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

Order Record 873 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/92/2015	State SHO Amaravathi P.S. vs Mekala Yesupadam and another	20 May 2015	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/91/2015	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Tammisetty Subbu alies Subbi and 2 others	19 May 2015	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/115/2015	State SHO, Rajupalem P.S. vs Pendem Rosaiah	18 May 2015	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/114/2015	State SHO, Pedakurapadu P.S. vs Syed Yasin and 6 others	15 May 2015	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/26/2015	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Shaik Imam and 6 others.	14 May 2015	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/232/2014	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Bandela Mariyadasu and 6 others	14 May 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/280/2014	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Pyrdhala Suresh and 4 others.	14 May 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/14/2014	State SHO, Pedakurapadu P.S. vs Macherla. Showry prasad and another	13 May 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/25/2015	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Koyyalamudi Ashok and 2 others	13 May 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/28/2015	State SHO Amaravathi P.S. vs Kambhampati Rajesh	12 May 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/369/2014	State SHO, Rajupalem P.S. vs Madasu Pradip	12 May 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/281/2012	State SHO, Rajupalem P.S. vs Chilaka Sagara Kumar and 4 others	11 May 2015	Judgement	—
CC/349/2014	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Kongara Siva Prasad	11 May 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/4/2015	State SHO, Pedakurapadu P and E vs Gogineni Sambasiva Rao	08 May 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/18/2015	State SHO, P and E,P.S.Krosuru vs Banavath Linga Naik	07 May 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/21/2015	State SHO, P. and E. P.S. Krosuru vs Nandyala Kondamma	07 May 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/274/2014	State SHO, P. and E. P.S. Krosuru vs Banavath Hanumanthu Rao Naik	06 May 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/426/2014	State SHO, Pedakurapadu P.S. vs Sk.Rahamath Basha and 3 others	05 May 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/425/2014	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Rayapati Sankar	04 May 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/471/2014	State SHO, Rajupalem P.S. vs Katari Venkateswarlu	04 May 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/57/2015	State SHO, Pedakurapadu P.S. vs Shaik Jakeer and another	01 May 2015	Other	—
CC/160/2013	State SHO, Rajupalem P.S. vs Nambula China Kistaiah and another	01 May 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/260/2014	State SHO, Rajupalem P.S. vs Nimma Upender Reddy	01 May 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/33/2015	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Chilaka Nani	30 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/109/2015	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Gudise Manoharam	29 Apr 2015	Other	—
CC/421/2014	Ms Jayalakshmi Fertilizers,VenkatrayapuramTanuku vs Cherukuri Pullaiah	29 Apr 2015	Order	—
DVC/8/2014	Shaik Nurjahan Bee and 2 others vs Shaik Nagul Meera and another	29 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/403/2014	State SHO, Rajupalem P.S. vs Murugula Yohanu and 5 others	28 Apr 2015	Other	—
CC/34/2015	State SHO, P. and E. P.S. Krosuru vs Shaik Khasim and another	27 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/103/2014	Pastam Nagamma vs Pastam Narasimham and 3 others	17 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/474/2014	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Shaik Iqbal and another	17 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/50/2015	State SHO, Rajupalem P.S. vs Shaik Mahmad Noor and 4 others	16 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/88/2013	State SHO, Rajupalem P.S. vs Shaik China Subani and 2 others	16 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/470/2014	State SHO, Rajupalem P.S. vs Shaik China Subhani and 2 others	16 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/256/2014	State SHO, P and E, P.S.Krosuru vs Shaik Mujavar Karimulla	15 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/116/2015	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Rayapati Sambasiva Rao @ Siva	13 Apr 2015	Other	—
CC/415/2014	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Garnepudi Mariyamma and 2 others	13 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/108/2015	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Kanakam Koteswara Rao	10 Apr 2015	Other	—
CC/110/2015	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Yenumal Ramesh Babu	10 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/465/2014	State SHO, P and E, P.S. Sattenapalli vs Gali Adi Narayana	10 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/304/2014	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Madasu Seshagiri Rao	09 Apr 2015	Other	—
CC/433/2014	State SHO, Rajupalem P.S. vs Bitragunta Ramanjaneyulu	09 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/399/2014	AP State SHO of Amaravathi P.S. vs Thulasi Thirupathirao	08 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/255/2014	State SHO P and E KROSURU P.S. vs Shaik Hussain Be	07 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100/2014	State SHO, P. and E. P.S. Krosuru vs Shaik Mastan	06 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/464/2014	State SHO, P and E, P.S. Sattenapalli vs Bhusarapu Kasaiah	01 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/376/2014	State SHO, P and E,P.S. Sattenapalli vs Dasari Rajesh	31 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/30/2015	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Shaik Saida	30 Mar 2015	Other	—
CC/241/2011	State SHO, Pedakurapadu P.S. vs Pastam Baji and 2 others	27 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/96/2015	State SHO, Rajupalem P.S. vs Sk. Sadiq	25 Mar 2015	Other	—
CC/97/2015	State SHO, Rajupalem P.S. vs Vallepu Narendra	25 Mar 2015	Other	—
CC/288/2014	State SHO, P and E, P.S. Sattenapalli vs Guraka Ranga Reddy	25 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/340/2008	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Manchikalapudi Kuppuswamy	25 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/279/2014	State SHO, P and E. P.S., Pedakurapadu vs Vankayalapati Lakshmi Narayana	24 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/212/2014	AP State SHO of Pedakurapadu P.S. vs Amaraneni Rama Rao	20 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/74/2014	Shaik Sambaiah vs Kamireddy Tulasamma and another	19 Mar 2015	Judgement	—
CC/127/2013	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Suresh Kumar	19 Mar 2015	Judgement	—
CC/136/2014	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Pasumarthi Ramu and 2 others	19 Mar 2015	Judgement	—
CC/73/2014	AP State S.H.O. of Rajupalem P.S. vs Shaik Nabeesha	18 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/116/2014	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Polisetty Srinivasa Rao	18 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/120/2014	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Bulla Venkateswara Rao @ Venkateswarlu @ Swamy	18 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/7/2014	State SHO, P and E,P.S. Sattenapalli vs Nambula.Koteswara Rao	17 Mar 2015	Judgement	—
CC/45/2014	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Govindu Veeramma and two others	17 Mar 2015	Judgement	—
CC/217/2011	State SHO, Pedakurapadu P.S. vs Shaik Baji	16 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/219/2013	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Shaik John	16 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/301/2014	Kanigiri Venkata Reddy vs Kambhampati Nageswara Rao	16 Mar 2015	Order	—
CC/151/2014	State SHO Amaravathi vs Pallapu Venkateswarlu alies Gandodu	13 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/219/2014	State SHO, Rajupalem P.S. vs Perikala Prathap	13 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/239/2014	State SHO, P. and E. P.S. Krosuru vs Kampa Yedukondalu and another	13 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/313/2014	Kotha Satish Kumar vs Chunduri Aravind Kumar	13 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/65/2009	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Thupakula Amarnadh and 12 others	12 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/66/2009	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Thupakula Amarnadh	12 Mar 2015	Judgement	—
CC/82/2014	State SHO, Rajupalem P.S. vs Gorikapudi Kumar	12 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/187/2014	State SHO, P. and E. P.S. Krosuru vs Mogili Veeraiah and another	12 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/188/2014	State SHO, P. and E. P.S. Krosuru vs Gugulothu Hanumantha Rao Naik and another	12 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/291/2014	State SHO, P and E. Sattenapalli vs Mecharapu Brahmaiah	12 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/292/2014	State SHO Sattenapalli P and E vs Divvela Ayyappa	12 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/460/2014	State SHO.Amaravathi P.S. vs Gumma Nageswara Rao and 2 others.	12 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/144/2014	State SHO, Pedakurapadu P.S. vs Allaka Ramana	11 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/152/2014	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Vinnakota Nagamalleswara Rao alies Malli	11 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/230/2014	State SHO, Rajupalem P.S. vs Pathipati Kotaiah	11 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
MC/8/2014	Mullam Amala and two Others vs Mulam Sashi Bhusham	11 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/55/2013	State SHO, Pedakurapadu P.S. vs Sk. Baji	10 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/185/2014	State SHO, P. and E. P.S. Krosuru vs Shaik John Vali	10 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/258/2014	State SHO, P and E,P.S. Sattenapalli vs Bavireddy Ramaiah	10 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/278/2014	State SHO, P and E P.S., Pedakurapadu vs Kanda Sambasiva Rao	10 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/112/2014	State SHO, P and E,P.S. Sattenapalli vs Thanneru. Durga Rao and another	09 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/177/2013	State SHO, Pedakurapadu P.S. vs Shaik Subhani @ Guntur Subhani	09 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/184/2014	State SHO, P. and E. P.S. Krosuru vs Shaik Velpuri Saidabi	09 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/220/2014	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Pentela Seshagiri Rao alias Seshaiah	09 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/115/2012	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Alokam Sudhakar and 2 others	06 Mar 2015	Other	—
CC/351/2014	State SHO, Rajupalem P.S. vs Unnam Venkata Rao	06 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/373/2014	State SHO, Pedakurapadu P.S. vs Eate Nageswara Rao and 9 others	06 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/374/2014	State SHO, Pedakurapadu P.S. vs Talluri Jayaraju and 5 others	06 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/477/2014	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Gudise Mariyadasu	06 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/1/2015	Ms. Godrej Agrovet Limited, represented by its Senior Officer N.Sandeep Varma vs Ms. Lakshmi Traders, Fertilizers, Pesticides and Seeds, Rep. by its Proprietor M.Dhatri Narayana.	04 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/37/2012	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Shaik Nagul Jani	04 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/67/2014	State SHO, Amaravathi P.S. vs Konidala Narasimha Rao	04 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/190/2014	State SHO, P. and E. P.S. Krosuru vs Sangu Somamma	04 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/241/2013	State SHO Amaravathi vs Gottem Srikanth and 2 others	04 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—

Showing 100 of 873 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2015		24
Apr 2015		24
Mar 2015		68
Feb 2015		70
Jan 2015		44
Dec 2014		71
Nov 2014		33
Oct 2014		37
Sep 2014		49
Aug 2014		60
Jul 2014		55
Jun 2014		58

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri. H. Amara Rangeswara Rao handled?

Sri. H. Amara Rangeswara Rao has handled 914 court orders since 2012 at II Addl JCJ Court, Sattenapalli. The average disposal rate is 25 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri. H. Amara Rangeswara Rao hear?

Based on available records, Sri. H. Amara Rangeswara Rao primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Domestic Violence Cases) at II Addl JCJ Court, Sattenapalli.

Where is Sri. H. Amara Rangeswara Rao currently posted?

Sri. H. Amara Rangeswara Rao is posted as II Addl. Junior Civil Judge at II Addl JCJ Court, Sattenapalli, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri. H. Amara Rangeswara Rao available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri. H. Amara Rangeswara Rao are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri. H. Amara Rangeswara Rao dispose cases?

Sri. H. Amara Rangeswara Rao disposes approximately 25 cases per month, based on 914 orders handled over their tenure at II Addl JCJ Court, Sattenapalli.

Since when is Sri. H. Amara Rangeswara Rao serving?

Sri. H. Amara Rangeswara Rao has been serving at II Addl JCJ Court, Sattenapalli since 2012.

Case Types

CC 93%

DVC 4%

MC 3%

Posting History

May 2012 — May 2015

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge · 914 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Vijay Kumar Reddy

Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli

416 orders

Sri J.Sujin Kumar

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge

457 orders

← View all judges at II Addl JCJ Court, Sattenapalli

Sri. H. Amara Rangeswara Rao

Present : Sri H. Amara Rangeswara Rao,

FRIDAY, the FIFTEENTH day of MAY,

TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

(15.05.2015)

CALENDAR CASE NO.114/2015 CALENDAR CASE NO.114/2015

J U D G M E N T

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for

the offence U/Secs. 120(B), 448, 419, 384, 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. beyond all

II ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

DOCUMENTS MARKED

M.Os. MARKED:

Nil.

Ild/- H.A.R.R

SAP.,

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.114/2015

II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Present : Sri H. Amara Rangeswara Rao,

THURSDAY , the FOURTEENTH day of MAY,

TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

(14.05.2015)

CALENDAR CASE NO.26/2015 CALENDAR CASE NO.26/2015

J U D G M E N T

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for

the offence U/Sec. 341, 354, 509, 506 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

II ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

SATTENAPALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

DOCUMENTS MARKED

M.Os. MARKED:

Nil.

Ild/- H.A.R.R

SAP.,

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.26/2015

II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Present : Sri H. Amara Rangeswara Rao,

TUESDAY, the NINETEENTH day of MAY,

TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

(19.05.2015)

CALENDAR CASE NO.91/2015 CALENDAR CASE NO.91/2015

J U D G M E N T

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for

II ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

DOCUMENTS MARKED

M.Os. MARKED:

Nil.

Ild/-H.A.R.R.,

SAP.,

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.91/2015

II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Present : Sri H. Amara Rangeswara Rao,

MONDAY, the EIGHTEENTH day of MAY,

TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

(18.05.2015)

CALENDAR CASE NO.115/2015 CALENDAR CASE NO.115/2015

J U D G M E N T

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for

II ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

DOCUMENTS MARKED

M.Os. MARKED:

Nil.

Ild/- H.A.R.R

SAP.,

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.115/2015

II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Present : Sri H. Amara Rangeswara Rao,

WEDNESDAY, the TWENTYTH day of MAY,

TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

(20.05.2015)

***the offence U/Sec.* 341, 354, 509, 506 *I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt ?”***