J Srinivasa Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT YELLANDU

Dated this the 31stday of December, 2018

Present: SRI.J.SRINIVASA RAO, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu.

CC.No.465 of 2018

Between:­

State of Telangana through Proh. & Excise Sub­Inspector of Police, Yellandu Excise Station in COR.No.548/2013­14. …Complainant

And 

1. Jigata Vishnu, S/o Mallaiah, aged:38 years, Occu:Kiranam, R/o Rollapadu, Tekulapally

2. Banoth Shivaram, S/o Mangilal, aged:22 years, Occu:Coolie, R/o Venkatiyathanda, Tekulapally. …Accused Nos.1 and 2 

Offence ::Sec.7 (A) r/w Sec.8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

Plea of accused :: Not guilty Finding :: Not guilty Sentence or Order ::In the result:­ Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence under Sec.7 (A) r/w Sec.8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the same u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. Since there is no case property deposited

before this Court, as such there is no

separate order as to the case property.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 31.12.2018 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State; and of Sri S.V.Narsaiah, Advocate for accused; upon perusing the material papers available on record; upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day; the Court delivered the following:­

 J U D G M E N T 

1.This case arises out of the charge­sheet filed by the Proh. & Excise Sub­

Inspector of Police, Yellandu Excise Station, against the accused(A1 and A2) for the offence under Sec.7 (A) r/w Sec.8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 in

COR.No.548/2013­14.

2.In nutshell prosecution case is to the following effect: 

CC No.465 of 2018

2

On 03.03.2014, at about 01.00 PM, Lw.3/C.Naresh Babu, Proh.&

Excise Sub Inspector, Yellandu, along with staff proceeded to Bus Stop of

Venkatiya thanda, Tekulapally(M), for conducting raids, there secured the presence of Lws.1 and 2 Angoth Mangiya and Nunavath Srinu, at the place of offence, accused holding one bag were found in suspicious manner, on observing the raid party, accused tried to ran away, the officers caught them and found the accused with illegal possession of 10 litres of ID liquor kept in hand bag; and that he seized the ID liquor under cover of panchanama. That

Lw.3/C.Naresh Babu, Proh.& Excise Sub Inspector of police, Excise Yellandu, registered a case in COR.No.548/2013­14, u/Sec.7 (A) r/w Sec.8 (e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act,1995. Thereafter, arrested the accused and remanded them to judicial custody. The seized property was produced before the Deputy

Commissioner of Proh. and Excise, Khammam, in compliance with the orders issued by him, I.D was destroyed on 21.07.2014. On receipt of chemical analysis report and on completion of investigation, Lw.5/Samee Ullah Khan, laid charge sheet against the accused/A1 and A2 for the offence u/Sec. 7 (A) r/w Sec.8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act,1995.

3. This Court took cognizance of the offence under Sec.7 (A) r/w Sec.8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

4.On appearance of accused, the copies of case papers were furnished in compliance of and Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C and they were explained charge sheet allegations, they denied the same. Accordingly charge under Sec.7(A) r/w Sec.8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 is framed, and read over and explained to them in Telugu language. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. P.W.1­Nunavath Srinu, panch witness for

CC No.465 of 2018

3

Confession and seizure and Pw.2­Chandi Naresh Babu, Investigation Officer who registered the case.

Ex.P1­Signature of PW.1 on confession cum seizure panchanama,

Ex.P2­is the panchanama, Ex.P3 is COR, Ex.P4 is the CE analysis report and

Ex.P5 is the proceeding of Deputy Commissioner.

7.On conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material evidence on record against them. Accused denied the entire evidence on record in toto, but they have not chosen to adduce any evidence on their behalf. Case of the accused is of total denial, they are falsely implicated in this case, they never committed any offence and they are innocent. 

8.Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel. 

9.Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argues that, there is consistent and convincing, oral and documentary evidence. Though, the independent mediators have not supported the case of prosecution, the consistent and convincing evidence of PW.2, who registered the case, which is unblemished in every respect, amply proves the charge against the accused. In the cross­ examination of investigation officers nothing material could be elicited. The documentary evidence, placed before this Court as Exs.P1 to P5 supports the ocular testimony of investigation officer. There is nothing on Exs.P1 to P5 to disbelieve the contents and to discredit them. So, there is ample legal evidence against the accused, in proof of the charge. Thus, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor requested to record conviction against the accused and sentence them appropriately as per the law. 

10.On the other hand, learned counsel argues seriously, let alone the legal evidence, there is not even an iota of evidence. Even if, the entire evidence on record is taken to be true, on the face of it, it does not disclose anything much less the possession of contraband by the accused. All the witnesses have deposed percontra to the very case of prosecution. There are several inherent

CC No.465 of 2018

4 infirmities in prosecution case, which amply exposes the falsity of the case.

Both the independent mediators have not supported their version.

Investigation Officer deposed in his own way inconsistently to the record and case of prosecution. There is no sample placed before this Court. So, there is no evidence against the accused in proof of the charge. Thus, the learned

Counsel requested to record clean acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt. 

11. Now the sole point that arises for consideration is; “whether the prosecution could prove the charge against the accused(A1 and A2) for the offence under Section 7 (A) r/w Sec.8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act,1995 beyond all reasonable doubts or not?”

POINT:

12.In order to prove these facts, prosecution adduced following evidence. 

13. PW.1 who is the independent mediator for the alleged recovery of illicitly distilled liquor from the possession of accused and Pw.2 who is the investigation officer who registered the case.

14. PW.1 is the independent mediator for the alleged recovery of the material from the possession of accused persons. PW.1 has not supported the prosecution case and deposed that police never conducted seizure panchanama in his presence and never recovered the ID liquor in his presence from the possession of accused. He merely identified his signature on Ex.P1 i.e. on confession­cum­recovery panchanama. Except his signature, he denied the rest of contents. Pw.1 turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW.1 is examined in cross at length by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, but to of no avail. So, his evidence is of little use to prove the charge against the accused.

PW.2 who is the investigation officer deposed that on 03­03­2014 at 11.30 AM, on reliable information after securing the presence of Pw.1 and

Lw.2 along with his staff proceeded to the bus stop of Venkatiyathanda,

Tekulapally mandal where they noticed the accused carrying 10 ltrs ID liquor; and that he seized the ID liquor under cover panchanama of accused in the

CC No.465 of 2018

5 presence of mediators besides drawing samples; and that on the same day accused were arrested and produced before the Hon’ble court for Judicial remand; and he drafted the panchanama and registered the case as

COR.No.548/13­14, u/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) AP Proh.Act 1995; and that he forwarded the sample for analysis and submitted the proposals to

Dy.Commissioner Proh. and Excise for destruction of remaining contraband; and that on receipt CE report and on completion of investigation

Lw.5/Sammemullakhan, P&ESI, laid charge sheet against the accused; and that Ex.P2 is the panchanama, Ex.P3 is COR, Ex.P4 is CE analysis report and Ex.P5 proceeding of deputy commissioner.

15.As herein above stated, independent witnesses have not supported prosecution’s case. So, once the evidence of PW.1 is excluded there remains the evidence of PW.2, investigation officers who registered the case. Here two (2) important aspects involved to guardedly evaluate the evidence of PW.2.

Firstly, the independent mediator said to have witnessed the recovery of contraband has not supported the case of prosecution, as stated supra.

Secondly, Pw.2 has not produced the seized contraband before the Court.

These are the circumstances necessitates, evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence carefully and guardedly, though there is no rule of law that, an uncorroborated testimony of an official witness does not sustain conviction, but such evidence is to be evaluated carefully and guardedly. 

16. Pw.2 deposed to the extent of registering the case and forwarding the samples. Undoubtedly Pw.2 testified about drawing of sample from the contraband, but neither deposited nor exhibited before this Court for the reasons best known to the investigation officer. It is not the case that, the sample was forwarded through this Court, but it was forwarded by the investigation officer himself. So, there is no chain of safe custody of the sample. Thus, the testimony of Pw.2 is replete with several inconsistencies and insufficiency. There is no corroboration the evidence of Pw.2 with any

CC No.465 of 2018

6 independent witnesses. As already noted above, the mediator has not supported prosecution’s version. So, the testimony of official witnesses which is replete with contradictions cannot sustain conviction. Here it is appropriate to take note of the propositions of the Hon’ble High Court in a case of this nature, which are these, in S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. The State of A.P.,

Rep. by Public Prosecutor reported in Criminal Revision Case No.492 of 2004, dt.11­09­2009, the lordship Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Kumar observed that, “Section 100 (4) and (5) of Cr.P.C. is as follows: 100. Persons in charge of closed place to allow search.­ (4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.” The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless especially summoned by it. It has to be seen that the legislature in their wisdom have used the words "two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality.” That apart, in another judgment reported in 2007 (1) ALD (Crl.,) 701 A.P., in Shaik Beebi and another Vs. State of A.P., the lordship observed that, “......There was no evidence except the evidence of this Inspector, but, the learned Sessions Judge relied on a confession and the so called confession was made before the same Inspector, which was not admissible in Evidence. The learned Sessions Judge was clearly wrong in relying on the confession allegedly made by Accused No.1 before the Inspector.” So also, in Gajamkar Narayana Vs. State of A.P., reported in A.L.D., (Crl.,) 2006 (1) – 255, wherein, the lordship Hon’ble Mr. Justice Venkateswara Redy observes that, “Both the Courts below relied upon the evidence of P.W.1, the Excise Sub­Inspector and P.W.3, the Excise Inspector and found the accused guilty. If, the evidence of mediator (P.W.2) who turned hostile is excluded, there remains the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, the excise officials, who are certainly interested witnesses. Their evidence runs in a routine manner.” A reading of the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 3 doesn’t inspire confidence and believe their evidence is always fraught with the danger of miscarriage of justice. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that in the absence of independent testimony, the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 3 cannot be relied upon.”

CC No.465 of 2018

7

Thus, when the evidence on record is examined under the light of these propositions, it would be difficult to hold that the prosecution could prove the charge against the accused with legal evidence.

17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that, the prosecution could not prove the charge under Sec.7 (A) r/w Sec.8 (e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, against the accused/A1 and A2.

18. In the result:­ Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence under Section 7 (A) r/w Sec.8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the same u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. Since there is no case property deposited before this

Court, as such there is no separate order as to the case property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of December, 2018.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, 

YELLANDU.

:: Appendix of evidence::

 Witnesses examined for 

Prosecution: 

P.W.1­Nunavath Srinu, panch witness for Confession and seizure, 

Pw.2­Chandi Naresh Babu, Investigation Officer who registered the case.

Defence: 

­­Nil­­ ::Exhibits marked for::

Prosecution:

Ex.P1­Signature of PW.1 on confession cum seizure panchanama, 

Ex.P2­is the panchanama, 

Ex.P3 is COR, 

Ex.P4 is the CE analysis report,

Ex.P5 is the proceeding of Deputy Commissioner.

CC No.465 of 2018

8

Defence:  Nil­ :: Material objects marked :: ­NIL­

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

YELLANDU.

CC No.465 of 2018

9

CC No.465 of 2018

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT

YELLANDU

Dated this the 31st day of December, 2018 

Present: Sri.J.Srinivasa Rao, 

 Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 

 Yellandu.

CC.No.276 of 2018

Between:­

State police through the Sub­Inspector of Police, Yellandu Police Station in Crime.No.146 of 2017 …Complainant

And

1. A1.Azmeera Chandra Shekar @ Chanti @ Chintu, S/o Bhadru Naik, aged:29 years, Occu:JPA in KTPS Paloncha

2. Azmeera Kamala, W/o Bhadru Naik, aged:55 years, Occu:Housewife

3. Azmeera Bhadru, S/o Markia, aged:82 years , Occu:Retd.Employee All are R/o H.No.20­6­186, Bapuji Nagar, Paloncha

...Accused Nos.1, 2 and 6

Offence: : 498­A, 323 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP

Act Plea of accused : : Not guilty Finding : : Not guilty Sentence or Order In the result:­ Accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 are found not guilty of the offence u/Sec.498­A and 323 Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the same u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. Unmarked invaluable case property if any, destroyed after appeal time is over. 

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 31­12­2018 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.N.Srinivas, Advocate for accused; upon perusing the material papers available on record, upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration; till this day the Court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1. This case arises out of the charge­sheet filed by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Yellandu against the accused(A1, A2 and A6) for the offence

CC No.276 of 2018

2 under Section 498­A, 323 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act in

Cr.No.146/2017.

2.Briefly stated prosecution case is to the following effect: 

That that A1 is the husband of Lw.1/Azmeera Rithika, A2 and

A6 are the in­laws of Lw.1; and that the marriage of Lw.1 with A1 was performed on 29.04.2016 by the parents of both side; and that at the time of marriage parents of Lw.1 had given a house plot measuring 265 square yards worth of Rs.30 Lakhs at Paloncha and further adorned the bride with 15 tulas of gold, 2 tulas of gold to you A2 03 tulas of gold to

A1 and Rs.2 Lakhs to A1, A2 and A6 for purchasing house hold articles and Lws.1 to 3 had spent Rs.10 Lakhs towards the marriage function; and that after the marriage Lw.1 joined with A1 at her in­laws house at

Paloncha and Lw.1 hardly might had lead the matrimonial life with A1 for 03 days; and that thereafter A1 having addicted to alcohol, on the instigation of his parents i.e. A2 and A6 subjected Lw.1 to physical and mental harassment by abusing and beating her by demanding additional dowry; and that due to the unbearable harassment Lw.1 reported the issue at P.S.Yellandu, but A1, A2 and A6 assured the police that they would settle the issue in panchayat, so, on that they took Lw.1 to

Paloncha for matrimonial life and A1, A2 and A6 continued harassment towards Lw.1 by confining her in their house; and that on knowing about the harassment, the neighbours informed the matter to Lws.2 and 3, who in turn on 01.06.2017 came to Paloncha and found Lw.1 lying un­ conscious in her in­laws house; and that the parents of Lw.1 took her to hospital and then to their house at Yellandu. Basing on the report given by Lw.1, Lw.17/A.Narender, Inspector of police, P.S.Yellandu, registered as Cr.No.146/2017, u/Secs.498­A of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act; and that Lw.17 examined and recorded the statements of

Lws.1 to 10 Azmeera Rithika, Lavudya Shankar, Lavudya Sakku Bai,

CC No.276 of 2018

3

Lavudya Ravi Kiran, Banoth Laxman, Aram Papa Rao, Bhukya Chandra

Shekar, Banoth chokla, Bashaboina Saraswathi and Kadakanchi Veera

Swamy and sent the injured/Lw.1 to Govt.Hospital, Yellandu and visited the scene of offence and observed the scene and drafted CDF in presence of mediators Lws.14 and 15 Bashaboina Kashinadham and Daravath

Bhadru; and that on 09­06­2017, Lw.17 issued notice u/Sec.41 Cr.P.C to A1, A2 and A6; and that Lw.18/S.Sarangapani, Inspector of police,

Yellandu, took up further investigation and examined and recorded the statements of Lws.11 to 13 Shathala Sree Devi, Shaik Beepasha and

Azmeera Anasurya; and that Lw.16/Dr.T.Ramesh, Civil Assistant

Surgeon, Govt. Hospital, Yellandu, treated the injured/Lw.1 and issued medical report; and that on completion of investigation, Lw.18 laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/Secs.498­A, 324

Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act against A1, A2 and A6. 

3. This court took cognizance for the offence under Section 498­A, 323 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act against A1, A2 and A6

4.On issuance of summons, accused made their appearance and copies of case papers were furnished in compliance of and Section 207

Cr.P.C.

5.Accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C and they were explained the allegations, in Telugu language they denied the same, pleaded not guilty for the offence under Section under Section 498­A, 323 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act and opted trial, accordingly charges were framed for the same offence u/Sec.240 Cr.P.C. 

6.In order to prove its case the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P5. PW.1­Ajmeera Rithika, Complainant/victim,

Pw.2­Lavudya Shankar, Father of Pw.1 and circumstantial witness,

Pw.3­Lavudya Sakku Bai, Mother of Pw.1 and circumstantial witness

CC No.276 of 2018

4 and Pw.4­Lavudya Ravi Kiran, Brother of Pw.1 and circumstantial witness

Ex.P1­Signature of PW.1 on report dt.01­06­2017, Ex.P2­Sec.161

Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.1, Ex.P3­Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.2,

Ex.P4­Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.3 and Ex.P5­Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

statement of Pw.4.

7.Since there is no incriminating evidence on record against the accused, their examination u/Sec.313 Criminal Procedure Code is dispensed with. 

7.Heard, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel. 

9.Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor fairly argued that, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused that is the reason he had given up LWs.5 to 18 to save the precious time of Court, so she left the matter to the discretion of the Court. 

10. On the other hand, learned counsel argued that, there is no evidence at all against accused. So, the learned counsel requested to record clean acquittal. 

11.Now the sole point that arises for consideration is; “whether the prosecution could prove the charge against the accused(A1, A2 and A6) for the offence under Section 498­A, 323 Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act beyond all reasonable doubts or not?” 12. In order to prove these facts, prosecution adduced following evidence. 

13.PW.1 who is the complainant and victim deposed before the court that A1 is her husband, A2 and A6 are her in­laws; and that A1, A2 and

A6 never harassed her for dowry; and that due to petty domestic disputes, she went to Yellandu Police Station, where police obtained her signature on a paper to conduct counseling; and that she does not know the contents of the said paper; and that on confrontation the signature of Pw.1 on report dt.01.06.2017 is marked as Ex.P1. Pw.1 turned hostile

CC No.276 of 2018

5 to the prosecution case. During the cross examination she denied to state before the police as in her Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement which is marked as Ex.P1.

Pws.2 and 3 who are the parent of Pw.1 and Pw.4 who is the brother of Pw.1, in one voice, deposed before the court that A1, A2 and A6 never harassed Pw.1 and police never examined them. Pws.2, 3 and 4 are turned hostile to the prosecution case.

Pws.1 to 4 are examined in cross at length by learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor, but to of no avail. This is the reason the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the remaining witnesses. 

Thus, viewed from any of the angle absolutely there is no legal evidence against the accused in proof of the charge for the offence u/Sec.

498­A, 323 Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act.

14. In the result:­ Accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 are found not guilty of the offence u/Sec.498­A and 323 Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 and 4 of DP

Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the same u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C.

Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. Unmarked invaluable case property if any, destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation to the Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of December, 2018.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

YELLANDU.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution:

PW.1­Ajmeera Rithika, Complainant/victim, 

Pw.2­Lavudya Shankar, Father of Pw.1 and circumstantial witness,

Pw.3­Lavudya Sakku Bai, Mother of Pw.1 and circumstantial witness,

Pw.4­Lavudya Ravi Kiran, Brother of Pw.1 and circumstantial witness

CC No.276 of 2018

6

For Accused:

­­None—

Exhibits marked

For prosecution: For Accused:

Ex.P1­Signature of PW.1 on report dt.01­06­2017, ­­None­­

Ex.P2­Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.1, 

Ex.P3­Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.2,

Ex.P4­Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.3, 

Ex.P5­Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.4.

Material Objects marked: ­Nil­

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

YELLANDU.

CC No.276 of 2018

7

CC No.276 of 2018

TSBK030005832018

Presented on : 10-08-2018 Registered on : 29-10-2018 Decided on : 31-12-2018 Duration : 0 years, 4 months, 21 days

IN THE COURT OF

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

Yellandu. Presided Over by D Keerthi Chandrika Reddy

EP/100019/2018

Exhibit No.:

: M/s. Shriram Chits Private Limited, Yellandu, Rep. N. Nuka Raju Age: 45 Occupation : Address: R/o. Yellandu, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

VERSUS : K. Chalamaiah and others Age: 51 Occupation : Address: R/o. H.No. 2-124/1, Gopalapuram (V), Kamepalli Post and Mandal, Khammam District.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Dantala Anand Advocate for : appearing for K. Chalamaiah and others: Advocate appearing for respectively.

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 31-12-2018 )

ORDER

Notice to 5th JDr has been refused to receive by 5th JDr which he has been affixed to take notice by Court Processor Server. 5th JDr is called absent and no representation. The refused to receive notice by 5th JDr itself amount to proper servants of Notice on 5th JDr, Hence, the 5th JDr is set exparte. The SAW on the guarnishee of 5th JDr has been served at the office of the guarnishee of 5th JDr through Court Processor Server. Hence, the salary attachment against 5th JDr is deemed to have been effected. In these circumstances, this E.P is closed with a direction to D.Hr to file cheque petition as and when the attached amount is credited to C.C.D.

Date : 31-12-2018 (D Keerthi Chandrika Reddy)

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu.

TSBK030010032015

Presented on : 16-09-2015 Registered on : 25-09-2015 Decided on : 31-12-2018 Duration : 3 years, 3 months, 15 days

IN THE COURT OF

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

(Presided Over by D Keerthi Chandrika Reddy)

CC/100942/2015

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): MS Sri Ramakrishna clay products Through Police Station Officer Khammam

VERSUS

Thangamani agencies anda nother Age: 0 Occupation : Chennai ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: N.Mallikarjuna Rao, Advocate for appearing for Thangamani agencies anda nother Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 138 of NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 31-12-2018)

Complainant is called absent and no representation. Hence, this complaint is dismissed for default as appear of complaint u/sec.256 Cr.P.C consequently, accused is deemed to hve been acquitted.

ORDER

Date : 31-12-2018 (D Keerthi Chandrika Reddy)

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu.

TSBK030010042015

Presented on : 16-09-2015 Registered on : 23-09-2015 Decided on : 31-12-2018 Duration : 3 years, 3 months, 15 days

IN THE COURT OF

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

(Presided Over by D Keerthi Chandrika Reddy)

CC/100941/2015

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): MS Sri Ramakrishna clay products Through Police Station Officer Khammam

VERSUS

Sri Thangamani Agencies and another Age: 0 Occupation : Chennai ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: N.Mallikarjuna Rao, Advocate for appearing for Sri Thangamani Agencies and another Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 138 of NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 31-12-2018)

Complainant is called absent and no representation. Hence, this complaint is dismissed u/sec.256 Cr.P.C and consequently accused is acquitted.

ORDER

Date : 31-12-2018 (D Keerthi Chandrika Reddy)

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu.