J.syam Kumar, B.com., L.l.m

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka) · Guntur · Andhra Pradesh

J.SYAM KUMAR, B.com., L.L.M, PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, is posted at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 732 court orders on record since 2016. 8 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, CC, EP cases.

732

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/200229/2015 Acquitted

SHO Gurazala PS vs Padarthi Mallikharjuna Rao

30 Nov 2016

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GURAZALA.

PRESENT: S RI . J.S YAM K UMAR , B.C OM ., LL.M., I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala. FAC. II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

Wednesday, the 30th day of November, 2016.

C.C.No.229/2015

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Gurazala Urban P.S.(Cr.No.135/2015) . . Complainant.

And

1. Padarthi Mallikharjuna Rao, Dirver of Mahindra Scorpio vehicle bearing No.AP 29 BV 3873.

2. Talluri Malleswara Rao, S/o.Nageswara Rao, 31 years. Pulipadu Village . . Accused.

This case having come before me on 25-11-2016 for final hearing in the Presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for State and Sri K.Suresh, Learned Advocate for Accused and having stood over to this day for consideration, this court made the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The then Sub-Inspector of Police, Gurazala Urban P.S filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offence punishable U/s.337, 304-A of IPC, sec.180 of Motor Vehicle Act in Cr.No.135/2015, with the following allegations that:

2.The deceased Kunchala Rani and her husband Sri Kunchala

Nageswara Rao (P.W.1) are the resident of Gurazala village and are living by doing coolie works in bricks yard. As usual, on 26.08.2016 at about 3.00 PM both P.Ws.1 and the deceased, after completion of their lunch at their house, were proceeding towards their work place and on the way they reached saw mill of Sri Pinnelli Poorn Chandra

Rao (P.W.5). Then the accused-A1 being driver of Mahindra Scorpio vehicle bearing No.AP 29 BV 3873 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn, hit the 2 deceased and also P.W.3 who is rider of TVS scooty bearing No.AP 37

BU 9605 and was dragged to some distance into ash heap available by the side of road and damaged the scooty. As a result deceased and P.W.3 sustained injuries. Immediately the deceased and P.W.3 were shifted to Government hospital, Gurazala for treatment and the doctor declared the deceased as brought dead. Sri Alugula

Anjaneyulu(P.W.2), Sri Alugula Kotaiah (L.W.4), Alugula

Amba(L.W.5), P.Ws.5-Pinnelli Poorna Chandra Raju and PW6-

Nallabothu Narayana and Kandimalla Rama Krishna Raju (L.W.8) witnessed the incident.

3. On the receipt of hospital intimation Sri D.Mastan, HC-2641 (P.W.8) recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered the same as

Case in Cr.No.135/2015, U/s.304-A, 337 of IPC and submitted original FIR to the Hon'ble court and all the copies to all concerned.

During the course of investigation P.W.8 visited the scene of offence in the presence of mediators Sri Potu Nageswara Rao (L.W.10) and

P.W.4-Derangula Eegaiah, examined and drafted scene observation report duly attested by them. He also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchatdars and blood relatives and also examined and recorded the statements of material witnesses and send the dead body of the deceased to Medical officer for autopsy. On 25.09.2015 Sri E.Bala Nagi Reddy (P.W.9) served

Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and on 28.09.2015 recorded the statements of Sakam Madhusudhana Reddy (L.W.9) and basing on his statement fixed the A2 as he allowed unlicensed driver (A1) to drove the crime vehicle and added section of law as 180 of

M.V.Act against A2. The Medical Officer Dr.M.Satish (L.W.13) conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued

Postmortem certificate and Dr. Sri. L.Padmavathi (L.W.14) treated

P.W.3 and issued wound certificate and opined that the injuries are simple in nature. Sri P.Ganapathi Rao, M.V.Inspector (L.W.15) inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI report and opinioned that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects. After completion of investigation, P.W.9 filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge sheet.

4. On the considering the material placed before the court, cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.337, 304-A of IPC against

A1 and sec.180 of Motor Vehicle Act against A2, was taken against the accused.

5. On the appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 2 before this court, copies of the case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.,

6. A1 and A2 were examined U/s.251 of Cr.P.C., for the offence

U/s.337,304-A of IPC, sec.180 of M.V.Act, the substance of accusation were read-over and explained to them in Telugu for which he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Hence, the case was ordered for trial.

7. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, against the accused, has examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16. The Ld.

APP has given up the evidence of LW4, 5, 8 to 10, 13 to 15.

8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence against them in the prosecution evidence, for which they denied as false and pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

10. Now the point for determination are: -

i) Whether the deceased Kunchala Rani died in a road

accident caused by car bearing No.AP29 BV 3873 ?

ii) Whether P.W.3 received simple injuries in the road

accident by a car bearing No.AP29 BV 3873 ?

Iii) Whether A1 is the driver of crime vehicle i.e. car

bearing No.AP29 BV 3873 and if so, he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death

of the deceased and injuries to P.W.3 ?

iv) Whether A2 allowed A1 to drove the crime vehicle car

bearing No.AP29 BV 3873 ?

v) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A1 for the offence punishable U/s.337, 304-A of IPC and against A2 for the offence U/s.180 of M.V. Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined 9 witnesses i.e. P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.16 and the evidence of L.Ws.4, 5, 8 to 10 and 13 to 15 given up by learned APP.

12.P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased Kunchala Rani, P.W.2 is the mediator to the inquest report. P.W.3 is the injured person,

P.W.4 is the mediator to the scene of offence. P.Ws.5 and 6 are the eye witnesses to the accident. P.Ws.8 and 9 are the Investigating

Officers in this case.

13.P.W.1 deposed that the deceased was his wife and that on 26.08.2015 at about 2.30 PM himself and deceased had their lunch and while they were going to work place by walking on the road, one car coming from Macherla to Dachepalli road hit his wife and on that she sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries. He also deposed that he came to know that P.W.3 also sustained injuries. PW1 further deposed that Inquest was conducted on the body of his wife, but he failed to state that who is the responsible for causing the accident to his wife. The prosecution got marked his statement as Ex.P.1.

14.P.W.2 is brother-in-law of P.W.1 and brother of the deceased deposed that in the year 2015 he came to know that the deceased met with a car accident and he went to hospital and saw the deceased, but he did not know who is the responsible for the accident.

15.P.W.3 who is one of the injured witness deposed that on 26.08.2015 at about 3.00 PM while he was going on his TVS bike from Gurazala to Pallegunta, he parked his bike near Anjaneya swamy temple and was talking over phone, one vehicle came from his behind and hit his bike and pulled him for some distance and stopped him near mud pits and he sustained head injury and also injuries all over his body and was shifted to Government hospital, 5

Gurazala. PW3 also failed to state the vehicle number and also person who caused the accident to him.

16.P.W.4 who is the mediator to the scene of offence deposed that police obtained his signature on written papers, but he did not know its contents and his signatures on scene observation report and inquest report were marked as Exs.P.4 and P.5.

17.P.W.5 did not support the prosecution case and he turned hostile for prosecution, but the learned APP could not elicit anything from his mouth except marking his 161 of Cr.P.C statement as

Ex.P.6.

18.P.W.6 also did not support the prosecution case and he simple stated that he came to know that the deceased was died in the accident. The learned APP also did not elicit anything from his mouth during his cross examination, except marking his 161 of Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P.7.

19.P.W.7 who is the relative of deceased and P.W.1 deposed that he came to know that the deceased was died in a road accident and he visited the government hospital and in his presence the inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased Kunchala Rani and he attested the same. Therefore, the prosecution has got marked inquest report as Ex.P.8.

20.P.W.8 Sri D.Mastan Vali, Head Constable, deposed that on 26.08.2015 at about 3.15 PM he received Ex.P.9 hospital intimation of P.W.3 and the death intimation of the deceased Kunchala Rani and he rushed to the hospital recorded the statement of P.W.1 and stated that P.W.3 was referred to another hospital for better treatment.

Later PW8 turned to police station and registered Ex.P.1 as a case in

Cr.No.135/2015, U/s.337, 304-A of IPC and issued Ex.P.11 FIR and submitted the same to all the officers concerned. He also deposed that he examined and recorded the statement of material witnesses, proceeded to the scene of offence situated neaer Kotha mission center near Anjaneya Swamy temple, observed the scene under 6

Ex.P.13 scene observation report and prepared Ex.P.12 rough sketch. He also deposed that he secured the panchayatdars and inquestdars and held inquest and later made requisition before

L.W.13 to conduct the postmortem over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter handed over the case file to P.W.9 for futher investigation.

21.P.W.9 deposed that on 27.08.2015 he received case file from

P.W.9 and found it in correct lines and proceeded with further investigation and that on 25.09.2015 he served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice on A1 and released him under station bail and on 28.09.2015

L.W.9 Sri Sakam Madhu Sudhana Reddy came to police station and recorded his Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C statement and basing on his evidence he apprehended A2 and served 41-A Cr.PC notice. He also deposed that he made requisition to L.W.15 P.Ganapathi Rao,

M.V.Inspector who in turn inspected the vehicle and issued Ex.P.14

MVI report and opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect. He also deposed that he received Ex.P.15

Postmortem report from L.W.13 stating that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage injuries to vital organs.

He further deposed that he collected wound certificate of P.W.3 from

L.W.14 under Ex.P.16 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused by adding sections 181 of MV act against A2.

Point Nos.(i) and (ii):

22. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 the defense did not choose to cross examine P.Ws.2 to 7. Though P.W.1 was cross examined by the defense but could not able to elicit that P.W.1 do not know the contents of Ex.P.1. However, the defense did not dispute the fact of death of the deceased and also injuries to P.W.3.

The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.13 and P.16 clearly establish that the deceased Kunchala Rani was died in a road accident. It is also proved that P.W.3 also received simple injuries in the same accident. Accordingly the points is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.

Point No.(iii):

23.As seen from the evidence of all witnesses i.e. P.Ws.1 to 7 none of them stated that the car bearing No.AP 29 BV 3873 caused the accident to the deceased and P.W.3. Both P.Ws.1 and 3 also failed to state who is responsible for the accident. P.w.3 also failed to identify the person who cause the accident to him. Besides this, the prosecution also given up the evidence of L.W.9 Sri Sakam Madhu

Sudhana Rao, who is the owner of the crime vehicle and who handed over the said vehicle to A2, for the reasons best known to him.

Though the learned APP declared its witnesses P.Ws.2 to 6 as hostile but failed to elicit anything from their mouth except marking their

Sec.161 of Cr.P.C statements as Ex. P2 to P6. Thus there is no evidence on record that the accused was the driver of the car bearing No.AP 29 BV 3873 and drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased Kunchala

Rani and injuries to P.W.3. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the accused against the prosecution.

Point No.(iv):

24.It is also the case of the prosecution that A2 obtained the vehicle from L.W.9-Sakam madhu Sudhana Reddy and later on allowed A1 to drove the crime vehicle who were not having license.

However, the prosecution did not prove that L.W.9 handed over the vehicle to its employee A2 and who in turn allowed A1 to drove the crime vehicle by examining LW9, instead given his evidence. Thus there is no evidence on record that LW9 handed over the crime vehicle and he in turn allowed A1 to drove the crime vehicle. Hence the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

Point No.(v):

25. In view of my findings in point Nos.(i) to (iv) this court of considering opinion the prosecution could able to prove the death of the deceased Kunchala Rani and injuries to P.W.3, but it failed to prove that A1 was the driver of the crime vehicle bearing No. AP 8 29BV 3873 and he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner caused the death of the deceased and injuries to P.W.3. So also the prosecution failed to prove that A2 allowed the A1 to drove the crime vehicle. Thus, the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the present case and therefore the benefit of doubt be given to them which results into their acquittal.

26. In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/s.337, 304-A of IPC, and A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.180 of M.V.Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted

U/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of

Judgment.

Dictated to my dictation by Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 30th day of November, 2016.

Sd/- J.Syam Kumar

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC. II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1: Kunchala Nageswara Rao. None. P.W.2: Alugula Anjaneyulu. P.W.3: Patibandla Rama Rao. P.W.4: Derangula Eegaiah. P.W.5: Pinnelli Poorna Chandra Raju. P.W.6: Nallabothu Narayana. P.W.7: Mallela Ramana. P.W.8: D.Mastan Rao, Head Constable No.264. P.W.9: E.Bala Nagi Reddy, SI of police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.4: Signature of P.W.4 on scene observation report. Ex.P.5: Signature of P.W.4 on inquest report. Ex.P.6: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5. Ex.P.7: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6. Ex.P.8: Signature of P.W.7 on inquest report. Ex.P.9: Hospital Intimation. Ex.P.10: Death Intimation.

Ex.P.11: FIR Ex.P.12: Rough sketch. Ex.P.13: Scene observation report. Ex.P.14: MVI report. Ex.P.15: Postmortem certificate. Ex.P.16: Wound certificate.

Material Objects: Nil.

Sd/- J.Syam Kumar

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC. II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.229/2015

DATE OF :-

Offence: 26.08.2015 Complaint: 26.08.2015 Apprehension of accused: 25.09.2015(A1), 28.09.2015(A2) Released on bail: 25.09.2015(A1), 28.09.2015(A2) Commencement of trial: 11.04.2016 Close of trial: 25.11.2016 Sentence or order: 30.11.2016

Explanation for delay:Due to non-production of witnesses

Name of the Complainant : State:-Sub-Inspector of Police, Gurazala Urban P.S. (Cr.No.135/2015) Name of the accused :

1. Padarthi Mallikharjuna Rao, Dirver of Mahindra Scorpio vehicle bearing No.AP 29 BU 3873.

2. Talluri Malleswara Rao, S/o.Nageswara Rao, 31 years.

Offence: U/s.337, 304-A of IPC against A1. U/s.180 of M.V.Act against A2.

Finding : Found not guilty U/s.337, 304-A of IPC against A1. Found not guilty U/s.180 of M.V.Act against A2.

Sentence or Order : In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.337, 304-A of IPC, and A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.180 of M.V.Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment.

Sd/- J.Syam Kumar

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, FAC. II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala. Copy submitted to :

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

2) The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

CC/100029/2017 Acquitted

SHO PAND E GZL vs P.HANUMA NAIK AND OTHER

02 May 2017

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GURAZALA.

PRESENT: SRI. J.SYAM KUMAR, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

Tuesday, the 2nd day of May, 2017.

C.C.No.29/2017

Between:

State: Proh. & Excise Inspector, Piduguralla. (Pr.No.268/2013-14) . . Complainant.

And

1.Pathlothu Hanuma Naik, S/o.Harischandra Naik, 26 years, R/o.Ambapuram village, Gurazala Mandal.

2.Dheeravath Saidamma, W/o.Somla Naik, 45 years, R/o.Rallavagu Thanda village, Damacherla Mandal, Nalgonda District.

. . Accused.

This case is having come before me on 28-04-2017 for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for State and Sri Sk.Jani Basha, Learned Advocate for Accused and having stood over to this day for consideration, this court made the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Proh. & Excise Station, Gurazala laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable

U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968, in Pr.No.268/2013-14, with the following allegations that:

2.On 31.12.2013, at about 9.30 AM, the Excise Officials Sri

P.Vijaya Kumar, Proh. & Excise Inspector, Gurazala(P.W.2) along with

V.Rama Mohana Rao, P&EC (P.W.1), Sk.Karimullla, P&E

Constable(L.W.1) proceeded to near to Bridge in Pondugula village,

Dachepalli Mandal, and noticed A1 and A2 holding white polythene bags each and tried to ran away. P.W.2 with the help of his staff detained where as A2 managed to escape into the thorny bushes and on enquiry A1 disclosed his identity and confessed that he was possessing ID arrack sachets and selling it to eke out his livelihood 2 and purchased and that of A2 ran away. Later P.W.2 deputed V.Rama

Mohana Rao, P&EC (P.W.1) to secure the mediators from Pondugula village, but in vain. Thereafter P.W.2 verified the said two bags and found 250-100 ML of ID arrack sachets in each bag, total 500 sachets.

Later P.W.2 lifted 4-100 ML of ID arrack sachets got them wrapped into a paper packet as sample got tied with thread, affixed with seal and identity slips on the same and also seized the remaining ID arrack sachets and arrested A1 by informing the grounds of arrest under cover of special report scribed by Sri Sk.Karimulla (L.W.1) duly attested by all the excise officials.

3.Basing on Ex.P.1 special report, P.W.2 registered said special report as a case in P.R.No.268/2013-14 for the offence punishable

U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955 and submitted original

FIR to the Hon'ble court and copies to concerned and produced the accused for judicial custody. Later P.W.2 produced the sealed sample

before the court and send the same to the Chemical Analyst for

analysis, who in turn, issued his report vide Rc.No.765/2015, dt.04.05.2015 and opined that the said sample contain “Illicit Distilled liquor not fit for human consumption”. On 30.05.2015 during the course of routine vehicle checking near Pondugula village P.W.3 found the absconding A2 identified A1 and arrested A2 and send her for judicial custody. Thereafter he made proposal for confiscation of remaining contraband before the Deputy Commissioner, Proh.&

Excise, Guntur and as per the orders, he destroyed the contraband.

Later Sri M.Bhujanga Rao, P&EI (L.W.4) verified the investigation of

P.W.2 and found it in correct lines and filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge sheet.

4.On considering the material placed before the court, cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of

A.P.Prohibition Act, 1955, was taken against the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused before this court, copies of the case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/s.207 of

Cr.P.C.

6.A1 and A2 were examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C., for the offence

U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1955, the substance of accusation were read-over and explained to them in Telugu for which 3 they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Hence, the case was ordered for trial.

7.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, against the accused, has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and M.O.1 sample. The evidence of L.Ws.1 and 4 was given up by learned APP.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence against them in the prosecution evidence, for which they denied as false and pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

10. Now the point for determination are: -

i)Whether the accused was found in possession of 500- 100 ML of ID arrack sachets and was selling the same to eke out his livelihood ? ii)Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1955 beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point No. (i):-

11.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 and M.O.1 sample bottle.

12.The case of the prosecution is that P.W.2 arrested the accused under Ex.P.1 special report and seized 500-100 ML of ID arrack sachets wherein the accused was selling the same to eke out their livelihood and that P.W.2 registered the same as a case in

Pr.No.268/2013-14 for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1955 under Ex.P.2 FIR and later he handed over the case file to P.W.2 and he in turn send the M.O.1 Chemical Examiner under Ex.P.3 letter of advise. Later P.W.2 received Ex.P.4 report and handed over the case file to Sri M.Bhujanga Rao (L.W.4) for further 4 investigation, who later on produced seized property before the

Deputy Commissioner of Proh.& Excise, Guntur for confiscation.

P.W.1 In his cross-examination admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and he failed to state the names of person and also

VRO and VRA to whom P.W.1 requested to act as mediators. P.W.2 in his cross examination admitted that he cannot say the names of the persons to whom P.W.1 requested to act as mediators, Ex.P.1 was scribed at the scene of offence on his dedication and he did not record the statements of his staff and he was the complainant and

Investigating officer in this case. P.Ws.1 & 2 denied the suggestion that they did not go to scene of offence and the present case was registered for the statistical purpose against the accused.

14.According to section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C., at the time of search and seizure, it is the obligation on the part of officer, who conducted search and seizure, to secure the local inhabitants to prove the seizure and when the officials failed to secure the independent witnesses, the search and seizure is not free from doubt and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

15.Further our Hon'ble High Court in a case of Y.

Srinivasulu Reddy Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) L.S. 242 held that :

“if no one was willing to act as punch witness, a written order should be passed for the purpose of conducting search and seizure and in the said case the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated”

16.In Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 AP wherein it is held that :

“the panchanama is hit by sec.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act and sec.161 of Cr.P.C and when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the sachets from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion.” 5

P.W.2 did not issue any written summons to VRO or Village Surpanch and also the villagers. Since, the scene of offence is a busy locality,

P.W.2 ought to have followed the procedure as contemplated under sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C, and also law laid down by the Hon'ble High

Court in Sri Y.Srinivasulu Reddy case and also Mudavat

Motia case, which he did not do so.

18.Since P.W.2 did not follow the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble

High Court in Srinivasulu Reddy case and in Mudavath Mothia case and further P.Ws.1 and 2 are highly interested witnesses being excise officials, as such their evidence cannot be relied upon without any corroboration from the independent witnesses.

19.In the said circumstances, the entire search and seizure becomes doubtful. It is settled law that when there is a doubt in the prosecution case the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. If it is so, the prosecution has no case at all. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused were found in possession of 500-100 ML of ID arrack sachets. Accordingly this point is answered.

Point No.(ii):

20.In view of my findings in point No.(i), the evidence of the prosecution is not free from doubtful circumstances, as such the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, this court of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused committed the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1955. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

21.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence

U/s.7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1955. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C., M.O.1 i.e. (CPR.117/2015) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused 6 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- J.Syam Kumar

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1: V.Rama Mohana Rao, P&EC. None. P.W.2: P.Vijaya Kumar, P&EI.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Special Report. Ex.P2: FIR. Ex.P3: Letter of Advise. Ex.P4: Analyst Report. Ex.P5: Confiscation proceedings.

Material Objects: M.O.1: 4-100 ML of ID arrack sachets.

Sd/- J.Syam Kumar

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.29/2017

DATE OF :-

Offence: 31.12.2013 Complaint: 31.12.2013 Apprehension of accused: 31.12.2013-A1, 30.05.2015-A2 Released on bail: 07.01.2014-A1, 05.06.2015-A2 Commencement of trial: 13.04.2017 Close of trial: 28.04.2017 Sentence or order: 02.05.2017 Explanation for delay:Due to non-production of witnesses

Name of the Complainant: State:-The Inspector of Proh. & Excise, Gurazala Police Station. (Pr.No.268/2013-14) Name of the accused :

1.Pathlothu Hanuma Naik, S/o.Harischandra Naik, 26 years, R/o.Ambapuram village, Gurazala Mandal.

2.Dheeravath Saidamma, W/o.Somla Naik, 45 years, R/o.Rallavagu Thanda village, Damacherla Mandal, Nalgonda District.

Offence : U/s.7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1955.

Finding : Found not guilty for the offence U/s.7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1955.

Sentence or Order : In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1955. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C., M.O.1 i.e. (CPR.117/2015) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment. . Sd./- J.Syam Kumar I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala. Copy submitted to :

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

2) The Excise Superintendent of Proh & Excise, Narasaraopet.

CC/100082/2016 Acquitted

SHo, P and E,Gurazala vs Vemula Srinivasaral

03 May 2017

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GURAZALA.

PRESENT: SRI. J.SYAM KUMAR, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

Wednesday, the 3rd day of May, 2017.

C.C.No.82/2016

Between:

State: Proh. & Excise Inspector, Gurazala. (Pr.No.360/2014-15). . Complainant.

And

Vemula Srinivas, S/o.Durga Rao, 25 years, R/o.Thangeda village, Dachepalli Mandal. . . Accused.

This case is having come before me on 01-05-2017 for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for State and Sri Sk.Jani Basha, Learned Advocate for Accused and having stood over to this day for consideration, this court made the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Proh. & Excise Station, Gurazala laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable

U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968, in Pr.No.360/2014-15, with the following allegations that:

2.On 10.01.2015, at about 6.30 PM, the Excise Officials Sri

P.Vijaya Kumar, Proh. & Excise Inspector, Gurazala(P.W.2) along with

K.Gopi Krishna, P&EC (P.W.1), K.Deena Raju (L.W.1) proceeded near to Anjaneya swamy temple, situated on the right side of road, leading to Tangeda Revu(Krishna River bank), 1 KM away on the northern side of Tangeda village of Dachepalli Mandal, and noticed one male person holding one plastic bottle in a suspicious position and on seeing them the said person managed to escape into the nearby thorny bushes. Then P.W.2 got searched for the accused, but in vain.

When P.W.2 enquired with L.W.1 Kothapalli Deena Raju available there, he stated that he knew the accused and also agreed to act as mediator. Thereafter P.W.2 verified the said bottle and found 2 Lts capacity containing full of ID arrack. Later P.W.2 lifted 1-180 ML of ID arrack got tightened its lid, affixed with seal and identity slips on the same and also seized the remaining ID arrack under cover of 2 mediator report scribed by Sri K.Gopi Krishna (P.W.1) duly attested by all the excise officials.

3.Basing on Ex.P.1 mediator report, P.W.2 registered said special report as a case in P.R.No.360/2014-15 for the offence punishable

U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955 and submitted original

FIR to the Hon'ble court and copies to concerned. On 19.01.2015 during the course of routine raids P.W.2 found the accused at

Dachepalli bus stop center and identified him and he confessed the same stating that he left the plastic bottle with ID arrack and escaped from the place of offence and P.W.2 arrested the accused and produced the accused for judicial custody. Later P.W.2 produced the sealed sample before the court and send the same to the Chemical

Analyst for analysis, who in turn, issued his report vide Rc.No.710/ 2015, dt.29.04.2015 and opined that the said sample contain “Illicit

Distilled liquor not fit for human consumption”. Later P.W.2 handed over the case file to L.W.4 G.Devadattu, P&EI for further investigation. Thereafter, he made proposal for confiscation of remaining contraband before the Deputy Commissioner, Proh.&

Excise, Guntur and as per the orders, he destroyed the contraband and filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge sheet.

4.On considering the material placed before the court, cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1955, was taken against the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused before this court, copies of the case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/s.207 of

Cr.P.C.

6.Accused was examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C., for the offence U/s.7-

A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1955, the substance of accusation were read-over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was ordered for trial.

7.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, against the accused, has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and M.O.1 sample. The evidence of L.Ws.1 and 4 was given up by learned APP.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence against him in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied as false and pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

10. Now the point for determination are: -

i)Whether the accused was found in possession of 2 Lts of ID arrack and was selling the same to eke out his livelihood ? ii)Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1955 beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point No. (i):-

11.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 and M.O.1 sample bottle.

12.The case of the prosecution is that P.W.2 arrested the accused under Ex.P.1 mediator report and seized 2 Lts of ID arrack wherein the accused was selling the same to eke out his livelihood and that

P.W.2 registered the same as a case in Pr.No.360/2014-15 for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955 under Ex.P2 FIR and later he handed over the case file to P.W.2 and he in turn send the M.O.1 Chemical Examiner under Ex.P.3 letter of advise. Later P.W.2 received Ex.P.4 report and handed over the case file to Sri G.Devadattu (L.W.4) for further investigation, who later on produced seized property before the Deputy Commissioner of Proh.&

Excise, Guntur for confiscation.

13.In this case prosecution did not choose to examine the independent witness LW1-Kothapalli Deena Raju, who allegedly acted as mediator to the incident. Thus, except the PW1 and 2 being excise officials, there are no independent witnesses for the case, therefore, the evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. P.W.1 In his cross-examination admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality, the Tangeda village is having VRO, 4

Surpanch and Ex.P.1 was prepared in front of the temple and his statement was not recorded. He also admitted that L.W.1 Deena Raju is resident of Tangeda village and used to visit their office frequently.

P.W.2 in his cross examination denied that the scene of offence is a busy locality with five or six persons being temple. He admitted that he did not secure and issue summons to VRO and VRA to act as mediators. He denied that L.W.1 Deena Raju acted as mediator in many cases to their P.S., P.Ws.1 & 2 denied the suggestion that they did not go to scene of offence and the present case was registered for the statistical purpose against the accused.

15.Further our Hon'ble High Court in a case of Y.

Srinivasulu Reddy Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) L.S. 242 held that :

16.In Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 AP wherein it is held that :

17.Coming to the present case, admittedly P.W.2 did not issue any written notice to secure the mediators from the village. Besides that

P.W.2 did not issue any written summons to VRO or Village Surpanch and also the villagers. There is inconsistency in the evidence of PW1 and 2 with regard to scene of offence and LW1 acting as mediators.

Further the prosuection did not examine the independent witness

LW1-Deena Raju, for the reasons best known to it. Besides this P.W.2 5 failed to follow the procedure as contemplated under sec.100 (4) of

Cr.P.C, and also law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in Sri

Y.Srinivasulu Reddy case and also Mudavat Motia case, which he did not do so.

18.Since P.W.2 did not follow the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble

19.In the said circumstances, the entire search and seizure becomes doubtful. It is settled law that when there is a doubt in the prosecution case the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. If it is so, the prosecution has no case at all. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused were found in possession of 2 Lts of ID arrack. Accordingly this point is answered.

Point No.(ii):

Prohibition Act, 1955. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

21.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1955. Accordingly, he is acquitted

U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C., M.O.1 i.e. (CPR.100/2015) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of

Judgment.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 3rd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- J.Syam Kumar

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1: K.Gopi Krishna, P&EC. None. P.W.2: P.Vijaya Kumar, P&EI.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Mediator Report. Ex.P2: FIR. Ex.P3: Letter of Advise. Ex.P4: Analyst Report. Ex.P5: Confiscation proceedings.

Material Objects: M.O.1: 1-180 ML of ID arrack bottle.

Sd/- J.Syam Kumar

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.82/2016

DATE OF :-

Offence: 10.01.2015 Complaint: 11.01.2015 Apprehension of accused: 19.01.2015 Released on bail: 20.01.2015 Commencement of trial: 09.08.2016 Close of trial: 01.05.2017 Sentence or order: 03.05.2017 Explanation for delay:Due to non-production of witnesses

Name of the Complainant: State:-The Inspector of Proh. & Excise, Gurazala Police Station. (Pr.No.360/2014-15) Name of the accused :

Vemula Srinivas, S/o.Durga Rao, 25 years, R/o.Thangeda village, Dachepalli Mandal.

Offence: U/s.7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1955.

Finding : Found not guilty for the offence U/s.7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1955.

Sentence or Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1955. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C., M.O.1 i.e. (CPR.100/2015) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment. . Sd./- J.Syam Kumar I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala. Copy submitted to :

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

2) The Excise Superintendent of Proh & Excise, Narasaraopet.

CC/100288/2016 Acquitted

P and E,Gurazala vs Vemula govindareddy

02 May 2017

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GURAZALA.

PRESENT: SRI. J.SYAM KUMAR, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

Tuesday, the 2nd day of May, 2017.

C.C.No.288 of 2016

Between:s

State:Proh. & Excise Inspector, Gurazala.

s(Pr.No.262/2014-15) .. Complainant.

And

Vemula Govinda Reddy, S/o.Gurava Reddy, 46 years, R/o.Ramapuram village, Dachepalli Mandal. . . Accused.

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Proh. & Excise Station, Gurazala laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.7-A R/w. S.8(e) of

AP Prohibition Act, 1995 in Pr.No.262/2014-15, with the following allegations that:

2.On 23.11.2014 at 8.00 AM, the Excise Officials Sri B.Ashok Kumar, Proh.

& Excise Sub-Inspector, Gurazala (P.W.2) along with his staff K.Gopi Krishna,

P&E Constable (P.W.1), V.Venkateswarlu P&EC(L.W.2), A.Bhupal Reddy, P&EC (L.W.3) proceeded near to Tombs situated at a distance of 200 mts on the left side of R&B road on the northern side of Irikepalli vilalge of Dachepalli

Mandal, and noticed the accused holding a black polythene cover and tried to ran away. P.W.2 with the help of his staff detained him and on enquiry he disclosed his identity and confessed that he was possessing ID arrack sachets and was selling it to eke out his livelihood and purchased it from an unknown person. Later P.W.2 deputed K.Gopi Krishna, P&EC (P.W.1) to secure the mediators from Irikepalli village, but in vain. Thereafter P.W.2 verified the said cover and found 10-100 ML of ID arrack sachets. Later P.W.2 lifted 2-180

ML of ID arrack sachets got them wrapped into a paper packet as sample got tied with thread, affixed with seal and identity slips on the same and also seized the remaining ID arrack sachets and arrested the accused by informing the grounds of arrest under cover of special report scribed by Sri

K.Gopi Krishna (P.W.1) duly attested by all the excise officials.

3.Basing on Ex.P.1 special report, P.W.2 registered said special report as a case in P.R.No.262/2014-15 for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955 and submitted original FIR to the Hon'ble court and copies to concerned and produced the accused for judicial custody. Later

P.W.2 handed over the case file to P.W.3 for further investigation and produced the sealed sample before the court and send the same to the

Chemical Analyst for analysis, who in turn, issued his report vide

Rc.No.710/2015, dt.29.04.2015 and opined that the said sample contain

“Illicit Distilled liquor not fit for human consumption”. Thereafter he made proposal for confiscation of remaining contraband before the Deputy

Commissioner, Proh.& Excise, Guntur. Later Sri M.Bhujanga Rao, P&EI (L.W.6) verified the investigation of P.W.3 and found it in correct lines and filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge sheet.

4.On considering the material placed before the court, cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1955, was taken against the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused before this court, copies of the case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

6.The accused was examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C., for the offence U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1955, the substance of accusation were read- over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was ordered for trial.

7.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, against the accused, has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and M.O.1 sample.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/s.313 of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence against him in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied as false and pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

10. Now the point for determination are: -

i)Whether the accused was found in possession of 10-100 ML of ID arrack sachets and was selling the same to eke out his livelihood ? ii)Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1955 beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point No. (i):-

11.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 and M.O.1 sample bottle.

12.The case of the prosecution is that P.W.2 arrested the accused under

Ex.P.1 special report and seized 10-100 ML of ID arrack sachets wherein the accused was selling the same to eke out his livelihood and that P.W.2 registered the same as a case in Pr.No.262/2014-15 for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955 under Ex.P.2 FIR and later he handed over the case file to P.W.3 and he in turn send the M.O.1

Chemical Examiner under Ex.P.3 letter of advise. Later P.W.3 received Ex.P.4 report and handed over the case file to Sri M.Bhujanga Rao (L.W.6) for further investigation, who later on produced seized property before the

Deputy Commissioner of Proh.& Excise, Guntur for confiscation.

13.Since there are no independent witnesses for the case of the prosecution and all are excise officials, therefore, the evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. PW1 denied that scene of offence is a busy locality. Whereas PW2 admitted that it is busy locality. Both have failed to state the names of the person to whom PW1 requested to act as mediators. They also admitted that they did not issue any written summons to the public to act as mediators and that PW2 did not record the statement of his staff. Both P.Ws.1 & 2 denied the suggestion that they did not go to scene of offence and the present case was registered for the statistical purpose against the accused. PW3 accepted that he did not participate in the raid.

15.Further our Hon'ble High Court in a case of Y. Srinivasulu

Reddy Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) L.S. 242 held that :

16.In Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437

AP wherein it is held that :

17.Coming to the present case, admittedly P.W.2 did not issue any written notice to P.W.1 to secure the mediators from the village. So also P.W.1 & 2 in their cross-examination failed to give the names of person to whom P.W.1 requested to act as mediators. Besides that P.W.2 did not issue any written summons to VRO or Village Surpanch and also the villagers. There is inconsistency in the evidence of both the witnesses with regard to status of scene of offence, whether it is busy locality or not. Both have stated different versions. Further, P.W.2 ought to have followed the procedure as contemplated under sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C, and also law laid down by the

Hon'ble High Court in Sri Y.Srinivasulu Reddy case and also

Mudavat Motia case, which he did not do so.

18.Since P.W.2 did not follow the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High

Court in Srinivasulu Reddy case and in Mudavath Mothia case and further

P.Ws.1 to 3 are highly interested witnesses being excise officials, as such their evidence cannot be relied upon without any corroboration from the independent witnesses.

19.In the said circumstances, the entire search and seizure becomes doubtful. It is settled law that when there is a doubt in the prosecution case the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. If it is so, the prosecution has no case at all. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was found in possession of 10- 100 ML of ID arrack sachets. Accordingly this point is answered.

Point No.(ii):

21.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1955. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C.,

M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- J.Syam Kumar

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence: P.W.1: K.Gopi Krishna, P&EC.None. P.W.2: B.Ashok Kumar, P&ESI. P.W.3: P.Vijay Kumar, P&EI.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:For Defence:

Ex.P1: Special Report.Nil Ex.P2: FIR. Ex.P3: Letter of Advise. Ex.P4: Analyst Report. Ex.P5: Confiscation proposal. Material Objects:

M.O.1: 2-100 ML of ID arrack sachets.

Sd/- J.Syam Kumar

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

6CC No. 288/16

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.288/2016

DATE OF :-

Offence: 23.11.2014 Complaint: 23.11.2014 Apprehension of accused: 23.11.2014 Released on bail: 24.11.2014 Commencement of trial: 15.02.2017 Close of trial: 28.04.2017 Sentence or order: 02.05.2017 Explanation for delay:Due to non-production of witnesses

Name of the Complainant : State:-The Inspector of Proh. & Excise, Gurazala Police Station. (Pr.No.262/2014-15) Name of the accused :

Vemula Govinda Reddy, S/o.Gurava Reddy, 46 years, R/o.Ramapuram village, Dachepalli Mandal.

Offence: U/s.7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1955.

Finding: Found not guilty for the offence U/s.7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1955.

Sentence or Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1955. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C., M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment. . Sd./- J.Syam Kumar I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala. Copy submitted to :

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

2) The Excise Superintendent of Proh & Excise, Narasaraopet.

CC/200211/2015 Acquitted

Gurazala Excise P.S. vs M. Subba Reddy

29 Nov 2016

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GURAZALA.

PRESENT: S RI . J.S YAM K UMAR , B.C OM ., LL.M., I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala. FAC. II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

Tuesday, the 29th day of November, 2016.

C.C.No.211/2015

Between:

State: Proh. & Excise Inspector, Gurazala. (Pr.No.138/2013-14) . . Complainant.

And

Muthana Subba Reddy, S/o.Neela Reddy, 45 years, R/o.Gogulapadu village, Gurazala mandal, Guntur District. . . Accused.

This case is having come before me on 24-11-2016 for final hearing in the Presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for State and Sri K.Chalama Raju, Learned Advocate for Accused and having stood over to this day for consideration, this court made the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Proh.&Excise Station, Gurazala laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.34

(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 in Pr.No.138/2013-14, with the following allegations that:

2.On 29.09.2013 the Excise Officials Sri P.Vijay Kumar, Proh. &

Excise Inspector, Gurazala(P.W.2) along with V.Rama Mohana Rao,

P&E Constable,(P.W.1), Sk.Karimulla, P&EC (LW.2), and V.

Venkateswarlu, P&EC (L.W.3) and other staff members at 5:30 pm proceeded to near the auto stand in Gogulapadu village of Gurazala

Mandal, and noticed the one person holding a white polythene bag in a suspicous position and on seeing them the accused escaped by leaving the bag. Later P.W.2 requested the persons near the scene of offence and came to know that the said person name as M.Subba

Reddy, S/o.Neela Reddy-Accused. Thereafter P.W.2 verified the said polythene bag and found 25 Old Label whisky bottles of 180 ML each 2 and identified as duty paid liquor bottles, and that P.W.2 requested the said persons to act as mediators but they refused to do so. Later

P.W.2 drawn one bottle as sample out of the contraband and affixed with seal and identity slip on the plastic polythene bag containing 24 liquor bottles and arrested the accused by informing the grounds of arrest under cover of special report scribed by P.W.1 duly attested by all the excise officials.

3. P.W.2 registered said special report as a case in

P.R.No.138/2013-14 for the offence punishable U/s.34 (a) of

A.P.Excise Act, 1968 showing the accused as “ran away” and submitted original FIR to the Hon'ble court. Later on 20.04.2015 the accused himself surrendered before the Hon'ble court and remanded to judicial custody. PW2 produced the sealed sample bottle before the court and send the same to the Chemical Analyst for analysis, who in turn issued his report vide Rc.No.709/2015, dt.28.04.2015 and opined that the sample contains 'Indian Liquor'. Thereafter he made proposal for confiscation of remaining 24 liquor bottles before the Deputy Commissioner, Proh.& Excise, Guntur. Later P.W.2 filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge sheet.

4.On the considering the material placed before the court, cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, was taken against the accused.

5.On the appearance of the accused before this court, copies of the case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.,

6.The accused was examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C., for the offence

U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, the substance of accusation were read-over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was ordered for trial.

7.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, against the accused, has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 3 and M.O.1 sample bottle and the evidence of L.Ws.2, 3 was given up by the learned APP.

8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence against him in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied as false and pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

10. Now the point for determination are: -

i) Whether the accused was found in possession of 25 Old Label whisky bottles of 180 ML each without any bill or license and he was selling the same to eke out his livelihood ? ii) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the prosecution for the offence punishable U/s.34 (a) of

A.P.Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point No. (i): -

11.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to

P.4 and M.O.1 sample bottle.

12. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.2 arrested the accused under Ex.P.1 special report and seized 25 Old Label whisky bottles of 180 ML each wherein the accused was not having any bill, license or permit and he was selling the same to eke out his livelihood and registered the same as a case in Pr.No.138/2013-14 for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act under Ex.P.2 FIR. P.W.2 send the M.O.1 to Chemical Examiner under Ex.P.3 letter of advise. Later

P.W.2 received Ex.P.4 report. He also produced seized property

before the Deputy Commissioner of Proh.& Excise, Guntur for

confiscation.

13. Since there are no independent witnesses for the case of the prosecution and all are excise officials, therefore, the evidence has to be scruitnised carefully and cautiously. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 in their 4 cross examination admitted that names of persons to whom they requested to act as mediators was not mentioned in Ex. P1 special report. P.W.1 also failed to state the names of the persons to whom they requested to act as mediators. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 denied the suggestion that they did not go to scene of offence and the present case was registered for the statistical purpose against the accused.

14. According to section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C., at the time of search and seizure it is the obligation the part of officer who conducted search and seizure to secure the local inhabitants to prove the seizure and when the officials failed to secure the independent witnesses, the search and seizure is not free from doubt and and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

15. Further our Hon'ble High Court in a case of Y. Srinivasulu

Reddy Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) L.S. 242 held that :

“ if no one was willing to act as punch witness, a written order should be passed for the purpose of conducting search and seizure and in the said case the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated”

16. In Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 AP wherein it is held that :

17. Coming to the present case, admittedly scene of offence is busy locality, P.W.2 did not issue any written notice to secure the mediators from the persons near the scene. So also P.W.1 & 2 failed to give the names of person to whom they requested to act as mediator. Sincethe scene of offence is a busy locality, P.W.2 ought to have followed the procedure as contemplated under sec.100 (4) of

Cr.P.C, which he failed to do so in this case. Besides, P.W.2 did not 5 follow the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in Sri

Y.Srinivasulu Reddy case and also Mudavat Motia case.

18. Since P.W.2 did not follow the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble

High Court in Srinivasulu Reddy case and in Mudavath Mothia case and further P.Ws.1 and 2 are highly interested witnesses as such their evidence cannot be relied upon without any corroboration from the independent witnesses

If it is so, the prosecution has no case at all. Hence this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was found in possession of 25 Old Label whisky bottles of 180 ML each.

Accordingly this point is answered.

Point No.(ii):

20. In view of my findings in point No.(i), the evidence of the prosecution is not free from doubtful circumstances, as such the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, this court of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused committed the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise

Act. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

21. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.34

(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.248 (1)

Cr.P.C., M.O.1 ( CPR.No.112/2015) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 29th day of November, 2016.

Sd/- J.Syam Kumar

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC. II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1: V.Rama Mohana Rao, P&EC. None. P.W.2: P.Vijay Kumar, P&EI.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Special Report Ex.P2: FIR Ex.P3: Letter of Advise Ex.P4: Analyst Report

Material Objects: M.O.1: 1-180 ML of Old Label whisky bottle

Sd/- J.Syam Kumar

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC. II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA..

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.211/2015 DATE OF :-

Offence: 29.09.2013 Complaint: 30.09.2013 Apprehension of accused: 20.04.2015 Released on bail: 22.04.2015 Commencement of trial: 15.09.2016 Close of trial: 24.11.2016 Sentence or order: 29.11.2016 Explanation for delay:Due to non-production of witnesses

Name of the Complainant: State:-The Inspector of Proh. & Excise, Gurazala Police Station. (Pr.No.138/2013-14) Name of the accused :

Muthana Subba Reddy, S/o.Neela Reddy, 45 years, R/o.Gogulapadu village, Gurazala mandal, Guntur District.

Offence: U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

Finding : Found not guilty for the offence U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

Sentence or Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C., M.O.1 ( CPR.No.112/2015) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment. . Sd/- J.Syam Kumar

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AC. II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

Copy submitted to :

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

2) The Excise Superintendent of Proh & Excise, Narasaraopet.

Order Record 704 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/171/2018	Chirumamilla Srinivasa rao vs VslGummadidala China Chavadaiah	19 Dec 2018	judgement	—
OS/272/2016	Kotyalu Saida vs Shaik Moulabi	19 Dec 2018	judgement	—
EP/36/2016	Vinjamuri Peda Danam vs Vsdoppachevula danaiah	18 Dec 2018	decree	—
EP/36/2016	Vinjamuri Peda Danam vs Vsdoppachevula danaiah	18 Dec 2018	judgement	—
EP/45/2018	Bathina Koteswara Rao vs Narla Atchamma	17 Dec 2018	order	—
EP/46/2018	Taya Koteswara Rao vs Narla Atchamma	17 Dec 2018	order	—
EP/47/2018	Rao Ramaiah vs Narla Atchamma	17 Dec 2018	order	—
EP/48/2018	Tokala Chalamaiah vs Narla Atchamma	17 Dec 2018	judgement	—
OS/110/2014	Irri Mallikharjuna Rao vs Irri Narasamma	17 Dec 2018	judgement	—
OS/6/2017	Shaik Bikkamvali vs Byru Hanumantha Rao	13 Dec 2018	judgement	—
OS/106/2018	Parimireddy Subba Reddy vs Jakkireddy China Veera Reddy	13 Dec 2018	judgement	—
OS/114/2013	Mannam Rama Devi and another vs Mannam Ramachandraiah and 2 others.	13 Dec 2018	judgement	—
OS/194/2012	Kurakula Anjaneyulu vs Kurakula Mallaiah and 9 others	13 Dec 2018	judgement	—
OS/167/2018	Eemani Rama Krishna Reddy vs Chinta Srinivasa Rao	08 Dec 2018	judgement	—
CC/1/2018	The State Sub Inspector of Police, Dachepalli PS vs Bombothula Venkateswarlu	08 Dec 2018	judgement	—
CC/72/2018	State Sub Inspector of Police, Dachepalli P.S. vs Siripurapu Ramakrishna	08 Dec 2018	judgement	—
EP/35/2018	Narala Sridhar vs Seela Narsimha Murthy	05 Dec 2018	order	—
OS/116/2016	Shaik Subhani vs Chintakrindi Allaji and seven others	03 Dec 2018	judgement	—
CC/38/2018	The state Sub Inspector of Police, Dachepalli P.S. vs Kandula Sagar	29 Nov 2018	judgement	—
EP/49/2018	Bobba Ramakrishna Reddy vs Narla Atchamma	27 Nov 2018	judgement	—
OS/201/2015	Vankayalapati Nasaraiah, 51 yrs, Hindu, Agricultur vs Panguluri ramaiah, 50 yrs, Hndu,	26 Nov 2018	judgement	—
RCC/1/2016	Pagala Sydaiah vs Allam Srinivasa Rao	26 Nov 2018	order	—
RCC/2/2016	Potu Veeraiah vs Allam Srinivasa Rao	26 Nov 2018	order	—
OS/184/2017	Ongolu Kantha Chari vs Chalavadi Narayana	23 Nov 2018	judgement	—
OS/143/2014	Atukuri JAGANNADHAM AGED 60 YEARS vs Ambati SRINIVASA RAO	22 Nov 2018	judgement	—
OS/156/2018	Haridasu Narasimha Rao vs Shaik Jony Basha	22 Nov 2018	judgement	—
OS/100/2018	M/s. Pradeep Agros rep. by its proprietor Vangavarapu Pradeep vs Pulivelugula Peraiah	16 Nov 2018	judgement	—
OS/183/2012	Bolleddu Jesh Mary vs Kalukuri Lukaiah and 5 others	16 Nov 2018	judgement	—
OS/70/2012	Potla Lakshmi Devamma vs Potla Subbamma and 4 others	15 Nov 2018	judgement	—
OS/99/2018	Paritala Geetha Venkata Satyanarayana vs Ambati Sambasiva Rao	15 Nov 2018	judgement	—
OS/133/2017	Tammineni Akkiraju vs VslSiddamsetty Vijaya Lakshmi	15 Nov 2018	judgement	—
OS/153/2018	Rajarapu Saideswara Rao vs Sanneganti Siva Senkar	15 Nov 2018	judgement	—
OS/88/2018	Bandla Seshaiah vs Dovanaboina Sydulu	12 Nov 2018	judgement	—
OS/150/2018	Nalabothula Srinivasa Rao vs Mogili Veeraiah	12 Nov 2018	judgement	—
OS/53/2015	Nalla alias Challagundla Kiranmayi, 30 yrs, Employ vs Nalla Srinivas Rao, 38 yrs,	08 Nov 2018	judgement	—
OS/216/2015	Mudavath Sakru Naik, Hindu, 30 yrs, Cultivation vs Maragoni Hanumanthqu, Hindu, 40 yrs, Tractor owner	08 Nov 2018	judgement	—
CC/21/2018	The State Sub Inspector of Police, Dachepalli PS vs Sekhavat Prem Singh	08 Nov 2018	judgement	—
CC/62/2018	The State Sub Inspector of Police, Dachepalli PS vs Chinnapotala Achaiah	02 Nov 2018	judgement	—
OS/48/2018	Tirupathi Devaki Devi vs Gujjarlapudi John Martin	01 Nov 2018	judgement	—
OS/57/2018	Thota Srinu vs Pinneboina Kotamma	01 Nov 2018	judgement	—
EP/68/2018	Dareddy Adireddy vs Bandaru rama Rao	31 Oct 2018	judgement	—
OS/78/2018	Basireddy Sridhar Reddy vs Gurram Peramma	31 Oct 2018	judgement	—
EP/39/2018	Kola Rami reddy vs Maddikayala Subba Rao	27 Oct 2018	judgement	—
EP/52/2018	Kola Rami Reddy vs Maddikayala Subba Rao	27 Oct 2018	judgement	—
CC/29/2018	The state Sub Inspector of Police, Dachepalli P.S. vs Vanga Padmavathi	27 Oct 2018	judgement	—
EP/36/2018	Gangineni REamanaiah vs Sikhanam Nageswara Rao	25 Oct 2018	order	—
OS/2/2012	Tatiparti Sambasiva Rao vs Usirika Rama Lakshmamma and one another	24 Oct 2018	judgement	—
EP/56/2018	Challa Narasimha Rao vs Jakka Venkateswarlu	10 Oct 2018	judgement	—
OS/117/2018	Putta Lakshmaiah vs Nelapati Krishna	09 Oct 2018	judgement	—
OS/75/2018	Vallepu Nagaraju vs Bathula Venkateswarlu	08 Oct 2018	judgement	—
OS/156/2011	Shaik Takkellapati Mahabu Vali vs Bombothula Venkateswarlu and another	08 Oct 2018	judgement	—
OS/285/2016	Chava Srinivasa Rao vs K. Guravaiah	08 Oct 2018	judgement	—
OS/109/2018	Veeramreddy Peda Sambi Reddy vs Gongati Srikanth Reddy	05 Oct 2018	judgement	—
OS/93/2018	Vulleru Gangaraju vs Sankula Souraiah	04 Oct 2018	judgement	—
OS/123/2018	Malireddy Suryanarayana vs Vajragiri Gunnamma	03 Oct 2018	judgement	—
OS/254/2016	Kondapalli Srinivasa Rao vs Tappeta Prabhakara Rao	03 Oct 2018	judgement	—
OS/96/2018	Vangavarapu Syam Prasad vs Jangam Narasimha Rao	01 Oct 2018	judgement	—
OS/140/2012	Pasam Rami Reddy vs Pasam China Venkata Reddy	01 Oct 2018	judgement	—
CC/57/2018	The State Sub Inspector of Police, Dachepalli PS vs Marri narender	01 Oct 2018	judgement	—
EP/12/2018	Vankayalapati Srinivasa Rao vs Boddu Babu Rao	28 Sep 2018	order	—
OS/142/2017	Telukutla Pakeeraiah vs Parimala mariyadasu	28 Sep 2018	judgement	—
EP/37/2015	Vunnam Ramabhadra Rao vs Nelapati Jayamma and 2 others	27 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/54/2017	Vemula Tirumala Kumar vs Kalukuri Ramesh Babu	27 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/93/2012	Sayyad Saheed vs Paluvai Ashok Reddy	27 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/135/2017	Gunda Srinivasa Rao vs Sure Nageswara Rao	27 Sep 2018	order	—
EP/62/2017	Pagala Venkatravamma vs Shaik Baji alias Bolimi Baji	26 Sep 2018	order	—
OS/124/2018	Chitimireddy Pulla Reddy vs Beeravalli Koti Reddy	26 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/175/2017	Jakkireddy Venkatravamma vs Punyala Rajyam	26 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/60/2018	Gopireddy Nagi Reddy vs Tammisetti Krishna	25 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/61/2018	Gopireddy Anji Reddy vs Tammisetti Krishna	25 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/80/2018	Sure Anjaneyulu vs Pagadala Sivarama Krishna	25 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/91/2018	Devarakonda Rama Rao vs Singu Kondalu	25 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/107/2018	Mekala Venkata Reddy vs Dareddy Venkata reddy	25 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/129/2017	Palla Anjaneyulu vs Palla Punnamma	25 Sep 2018	judgement	—
EP/51/2017	Chinta China Venkata Saidaiah vs Lavuri Nageswara Naik	24 Sep 2018	order	—
OS/25/2017	Kunduru Show Reddy vs Boyapati Bala Reddy	24 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/81/2018	Katikam Srinivasa Rao vs Kotaru Nageswara Rao	24 Sep 2018	judgement	—
EP/49/2017	Chintha Rama Lingeswara Rao vs Kaveti Venkateswarlu	20 Sep 2018	order	—
OS/112/2018	Basani Venkata Lingaiah vs Chinthakayala Yesaiah	20 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/124/2017	Jakkireddy Sivamma vs Kallam Rama Brahma Reddy	20 Sep 2018	judgement	—
CC/20/2018	The State Sub Inspector of Police, Dachepalli PS vs Yerraguntla Teja Sujeeth	19 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/27/2017	Mylapalli Somaiah vs Vulleru Peraiah	18 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/115/2018	Chirumammilla Krishna Murthy vs Killa Kasi Viswanadham	17 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/45/2017	Kondru Srinivasa Rao vs Ravula Raghavulu	14 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/110/2018	Thadikonda Venkateswarlu vs Vulli Rama Kotaiah died and Vulli Laxmi Narasamma and 3 others4 others	14 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/162/2016	Dondapati Venkata Narayana vs Dondapati Linga Rao	14 Sep 2018	judgement	—
CC/5/2018	The State Sub Inspector of Police, Dachepalli PS vs Nuthalapati Sasthri	11 Sep 2018	judgement	—
EP/2/2018	Kakani Srinivasa Rao vs Yeragani Srinivasa Rao	10 Sep 2018	other	—
EP/77/2017	Pappula Satyanarayana Reddy vs Jidugu Brahmaiah	10 Sep 2018	order	—
OS/30/2018	Punyala Sridhara Reddy vs Merajoth Saida naik	10 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/85/2017	Shaik Abdul Haneef vs Shaik Nagur Bi @ Naseema	10 Sep 2018	judgement	—
CC/34/2018	The state Sub Inspector of Police, Dachepalli P.S. vs Pujari Jaganatham	08 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/92/2018	Kattamuri Nageswara Rao vs Bapanapalli Ragavendra Rao	07 Sep 2018	judgement	—
EP/22/2017	M. Koteswara Rao vs Perumalla Venkateswarlu	05 Sep 2018	judgement	—
EP/44/2017	Kondapalli Srinivasa Rao vs Bandi Jaga Deesh	05 Sep 2018	judgement	—
EP/79/2014	SK MEERABI vs Neelam NAGESWARA RAO	28 Aug 2018	decree	—
EP/40/2017	Lottapalli Srinivasa rao vs Lottapalli Venkateswarlu	27 Aug 2018	judgement	—
OS/109/2014	Vetcha Varalakshmana Rao vs Sure Venkata Nagaprasad	23 Aug 2018	judgement	—
CC/10/2018	The State Sub Inspector of Police, Dachepalli PS vs Munaga Anjaneyulu	23 Aug 2018	judgement	—
OS/67/2017	Bathula Sambaiah vs Challa Pedda Sivaiah	21 Aug 2018	judgement	—

Showing 100 of 704 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Dec 2018		19
Nov 2018		23
Oct 2018		21
Sep 2018		40
Aug 2018		35
Jul 2018		41
Jun 2018		33
May 2018		18
Apr 2018		36
Mar 2018		44
Feb 2018		16
Jan 2018		33

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has J.SYAM KUMAR, B.com., L.L.M handled?

J.SYAM KUMAR, B.com., L.L.M has handled 732 court orders since 2016 at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 28 orders per month.

What types of cases does J.SYAM KUMAR, B.com., L.L.M hear?

Based on available records, J.SYAM KUMAR, B.com., L.L.M primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Domestic Violence Cases) at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka).

Where is J.SYAM KUMAR, B.com., L.L.M currently posted?

J.SYAM KUMAR, B.com., L.L.M is posted as PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by J.SYAM KUMAR, B.com., L.L.M available online?

Yes. 8 judgments by J.SYAM KUMAR, B.com., L.L.M are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does J.SYAM KUMAR, B.com., L.L.M dispose cases?

J.SYAM KUMAR, B.com., L.L.M disposes approximately 28 cases per month, based on 732 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka).

Since when is J.SYAM KUMAR, B.com., L.L.M serving?

J.SYAM KUMAR, B.com., L.L.M has been serving at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka) since 2016.

Case Types

OS 58%

CC 21%

EP 14%

DVC 3%

MC 3%

EAS 0%

RCC 0%

Posting History

Dec 2017 — Dec 2018

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 370 orders
May 2017 — Nov 2017

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 178 orders
Oct 2016 — May 2017

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT · 182 orders
Oct 2016 — Dec 2016

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT · 2 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Transferred Disposal Date: 22-11-2017 1

Other Judges at this Court

Y.srinivasa Rao

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

805 orders

Smt S. Jaya Lakshmi

X Addl. District Judge, Gurazala

13 orders

K.V.V.Satyanarayana

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

43 orders

Parimi Alekya

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT

0 orders

← View all judges at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka)